Full Version: The "Cart" before The Horse?
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#1]
10 Apr 2006
To: ALL
Then, considering its further implications, to the ink jet dye sub community, I said, "Double hmmm."
If you've been following the Texas Original Graphics (TOG) vs. Sawgrass Technologies (ST) legal situation, which centers around patent infringement of sublimation ink formulas and prior art, this latest development, on the part of Epson, (completely unrelated to ink formulas, or prior art), could actually have a most profound effect on what ink you can buy and from whom it can be purchased.
http://www.epson.co.jp/e/newsroom/2006/news_20060221_2.htm
ST has been an Authorized Epson Dealer/Service Center for years. From what I hear, they will be able to proceed unfettered.
Of course, if TOG prevails and breaks the ST patent on sublimation ink, what will they use to get the ink through the printers?
Hmmm. :S
From: John (ICTJOHN) [#2]
10 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#1] 10 Apr 2006
Why would ST be able to proceed unfettered??? Because they are an authorized dealer/service center???? If that is the thinking, I guess others would have to become dealers as well................
triple Hmmm......
:S
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#3]
10 Apr 2006
To: John (ICTJOHN) [#2] 10 Apr 2006
John,
I would have to read between the lines and say that ST's standing as an Authorized Dealer/Service Center has little to do with their ability to continue selling sublimation ink for Epson printers.
I think it's more likely that ST and Epson (two companies claiming patent infringement) would team up to corner the market on sublimation ink/cartridges.
At this point, all it would take, is Epson going after TOG, on the aftermarket cartridge issue and the outcome of the ink patent issue would be irrelevant.
Even though there are other brands of printers, used for ink jet dye sub, they all rely on the (Epson) Seiko micro-piezo printhead technolgy.
Even bulk ink systems require a specially-fitted (Epson-designed) cartridge in the printer.
EDITED: 10 Apr 2006 by DGL
From: Dave Jones (DAVERJ) [#4]
10 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#3] 10 Apr 2006
Glory South Software Manufacturing Inc
Butterfly Print Image Corp.
Ink Lab (H.K.) Co.
Nectron International, Ltd.
Mipo International Ltd.
Mipo America Ltd.
Nine Star Image Co.
Nine Star Technology Company
Town Sky Inc.
Zhuhai Gree Magneto-Electric Co.
MMC Consumables Inc.
Tully Imaging Supplies
Inkjetwarehouse.com
Wellink Trading Co.
Ribbon Tree (Macao) Trading Co.
Ribbon Tree (USA) Inc.
Apex Distributing Inc.
Artech GMBH
Ink Tec Co. Ltd.
Ink Tec America Corporation
Dataproducts USA LLC
Gerald Chamales Corp.
Master Ink Co.
AcuJet U.S.A.
I would guess they are going after the manufacturers and importers of the cartridges themselves, not companies buying the cartriges in the US and filling them. Too many of those.
Big companies like to license patent technology, so Epson might be willing to license these companies for a royalty. (which means the cost of those cartridges will go up)
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#5]
10 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#1] 10 Apr 2006
Where there is a will, there's a way. Someone will find a way to connect a bulk system directly to a print head like larger format printers......Too much money to be made for them to give up over something like that. Besides, there is another side to the fight. The side that requires Epson to allow other inks to be used in their equipment as long as the inks don't damage the equipment. I believe it is an antitrust law of some sort, but I'm not a lawyer........
I'm not sure if one would superceed the other or not.....but there are always two sides to any fight like this.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#6]
10 Apr 2006
To: ALL
Contrary to what I said earlier, I doubt Epson would limit their options, to dealing only with Sawgrass Technologies.
As Dave Jones says, they'll probably offer licensing to aftermarket manufacturers of cartridges.
Not as ominous for TOG, as I originally thought, and keeping in mind what Brian said, wherever there's a roadblock, there's a concerted effort to find work-arounds.
EDITED: 10 Apr 2006 by DGL
From: Chap (TROPICAL) [#7]
11 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#6] 11 Apr 2006
Hi David,
It does seem to be obvious that Epson intend to vigorously enforce their patents. Already in the market supplies of cartridges are starting to dry up I know of 2 of the smaller dealers that have said they will no longer supply Epson cartridges due to the potential of a lawsuit or because their suppliers further up the chain are discontinuing supply, so it does seem to be having a knock on effect, which one would assume will filter through to the remaining sublimation dealers that don't have legitimate access to empty cartridge supplies. From what I can gather all of the new printers coming out from Epson have patents filed on the cartridge design.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#8]
11 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#7] 11 Apr 2006
Paul,
What differentiates a sublimation supplier with "legitimate" access, (to empty carts) from those without such access?
