Or even spend some on improving the formula to stop clogging.
Printable View
Or even spend some on improving the formula to stop clogging.
I reckon they will throw more weight behind the Gels printer from now on which will make it a bit easier to control their patent.
It seems that, over the years, each time the patent has been "challenged in court", it's always been settled outside court. There is no definitive ruling on the patent. There would have been if the last big case had been settled in court (as TOG promised their customers it would), but it wasn't. It was settled outside. There has been no clear "challenged in court" case as far as I'm aware. If there was, there wouldn't be this discussion.
The reason TOG were going to pursue it all the way was because the wording of the patent wasn't clear and definitive. The patent I read when someone posted it described a technique to encapsulate and protect the ink particles when used in a thermal printhead printer. That's technology that I can understand would and should be protected by a patent. However, the patent is being used to protect "putting ink in a printer" - after all, that is what we do. We buy ink and put it in a printer - it makes no difference to either the ink or the printer if it's dye, dye-sub, or pigment. How does using dye-sub ink "when used in a range of devices" require a patent, whereas dye and pigment inks don't? Such a patent would surely prevent everyone from putting any ink into any printer.
That's why clarity is needed and that's why TOG were going to pursue it. They didn't, and there's no one big enough left to do it. Sawgrass don't have the power because of their patent and technology. They have it because everyone else was too cowardly to back their corner. Sawgrass haven't really done anything wrong, and we can't complain now that there is this monopoly. They didn't take power, we gave it to them.
From a logical standpoint, if there is indeed cause to question the patent, then Sawgrass would presumably do everything in their power to ensure that the case was settled outside court in their favour. It would only take one single court case to invalidate the patent for the bottom to drop out of the monopoly and the flood gates to open. If that was the ultimate end of such a case, it wouldn't be in Sawgrass' best interests to see it played out. I've no idea why TOG settled, but it's very strange that they changed their tune at the eleventh hour, pretty much on the steps leading up to the courthouse.
- a quote from the discussion back in 2005.Quote:
Surprisingly, the TOG response, was the filing of a Declaratory Judgment, claiming seven of Sawgrass' patents are either invalid, unenforceable, due to inequitable conduct, or not infringed upon by TOG.
I should mention the SG patents haven't been concretely upheld in court; no company has gone the distance to disprove the patents. To go that route, only to come up short, would be financially devastating.
If Sawgrass spent their "millions" that they spend defending their patent on producing a good quality product that everyone wants then there never would be third parties to challenge in the first place. It's like I've always said with all OEMs. They can complain until they're blue in the face about el cheapo third party inks that sneak out of China, but all they need to do is sell the OEM product at sensible price and the third parties would be out of business tomorrow.
But no, they'd rather spend their ill-gotten claims chasing the rule breakers instead of using the carrot and putting the rule breakers out of business.
I'm sure there's sense in their logic somewhere, but I just can't see it.
I think that if TOG had finished what they started and won the case then they, as well as Sawgrass, would go out of business very quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by JSR
The flood gates would open and everybody would be importing anything that resembled cheap dye-sub ink. Any company who had invested monies into developing a quality ink would find a much smaller market for their product.
I guess we would end up with a market place similar to the one for the blanks that we buy now. Some suppliers still try to offer quality while others sell whatever they can make a profit on and in the end it is us that suffer.
While I REALLY don't like the way Sawgrass operate, I think I understand why TOG backed down and I hope they got a good deal out of the "agreement".
