TOG Throws Down the Gauntlet - Engraving Etc. Forum

<body> <h1>Full Version: <a href="https://www.engravingetc.org:443/archive/index.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.6">TOG Throws Down the Gauntlet</a></h1><a name="a1477_6"></a><p><b>From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.6">#6</a>]<br /> 21 Jun 2005<br /><b>To: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.5">#5</a>] 21 Jun 2005</p> TOG?<hr /><a name="a1477_7"></a><p><b>From: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.7">#7</a>]<br /> 21 Jun 2005<br /><b>To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.6">#6</a>] 21 Jun 2005</p> <p>Brian,</p> <p>That seems to be the #1 answer at present <span class="e_smile" title=":-)"><span class="e__">:-)</span> </span></p> <p>As usual, we'll be interested onlookers, as the case progresses.</p> <hr /><a name="a1477_8"></a><p><b>From: brokenleg</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.8">#8</a>]<br /> 21 Jun 2005<br /><b>To: ALL</b></p> I want to make sure Iam tied to this thread. Of all I have read, this should be good. I hate companies who try to control the market just because they can. I hope Sawgrass loses and no one does business with them.<p class="edit_text">EDITED: 21 Jun 2005 by DATAKES</p> <hr /><a name="a1477_9"></a><p><b>From: LaZerDude (C_BURKE)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.9">#9</a>]<br /> 1 Jul 2005<br /><b>To: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.5">#5</a>] 2 Jul 2005</p> David,<br /> You said <br /> <br /> <div class="quotetext" id="quote"><b>quote: </b></div><div class="quote">Who would spend the millions necessary, only to open the market to unbridled competition and watch the price of sublimation ink drop like a rock?</div> <br /> <br /> In the event that TOG would win, I do believe they would be entitled to reasonable "attorneys fees and court costs"..... at least I think this is true if this IS still AMERICA, most of which is now made in China. So it would probably not cost them millions after all. But I would be happy to do business with someone or a company that put truth, honesty, customer service, morals and value above profit. I don't think TOG would hurt at all, but would benefit from winning, even if the playing field did in fact "thin" due to lower prices.....<br /> <br /> Rergardless, for those considering sublimation, do you know if the ArTanium ink, which I am told is less prone to clogging, has been re-formulated since SG "bought" them out?<p class="edit_text">EDITED: 1 Jul 2005 by C_BURKE</p> <hr /><a name="a1477_10"></a><p><b>From: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.10">#10</a>]<br /> 2 Jul 2005<br /><b>To: LaZerDude (C_BURKE)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.9">#9</a>] 2 Jul 2005</p> <p>Chuck,</p> <p>Sublijet (Sawgrass Technologies) and ArTainium (Tropical Graphics) are definitely different formulas of ink. If TG has changed the formula of ArTainium ink, since they became a subsidiary of SG, or will do so in the future, is anyone's guess.</p> <p>In the past, one of the sore points for sublimators, was the practice of an ink supplier changing formulations without notification. If the new formulation rendered the same colors, there was really no harm, as long as the formula change was meant to reduce clogging or introduce a blacker black.</p> <p>It's when the change in formulation was a cost-cutting measure and repeatability of colors became unreliable that people got up in arms. Rightly so.</p> <p>TOG is pursuing this case, partly, as a matter of principle. Bill Wellborn, the founder, was one of the pioneers in the industry and his son, Ty, who now runs the company, doesn't want to see his father retire, labeled as a patent infringer. Especially, since he was selling sublimation ink prior to the SG patents being filed.</p> <hr /><a name="a1477_11"></a><p><b>From: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.11">#11</a>]<br /> 6 Aug 2005<br /><b>To: ALL</b></p> <p>I spoke to a Sawgrass representative at the recent Long Beach NBM show.</p> <p>I received a straight answer, to a straight question:</p> <p>Q: "When will the SG vs. TOG battle ensue?</p> <p>A: It's in progress.</p><p class="edit_text">EDITED: 6 Aug 2005 by DGL</p> <hr /><a name="a1477_12"></a><p><b>From: UncleSteve</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.12">#12</a>]<br /> 7 Aug 2005<br /><b>To: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.11">#11</a>] 7 Aug 2005</p> <p>David,</p> <p>As noted in another forum, the battle is TOG vs SG, not the other way around. TOG made a pre-emptory (SP) attack by bringing suit in Texas. </p> <p>This could, IMHO, put SG at a disadvantage since they don't have their "relatives" hearing the case.