Full Version: The "Cart" before The Horse?
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
From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#21]
12 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#20] 13 Apr 2006
From: UncleSteve [#22]
12 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#20] 13 Apr 2006
$45 x 2 = $90 = C88!!!! B-)
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#23]
13 Apr 2006
To: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#21] 13 Apr 2006
I couldn't imagine Sawgrass/Tropical Graphics cutting their sublimation supply distributors off at the knees, by making ink cartridges available to the general public, but you know what they say...money talks...and it speaks very loudly.
Many of the process variables have been conquered (more or less) with much more stable ink, with a longer shelf life and ICC profiles, making color correction much more reliable.
The other variables of heat, dwell time and pressure aren't major hurdles.
Small format printers are disposable. The money, for Epson, has always been in the ink. Same goes for sublimation ink suppliers. Selling ink cartridges, or small increments of ink, are the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
As to CompUSA or others selling heat presses, if there comes a demand, I have no doubt they'd fill it.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#24]
13 Apr 2006
To: UncleSteve [#22] 13 Apr 2006
I was amazed at the long list of printers, that qualified for the class action.
I know of one person who has five!
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.
Show messages: 1-18 19-38 39-58 59-75