Printable View
Due to the amount of work we do that involves sublimation (both through the Epson, and with paint brushes!) we have to buy inks and powders in bulk. Because of this, I am now selling spare stock of Inktec's (Sawgrass licensed) sublimation inks on ebay. I don't want this to be an advert, so won't link, but am easy to find there if you want it. Although, as I know there may be interest from people here, I thought it best to say hello, and say I am open to discussion/queries.
As far as I'm aware Inktec are not licensed for small format printers which the vast majority of members will be using. There was a little confusion when a Supplier first announced that the licence had been granted. Did Sawgrass not provide a profile for the 4400?
Justin
DSF Admin
Hi and welcome. From memory Justin's right and the Epsons you mention aren't considered wide format.
From the perspective of my art printing, I wanted to source an ink that was licensed, so that it was available, I initially was tempted by the generic cheap sub inks that sometimes pop up on ebay, but didn't want to get all set up with these, and then they disappear, or the ink in the bottles got changed to something else. /i had also thought of mixing and matching whatever cheap deals of odd bottles of Artainium or Rotech whenever they popped up, but then realised this wasn't a good way to go either.
I don't like that Sawgrass have effectively created a monopoly with their patents, but I can't do much about that. I understand that they don't want other companies using technology they own, and so let companies license being able to use it. So, InkTec are licensed to produce sublimation ink, and sell it in bottles. i think they are stretching their control to think they can dictate whether I am allowed to put it into my printer or not, especially dependant on their definition of what is large format or not. The inks are licensed in their production, and to be sold, they work fine in Epson printers from home up to the pro series.
On the subject of ICC profiles, InkTec don't offer many on their website, for any of their inks really, as there are so many different prints available that inks can be put into, this doesn't surprise me. and from my point of view, each printer is a little bit different, and then what is being printed on is different etc etc, so even if they did, I would likely want profiles making for my own printer regardless of what was offered form the manufacturer.
It's probably too complex to get into the details of the patents, but as as supplier of sawgrass inks then I only know too well the license arrangements and large format ink can only be sold to customers owning a large format printer (as defined by a printer carriage width of 42" or more).
It is the responsibility of the supplier to make sure that the customer has a printer that meets the conditions upon which the reseller status is granted. If Sawgrass were to learn that a customer has bought ink from a recognised supplier that does not have a license to sell into the small format printers (such as the Epson 4000), then this would be serious for the supplier concerned and I'm sure that wasn't your intention.
what eBay listing John?Quote:
Originally Posted by John G
Original post :confused:Quote:
I am now selling spare stock of Inktec's (Sawgrass licensed) sublimation inks on ebay.
Just got to look on ebay for anybody selling sub ink that's supposed to be for large format, but sold to anybody with an epson:wink:
Doh! missed that...
I had to go back and re-read it just to make sure :redface:Quote:
Doh! missed that...
I had a try reading through the documents on the European Patent Office site, but got confused. I wasn't sure if Sawgrass were trying to patent the whole process of sublimation/heat transfer printing - not just with computer printers, or maybe that document was just defining what type of printing they were talking about.
Is there anything similar to the Sawgrass situation in another industry, where a manufacturer effectively can say how/where their product is used once resold? I guess Applie saying that OSX can only be used on their hardware is similar, but not the same, as Sawgrass don't make heat presses/printers, and you can't really buy a full copy of OSX without also buying a computer from them.
Is the way Sawgrass are controlling things actually legal in UK/European law?
This has been discussed time and time again - I don't understand it either but they do have a patent and I've heard they crack down hard on people selling sub inks which aren't licensed for a particular type of printer.
Basically your buying in inks which have been licensed for large format and selling them without a license to people with standard printers. I think it must be the same principle as Red diesel for farm vehicles.
Cheers John
i don't deny they have a patent, obviously they have them.
My concerns are to what extent this legally gives them power in UK/Europe.
It is clear that a patent gives them an effective copyright to stop people copying or making a similar product, does it also give them legal right to tell an end user, who hasn't bought directly from them how they can use said product.
As I have bought from a dealer, and not InkTec directly, my contract of sale is with the dealer, and I have no business relationship with InkTec.
The red diesel thing is a red herring, as that is a government/taxation legal issue, and not one of intellectual property.
People seem to like car analogies, so it seems to me that it's like being told I can buy a Toyota car from a Toyota dealer, but I am only allowed to drive it on the M1 motorway, and I am not allowed to sell it to anyone in the future, unless they promise to also only drive it on the M1.
its very important what Martin has said. its up to supplier to check if buyer own wide format printer. as there is no law that will stop you to use your printer in the way you want to use it. you can even put the tea in the carts if you wish! is your printer and you can do with it whatever you want. you can even use it as a ornament in your toilet if you wish. thats why is so important that suppliers check whoe they selling too. as there is no contorl after some ink slipp out.Quote:
Originally Posted by pisquee
this reminding me last SONY court battl with guy who use his ps3 in te way he wanted to use :) http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2...tle-begins.ars
I was trying to show that you can buy cheap red diesel, but put it in a car, instead of a farm vehicle, and your in big trouble. Same goes with the ink - put it in a printer it wasn't sold to go in and the person that sold you it is in big trouble.Quote:
The red diesel thing is a red herring
When you bought this Ink (originally - very 1st order) did you get asked for proof of owning a large format printer ? - ie serial number etc.
I'm not agreeing with the enforcement of the sawgrass inks patent - just informing you that your ebay listing will get you in trouble - i'm not that bothered at all as I cannot use this ink.
Their patents stand up in court as they have been challenged a few times. Everyone who has taken them on has lost or caved in and the last being TOG as far as I can remember. That was US but it is the same for Europe.
It's illegal to sell largeformat qualified ink to small format users in sublimation. It is illegal for small format printers to use large format sublimation ink. Sawgrass have threatened many time to go after the end user not just the supplier. Plenty ignore the patent as there is a saving to be made but it's the risk you take if you decide to go that way.
Well put Andrew.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
The point I was trying to make originally, but skirted around the issue, was that if you say on this forum that you bought large format ink and are using it in a small format printer (e.g the Epson 4000, 4400) then be aware of the potential repercussions, especially if you then go on to say your selling it on ebay.
Sawgrass spend millions every year enforcing their patent and rigorously enforce it. I know of people having their ebay listing removed (end users) selling "unwanted" sublimation ink. Whether you agree or disagree, unless you know something that, for example Tropical Graphics (USA) or Rotech (Europe) know, then these are the rules we all live with.
Would be nice if they spend this millions on designing dedicated printer :-)
This wiki article explains the legal side of things in other industries with similar situations ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-sale_restraint
Wouldn't it just!Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
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:
If "andrejka.123" really does represent Sawgrass (and we have no way of knowing), the email sounds like a very clumsy way of saying "you don't have a license to resell Sawgrass ink, so stop reselling it".
The only avenue open to you is to contact Sawgrass directly via their website (or a phone number listed on their website) and request clarity regarding users selling on their unused/obsolete/2nd-hand stock. They may well say that you can't sell it at all without a license, or they may let it go and keep an eye on future listings to be sure that this really is just a "one-off" - but, in either case, at least you'd hear it from the horse's mouth and not from some faceless ebayer.
Large format ink is only available in 1 litre bottles. Decanting and selling in smaller volumes is not permitted by authorised dealers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew