You are not logged in. Please login or register.
SoliForum - 3D Printing Community → The Latest in 3D Printing → Copyright....
Am I the only one who thinks these claims are perhaps a little ridiculous?
http://makezine.com/2013/11/27/stratasy … -industry/
Am I the only one who thinks these claims are perhaps a little ridiculous?
Hi there, I also opened a thread in another section: http://www.soliforum.com/topic/4697/str … -printing/
I agree that the claims are a little ridiculous, but this is patent law for you... If Apple could patent the rectangle, anything is possible. This can potentially be a bad blow for the industry.
Serin wrote:Am I the only one who thinks these claims are perhaps a little ridiculous?
Hi there, I also opened a thread in another section: http://www.soliforum.com/topic/4697/str … -printing/
I agree that the claims are a little ridiculous, but this is patent law for you... If Apple could patent the rectangle, anything is possible. This can potentially be a bad blow for the industry.
Not as devastating as everyone thinks though. US based companies will fold like cards, but this will jst make the overseas sales boom. They never follow patent law.
I am very new to the 3-d printing world but many of the complaints of infringement that are being made against afinia are common on a lot of printers. Such as the heated build platform, is this not a common and useful innovation to prevent warping that many companies are utilizing in their designs?
The heated platform patent is only controlling the temperature of the air close to the printed object. It is the one that has kept hobby printers from having a heated enclosure. You could try and say it applies to the platform, but you aren't really controlling air temperature with that. If you want, you can interpret that broadly enough to say that controlling the temp of the room you print in infringes.
The one they say is infringed by defining the density of infill appears to be about the spaces between the rounded edges of threads which are touching, as in solid fill. That's not the same as controlling the density of a print by changing the pattern of the fill.
All three of these claims can be fought and possibly invalidated. The question is whether Afinia will try to defeat them, or settle. I'm not sure they would bother, because they don't even make the printers. They are rebadged UP printers, which Afinia is becoming too successful at distributing.
Just as a point which seems to be semantics - but is important - particularly since "Copyright" was put in the Thread Subject... The claims have nothing to do with Copyright. The claims are around intellectual property, or Patents.
Copyright is protection extended to Authors of 'Original Works'. Copyright protects the "Form of Expression" - i.e, the shape, style, appearance, presentation etc. You "pirate" in modern language a copyrighted 'thing'. Patents are the granting of a property right to the inventor based on the specific form of that. To make a copy, you 'counterfeit' it...
Refer to the USPTO's handy 'what every small to medium business should know about IP': http://www.uspto.gov/about/offices/ous/121205.pdf
Anyway... back to the point at hand - one can also no doubt argue that all of it is fooey - Stratsys has held these patents for years and has not previously tried to enforce them, or 'protect them from infringement' to use the legal terms... Not sure about the US at the specific moment in time, but certainly in the EU and AUS, if you dont actively 'protect your IP from infringement' you defacto loose rights to them - injunctions become unenforceable etc. This is why you often see vigorous and seeming frivolous patent protection moves - its a requirement of your patent to protect it basically. You can't "pick and choose" to the degree that Stratsys would seemingly have done so.
Indeed, waiting to acquire a larger market presence by buying a previous potential IP infringer despite having been active in the industry sector yourself for years, to then spring a many years later protection suit against your largest retail competitor - would not get very far in most IP courts around the world I would imagine simply due to their active non-enforcement of their patents over the proceeding period...
Not as devastating as everyone thinks though. US based companies will fold like cards, but this will jst make the overseas sales boom. They never follow patent law.
Care to elaborate on who overseas never follows patent law ? EU is very proactive about it, as is the UK, AUS, NZ and Japan... and there is the WIPO thing that over 180 countries have signed on to.... and don't forget - Patents and Trademarks are *territorial* - they aren't Global by their design and nature.
China does not enforce any patent laws except their own
Ahhh, thanks for the clarification there, Adrian.
I'm admitedly not the biggest supporter of closed source technologies... And as a result of that I can't help but cringe when the bigger co's start flinging mud at eachother with no regard for the potential of the technology at hand.
In 3D printing we have a possibly vital step towards a post-scarcity society.
I'm sure you've all seen the good the tech has done for even some small third world societies in the form of printed medical equipment and tools.
In my rather idealistic opinion, keeping the technology open source is the only way we ourselves will be able to keep this idea going.
