Need help sourcing Sublimation Ink

[WorthDoingRight]

I have no issues with Sawgrass inks myself Simon, they do the job. I think if we did not know how much the other inks cost then no one would worry - I think it is this massive markup per ml that angers people not the quality of the inks.

[socialgiraffe]

Hi WDR

Was not directing the post at you specifically mate.

I agree the mark up is huge but they have perfected the art and it deserves to be rewarded. I just feel that there are better things to spend time on than trying to save pennies usings unsupported inks.

[WorthDoingRight]

I just feel that there are better things to spend time on than trying to save pennies usings unsupported inks.

Have to agree as an example, spending a few pennies more can buy you a much better mug that is dishwasher proof than a slightly cheaper non-dishwasher mug and you will always get some that will spend the extra pennies and those that will not.

If you buy non Sawgrass inks then you really need to factor in the ultimate purchase of an ICC profiling device and the potential wasted blanks when the print turns out the wrong colour.

[pisquee]

I don't understand this.
Sawgrass have the patent/license on the ink, end of story I would presume. Any other dye sub ink is essentially breaking the law presumably.

To quote from Sawgrass' patent:

An image is printed on a substrate by means of a computer driven printer using heat activated dyes, without activating the dyes during the process of printing onto the substrate. The dyes are susequently activated by applying sufficient heat and pressure to the substrate to activate the dyes.

Note that it talks about not activating the dye during the printing, as at the time of Sawgrass developing and patenting their sublimation ink, printers used heat in the print head - this was before Epson brought out their first Stylus piezo-headed printer, so any sublimation ink formulation to work needed some way of being protected whilst in the printer, so it didn't sublimate in the print head, and only when it was in the heat press.
In the patent this dye-protection in the formulation is referred to as an "emulsifying enforcing agent" - the emulsifying part is to keep the particles of ink (solid) in the liquid seperate and to not bind together, to keep the ink in a liquid form and not clog. The enforcing agent, is the part which protects the inks from the heat inside the print heads of the printer.

So, Sawgrass were clever, and found a way to formulate a sublimation ink for use in a computer printer which used heat to print with - this is a clever invention, and deserves to be protected by a patent. But, fast forward a few years, and Epson brought out their piezo headed Stylus printers, and this protection in the formulation was not needed.

Sawgrass patent only protects the type/formulation of sublimation ink they have developed/invented. If an other company brings out a sublimation ink which is different from the scope of their patent then they are not infringing. So, as we sublimators are mostly going to be using Epson printers where heat is not used, there is no need for the enforcing agent in the sublimation ink formulation, so any company making any ink specifically just for Epson's are not infringing on the Sawgrass patent.

[pisquee]

The TOG vs Sawgrass case was hinged on this "emulsifying enforcement agent" and is discussed at length in the court notes...
Which I will put here as a link, as I can't see how to upload a PDF file to the post.
Court Notes

[socialgiraffe]

Interesting pisquee

Does this mean that the heads never clog with epsons?

One reason I am a big fan of ricoh/sawgrass is that I can turn the printer off, go on holiday and come back two weeks later with a printer that will work straight away

[WorthDoingRight]

So, Sawgrass were clever, and found a way to formulate a sublimation ink for use in a computer printer which used heat to print with - this is a clever invention, and deserves to be protected by a patent.

If they were so clever then why are the printers that are currently supported by Sawgrass to use their patented inks the ones that do not use heat to print with? Seems odd that?

If the patent did only apply to printers that use heat to print with then it would not be against their patent to use other's inks in Epson, Ricoh or Brother printers so this does make me wonder if this quote is incorrect.

[pisquee]

Interesting pisquee

Does this mean that the heads never clog with epsons?

One reason I am a big fan of ricoh/sawgrass is that I can turn the printer off, go on holiday and come back two weeks later with a printer that will work straight away

This was one of the points I was getting at - Sawgrass' patent claim they have a formulation for sublimation ink that doesn't clog, which obviously it can, and that protects it from heat in the print head, which is either no longer needed, or no longer used.

I can leave our Epson Stylus Pro large formats with InkTec's sublimation and pigment inks them for weeks to go on holiday and they print fine when I get back

[pisquee]

If they were so clever then why are the printers that are currently supported by Sawgrass to use their patented inks the ones that do not use heat to print with? Seems odd that?

Maybe they did work out how to make sublimation inks work in a printer using heat and gave up because it was easier to use Epson printers, or maybe it didn't work very well, so they gave up and used Epsons instead.

If the patent did only apply to printers that use heat to print with then it would not be against their patent to use other's inks in Epson, Ricoh or Brother printers

Exactly!

[WorthDoingRight]

Well the head clogging is partially down to the particulate sizes in the ink and its ability to pass through the print heads cleanly. The Ricoh Gx7000 printer has a 2pl drop size whereas the Epson B1400 printer has a 1.5pl drop size. This difference may not seem a lot but in fact means the Epson's print head diameter is likely to be about 30% smaller. Given also that Epson tends to favour a gravity fed ink system whereas Ricoh have a pumped ink system probably makes for the reason that the Ricoh heads clog less and if they do clog the pump is more capable of shifting the blockage (think about sink plungers).