# Artainium Inks Congeal



## Elso (Oct 17, 2011)

Hello

I have been doing dye sub printing (small home base business) since 1995 and just ran into an issue I have never seen or heard about before.

What will cause Artainium inks to congeal? 

Was printing no problem one day, then next had to do a typical head cleaning (Cyan completely shut down) BTW, I am using CIS on an Epson 1400. After several cleanings with no results, I moved into the more manual method with a paper towel folded with cleaning solution under the print head. No results...

Pulled my CIS and popped in a set of OEM just to get the heads flowing again, success.

Reinstalled my CIS and went to bleed the system, When I drew the air/ink from the Cyan, the ink had congealed into a goo. 

Now I know the problem, I am sure I can clean it out, but really need to know what can cause this so I don't run into this problem again?

Thanks for any assistance.
Nelson


----------



## sid (Oct 6, 2007)

Had the same issue with Artanium Black. Had to replace head and dampers, not happy.


----------



## lben (Jun 3, 2008)

I just got some high temp ink from cobra ink that I've been told won't have the same issue as sawgrass inks. So far so good, but it's only been a few days. I lost 2 c88+ printers for the same reason, but was unable to clean out the heads.


----------



## Elso (Oct 17, 2011)

Hi Loretta 

Is this Cobra High Temp ink the same as dye sub?

I personally do not like Sawgrass as a company. They in the past had done me very wrong, to the point that I could have taken them to court had I been more knowledgeable way back when. 

I moved to Artainium back before Sawgrass bullied this English company into giving up their market to Sawgrass. 

I am not saying Sawgrass doesn't produce a quality ink, I just despise their lack of business ethics.

Thanks
Nelson


----------



## lben (Jun 3, 2008)

The cobra high temp ink is sub ink they just aren't allowed to call it that. I just made my first water bottle using this ink and the colors are a lot more vibrant than the SG ink I had been using. Granted I was very leery of trying it before, but I'm glad I did. I got 4 high capacity refillable carts for less than I would pay for just one cart of the SG ink, and you can buy it in 2, 3, 4, 8 ounce & up bottles to refill them with.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

lben said:


> The cobra high temp ink is sub ink *they just aren't allowed to call it that*. I just made my first water bottle using this ink and the colors are a lot more vibrant than the SG ink I had been using. Granted I was very leery of trying it before, but I'm glad I did. I got 4 high capacity refillable carts for less than I would pay for just one cart of the SG ink, and you can buy it in 2, 3, 4, 8 ounce & up bottles to refill them with.


I believe they _choose_ not to call it that, that is very different from _not being allowed_.

Who doesn't allow it and why?


----------



## Elso (Oct 17, 2011)

mgparrish said:


> I believe they _choose_ not to call it that, that is very different from _not being allowed_.
> 
> Who doesn't allow it and why?


Been in contact with Cobra discussing their inks. Email response received said 
QUOTE
"As you mentioned we are unable to use the phrase "sublimation inks" so our inks are called high temp inks."
ENDQUOTE
Not that is really matters as to why they don't use "sublimation inks" at a term.


----------



## Riderz Ready (Sep 18, 2008)

mgparrish said:


> I believe they _choose_ not to call it that, that is very different from _not being allowed_.
> 
> Who doesn't allow it and why?


What business sense does it make not to call dye sub ink dye sub ink? How would anyone outside this forum know it even exist? Google dye sub ink and there is nothing you can find on Cobra. 

Richard is flying under the radar or gets an "F" for marketing and sales. I would bet it is the first.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Riderz Ready said:


> What business sense does it make not to call dye sub ink dye sub ink? How would anyone outside this forum know it even exist? Google dye sub ink and there is nothing you can find on Cobra.
> 
> Richard is flying under the radar or gets an "F" for marketing and sales. I would bet it is the first.


Yes, as I mentioned in another thread I believe they were trying to stay under the radar when they first brought the product to market. Very understandable. But it is not good marketing.


----------



## Elso (Oct 17, 2011)

Riderz Ready said:


> What business sense does it make not to call dye sub ink dye sub ink? How would anyone outside this forum know it even exist? Google dye sub ink and there is nothing you can find on Cobra.


You're right, it doesn't make any business sense. Although this is only an assumption on my part but following Sawgrass history with Artainium before Sawgrass owned the Artainium name and inks, Sawgrass will use whatever means in their attempt to dominate the dye sublimation market. Probably the words "Sublimation Ink" are under Sawgrass's control. Cobra found an legal avenue to market a competing product to Sawgrass without treading in copyright grounds.

Just my opinion...

Nelson


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Elso said:


> Been in contact with Cobra discussing their inks. Email response received said
> QUOTE
> "As you mentioned we are unable to use the phrase "sublimation inks" so our inks are called high temp inks."
> ENDQUOTE
> ...


Mark-ups above in your text.


----------



## Elso (Oct 17, 2011)

Kind of moving off track to the actual purpose of this thread. 

Back to the actual question at hand; 
Does anybody know what could cause the Artainium inks to congeal?

I just experienced this and now see a couple others have also, so if anyone has any insight to congealing Artainium inks, I think several may benefit.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Elso said:


> You're right, it doesn't make any business sense. Although this is only an assumption on my part but following Sawgrass history with Artainium before Sawgrass owned the Artainium name and inks, Sawgrass will use whatever means in their attempt to dominate the dye sublimation market. *Probably the words "Sublimation Ink" are under Sawgrass's control. Cobra found an legal avenue to market a competing product to Sawgrass without treading in copyright grounds.*
> 
> Just my opinion...
> 
> Nelson


1. The term "Sublimation ink" is not under any copyright or trademark. You can look it up in the USPTO database, you won't find it on those exact terms.