Hell... It might even set a precedent for the science of molecular assembly, AKA the Star Trek replicator.
I would hope that the reprap/open source people can go on relatively undisturbed by the likes of Stratsys..
Well in that respect, IP laws are based around commerce. .. they don't prevent an individual reproducing an item that is patented. . It just prevents you doing so with commercial gain for the most part (giving it away free but getting ad revenue from your host would count as 'gain' for example, not just selling the item itself).
It will defacto effect the community if its upheld as it would prevent people in the effected territories from being able to buy a printer that includes a heated bed - but they themselves can still choose to make one for personal use at home....
But I suspect it will be a storm/teacup scenario myself...
Considering China has been ramping up production of 3D printers, kits, and parts along with all of the outsourcing of molded and machined parts from the start-up companies, China is the one I meant. I have been dealing with Chinese manufacturing for over 10 years, the term 'overseas' has always been used as a way to mitigate attention normally associated with blandly saying 'China'. Sorry for the confusion.
As for how serious this is, this is the situation: Stratasys owns over 300 patents relating to 3D printing. The 3 they are going after Afinia are just the beginning. This is shortly after they acquired Maker. They have owned the high-end for years, and now they plan to own the low-end retail as well. They have the right to according to the patents. This means they have legal right to shut down anything that extrudes plastic to form a 3 dimensional object, uses software to vary the infill, and uses any method to control the temperature of the object during printing. While these patents seem too broad, someone will have to spend millions of dollars in order to debate the validity of a claim of infringement. Wait and see. This could go any different number of ways. Including the worst case, which is that only assembled units will be sold by Maker or China.
Well in that respect, IP laws are based around commerce. .. they don't prevent an individual reproducing an item that is patented. . It just prevents you doing so with commercial gain for the most part (giving it away free but getting ad revenue from your host would count as 'gain' for example, not just selling the item itself).
It will defacto effect the community if its upheld as it would prevent people in the effected territories from being able to buy a printer that includes a heated bed - but they themselves can still choose to make one for personal use at home...
Unfortunately this is not true, at least in the US. In principle also personal manufacturing and use is prohibited, even though it is almost never prosecuted because it would be impractical. This doesn't mean that stratasys will sue each reprap owner separately, but they might take action towards communities if they wish, or sue the developer of Slic3r for example.
The heated platform patent is only controlling the temperature of the air close to the printed object. It is the one that has kept hobby printers from having a heated enclosure. You could try and say it applies to the platform, but you aren't really controlling air temperature with that. If you want, you can interpret that broadly enough to say that controlling the temp of the room you print in infringes.
Actually the claims are quite broad and they say something like "controlling the temperature in the vicinity of the extrusion to be above the solidification point of the material" which perfectly fits the heated bed
The one they say is infringed by defining the density of infill appears to be about the spaces between the rounded edges of threads which are touching, as in solid fill. That's not the same as controlling the density of a print by changing the pattern of the fill.
Again, the claims protect "depositing the material from a nozzle in horizontal layers in order to form a substantially rectangular or hexagonal pattern" which is exactly what infill does.
The point is that there are many ways to interpret a patent, and usually the side with the better lawyers prevails... It will not be pretty for Afinia, and depending on the outcome, we'll see who's next.
So, the question becomes:
What can those who feel strongly about open source technologies do to make sure these patent claims do not effect the idealistic dream established within the hobbyist printer community?
So, the question becomes:
What can those who feel strongly about open source technologies do to make sure these patent claims do not effect the idealistic dream established within the hobbyist printer community?
Well, not much actually. The two big patents (heated bed and infill) should expire in 2-3 years, so I think that the worst that can happen is a setback of the companies that are now producing FFF printers (like Solidoodle). But on the other hand, the patent on laser sintering is expiring in 3 months, so be ready for a new exciting era!
Patents cannot stop people from building for personal use. It cannot stop the open-source community from displaying or researching on their own either, especially since patents are public to begin with.
