>...Could someone post a few sentence summary of what the decision was?

Pursuant to 19 U.S. Code Section 337
(http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/int_prop/STATUTE.PDF) the U.S.
International Trade Commission (ITC) has the power to exclude products from
the U.S. -- that is, bar their importation at the borders -- that infringe
patents of U.S. companies. Epson, which has nominal production of carts at
an Oregon facility (one of the issues that was lost here), has successfully
complained to the ITC that many third party ink cartridges violate many of
its patents. (The validity of the patents was another issue that was lost
by the few third party cartridge companies that even responded to the
complaint.)

The ITC found that Epson's complaint was valid and ordered that the
cartridges at issue be barred from being imported into the U.S. I'm not
sure how many, if any, third party carts for desktop Epson printers escape
this ruling. The ruling does not become effective until the president signs
off on it.

If we cannot get cartridges to hold the inks, we cannot use third party
inks, such as those sold by MIS and Inkjetmall.

This effort by Epson is, obviously, aimed at eliminating competition for its
inks, which are very profitable for them.

Many of us on this list use third party B&W (and color) inks. Epson's
actions threaten to eliminate our ability to do so.

Although it's a long shot, sometimes these agency decisions are not just
rubber-stamped at the White House.

Under Section 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) relating to exclusion of articles from
entry, if competition and consumers in the U.S. would be damaged by
exclusion, such an order should not be issued. That is what I have argued
in a letter to President Bush is the case here.

The environmental issues are also something that could be considered by the
government at the policy level. So, that is another issue to try and inject
into the mix.

Note that Epson has private remedies available to it for the patent
violations. My argument is basically that the U.S. government should not be
subsidizing an effort by a predominantly foreign company to damage
competition in the U.S. and raise prices to U.S. consumers.

Hope this helps explain what is going on.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com