Anyone done a Kickstarter campaign?

Not paranoid:
http://www.prsnlz.me/industry-news/russ … -20-mins./
http://www.3dprinter.net/chinese-firm-c … inting-pen
Better link: http://www.prsnlz.me/industry-news/when … -3doodler/

In this case, these knock offs were out well in advance of the real deal.

BTW: My handle has nothing to do with the 3Doodler product.  That came out shortly after I created my handle here.

I have.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/833 … t-extruder

I would love to answer any questions you (or others) have. As for companies copying the Filastruder...

I hope they do.

I'm not in it for the money. When I first set out to build the Filastruder, my goal was to get at-home extrusion into the hands of as many people as possible, to allow all sorts of innovation. This has already happened - some users are making electrically conductive filament, nylon/ABS copolymer, plastics with a melting point just above room temperature, etc. Chemical engineering departments are buying them for their labs. It is providing a new tool in the world of polymer extrusion. That's the point.

When I set out on this venture, Lyman's design had a BOM of $250 at qty 400. That became my price target - except I wanted to provide that in qty 1. I was able to do it, at $200/kit in fact (in the kickstarted days).

Back to your question - I am reminded of a quote from one of my favorite scientists:

“I don't care that they stole my idea... I care that they don't have any of their own”
― Nikola Tesla

Often times when these products are reverse engineered and knockoffs made, issues are fixed that the original designer neglected - I am reminded of the Makerbot clones which fixed numerous issues in the design, and did it at half the cost. It would bother me if a company cloned the Filastruder but made no improvements to the design, because that would mean no innovation took place, when there was a chance for innovation! What a tragic opportunity lost. If they made a clone that was faster/easier to assemble/better looking, I'd love that.

I'm also pretty anti-patent. Patents discourage innovation and reward having attorneys on retainer instead of a larger R&D department. If another company clones the Filastruder, I am driven to produce a better product to compete. If I have a patent on at-home filament extrusion, I'm unlikely to try to improve the design of the Filastruder, and there's no opportunity for someone else to come out with something better. Ultimately, innovation provides a net benefit to society, while patents provide a net benefit to stockholders. There are exceptions to this, like industries where R&D costs are very high relative to costs of reverse-engineering/copying (pharmaceuticals come to mind here).

Finally, you can't reverse engineer a name. Makerbot was acquired by Stratasys for $403 million. Do you think the bulk of that was because Makerbot had a unique design or a boatload of IP? Nope. All in the name. There are dozens of printers with better designs for cheaper, but Makerbot is the household name, so it continues to get cash shoveled into its bank vault. Look at their 3D scanner - $100 of parts for $1500. That is the power of being first to market and having name recognition.

Yeah, I agree with your patent sentiments, fellas. I have no intention of trying to patent my designs. Years ago I did patent some encryption software I wrote, it was a real hassle and expensive. My intent is to be first to market, quickly establish a prominent position, acquire as much market share as the market wants to give me, then assume the clones and competitors will be along shortly. What I DON'T want is to put up a KS campaign and then see its clone on Aliexpress or ebay before I even get my first run shipped.

But, as you say, perhaps that is to be expected. I am pro-innovation but I'm also pro-making-a-little-money for a while before moving on to the next idea.