Full Version: The "Cart" before The Horse?
From: Chap (TROPICAL) [#25]
13 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#23] 13 Apr 2006
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#26]
13 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#25] 13 Apr 2006
So far, Sawgrass and Epson have shown a propensity for protecting their investments, which is why I think my "theory" isn't very far-fetched.
From: Chap (TROPICAL) [#27]
13 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#20] 13 Apr 2006
Why would Epson have a beef with SG? SG don't take Epsons ink sales unlike the other cartridge suppliers. Apartnership with Epson would make perfect sense especially as both companies could protect their IP with patents etc. Think about it many have questioned SG's patents including myself but whats the upside for someone trying to fight them now if Epson got involved and said "Hey that cartridge you are putting that ink in breaks my patent"
As you can see on this web site http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/articles/story_2790.html Epson have already recieved a summary judgement in their favor so anyone they sue now it is a bit of a slam dunk.
Bit of a slam dunk if you ask me.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#28]
13 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#27] 13 Apr 2006
Paul,
Obviously, Epson would have no beef with Sawgrass. In fact, they're looking pretty cozy.
Epson should have no beef with other sublimation ink suppliers either, but if they choose to buddy-up with Sawgrass (which seems to have taken place), rulings in sublimation ink patent infringement cases, such as the one currently in progress with Texas Original Graphics (TOG) could be a moot point, regardless of their outcome.
EDITED: 13 Apr 2006 by DGL
From: UncleSteve [#29]
13 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#28] 13 Apr 2006
IF TOG wins their suit and are not offered/given a licensing agreement, I see a classic "restraint of trade" suit coming.
I am not talking about bogus knockoff carts, but legitimate licensed cartridges.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#30]
13 Apr 2006
To: UncleSteve [#29] 14 Apr 2006
We'll have to wait for Oct. 2007, (TOG vs. ST court date) before that scenario can play out.
Interesting premise.
From: UncleSteve [#31]
14 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#30] 14 Apr 2006
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#32]
14 Apr 2006
To: UncleSteve [#31] 14 Apr 2006
Steve,
Probably much longer than that, considering if Sawgrass loses the ink patent infringement case, they'll most likely appeal the ruling.
Of course, if TOG succeeds in breaking the Sawgrass patents, the bottom will drop out of the sublimation ink market, which will be the start of the real savings.
EDITED: 14 Apr 2006 by DGL
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#33]
14 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#32] 14 Apr 2006
Do you really think TOG would drop price after fighting to win and winning?
What would be the incentive to do so?
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#34]
14 Apr 2006
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#33] 14 Apr 2006
I'm saying if TOG were to invalidate the Sawgrass patents, that would kick the door open to anyone and everyone, who wanted to sell sublimation ink, making a drop in price inevitable.
I think TOG would rather see Sawgrass let them exercise their right to sell ink, than to open the door to all comers.
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#35]
14 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#34] 14 Apr 2006
I think you might see a licensing agreement before you see your ideal....
Think about it for a sec.....
What's one more company in the club?
What does TOG have to gain by winning then having the bottom drop out on price, when they can be a part of the monopoly and get their guarantee'd market share?
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#36]
14 Apr 2006
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#35] 14 Apr 2006
That's the way I see it. There will be a deal hammered out, possibly before the TOG vs. ST case gets to court.
Depending on how strong TOG's position is, I don't know if they'd settle for becoming another Tropical Graphics distributor.
I also don't see the ST/TG alliance wanting to see a company selling ink for less than theirs.
The outcome will be interesting.
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#37]
14 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#36] 14 Apr 2006
Alliance???? From my perspective it was a takeover....Absorbtion might be a better word.
I've started getting bills from SG the last time I ordered, and some of TG's phone extensions are answered as SG technologies now ........... :(
I almost was able to disconnect myself from the whole thing there for a while........................... Sigh........
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#38]
14 Apr 2006
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#37] 14 Apr 2006
I don't know what kind of deal Paul hammered out with Sawgrass, but I doubt he did (or will) walk away empty-handed.
Even if there were financial damages paid, (or being paid), at some point those payments will have been paid up and as long as Sawgrass upholds their patents, Paul will remain an ardent cheerleader for Sawgrass.
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#39]
14 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#38] 14 Apr 2006
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#40]
14 Apr 2006
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#39] 14 Apr 2006
I imagine Paul had choices, but not many.
We'll never know what those choices were, if any, or what long-term ramifications they'll have.
Paul sees these posts, but I'm sure he's not at liberty to comment and I've never heard any of the details privately.
From: LaZerDude (C_BURKE) [#41]
14 Apr 2006
To: ALL
From: UncleSteve [#42]
14 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#34] 14 Apr 2006
I sure wouldn't! I would be pushing to be exempt from the patents due to the "prior art"... the fact that they were producing/selling sublimation inks before SG was ever created.
That would leave any other wannabees to have to prove prior art also...
:S
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#43]
14 Apr 2006
To: UncleSteve [#42] 14 Apr 2006
Any validated claim of prior art would invalidate the patent by the fact that they were not the originator of the idea and the patent should not have been issued.
By the way, as the patent reads it was for a formulation of ink. How the Markman ruling said it was for inkjet sublimation ink in entirety is a mystery to me and other far more knowledgeable people.
From: UncleSteve [#44]
14 Apr 2006
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#43] 14 Apr 2006
Could we start with the possibility that the judge was a 2nd cousin to the sister-in-law of the uncle's current wife? (devil)
Show messages: 1-4 5-24 25-44 45-64 65-75