first printer for sub printing

[Paul]

Jut to claryfy one thing. Is not illegal to use 3rd party inks. Its illegal to distrybute them..

[Justin]

My personal opinion, if you're just starting out the Ricoh is the best route to get you up and running quickly and more importantly making money! If you want to experiment for yourself you can do this but have a 'working' setup as well. If you go Ricoh you need to factor in an additional set of ink carts as the first will deplete to approx. 50% immediately due to ink being held in the lines.

If you do experiment, use a cheaper printer, S21/S22 etc. with refil carts.

[smitch6]

is it actually illegal to distribute 3rd party inks though?
(pls not trying to get on the wrong side of anyone )
i thought that sawgrass won't let you sell smaller quantities unless you got a licence off them

surely it;s not illegal to make your own ink from scratch and sell it?
that's be like HP saying no-one can make any ink that will work in our printers?
strange one isn't it?

sorry if i'm going off topic feel free to start a new one etc

[Justin]

I believe that the actual process of using 'sublimation' ink in small format printers is patented...please correct me if I'm wrong. In this case, yes, it would be illegal to use even your own inks.

Bear in mind the legal cases over the years where Sawgrass have taken manufacturers to court and won.

[bms]

Jut to claryfy one thing. Is not illegal to use 3rd party inks. Its illegal to distrybute them..

Do you have this in writing from patent lawyers?

[smitch6]

I believe that the actual process of using 'sublimation' ink in small format printers is patented...please correct me if I'm wrong. In this case, yes, it would be illegal to use even your own inks.

Bear in mind the legal cases over the years where Sawgrass have taken manufacturers to court and won.

oh right thats pretty mean isn't it lol

thanks for clarifying that Justin

[Justin]

Debated many times over the years, top and bottom of it is, if you want to subli legally you have to use authorised inks. If you want to 'experiment' yourself then that's up to you but you take the risks associated.

[bms]

Bear in mind the legal cases over the years where Sawgrass have taken manufacturers to court and won.

Something in the back of my mind recalls this isn't just manufacturers but extended to resellers and end users.

[Paul]

Do you have this in writing from patent lawyers?

noooo!

do you?? :rolleyes:

I am sorry but no one will tel me what I CAN put in my printer that I bought for MY money
I do not question sawgrass patent here. no way! If you can not sell sublimation ink for desktop printers then end of! But this is up to me what i am doing with my printer. This remind me poor guy George "Geohot" Hotz and sony fight...

Something in the back of my mind recalls this isn't just manufacturers but extended to resellers and end users.

so you trying to say that is fine to have pocket full of weed and get away with it. and have a ciss refilled with 3rd party ink and get locked up??

[JSR]

Bear in mind the legal cases over the years where Sawgrass have taken manufacturers to court and won.

What are these legal cases that have gone to court and been "won"? All the ones I've heard of were settled out of court. The patent itself has never been challenged nor defended in court, as far as I'm aware.

I believe that the actual process of using 'sublimation' ink in small format printers is patented...please correct me if I'm wrong. In this case, yes, it would be illegal to use even your own inks.

The patent I read several years ago spoke about a special encapsulation technique designed to allow sublimation inks to be used in printers with thermal printheads. The proliferation of micro-piezo printers meant that this was no longer necessary, but the patent didn't say that. It was about the encapsulation process that enabled dye-sub inks to be used in traditional thermal printhead printers.