</p> <p>TOG has history on their side for creating/selling sublimation inks before SG's patents were filed.... They may, at the least, be exempted due to the prior commerce they engaged in. At the other end of the spectrum is a very remote possiblility that SG may be held liable for "using" TOG's formulations and methods. I don't know if TOG ever went for a patent attempt.</p> <hr /><a name="a1477_13"></a><p><b>From: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.13">#13</a>]<br /> 7 Aug 2005<br /><b>To: UncleSteve</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.12">#12</a>] 7 Aug 2005</p> Steve,<br /> <br /> Ooops! Got the letters backwards <span class="e_smile" title=":-)"><span class="e__">:-)</span> </span><br /> <br /> Too many years of seeing SG go after <i>infringers.</i><br /> <br /> It <i>will</i> be interesting to see if TOG's prior activity with ink jet sublimation will trump the SG patent.<br /> <br /> In any event, this case represents the <i>last stand</i> for those looking to break the SG/TG quasi-monopoly on the small format ink jet sublimation market. <hr /><a name="a1477_14"></a><p><b>From: UncleSteve</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.14">#14</a>]<br /> 7 Aug 2005<br /><b>To: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.13">#13</a>] 7 Aug 2005</p> <p>This all might be a moot point considering the new laser technology being released very shortly.... sublimation without "ink" may just put SG in their place...</p> <p>With all due respect to Paul H. and his great crew, I would NOT be unhappy to see the whole SG empire go down in flames, attitude and all!</p> <p><br /> To quote Nathan Hale, "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country. ... " Perhaps contemporary situations call for changing life to company!!!</p> <hr /><a name="a1477_15"></a><p><b>From: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.15">#15</a>]<br /> 7 Aug 2005<br /><b>To: UncleSteve</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.14">#14</a>] 7 Aug 2005</p> Steve,<br /> <br /> I'm sure SG is thinking ahead. It wouldn't surprise me to find SG has patents on the direct-to-fabric printing technology.<br /> <br /> Who knows? Maybe they have a hand in the new laser technology as well. <hr /><a name="a1477_16"></a><p><b>From: UncleSteve</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.16">#16</a>]<br /> 7 Aug 2005<br /><b>To: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.15">#15</a>] 7 Aug 2005</p> <p>Anything is possible but I can't see them letting a competitor get a foothold ahead of them.... and the system I am thinking of is not a direct to fabric process. </p> <p>It is a laser printer to paper transfer which should offer great new flexibility to awards, plaques and any other coated hardgood as well as fabric. <span class="e_smile" title=":-)"><span class="e__">:-)</span> </span></p> <hr /><a name="a1477_17"></a><p><b>From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.17">#17</a>]<br /> 7 Aug 2005<br /><b>To: UncleSteve</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.16">#16</a>] 7 Aug 2005</p> <p>Uncle Steve, you have seen my preexisting tech items on sale for that set of processes already. Doing fairly nicely also. </p> <p>David has some samples also.</p> <hr /><a name="a1477_18"></a><p><b>From: UncleSteve</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.18">#18</a>]<br /> 7 Aug 2005<br /><b>To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.17">#17</a>] 8 Aug 2005</p> <p>Yes, I have seen them and they are terrific..... </p> <p>This is just another step in getting away from the wet process. Just like with the inks, the toners keep improving and so does the output.</p> <hr /><a name="a1477_19"></a><p><b>From: sroehlk (ELECTECH1)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.19">#19</a>]<br /> 12 Aug 2005<br /><b>To: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.1">#1</a>] 12 Aug 2005</p> Any thing new with the lawsuit?<hr /><a name="a1477_20"></a><p><b>From: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.20">#20</a>]<br /> 12 Aug 2005<br /><b>To: sroehlk (ELECTECH1)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.19">#19</a>] 12 Aug 2005</p> Steve,<br /> <br /> I don't know if you could call this news, but here's what TOG has under "Lawsuit" on their web site:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.texasoriginalgraphics.com/id37.html">http://www.texasoriginalgraphics.com/id37.html</a> <hr /><a name="a1477_21"></a><p><b>From: sroehlk (ELECTECH1)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.21">#21</a>]<br /> 12 Aug 2005<br /><b>To: ALL</b></p> <p>Thanks for the link. I have read that, but wanted more!!!