I don't know if this is possible, but has anyone attempted to use a $200 bulk delivery system for a desktop printer and retrofit to accept a lower cost ink such as US Sublimation bags for large format printers? It seems like the ink could be transfered via syringe. Again, this is just a thought, and maybe slightly unethical, but then isn't the Sawgrass monopoly as well?
Last edited by eastside; July 1st, 2008 at 02:21 PM.
This has been discussed a couple of times already. Yes, you can take ink or any other liquid and push it into a sealed bag or bottle using a syringe. And more importantly, YES it is a violation of law if US Sublimation sells you ink to do this if you don't have a large format printer. US Sublimation is suppose to only sell dye sub ink to large format printers or they are in violation of the patent.
If you have a valid patent, then it is not a monoply as the patent owners creates licensees (i.e. U.S. Sublimation, BASF,...). Patents are designed to encourage people / companies to invest money (in this case, large sums of money) and time to create something new and ultimately, to be rewarded for that with some rights. Otherwise, why would any company put the money and time into new things. Sure, people can argue whether one company created the process or if it was another company... but Sawgrass has gone to court several times against some pretty large companies and the patent is still standing. So some credit needs to be given to it.
I recently had an interesting conversation with a very large dye sub distributor about this. The distributor said that they don't necessarily want a free-for-all ink market since the consistency of dye sub ink can vary and tech support can be pretty difficult / expensive. The example that came to mind is you buy your ink from one company and the substrates from another. If it does not come out correctly, who is going to provide you support? The same item (i.e. mug) from different distributors can have different time / temperature settings because of the different coating used. If you add in another variable (i.e. new inks that act differently than ArTainium or SubliJet IQ), then the tech support gets harder. More importantly, the decorator then gets put into the same situation that I personally hate with computers where the hardware company blames the software and the software companies blame the hardware. So when the patents do end, I think you are going to hear more people complaining about issues printing than ever before.
For my printer (Epson 4800), the cost of ink (below $0.60) is a lot less than the cost of a blank shirt (above $5.00). So I would rather see the price of the substrates drop well before the price of sublimation ink in my opinion. That would put more profits in all our pockets.
Sawgrass has a patent and their intellectuall rights should be respected. Without gettig in to the merits of the specific patent, technically without them you wouldn't be able to do dye sublimation in an inkjet printer today. As far as monopoly goes (it is perfectly legal if you own a patent) they decided to divide the market in 2 segments wide format and desktop keeping the desktop market for themselfs and opening the wide format market through licenses. It takes a lot of time, money and know how to provide technical support to little guys like us... just look at how many posts regarding substrates or software issues come up on this forum or how many time the same questions about sublimating on cotton are asked over and over.
Now this is not to say that Sawgrass isn't making a profit, but so is Epson, Lexmark, HP... and the people on this forum! It's the fabric of America!
The wide format suppliers are not geared to supply desktop users with the kind of support they need and can afford the lower sale price because they sell the ink in very large quantities, the average 64" printer will go through 20 liters (20000ml) of ink in less than a month! At $220 a liter that is over $4K of ink.
In any case if you really want to get out of using Sawgrass products all you need to do is get yourself a 44" epson printer (9000/9600/9800) and voila' now you can get ink from US Sublimation as well as BASF and others. (By the way, US Sublimation makes you list the printer model you are using and sign a form with the licensing agreement on it before I could buy their ink). For some the difference in ink cost will justify the higher cost of a 44"printer ... see my post with the ROI calculation here Texas Original Graphics --> Sawgrass
I can see some thoughtless wording on my part has spurred some deserved finger wags. It had more to do with frustration than clarity of thought when I posted this. I am a hobbyist and a lack of market competition (ie. pricing competition) and variety of choice makes it difficult for me to submit to a single manufacturer. It must be the rebel in me. Anyway, I agree that patents are ethical and I'm sure Sawgrass has paid it's dues defending them. As much as the argument can be made for quality control and tech support via a single manufacturer, a similar argument can be made against the same. A single company controls the market and therefore has little liability or market driven motivation to provide the best product at a reasonable price. In the case of sublimation inks, there is no other choice. It may not be a monopoly, but to many it feels like it is. Choice is the cornerstone of capitalism. Hobbyists and small shops have in fact been priced out of the medium because of a lack of it.
Mixing ink systems... why not? 