From: Chap (TROPICAL) [#9]
11 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#8] 11 Apr 2006
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#10]
11 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#9] 11 Apr 2006
Paul,
Most, if not all companies, claiming patent infringement, are more than willing, in most cases, to sell to anyone, as long as they receive their licensing fees or royalties.
If Epson is selling (virgin) cartridges, for use with inks, other than their own, why would Sawgrass receive special consideration, over other sublimation suppliers?
EDITED: 11 Apr 2006 by DGL
From: Chap (TROPICAL) [#11]
11 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#10] 12 Apr 2006
If that were the case David I think the choice would be clear for Epson who the market leader was in this sector of the market and I would imgine the fees involved would put most companies out of the frame but like I said 'if that were the case'
Your theory that Epson would license their patents to others I feel is clutching at straws a little. Take HP, as far as I am aware they defend their patents with a passion on the cartridges (which have the print heads on them) and I don't know of anywhere where you can buy a replica HP cartridge other than the complete rip offs from China (please correct me if I am wrong on this) and I dont see any reason why Epson would not follow the same business model. Also make note Epson don't sell sublimation inks so this does not affect their sales of regualr inks.
From: UncleSteve [#12]
12 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#11] 12 Apr 2006
Another option could be for Epson to partner with SG and start co-branding and selling the SG inks in Epson cartridges so they both "win"....
From: Chap (TROPICAL) [#13]
12 Apr 2006
To: UncleSteve [#12] 12 Apr 2006
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#14]
12 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#11] 12 Apr 2006
....Unless Epson decides to sell sublimation inks, they have absolutely no drive to license "alternative carts" which will essentially be used for "alternative inks" that will cut into their percieved margins. Think about how many printers Epson has had to fix because of certain sublimation ink problems.......Why would they expose themselves to these types of costs, when they can just control their own ink market by locking everyone else out.
I think that someone will have to do the R&D for a fitting that will attach to the print head or printer much like the earlier simple bulk systems....Or some sort of modification to a standard Epson cart, that once flushed would be able to be refilled or modified to accept a bulk type hose to transfer ink from a bulk bottle to the cart which would act like a feed mechanism. Much easier said than done with all the stuff Epson has done to keep people from re-filling their carts.
If they have success with this approach, you can bet that ulitmately, even their large format printers will end up with a patented cartridge to protect their ink sales.
Perhaps a custom made printer made just for sublimation will be a more lucrative option in the near future. :)
Wouldn't it be ironic if the "sublimation Giant" would lose it's ink jet business via the same type of market control tactics that it used ?
You need not answer that last question ;)
From: Chap (TROPICAL) [#15]
12 Apr 2006
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#14] 12 Apr 2006
There is another way of looking at that Brian relative to DIY what is it they say 'Two Coats Of Paint Are Better Than One'
:-)
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#16]
12 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#15] 12 Apr 2006
Yeah, they are pretty tight with Epson. Them getting an exclusive with the 4 color high speed option on the Epson 4000 was a shock to me...I had no idea they had that kind of pull with Espon.
Your probably right, it will more likely be double coverage for them, than a threat to the status quo.
I guess those old Epson 3000's I have laying around will be worth something someday afterall ;)
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#17]
12 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#11] 12 Apr 2006
Paul,
In past discussions, regarding building sublimation-specific printers, according to your research, Epson sells upwards of 250,000 small format printers per month and the current ink jet sublimation industry doesn't amount to a blip on their radar.
With that in mind, in essence, you're saying Sawgrass and Epson have already bonded.
If that weren't the case, even the mighty Sawgrass Technologies/Tropical Graphics contingent wouldn't amount to a considerable (overall) market segment either.
EDITED: 12 Apr 2006 by DGL
From: Chap (TROPICAL) [#18]
12 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#17] 12 Apr 2006
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#19]
12 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#18] 12 Apr 2006
Paul,
You're in a position to have a feel for the trends in the sublimation industry. Do you see a day when people will be able to buy ink jet sublimation cartridges from CompUSA, etc. ,etc?
If there's an upside to the Epson patent issue, it may be that they can get rid of the "chipped" cartridges, which, unless they serve a crucial function, seem to have been developed as a roadblock, to discourage people from filling their own cartridges.
EDITED: 12 Apr 2006 by DGL
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#20]
12 Apr 2006
To: ALL
Could this be the deal between Epson and Sawgrass? Uncle Steve alluded to that scenario, earlier in this thread.
It makes more sense than either company limiting their options and that would guarantee a much bigger share of the sublimation ink cartridge business, than simply relying on sales through sublimation suppliers.
While we're on the topic of Epson "chipped" ink jet cartridges, I thought you may find this interesting:
http://www.epsonsettlement.com/Notice.htm
EDITED: 12 Apr 2006 by DGL
Show messages: 1-20 21-40 41-60 61-75