sounds like DTM didn't like the results of their lawsuit. DTM might be wise to be aware of what happened to System Enhancement Associates (SEA). SEA filed a lawsuit against Phil Zimmerman for patent infringement when he released his PKZIP and PKUNZIP data compression shareware. the online community mostly sided with Zimmerman, with almost every BBS boycotting SEA's product. .ARC compressed files were phased out and replaced exclusively with .ZIP files. you'll notice even today, you see far more .ZIP files than SEA's .ARC files on servers and BBS's. i don't know if SEA won thier lawsuit, but i do know that they lost the war. the online community executed its own justice in the matter.
>>following is a previous post of mine explaining why i think DTM's lawsuit is r>>ediculous:
the issues in this case involve more than just RP...if DTM succeeds in
forcing buyers to use their materials in their machines, what's to prevent
other manufacturers to start doing the same-say, a car company forms an
alliance with an oil company, develops a new engine, and then requires
buyers of their cars to use only that oil company's gasoline and other
fluids or else face possible "patent violations".
normally, when an equipment provider expects a customer to buy consumable
supplies used in the equipment, it is included as part of the procurement
contract as a condition of sale or lease of the equipment. examples are
copier services which furnish machines free to a business with the condition
that they buy all supplies from the copy supplier. i've also seen coffee
brewers provided in this fashion. fast food franchises are also sold to
investors with the requirement that all supplies are bought from the
franchiser.
the above examples all have one thing in common-disclosure, where the buyer
knows what is expected of him prior to signing the contract. without full
disclosure, a contract is null and void under the Uniform Commercial Code.
since DTM found it neccessary to inform customers of "patent violations'
concerning the use of other sources of powder in their machines, it would
appear that the purchase agreements did not disclose to the buyers any
restrictions on the use of alternate sources of materials. DTM does not
have much of a case in this matter.
mike doty
reply separator-------------------------------------------------------------
>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact:
>> July 24, 1997 Kent Nutt (512) 339-2922
DTM(TM) ACKNOWLEDGES SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN MIDWEST COMPOSITE
TECHNOLOGIES PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASE
Company Believes Initial Ruling Specific to Midwest
Austin, Texas July 24, 1997: DTM Corporation today acknowledged
receipt of a summary judgment ruling of a Wisconsin Federal Court
regarding patent infringement charges brought by DTM Corporation
(NASDAQ: DTMC) against Midwest Composite Technologies, Inc. of
Hartland, Wisconsin. Company officials state that DTM does not agree
with the ruling and will appeal. DTM views the ruling as limited in
application to the facts involved in this case, as interpreted by the
judge. DTM expects that the litigation against Midwest Composite
Technologies will continue. Further, DTM expects no significant
impact on the company's ongoing business activities.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:39:57 EEST