If true, then that says more about TOG than it does about Sawgrass. After all, why promise their customers that they'd go all the way if they knew that they couldn't afford to because it'd wreck their business?Quote:
Originally Posted by Imme
I think it would depend on how determined the likes of the ink suppliers are. As the situation stands now, they can sell any old ink in a bottle marked Artanium for a high price and use their patent to control the market. If cheaper ink was more freely available, they'd have to do something to justify their price. Whether that means improving their product (something it seems they don't do), or commissioning a proper printer to take the ink (something they don't do), or if they provided proper support/backup (something they don't do), it wouldn't matter. Someone who invests in the industry is going to get more custom from me than someone who doesn't. I'm sure anyone who's in this game with the intention of running a business with a future would say the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Imme
Yes, cheap and maybe inferior ink would be more easily available - but that doesn't mean we'd all buy them. I could buy cheaper mugs tomorrow if I wanted to, but I've had my fingers burned too often so now I go with a supplier who may not be the cheapest but who provides a better product. The same would apply to ink.
There are a number of things Sawgrass could do tomorrow if they really wanted to show their intent to support the industry. (i) provide profiles for a wider range of printers, (ii) allow Artanium ink to be sold in smaller bottles. This second point is the crucial one. I know Artanium ink is cheaper per ml than OEM ink, but it still costs £240-£360 to buy all four or six inks for your printer - while the same quantities can be had for £25 from China. That is a preposterous markup. If Sawgrass allowed suppliers to sell in smaller bottles (£30 for 50ml, or £20 for 30ml), then that would go some way towards removing the enticement of cheaper dye-sub inks from China - even though Sawgrass themselves would actually make more money on a "per ml" basis.
If cheap ink became the norm who would spend any money on improving formulas and investing in future developments?
Would the likes of Epson take on Sawgrass of they saw a big enough potential market for dedicated printers and Epson dye -sub inks? I would like to see the outcome of that one!
My concern is if there are no more big players stepping up in the dye-sub arena, it could remain a (relatively) small cottage industry in this country even though the potential market is huge
Who's doing that now? Sawgrass sure isn't, so what would be the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Imme
The reason the dye-sub industry is so small is because we have no support, no investment in future developments. We just have one patent-defending monopolistic company that strangles the industry. That's why the dye-sub industry is so tiny, and it's why it's stagnated for 10 years.
There is zero benefit to the current situation over the alternative.
I have been sent this from ebay user andrejka.123, claiming to be Sawgrass:
We "Sawgrass Systems/Sawgrass Technologies/Sawgrass Europe" own patents for sublimation inks throughout the world, and monitor eBay daily in various countries to prevent people from infringing on our IP/trademarks. The inks you have on offer are a licensed product, but only to be used in printers above 42 inch. Firstly, this has to be specified in the listing and secondly cartridges for such printers have much higher capacity than 100ml, so we get a feeling from your listing that you are offering inks to smaller printers and this would be an infringement. You may not be aware of that and we feel that you should have the opportunity to remove your listing without having a strike against your eBay account.
Best Regards
- andrejka.123
So, my adverts now have the line:
NB: Due to Sawgrass patent restrictions, these inks are only licensed for use in large format printers above 42"
Will keep you up to date.
I did reply stating that I would add a line about the 42" restriction, and that I didn't feel that 100ml quantities was necessarily a bad thing for people using 200ml refillable cartridges, especially if doing small runs on a budget etc. Not had a reply yet though.
I don't know any large format supplier that offers anything less than 1 litre bottles these days. They did used to have 500ml but scrapped them recently. Is the Inktec ink actually bought in as 100ml large format? Never actually looked into Inktec myself. Sawgrass have been there before in situations like this. Purple Monkey was one of the recent companies pulled for doing a similar thing through their website but then fell in line with the patent. Personally, I think you are getting into a situation where there is only going to be grief for you. I hope you are only using large format yourself now your getting some direct attention from Sawgrass. I know a few years back a printer had to pay a settlement for mis-using ink. Sawgrass were going after them and had worked out how much they had printed since starting and were taking him to court for the difference on what he should have been buying ink for.
Pisquee - you're dealing with a large company who will not back down, they have given you the chance to pull your listing without penalty. No large format printers would be interested in buying small bottles of ink - sawgrass know this, and won't give you a second chance, - I hope you have deep pockets. :wink: