Newbie question about Brother MFC-5910DW

[Ian M]

Let's assume that someone going down the route of an unsupported printer, may also choose to use un-Sawgrass ink, and not be forking out so much money for the ink side of things.

Sorry, but we cannot discuss any non Sawgrass ink on here Just wondering if there was a large format printing section could we discuss other sub inks there

Looks like my cat has got amongst those pigeons again

[Paul]

Good idea ian.
And we do not mention any names of unsuported inks on jere. But we can not deny that they exist and can be sucesfuly used.

[JSR]

Sorry, but we cannot discuss any non Sawgrass ink on here Just wondering if there was a large format printing section could we discuss other sub inks there

That's a very good idea. I do sometimes wonder how many users of large format printers are put off from joining this forum because of the blanket "if it's not Sawgrass, you can't discuss it" policy?

I'd like to think that, one day, I'll move up to using large format printers. I'd find it very interesting and hugely beneficial to read the experiences of large format users, particularly when it comes to their choice of printers and inks. For example, it would be extremely useful to know which brand of ink they prefer to use. I'm sure, of course, that every single one of them will say "Sawgrass ink is the best", but it would certainly be insightful to learn from such users before we're ready to make the leap ourselves.

After all, there are many experienced users here who make it easier, less stressful, less time consuming, and less expensive for newbies to enter the desktop sublimation market. It's only right that we should encourage knowledgeable users of large format printers to share their experiences and help the "large format newbies" in the same way that we help the "desktop newbies".

[pisquee]

We obviously can't deny that there are inks out there which are licensed by Sawgrass to be used on large format printers, but not made by Sawgrass themselves, and there are inks out there which aren't licensed to be used on anything. It does seem odd to not have discussion of the licensed inks on here just because Sawgrass say that they can't be used on smaller printers. A section for large format printing where these inks/printers can be discussed in context does seem a good idea. Or maybe we have to just assume that anytime someone mentions a large format licensed sublimation ink without mentioning the printer they are using them in, that they are using them legitimately in a large printer - i.e. - assuming innocence rather than guilt, instead of jumping down their throat with the usual responses.

[WorthDoingRight]

Well I do not see how it can be illegal to talk about them in general as long as you do not mention any particular brand or seller. It would be like saying you could not discuss travelling in a car above 70 mph because it is illegal to do so!

I dislike being told what I can and cannot discuss in a so called free society :frown:

[pisquee]

Sawgrass have no legal claim on people discussing inks, they claim to have a patent on their use within computer printers. If discussions were in the context of their patent claim - i.e. if talking about them being used in a computer printer then large format inks only being mentioned along with a large format printer, and not encouraging their use in smaller printers.

(as an aside/thinking out loud, from what I remember of reading through all the patent documentation, I think I remember it talking about a printer being used with a (attached to a computer), if as mentioned in another thread thee was a way of printing straight from memory card without the need of the computer, this may get around the patent, maybe even printing across wifi would get around the patent, but I would need to reread the documents to check its wording, and how is defined attached, and what it said of the computer and printer relationship. I suppose a lawyer could argue that most modern printers, especially ones with built in memory card readers could be defined as computers in their own right.... thinking...hmm...

[pisquee]

Well I do not see how it can be illegal to talk about them in general as long as you do not mention any particular brand or seller. It would be like saying you could not discuss travelling in a car above 70 mph because it is illegal to do so!

I dislike being told what I can and cannot discuss in a so called free society :frown:

I don't think it's an "illegal" issue at all, as in police aren't going to come and raid your house/shop arrest you and confiscate all your inks and equipment. You may get a vague legal threat letter/email from Sawgrass. Ultimately it would be up to Sawgrass to sue whoever Sawgrass thought was guilty of contravening their IP and proving their case.

[JSR]

Sawgrass have no legal claim on people discussing inks, they claim to have a patent on their use within computer printers. If discussions were in the context of their patent claim - i.e. if talking about them being used in a computer printer then large format inks only being mentioned along with a large format printer, and not encouraging their use in smaller printers.

(as an aside/thinking out loud, from what I remember of reading through all the patent documentation, I think I remember it talking about a printer being used with a (attached to a computer), if as mentioned in another thread thee was a way of printing straight from memory card without the need of the computer, this may get around the patent, maybe even printing across wifi would get around the patent, but I would need to reread the documents to check its wording, and how is defined attached, and what it said of the computer and printer relationship. I suppose a lawyer could argue that most modern printers, especially ones with built in memory card readers could be defined as computers in their own right.... thinking...hmm...

It's all a bit muddy but, as I understand it from the discussion on a US forum some years back, the patent has nothing to do with whether a computer is used with the printer or not. It has to do with the printer being a "small format" (desktop) printer.

I believe dye-sublimation inks were already being used in large-format printers prior to the first piezo-printhead desktop printer (introduced by Epson, I believe). The patent probably couldn't be retroactively applied to those large-format printers, so it only applies to small-format desktop printers.

In order to sell dye-sublimation inks for use in a desktop printer, you'd need to have an agreement/license with Sawgrass to do so (which will undoubtedly fix the price to match normal Sawgrass desktop dye-sub inks). In order to sell Sawgrass dye-sublimation inks for use in large-format printers, you probably need to have an agreement/license with Sawgrass to not sell them at the same "price per ml" for use in a desktop printer. You probably wouldn't need an agreement/license from Sawgrass to sell Brand X dye-sub inks for use in large format printers, unless you wanted to sell them for use in desktop printers, because the patent doesn't apply to large-format printers (nor does it apply to laser printers).

This is why even Sawgrass's standard dye-sub inks will be cheaper for use in large-format printers, because of competition from other brands and why you would not be allowed to sell it at the cheaper price for desktop printers. They don't have to compete with anyone for the desktop printer market because their patent prevents competition in that market, so they can charge as high a price as they wish. In short, the patent is all about keeping the "price per ml" up for the desktop dye-sublimation market - of course it sounds unfair, but anyone who had a legitimate patent like that would use it to make as much money as they could before the patent expired. That's business.

That was my understanding of it but, as I say, it's not very clear so who knows what you're really allowed to do and what you're not allowed to do?

[Justin]

When does the patent end? I'm told that it can't be renewed?

[WorthDoingRight]

Well reading the patent quickly doesnt seem to say when it expires just when it was issued.

Good information on the patent appears here: http://patents.justia.com/1996/05488907.html

Good blog on the history of sublimation ink here: http://sublimation-ink.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... ation.html