Midwest vs. DTM

From: David K. Leigh (harvest@vvm.com)
Date: Mon Jul 28 1997 - 18:15:34 EEST

So, what is everyone's take on the issue of Nylon powders?

My take:

DTM did not handle this one very well. It seems that their first reaction
was to "sic" the lawyers on Midwest. Well, that didn't work and now DTM is
trying to recover. It will be interesting to see how the counter suite
comes out. From what I understand, DTM has been granted the "license" to
be the sole supplier of the Nylon material for use in the Sinterstation. I
think this is probably the heart of the "restriction of trade" clause in
Midwests counter suite. This thing is going to drag on so long that we
will have forgotten what rapid prototyping was.

I personally think DTM has the right to be the sole supplier of the powders
if only . . .

They would have told new customers that our supplier of nylon powders is
XXXX Company and we have the exclusive rights as the distributer. But,
they didn't do that. So, do you penalize someone for being creative?
This issue should have been settled out of court.
DTM should have announced the agreement with their supplier.

Instead, DTM tells customers that they want to promote multiple materials
on their Sinterstation platform. But, most customers are afraid of
potential litigation. So, we have a lot of people using materials and not
sharing information. This whole deal has slowed the growth of material

Any comments???

This is just my personal opinion, and not my desire to flame either DTM or

David K. Leigh phone (254) 742-1822
Harvest Technologies fax (254) 742-0053
Rapid Prototyping Services harvest@vvm.com

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:39:57 EEST