"Vince Balistrieri, director of engineering and general manager of QuadTech's Commercial and Newspaper business, said:
...because nothing is touching the fountain ball, the cost of recalibrating and replacing worn ink keys and fountain balls is eliminated."
But there is a "precisely controlled" ink film bridging the rollers. So how is the fountain solution kept from backing into the ink fountain?
I don't yet know exactly how QuadTech will configure this system. Controls Group had some different configurations of their technology. As I understand it, all those versions have a continuous metering roller instead of a ductor roller. This would tend to have a gap of about 0.004" to 0.006" between the ink fountain roller and the metering roller.
This type of ink transfer gap will allow water logged ink and contaminated ink to get onto the ink fountain roller but it can not get back into the enclosed system. There is basically no ink fountain since the ink is totally fed to the injectors by an enclosed system that includes the ink supply and the special pumps.
Here is the existing Controls Group Inc. web site:
Yes Erik was the initial inspiration. However, that then got mixed in with the Apple/Samsung patent battle to create this particular strip. AFAIK, the patent office people who vet patents often don't understand the patent application that they read prior to granting it. Hence a lot of idiotic ideas (no reference to Erik's) as well as obvious ideas get patented when they shouldn't. Interestingly Dan Gelbardt, the brainiac behind Creo's technology didn't believe in patents. If I remember correctly he felt that patenting an idea simply gave other people the information they needed to develop a product that got around the patent.
Interestingly Dan Gelbardt, the brainiac behind Creo's technology didn't believe in patents. If I remember correctly he felt that patenting an idea simply gave other people the information they needed to develop a product that got around the patent.
I would have to agree with brainiac Gelbart on this, although he has a lot of patents to his name.
One has to be careful and think what the application of the patent is actually doing.
In the specific case of my patents, the goal is to feed ink into the press in a positive way that is not affected by variables such as water, press speed, temperature etc. That is the desired function.
This function can be done in numerous ways so any patent on one particular method of doing this can be gotten around by doing it in some other way.
So why would I go through the expense of having patents? The reason is that the cost of developing my patent approach is extremely low, it can be applied to just about any open ink fountain offset press, it can be used with high viscosity inks, it potentially will perform better than the more expensive existing concepts, it would be user friendly and it has been successfully tested.
I felt that the probability of someone getting around these advantages was low so I took the chance.
What I badly underestimated was the industry's lack of interest in having a low cost solution to one of their most critical problems. Changing beliefs is the most difficult problem to solve. I am still working on that. :-)