From: John Kerr (johnnkerrr@yahoo.com.sg)
Date: Sat Oct 25 2003 - 09:03:03 EEST
Dear Scott,
Very nicely replied than anyone else.
Can anyone update me whether EOS was fighting in court in US ? (or somewhere else) when it was DTM I mean nor 3D Systems ! That will prove that EOS is just opportunists !
Do you all think EOS will sell at throw away prices like they do now if 3D has to give up SLS ? I dont think so at all. My point is if the company is originally developing some technology & sincerely adding values in todays world of Rapid manufacturing, EOS should either develop some other RP system, not just following 3D Systems on her steps. Like they followed ADM from 3D Systems as e-manufacturing now. Like they followed Hearing aid ADM as Hearing aid e-manufacturing.
Purpose of this list should be support genuine technology company like 3D systems, which will definitely push RP to its limit provided users support them.
If Stratasys buys out 3D ! It will end of an technlogy era of RP. It needs some level of the company to handle serious business like RP, too much for a company selling noodle making machine all the time, with different names on the boxes !!!!!
Johnn
PENQUAKR74@aol.com wrote:
As a Technology Licensing and commercialization professional, I can see both
sides of the argument between these two companies. 3D must enforce their
patents, by law, in order to keep their patent rights exclusive to themselves and
their licensees. EOS is attempting to practice overlapping technology and
hops to bring 3D to the negotiating table to cross license technologies so they
may continue to exist. There are many ways to compromise on these issues an
allow both companies to maximize their profits. Terry is right, up to a point,
that they should cease the lawsuits and get on with business, but given that
EOS has suffered a major setback in its own country, it's very likely that the
decision of that court may be used against it in other cases. With 3D sitting
in the catbird seat the need for compromise on their part is much less than
it was back when they started sniping at each other. Suits such as these are
based upon the net present value to the companies involved and costs of
litigation that approach $10 million pale when you are looking at many times that per
year or over the life time of your patents, not to mention the dismantling of
a competitor and acquisition of its markets. For instance, I was told by an
auto manufacturer that the choice not to pay the initial royalties demanded by
the inventor of the intermittent wiper motor was based upon pure accounting
and net present valuation. The actual royalty based on the settlement for $27
Million was effectively 1/10 the royalty initially sought by the inventor. Of
course the inventor used that as a basis for going after the other
manufacturers. The point is that regardless of our feelings about the battle between
EOS and 3D, it still is about money. But what they are doing is really hurting
them in other areas, such as new product development and solvency of their
respective companies resulting in lower share prices and higher costs of money.
As the market spins away from the larger machines and people start to develop
machines that can perform large scale jobs by continuos RP processes within a
small envelope, these two may find themselves so far behind the learning that
they may not ever catch up. It's only a matter of time before Stratasys or Z
Corp buys them at a small fraction of their costs as their stock sinks lower
and lower. However this latest news has staved off that possibility for 3D in
the near future.
Scott Taper
Technology Commercialization Consulting
http://licensingconsultants.net/
TCC accepts selected innovations for technical and market assessment and
licensing.
650-444-2572
TCC has joined with Andreé Driskell Associates
(www.andreedriskellassociates.com) to add proposal and business plan preparation services for responses to
commercial and Government RFPs and other funding opportunities.
The New Yahoo! Search
- Now with image search!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Jan 17 2004 - 15:18:16 EET