2. "Artanium UV" and "SubliJet IQ" and "iPhone" are trademarks.

3. A copyright and a trademark and not the same thing. even if the term "sublimation ink" was capable of being reserved as Intellectual property by an individual or a company, it would be a _trademark_. 

4. The _literature_ Sawgrass distributes for their products are _copyrighted_. That copyrighted literature _may_ include their trademark(s), but it doesn't have to.

5. The physical _product_ Sawgrass makes has associated _patents_ with a defined claim scope. You cannot copy that physical product unless you can create an _equivalency_ without having to follow the "art" described in the claim scope.


Copyright vs. Trademark vs. Patent


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Elso said:


> Kind of moving off track to the actual purpose of this thread.
> 
> Back to the actual question at hand;
> Does anybody know what could cause the Artainium inks to congeal?
> ...


Not printing frequently causes that. You must print fairly frequently to avoid that.

With inkjet you use it or lose it.


----------



## Elso (Oct 17, 2011)

mgparrish said:


> 1. The term "Sublimation ink" is not under any copyright or trademark. You can look it up in the USPTO database, you won't find it on those exact terms.
> 
> 2. "Artanium UV" and "SubliJet IQ" and "iPhone" are trademarks.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the clarification and apologize for my misuse of terms. In the layman's mind all 3 still signify some sort of ownership. I do remember back, over 10 years now, to the huge court battle between Sawgrass and Artainium (before Artainium was owned by Sawgrass) I was not the least bit impressed with Sawgrass and their procedures and I lost any and all respect for the company (what little respect I had left since my own issues with Sawgrass) 

So as to why a competitor to Sawgrass would shy away from the term "sublimation ink", the answer may be found by researching the Sawgrass vs. Artainium proceedings back in the later '90s.


----------



## Riderz Ready (Sep 18, 2008)

Elso said:


> Thanks for the clarification and apologize for my misuse of terms. In the layman's mind all 3 still signify some sort of ownership. I do remember back, over 10 years now, to the huge court battle between Sawgrass and Artainium (before Artainium was owned by Sawgrass) I was not the least bit impressed with Sawgrass and their procedures and I lost any and all respect for the company (what little respect I had left since my own issues with Sawgrass)
> 
> So as to why a competitor to Sawgrass would shy away from the term "sublimation ink", the answer may be found by researching the Sawgrass vs. Artainium proceedings back in the later '90s.


There is a reason that NO ONE competes in the desktop market using the term sublimation ink. Not sure the legalize of it all but just common sense would tell you that distributors of Mimaki, J-Teck, etc that can buy ink well under $100 a liter or even end users who can purchase liters for $125 or less could very easily rebottle the ink mark it up 10 times and resell it. The simple fact that not one person is doing this tells me there certainly is legal issues that surround selling dye sublimation ink to the desktop market.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Riderz Ready said:


> There is a reason that NO ONE competes in the desktop market using the term sublimation ink. Not sure the legalize of it all but just common sense would tell you that distributors of Mimaki, J-Teck, etc that can buy ink well under $100 a liter or even end users who can purchase liters for $125 or less could very easily rebottle the ink mark it up 10 times and resell it. The simple fact that not one person is doing this tells me there certainly is legal issues that surround selling dye sublimation ink to the desktop market.


Yes there are legal issues, but in those cases those are_ different_ legal issues, and beyond possible patent infringment.

Threat of a _different_ kind of lawsuit still exists since the >42 end user is buying the ink under a _license agreement_ which is passed to the end user from the reseller, which has a _license agreement_ with SG . It's called breaking a contract. That agreement is in a chain, from SG to the ink vendor to end user.

If you buy those inks from a >42 supplier _*you*_ are under a license agreement. Very similar to a "shrinkwrap" agreement with a software vendor.

The > 42 inch vendor is required to license to their users under strict terms.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Riderz Ready said:


> There is a reason that NO ONE competes in the desktop market using the term sublimation ink. Not sure the legalize of it all but just common sense would tell you that distributors of Mimaki, J-Teck, etc that can buy ink well under $100 a liter or even end users who can purchase liters for $125 or less could very easily rebottle the ink mark it up 10 times and resell it. The simple fact that not one person is doing this tells me there certainly is legal issues that surround selling dye sublimation ink to the desktop market.


Referencing my other post, read the fine print in the link below. >42 inch users are under a license, which is a *legal contract*. This is just one example. SG wouldn't allow a hole for a user to buy >42 inks and resell at 10x markup. All >42 inch sub ink venders require end user license agreements, US or or in Europe. Don't confuse this directly with issues related to patents.

http://www.ussublimation.com/Files/USSUB%20LFP%20Inks%20Data%20Sheet.pdf


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Elso said:


> Thanks for the clarification and apologize for my misuse of terms. In the layman's mind all 3 still signify some sort of ownership. I do remember back, over 10 years now, to the huge court battle between Sawgrass and Artainium (before Artainium was owned by Sawgrass) I was not the least bit impressed with Sawgrass and their procedures and I lost any and all respect for the company (what little respect I had left since my own issues with Sawgrass)
> 
> *So as to why a competitor to Sawgrass would shy away from the term "sublimation ink", the answer may be found by researching the Sawgrass vs. Artainium proceedings back in the later '90s. *


Agree that _was_ a reason, however, if one is current on events then Sawgrass vs. Artainium is no longer something to be concerned with.

That concern is old and dated, one should look to the most recent court rulings for the current state of affairs.

*Knowledge is power.* See my post here.

http://www.t-shirtforums.com/dye-sublimation/t148435.html#post884269


----------



## sid (Oct 6, 2007)

This conversation has become totally off track. Please, can we get back to the issue of bad ink. Start another thread on the marketing and legality issues


----------

