The HP Way: Scientists Innovate New Ways Of Determining Ink Patent Infringement
from the in-the-black dept
As HP challenges IBM for the title of world's largest computer company, it's worth remembering that at its core, the company is an ink company. More than 80% of its operating profits come from its ink and toner cartridges division. So it's little wonder that the company will do everything in its power to stave off competition in this area. The company has a history of using its intellectual property to bully third-party refillers, under dubious claims of patent violations. The company supports its aggressive legal strategy with a team of scientists that analyze the chemical makeup of competitor ink, looking for anything that might run afoul of its patents. This story demonstrates how counterproductive a system is that rewards companies for spending so much time and effort filing and defending patents. Not only does this harm consumers by keeping competition at bay, but the head of the company's testing lab is a person whose expertise is in cancer research. Apparently, under the current system, her skills are more valuable when applied to analyzing ink to support lawsuits than they are to doing potentially lifesaving research.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Scientist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scientist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Scientist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Scientist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scientist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
better application of time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: better application of time
That being said it is rather interesting and peaks my curiosity as to why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: better application of time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: better application of time
Then again Cancer Research is...well...Cancer Research. It's a highly specific field, unlike software development which entails everything from writing firmware for computerized watches to writing high-level scripts for database management.
She's a chemist. You're a Software Developer.
Her main field of knowledge is cancer research, a specialized field which 99% percent of the time indicates that the final goal is eradicate $ORGAN cancer. Generally a non-commercial field or at least one with an end purpose of "doing good".
Your's on the other hand is communication technology and software development (assumed from your comments and website), which is 99% of the time used for commercial purposes.
I agree with you for the most part, and do feel it was a "cheap shot". But then again your analogy is pretty flawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#2#3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe because she is spending her time at HP researching ink rather than at the NIH or a pharma company doing research on Cancer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cancer...
My own research has been cut 10 times this year alone simpley because it was progressive but not profitable. Unless you create something synthetic that they can rubber stamp and sell at overinflated prices, it won't ever see the light of day, regardless of how beneficial it is.
Bah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cancer...
Not a good way to cure anything...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cancer...
Not a good way to cure anything...
This is flat out, provably false. Many countries did not have pharmaceutical patents until recently. I suggest you look at the history of Italy before you claim that without patents, pharma wouldn't do any research. There were now pharmaceuitcal patents in Italy until 1978. Before that, it had a thriving pharma industry (one of the largest in the world). It created plenty of new drugs and was a big exporter as well. Competition and the market drove the companies to spend on new pharmaceuticals.
In 1978, mainly due to pressure from foreign pharma companies, patents were put in place, and much of the Italian pharma industry died off.
So, sorry, but pharma patents do not necessarily increase incentives for R&D. There's evidence they may decrease it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cancer...
What do you expect - for someone else to foot the bill in the name of benefiting society? Did you forget that what actually keeps society going is our economy? I'd love to see you quit your job and donate all your work without ever making a red cent.
Now, I'll agree that prices are inflated; but that is no reason to have a pissing party on the whole damn industry.
You can bet your ass that the industry would love to find a cure for cancer. That's one cure that worth gold - both to those suffering and the industry. Money makes the world go round. Sure, we could use a bit more honesty and a little less greed but give me a freakin' break you whiner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cancer...
Who would pay you to do the research?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha ha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
testing lab - job?
We would love to hire that 'ink testing' developer. Admittedly, we do already have more than three people working on cancer research, so we would prefer to have her start testing a new boner pill we're about to seek FDA approval for.
Sincerely,
Pfizer, et al
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
third party refills
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
It really doesn't matter what the research is. Chemists are chemists whether it's organic or inorganic is what matters to them.
Kinda like a mechanic, whether it's a Chevy or a Nissan, most mechaniocs just don't care. All they care about is getting work.
I know a PHD in physics teaching math in a Community college. Why? There simply is nowhere to work, contrary to what G Dubyah W suggestes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cancer research
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cancer research
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"In fiscal 2005, H-P made more than 80% of its $5.6 billion in operating profit from ink and toner supplies, according to Sanford C. Bernstein & Co."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorant OP, #7 B.S.
The original post demonstrates complete ignorance of IP law, to say nothing of free market economics (as does post #7).
The basis for patents and trademarks comes from the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Our Founding Fathers, wiser than Joe and PO'd, understood that a means of securing rights to profit actually promotes research, development, and advancement. While it may cause hardships and seemingly amoral behavior for a time, in the long term this system's benefits far outweigh its flaws. As proof I merely must point to electricity, telephones, flight . . .
Sure, all of these things are products of a "counterproductive" system.
As for the illogical leap regarding cancer research: It's a bitch not living in a communistic society where people are assigned their career path, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorant OP, #7 B.S.
The original post demonstrates complete ignorance of IP law, to say nothing of free market economics (as does post #7).
Hmm. I'd challenge that statement.
The basis for patents and trademarks comes from the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8: '
Indeed they do. So, if the patent system is having a *detrimental impact* on promoting the progress of science and the useful arts, isn't that an issue? It would seem to be unconstitutional...
Our Founding Fathers, wiser than Joe and PO'd, understood that a means of securing rights to profit actually promotes research, development, and advancement. While it may cause hardships and seemingly amoral behavior for a time, in the long term this system's benefits far outweigh its flaws. As proof I merely must point to electricity, telephones, flight . . .
Our founding fathers understood that there was a big tradeoff involved... which is why Thomas Jefferson was very much against granting patents in all but the rarest of cases. His fear was exactly what we're finding now. The system is being used to slow down economic advancements.
You claim that the post doesn't understand market economics, yet the patent system should scare anyone with an accurate understanding of market economics. After all, it creates a gov't sponsored monopoly -- and we all learned in economics that monopolies are inefficient.
As for your "proof" of electricity, telephones and flight.. look at the details of all of those cases, and it becomes clear that the "patent" issue often represented more of a problem. In the case of the phone, there was a race to the patent office, and that helped delay real competition and innovation in the market. In the case of flight, the gov't had to threaten the Wrights to finally allow innovation. Using those as examples of the patent system helping are just ridiculous.
In those cases there was a real market for those products, and there was no market failure that would suggest the gov't should step in and grant a monopoly. Instead, the market could reward those who came up with the innovation.
So, despite your claims, I think your own statements support that the original post brought up some very valid points about problems in the patent system, both on the IP front and the economics front.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An intersting point about retail ink...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
seems appropriate
i have not owned an overpriced HP anything n almost 20 years.
aside from that, it is quite a while since i have owned an ink jet printer. $30 for a shot glass of liquid, and can't even get a bzz...lol
as far as the lady, cut her a break for gawds sake !!!
she, like most, went where the money and benefits were....i doubt she took an oath like dr's or nurses do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And all your base are belong to us!
Y'all stupid, you should have used you're
not your.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HP Way Gone Away
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cancer Research
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what's needed is the Linux printer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe, you're not doing yourself any favors...
If you were trying to make a point, you completely undermined yourself.
If you don't want your posts to go off topic, try sticking to your original point.
Otherwise, you'll continue to look like an ass.
Better luck next time, buddy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]