DSF

Original Equipment Manufacturer

Dave271069;47642 wrote:Thanks, next question (I'm still learning) what's is OEM ink? As in Epson OEM ink?

OEM = Original Equipment Manufacturer

In the case of OEM inks, we mean ink made by the company that made the printer (so they designed the printer to suit the ink). Epson OEM ink is ink made by Epson for Epson printers (as opposed to "compatible" or "third party" ink).

There is no "OEM" dye-sublimation ink for desktop printers because Sawgrass don't make printers. Sawgrass ink is "third-party" ink. If someone says "OEM ink" then they're not talking about dye-sublimation ink.

JSR;47641 wrote:The only thing anyone can really say is "Sawgrass hold the patent for dye-sublimation ink in desktop printers and are the only authorised source of dye-sublimation ink for those printers. If Sawgrass don't support the printer, then they don't support the printer."

No, Sawgrass hold a patent for a sublimation ink which has an "emulsifying and enforcing agent" to protect it against clogging and for protection from print heads which use heat, when used in a printer connected to a computer. (as far as I remember from reading through the patent documents) I think this was part of the key rulings of the court between Sawgrass and TOG, which saw the cout saying that TOG didn't infringe on Sawgrass' patent on this key point. The court case wasn't followed through to the end, and an out of court settlement reached in which Sawgrass ended up buying TOG.

The wide format/42" rule came about from an out of court settlement after a legal battle/challenge between Sawgrass and BASF.

The patent document are freely available on the internet, and a bit of googling will turn up details of past legal battles involving Sawgrass.

I would advise anyone wanting to know about Sublimation ink and Sawgrass to do their own research and look at the information available to them.

You're preaching to the converted, pisquee. I saw similar documents around the time of the TOG case. The trouble I that if, despite the promises TOG made to their customers, if TOG were not big enough to challenge Sawgrass's claims then it would be a very brave individual that would rely on the details.

JSR;47654 wrote:You're preaching to the converted, pisquee. I saw similar documents around the time of the TOG case. The trouble I that if, despite the promises TOG made to their customers, if TOG were not big enough to challenge Sawgrass's claims then it would be a very brave individual that would rely on the details.

...and of interest that one of those key individuals at TOG then worked for Sawgrass to enforce the patent through Europe. Whilst I'm not going to get in to the detail of the debate, if any individual believes they have a case to take on Sawgrass then why don't they? There is often a lot of talk about who is right and what patents are held, but apart from talk I've yet to see anyone seriously move from talking the talk to walking the talk. I'm not saying who is right or who is wrong and I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on an open forum but it is interesting to observe the frictions from different interested parties.

The only point I'd make is this. If Subli inks were much cheaper, what's stopping every tom dick and harry buying a £20 Epson and having a go....far more competition and those folk selling mugs for a couple of quid would sell them even cheaper!

Subli inks aren't cheap but then you look at the print cost and it really shouldn't make any difference o your profits.

Hopefully with HMRC clamp down on ecomerce the days of stupid pricing might be ending.

Justin;47727 wrote:The only point I'd make is this. If Subli inks were much cheaper, what's stopping every tom dick and harry buying a £20 Epson and having a go....far more competition and those folk selling mugs for a couple of quid would sell them even cheaper!

Subli inks aren't cheap but then you look at the print cost and it really shouldn't make any difference o your profits.

but there is nothing to stop them now is it??
And other point of view is that... Ok. fair play that would be more competition in the Game and most of you dont want that, but from suppliers point of view is "more people in the game= more business for them..."

Paul;47730 wrote:but there is nothing to stop them now is it??
And other point of view is that... Ok. fair play that would be more competition in the Game and most of you dont want that, but from suppliers point of view is "more people in the game= more business for them..."

But in all businesses people not paying taxes etc is crippling the ones who do it legit. So there will still be the same number of buyers but the prices should be on a more level playingfield. If these tax avoiders wernt there.

Just playing devils advocate