...with the f****** patents!

US Patent 4,809,021
February 28, 1989

Apparatus and method for generating images by producing light spots of different sizes

An electro-optical light scanning system using a modulated laser illumination source directed upon a multi-faceted rotating polygonal mirror or polygon. The mirrored facets reflect the impinging light toward a moving photoreceptor and forms a raster of scan lines as
the photoreceptor moves to create dot images on the photoreceptor. The invention also encompasses amplitude modulation for varying the intensity of the laser illumination in conjunction with acousto-optical modulation for maintaining a constant level illumination
and/or for varying dot size. Other embodiments describe producing dot size variation in an ink jet printer, a light emitting diode printer and a thermal printer.

U.S. Patent 4,386,272

Apparatus and method for generating images by producing light spots of different sizes

An electro-optical light scanning system using a modulated laser illumination source directed upon a multifaceted rotating polygonal mirror or polygon. The mirrored facets reflect the impinging light toward a moving photoreceptor and forms a raster of scan lines as the photoreceptor moves. The system incorporates sensing optics and closed loop electronics for correcting inaccuracies in the position of the reflected light resulting from defects in the angular relationship between the plane of the facets and that of the rotating axis of the polygon as well as those errors due to inherent angular misalignment between each of the facets of the rotating polygon. The invention also encompasses amplitude modulation for varying the intensity of the laser illumination in conjunction with the acousto-optical modulation for maintaining a constant level illumination and/or for varying the spot size.

U.S. Patent 4,214,157
July 22, 1980

Apparatus and method for correcting imperfection in a polygon used for laser scanning

An electro-optical light scanning system using a modulated laser illumination source directed upon a multifaceted rotating polygonal mirror or polygon. The mirrored facets reflect the impinging light toward a moving photoreceptor and forms a raster of scan lines as the photoreceptor moves. The system incorporates sensing optics and closed loop electronics for correcting inaccuracies in the position of the reflected light resulting from defects in the angular relationship between the plane of the facets and that of the rotating axis of the polygon as well as those errors due to inherent angular misalignment between each of the facets of the rotating polygon. The invention also encompasses amplitude modulation for varying the intensity of the laser illumination in conjunction with the acousto-optical modulation for maintaining a constant level illumination and/or for varying the spot size.

... if Hanoch Shalit owns a part of Pitney Bowes?

(for those of you who don't remember... Imatec!!)

The lawsuit against HP started in 1995, so one could assume that they didn't want to go after the smaller guys until they settled with HP. And since HP settled, rather than getting involved in a messy lawsuit, PB could view this as justification that their patent is valid.

As an investor and holder of PBI stock (among many others, including AAPL) I don't understand the statements about PB being in "bad shape." If someone could point out exactly why PB, who has a solid financial track record and good long-term performance, is suddenly in "bad shape," I'd love to know the details.

The engine technology is not a factor in this, but rather the enhancements that each company would make to the basic engine and page description language. HP offered their own Resolution Enhancement technology, and Apple offered something similar called FinePrint.

If Apple knowingly infringed on a PB patent, shouldn't PB be able to benefit from the R&D that no doubt went into developing and patenting such technology? A reality check may be in order.

How would the same folks, that howl about how evil PB is, feel if PB was found to be infringing on an Apple patent? Trust me, folks, Apple, like PB, has a very large patent portfolio, and isn't afraid to leverage it when necessary.

I have a 1929 encyclopedia yearbook that talks about transmitting pictures
using various dot sizes as a compression technique. Might have been new
that year!

I have a 1929 encyclopedia yearbook that talks about transmitting pictures
using various dot sizes as a compression technique. Might have been new
that year!

The USPS should sue their a** for infringing on the postage stamp.

Apple's adjustable dot size technology, known as FinePrint, first appeared in the LaserWriters IIf and IIg in 1991. I don't see how those printers could infringe a 1993 patent.

U.S. Patent 4,386,272 was issued May 31, 1983.