But anybody selling pre-assembled units is certainly subject to infringement. This means Stratasys has full legal right to demand licencing fees, sue for damages, or even a full cease and desist. This goes for full units or even any sub component that falls within one of their 300 patents. For instance, a heated pad alone cannot be considered infringement, but a Z bed with a pad installed would be. Even hotends are not immune. While they have not yet decided to pull the patents on these, they do exist. And even though the patents are too broad in most respects, they have the legal right to make a claim of infringement as long as the claim is written to begin with. It will then be up to the defendant and the lawyers to dispute that claim. This process costs more money than most small companies make in a year. It would be prudent for most of them to just fold. And all this costs Stratasys in the beginning is filing fees and a well written letter. Once precedence has been set by the lawsuit with Afinia, it will most likely explode onto all of the other companies that are cutting into Makers profits (hence the importance of the buyout).
From a strategic point, the purchase of Maker and the timing of this lawsuit fall neatly into place. Also consider that before the merger, Maker was also infringing on these patents, and most likely played a significant part of negotiations for the buyout.
Now, my statement from earlier is summed up: In the US (and all other countries that follow global commerce) companies that sell fully assembled units will fold up. China will ramp up its production of clones. They already provide a good chunk of the market for the parts and pieces.
Patents cannot stop people from building for personal use. It cannot stop the open-source community from displaying or researching on their own either, especially since patents are public to begin with.
Just to be clear, personal use is an infringement. It might be impractical to prosecute, but it is:
35 U.S.C. 271. Infringement of patent
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without
authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within
the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention
during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
Now, my statement from earlier is summed up: In the US (and all other countries that follow global commerce) companies that sell fully assembled units will fold up. China will ramp up its production of clones. They already provide a good chunk of the market for the parts and pieces.
And how would you import such clones? If companies start folding up, the market will shrink considerably. As long as there were only RepRaps around, hobbyist 3D printing was not so widespread.
The answer is to be courageous in the face of these nuisance law suits. Besides, courts must now evaluate the entire patent, not just the claims. Looked at under this new light, most of the patents mentioned on this forum are surprisingly narrow in scope. The flip side to this discussion is that most of these patents are worthless, not to dismiss their intimidation value.
And how would you import such clones? If companies start folding up, the market will shrink considerably. As long as there were only RepRaps around, hobbyist 3D printing was not so widespread.
How do you buy anything from China? I personally buy direct most of the time. Ships via Post (slow) or DSL (fast). There are hundreds of websites to buy full printers in kit form toady. And more are starting to sell pre-assembled. If Afinia fights and loses, precedent will be set and all Stratasys will have to do is write a bunch of carob copy letters to anyone selling anything with a hotend on it with a cease & desist. It will only cost them paper. And why would they not do that? What reason do they have for allowing the competition to freely take market share when they want it all for the Makerbot and Amazon sales? It is within their legal right to do so. And China will ignore all of these requests as they have always done.
The answer is to be courageous in the face of these nuisance law suits. Besides, courts must now evaluate the entire patent, not just the claims. Looked at under this new light, most of the patents mentioned on this forum are surprisingly narrow in scope. The flip side to this discussion is that most of these patents are worthless, not to dismiss their intimidation value.
Time to go read those patents. Unfortunately, Stratasys did patent the crap out of every aspect of 3D printing via FDM. They are not worthless. Otherwise, they would not have gotten to the first part of procedings. It is now up to Afinia to decide if it wants to spend millions in legal fees to begin the rebuttal, or to begin talks for compensation. Stratasys may be looking for companies to pay a patent licensing fee, or it may be looking for damages do to competing sales, or they may be outright trying to shut down sales period. While you say its time to be courageous, the decision to do so will undoubtedly cost a high price, without any guarantee of winning the lawsuit which could lead to even more financial losses.
BTW, I am no expert. If you want more background on some of this, take a look here: http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?1,271908
It gets more detailed toward the end.
Hazer, thanks, but i did read the patents. That said, I am not going to comment specifically about any of their patents, especially since I'm sure they and others troll this forum regularly. Worthless or not, little stops a company with resources from law suits. Besides, I am not discounting the intimidation factor, nor costs, on the contrary. Let's just agree to disagree on what potentially awaits Afinia, and others.
Look, most people starting companies that trespass this space will continue to do so because they believe in their products. Ultimately it comes down to courage to continue what you love in the face of law suits, setbacks, etc. I'm so excited to see the next printer that comes along with some really ground breaking innovation that catipults past twenty year old inventions.
wow that is just absurd. glas i bought mine when i did!
SoliForum - 3D Printing Community → The Latest in 3D Printing → Copyright....
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