</p> <p>Lawsuits can take forever to work there way through the system. </p> <p>Steve</p><hr /><a name="a1477_22"></a><p><b>From: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.22">#22</a>]<br /> 29 Nov 2005<br /><b>To: ALL</b></p> <p>A recent message from Texas Original Graphics (TOG), on the DSSI forum, says they're expecting a ruling on their case, within the next few weeks.</p> <p>Current price for 125 ml of TOG ink = $89</p> <p>Current price for 125 ml of ArTainium ink = $129</p> <p>Sawgrass' Sublijet ink is not sold in 125 ml increments. 110 ml cartridge for Epson 3000 printer = 137.25</p> <p>TOG says, when the ruling comes down, they'll announce the outcome on their web page.</p> <p><a href="http://www.sublimation.info/lawsuit/">http://www.sublimation.info/lawsuit/</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.texasoriginalgraphics.com">www.texasoriginalgraphics.com</a></p><p class="edit_text">EDITED: 29 Nov 2005 by DGL</p> <hr /><a name="a1477_23"></a><p><b>From: Pedaler (ROYBREWER)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.23">#23</a>]<br /> 30 Nov 2005<br /><b>To: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.22">#22</a>] 30 Nov 2005</p> <p>David,</p> <p>You have no idea how much I appreciate you staying on top of this. I believe, possibly stronger than you, that this case is incredibly important to the entire industry.</p> <hr /><a name="a1477_24"></a><p><b>From: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.24">#24</a>]<br /> 1 Dec 2005<br /><b>To: Pedaler (ROYBREWER)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.23">#23</a>] 1 Dec 2005</p> Roy,<br /> <br /> Important indeed. When you see the price of sublimation ink from overseas, (the origin of most sublimation ink), even TOG's pricing, (the lowest in the U.S.A.), is astronomical.<br /> <br /> The phrase, "You get what you pay for" doesn't hold true for sublimation ink. In general, sublimation ink is no more expensive than OEM ink.<br /> <br /> Now, we sublimators are operating in an atmosphere of, "You pay for what you get."<br /> <br /> Price aside, what's hugely important, is that we have a choice of inks. Some excellent ink has been removed from the market, due to Sawgrass Technologies' pursuit of patent infringers.<br /> <br /> We're paying top dollar for ink, which, in some cases, is inferior to ink which was available to us, less than a year ago.<br /> <br /> By bringing lawsuits against competitors, Sawgrass has quite literally held the "Home Court" advantage. The cases have been held and ruled upon in South Carolina.<br /> <br /> TOG's pre-emptive strike against Sawgrass, which rests upon "prior art" <b>should</b> see the final ruling come down in a Texas court, although I'm told by someone "in-the-know" not to count those chickens yet.<br /> <br /> Logically speaking, prior art should be enough to see TOG prevail, though, sadly, in this battle over CMYK, the color of justice is green, and for those that Sawgrass hasn't been able to intimidate from the U.S. market, they've been able to outspend in court.<br /> <br /> TOG's efforts represent the "last gasp" for freedom of choice and reasonable pricing of sublimation ink in the U.S.A.<br /> <br /> I remain "guardedly" optimistic.<p class="edit_text">EDITED: 13 Dec 2005 by DGL</p> <hr /><a name="a1477_25"></a><p><b>From: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.25">#25</a>]<br /> 13 Dec 2005<br /><b>To: UncleSteve</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.12">#12</a>] 14 Dec 2005</p> <p>Steve,</p> <p>I hear that the TOG vs. SG case "will" be heard in a Texas court.</p> <p><a href="http://www.texasoriginalgraphics.com/id40.html">http://www.texasoriginalgraphics.com/id40.html</a></p> <p>That's a major development.</p> <p>I also hear that SG will be going after US Sublimation, (Florida) who used to be the master American distributor of Rotech ink. SG now owns Rotech.</p> <p>I don't know many details on that one, but I'll provide updates as they become available.</p><p class="edit_text">EDITED: 13 Dec 2005 by DGL</p> <hr /><form accept-charset="utf-8" method="get" action="lmessages.php" target="_self"><input type="hidden" name="webtag" id="webtag" class="bhinputtext" value="EE" dir="ltr" /><input type="hidden" name="msg" id="msg" class="bhinputtext" value="1477.26" dir="ltr" /><input type="submit" name="submit" id="submit1" class="button" value="Keep reading…" /></form><p align="center">Show messages:  <a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.1">1-5</a>  6-25  <a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.26">26-33</a></p> <h4><a href="lthread_list.php?webtag=EE">Back to thread list</a> | <a href="llogout.php?webtag=EE">Login</a></h4> <h6>© 2025 <a href="http://www.beehiveforum.net/" target="_blank">Project Beehive Forum</a></h6> </body>