There may be some validity to this lawsuit. HP is not known for being a legal pushover. When Xerox sued them two years ago for infringing on its ink jet patents, HP pulled out its patent porfolio and countersued. Eventually they settled out of court on supposedly less than favorable terms for Xerox. The fact that HP settled with PB suggests HP may have infringed.

boy, and I spent 5.00 on a quick pick in the lottery tonite (90 million jackpot) and I still wouldn't make that much!!

were HP LaserJet OEMs - HP manufactured with an Apple label.

This lawsuit is totally without merit.

Patents expire after 17 years, the author of the patent has the option of either renewing or not, just like apple has the patent on Anti-aliasing text based on surrounding pixels, it has since expired and MS uses the technology for "OpenType" fonts

To my knowledge, Oki was using the "Variable Dot Size" technology since the late 80's.

Bad luck, HP, you may have got out of this much cheaper ;-)

/sascha

You cannot "renew" a patent. You pay maintenance fees for them at set time intervals until their expiration. An even though '272' patent expired last year doesn't mean PB can't sue for infringement by companies during the 90s.

The '272' PB patent is not solely about variable dot. You have to understand patent law: the details are in the claim section. Apparently, the use of optics and electronics to modulate intensity is a key part of the patent.

LaserWriters were never OEM'd from HP. HP and Apple both got the engines for their first laser printers from Canon, hence the ability to use the same toner cartridges. Later LaserWriters, particularly the lower cost units, used engines from Fuji Xerox, and one unit was OEM'd from QPS. HP did build some StyleWriters, the inkjet printers, for Apple, so that's perhaps where you're confused.

when apple ended the laserwriter legacy when they EOL'd the 8500 - a damn fine printer if you can find it used/refurbished. (pity it can't do tabloid - it'd be the holy grail of b&w workgroup printers).

anyway, just for historical referense.

Is the "Statue of Limtations" in Cupertino? Maybe the Judge will be lenient on Apple after the "Flea bargin" arrangments.

I'm suing everybody on the internet, I thought of it first and I want some money.

Has the world really come to this?

I don’t think that Apple ever made their own print engines, which would be the offending technology.

This sounds like that ColourSync infringement case, where Apple licensed technology from someone else who was being sued. That case got thrown out of court.

Try Ascom-Hassler.

Only sold thru dealers.

PB sux.

What is Pitney-Bowes' market cap, anyway; can't Apple fend them off by just buying them? Besides, then we'd be guaranteed Mac compat. with Pit's products. They'd be better off with a trademark/copyright suit over Apple abbrev. PowerBook as 'PB'.

I threw out my Pitney Bowes business postage meter two years ago. Replaced it with NeoPost. Suggest all who care about such lame lawsuits to consider doing the same. PB meter was e x t r e m e l y slow and cost an arm and a leg for supplies. NeoPost is a bargain (three year lease purchase) and was five+ times faster and much more automated (it can autofeed from a envelope stacker and even seal the envelope) for just a bit more investment.

try www.simplypostage.com
they support the Mac!!

That changed to 20 years not too long ago. I don't know if the change was retroactive.

Weird. You think someone would have gotten smart and used stochastic (frequency-modulated) screening methods by now. But printers are so used to seeing a predictable halftone dot pattern that nobody really dares to do it.

Sounds like PB is trying to make some money the stupid way.

If PB provided acceptable products and services (they don't, I know of no company that's happy with their stuff), they wouldn't have to reach into their dark corporate bowels (where the lawyers office) and pull up this gold digging attempt at staying viable by sucking cash from other companies.

Needless to say, I have no respect for that company. Apple should laugh in their pitiful corporate face and tell them to try to scare some other company into payolla.

I don’t think that Apple ever made their own print engines, which would be the offending technology.

Sorry, this isn't right. Apple's FinePrint technology, which is the target of this suit, was on the motherboard of the printer, not in the engine. The Laserwriter II, IIx, IIntx, IIf, and IIg all had the exact same engine. In fact, you could turn any of them into the other by merely swapping the processor boards. But only the IIf and IIg had FinePrint, because it was in the chips on their processor boards.