I have read through all the Epson court posts so far and have yet to

find one that simply and clearly explains what the decision was. Google

and Google News has been no better. I am trying to read between the

lines of all the opinions. Could someone post a few sentence summary of

what the decision was?



Thanks for helping someone who was not in the original loop.

Scott:

There are others of us who want that information as well.

Joe



Scott Jones wrote:

>

>

> I have read through all the Epson court posts so far and have yet to

> find one that simply and clearly explains what the decision was. Google

> and Google News has been no better. I am trying to read between the

> lines of all the opinions. Could someone post a few sentence summary of

> what the decision was?

>

> Thanks for helping someone who was not in the original loop.

>

>



--

Joe Dempsey Communications Co.

Suite 2B  121 West 6th Avenue

Pine Bluff AR 71601

Downtown office 870-536-5758

Home office (Best Bet) 870-534-5835

Cell 870-550-0191

http://www.joedempseycommunications.com

http://www.molehillproductions.com

http://www.joedempseyphoto.com

This is a summary provided on the Epson site:

http://itc.epson.com/index.html



On Nov 4, 2007, at 11:04 AM, Scott Jones wrote:



> I have read through all the Epson court posts so far and have yet to

> find one that simply and clearly explains what the decision was.

> Google

> and Google News has been no better. I am trying to read between the

> lines of all the opinions. Could someone post a few sentence

> summary of

> what the decision was?

>

> Thanks for helping someone who was not in the original loop.

>...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

Here is a sample letter, basically what I sent without the personal

information:  http://paulroark.com/Sample%20letter.zip







Be sure to vary the content, personalize the letter, keep it to one page, be

respectful.







Paul



www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>











   _____







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













[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Excellent, and very helpful.



I think these should also be forwarded as an open letter to as many

media outlets as possible. There is nothing to loose in doing so. If

they suceed in this I'm afrad it will be open season on everything,

including most large carts and cfs units.



john











--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"

<paul.roark@...> wrote:

>

> Here is a sample letter, basically what I sent without the personal

> information:  http://paulroark.com/Sample%20letter.zip

>

>

>

> Be sure to vary the content, personalize the letter, keep it to one

page, be

> respectful.

>

>

>

> Paul

>

> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>

>

>

>

>

>

>   _____

>

>

>

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

>

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

Is it just me or do I already have problems finding empty desktop

Epson carts on Ebay.com? Only CIS / CFS seem to remain.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"

<deanwork2003@...> wrote:

>

> Excellent, and very helpful.

>

> I think these should also be forwarded as an open letter to as many

> media outlets as possible. There is nothing to loose in doing so. If

> they suceed in this I'm afrad it will be open season on everything,

> including most large carts and cfs units.

>

> john

>

>

>

>

>

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"

> <paul.roark@> wrote:

> >

> > Here is a sample letter, basically what I sent without the personal

> > information:  http://paulroark.com/Sample%20letter.zip

> >

> >

> >

> > Be sure to vary the content, personalize the letter, keep it to one

> page, be

> > respectful.

> >

> >

> >

> > Paul

> >

> > www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >   _____

> >

> >

> >

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

was?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >

>

Paul,



In reviewing and modifying your letter, I came across a misspelling of the

word "severe." You have "sever" which of course is a valid word and would

not get flagged by a spell checker. Thanks for providing a framework from

which to begin our own letters.



Steve





On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:38:07 -0800, Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>

wrote:



> Here is a sample letter, basically what I sent without the personal

> information:  http://paulroark.com/Sample%20letter.zip

>

>

> Be sure to vary the content, personalize the letter, keep it to one

> page, be

> respectful.

>

>

> Paul

>

> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>

>

>





--

Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Oops.  Fixed.



Paul

www.PaulRoark.com





> -----Original Message-----

> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com

> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve

> and Ann Taylor

> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 9:34 AM

> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com

> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.

>

> Paul,

>

> In reviewing and modifying your letter, I came across a misspelling of the

> word "severe." You have "sever" which of course is a valid word and would

> not get flagged by a spell checker. Thanks for providing a framework from

> which to begin our own letters.

>

> Steve

>

>

> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:38:07 -0800, Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>

> wrote:

>

> > Here is a sample letter, basically what I sent without the personal

> > information:  http://paulroark.com/Sample%20letter.zip

> >

> >

> > Be sure to vary the content, personalize the letter, keep it to one

> > page, be

> > respectful.

> >

> >

> > Paul

> >

> > www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>

> >

> >

>

>

> --

> Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

>

>

> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as

> they are often being updated.

>

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

>

> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to

> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same

> page.

>

> Please follow these basic guidelines:

> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep

> them short.

> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.

> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the

> membership without notice.

> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W

> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from

> the membership.

> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and

> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner

> and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files

> section:

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

>

> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT

> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND

> “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO

> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR

> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF

> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE

> “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN

> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE

> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)

> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)

> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT

> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE

> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

Thanks Paul, since I only use Epson R2400 carts, I didn't understand

what was going on at all. Thanks for clearing that up for me.



http://www.ScottJonesPhoto.com

"The ruling does not become effective until the president signs

off on it."



I don't think that's exactly right. I don't believe the president has to

sign off on it in the sense of actually taking some affirmative action

before it takes effect. If the president does nothing during the 60 day

period following the date of the ruling then I think the ruling

automatically takes effect. The president can stop it from taking effect

during the 60 day period but unless he does so it will take effect without

his doing anything.  I could be wrong, I don't have the statute in front of

me, but I think that's what it says.



And I realize that by using the word "president" I'm inviting another

barrage of off-topic hostility directed at George Bush but please note that

neither this message nor the statute refers to George Bush by name. Both

simply refer to "president," which could be any president past, present, or

future.



----- Original Message -----

From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>

To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 12:09 PM

Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.





>...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









Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as

they are often being updated.



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint



If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to

unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same

page.



Please follow these basic guidelines:

- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep

them short.

- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.

Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the

membership without notice.

- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W

printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from

the membership.

- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and

guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and

Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/



BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT

YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND

"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU

FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY

DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,

GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND

"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE

POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY

TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR

ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY

THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER

MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.



Yahoo! Groups Links

Brian,







You're probably right.  I have not studied the ITC procedures.  I think the

most analogous FTC procedure was more like a negative option.







Paul



www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>











   _____



From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian

Ellis

Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 6:27 AM

To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.







"The ruling does not become effective until the president signs

off on it."



I don't think that's exactly right. I don't believe the president has to

sign off on it in the sense of actually taking some affirmative action

before it takes effect. If the president does nothing during the 60 day

period following the date of the ruling then I think the ruling

automatically takes effect. The president can stop it from taking effect

during the 60 day period but unless he does so it will take effect without

his doing anything. I could be wrong, I don't have the statute in front of

me, but I think that's what it says.



And I realize that by using the word "president" I'm inviting another

barrage of off-topic hostility directed at George Bush but please note that

neither this message nor the statute refers to George Bush by name. Both

simply refer to "president," which could be any president past, present, or

future.



----- Original Message -----

From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@verizon. <mailto:paul.roark%40verizon.net>

net>

To: <DigitalBlackandWhit

<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>

eThePrint@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 12:09 PM

Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.



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



Pursuant to 19 U.S. Code Section 337

(http://www.usitc. <http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/int_prop/STATUTE.PDF>

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



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as

they are often being updated.



http://groups. <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>

yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint



If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to

unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same

page.



Please follow these basic guidelines:

- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep

them short.

- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.

Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the

membership without notice.

- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W

printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from

the membership.

- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and

guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and



Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:

http://groups.

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/>

yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/



BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT

YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND

"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU



FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY

DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,

GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND

"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE

POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY

TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR



ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY



THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER

MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.



Yahoo! Groups Links











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paul,

     Was this just an exclusion order on the importation of carts, or did it also

cover the "Manufacture of Carts in the US, because if it didn't any one who can

design and Patent a "Cart or Ink delivery system" in the US that gets arround

Epsons Patents and have it made there would be exempt!!!



See the Reference below from the Statute:



>

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.<



Regards



John_E









----- Original Message ----

From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>

To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, 4 November, 2007 6:09:07 PM

Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.



>...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









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>Was this just an exclusion order on the importation of carts,

>or did it also cover the "Manufacture of Carts in the US,

>because if it didn't any one who can design and Patent a

>"Cart or Ink delivery system" in the US that gets

>arround Epsons Patents and have it made there would be exempt!!!



It's more than just an exclusion order.  There are cease and desist orders

also.  I have not seen or analyzed all of it/them, but I'm sure it's not

going to be so easy as to just make the violating carts in the U.S.



I'm not sure of the mechanics of enforcement here.  I hope to have a contact

with one of the party's attorneys next week.  Hopefully I'll have more

information after that.



Paul

www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul

Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:

> It's more than just an exclusion order.  There are cease and desist

orders

> also.  I have not seen or analyzed all of it/them, but I'm sure

it's not

> going to be so easy as to just make the violating carts in the U.S.

>

> I'm not sure of the mechanics of enforcement here.  I hope to have

a contact

> with one of the party's attorneys next week.  Hopefully I'll have

more

> information after that.

>

> Paul

> www.PaulRoark.com

>



Paul, you've been the most help to me on this forum, always gracious

and polite.  Tell you what I'm going to do.  If it really gets bad

and you have to move your operation undergroung, and sell your prints

on the street corners and allyways, let me know.  Me and a couple of

the boys will come over, and get your back.  We'll provide muscle for

your operations, free of charge! Anybody messes with you, they'll be

sleeping with the fishes!



Uncle Dannie