From: Cris Daniels Sent:
Wednesday, December 08, 2004 0:49
>>
I’m citing the results
of a legal battle by people who actually heard the case (and didn’t
speculate as to who may have well done this or that). Both HP and Epson have
plenty of money to beat off RCT if the claim is garbage. They are also fully
capable of writing code that doesn’t infringe; that they chose to license
the technology and use it in production machines is how they opted to handle
the situation. I never said it was a bad idea or that BNM was junk technology.
My whole point was that Epson is licensing the RCT technology now, and
according to the RCT’s own press release, that is true. That’s all
I ever said. I never gave it a date, multiple legal conditions, or anything
else. End of story.
>>
Although I have zero
knowledge about RIPs I do have some experience with patents.
There is another possibility
that is being overlooked in this discussion: Epson could have
independently developed a screening pattern that was similar to the RCT
technology. It could even be better but if it used technology that was
similar to the RTC one they might have been infringing on the RTC patent.
By paying a licensing fee, they would be able to continue using their own
technology even in the countries where the RTC patent was issued.
In other words, that they
licensed the technology does not mean that they are actually using the software
from RTC.
Bertho