3D fabbers: don't let the DMCA stifle an innovative future

There is an interesting article out today that's titled '3D fabbers: don't let the DMCA stifle an innovative future' which is worth a quick read.

I wonder how many years until we starting seeing similar articles appearing in the main stream media. Or more importantly, how long will it be until thingiverse and their users start to receive legal threats over IP infringements?

Edit:
Just for the sake of consolidation: More in-depth information on 3D printing and IP law's can also be found in a summarised version and a full white paper on the topic. There is also Adrians comments on the reprap wiki about IP.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2010 07:27PM by Capo.

from what i know it will have to be pretty blatent for them to get a notice over something, it would have to have some sort of trademark on it. i have cought a few talks that use the automotive sector has a good example. and the just of it is that you cant pretend to be some one else. that is my understanding,

---

[mike-mack.blogspot.com]

When the lawyers figure out how to make money off of the lawsuit, then it will happen.

The patents, copyrights, and trademarks that are in my name were created mainly to keep
someone else from copying my ideas, patenting them, and then suing me for infringement.
Believe it or not, there are actually people out there that make their living by doing just that.
I personally hope that karma gets them in the end.

I could care less if an individual copies one of my designs for personal use. If they start
selling the design with my name attached it, then I've got an issue. Maybe I would feel
different if I were a big company.

Ultimately though, people will break the DMCA laws and find ways around them. The lawyers
may have messed up Napster back in the day, but the public responded by creating bit torrent
sites. 3d infringement will probably go the same way. There will be some big lawsuit, someone
will get burned, rules will get put in place, and the public will find a way around them.

dissidence Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> from what i know it will have to be pretty blatent
> for them to get a notice over something, it would
> have to have some sort of trademark on it. i have
> cought a few talks that use the automotive sector
> has a good example. and the just of it is that you
> cant pretend to be some one else. that is my
> understanding,

You can infringe without pretending to be someone else A perfect example would be the "ePad" you can buy at SEG market in Shenzhen. It doesn't pretend to be an iPad - but looks identical and runs Android. That, no doubt, infringes an Apple design patent.


The article, in my opinion, serves to make an issue where there currently is none... Replacing a tube in your dishwasher with a version you downloaded is, in no way, infringement of any IP. If it were, all after market parts would be too... Rhetoric in utility patents typically include language such as "one embodiment..." This makes the actual product more ambiguous...

An issue in the future? Potentially... But your user base is going to need to increase at a traumatic rate to actually be disruptive (to make those that would sue care). Your ideas aren't disruptive if you're the one claiming it to be so (you know, you can't nominate yourself for a nobel prize :p).


As odd as this may sound, the best thing to happen would be for someone to sue now. If it actually makes it to court, we cant test the law now while there are relatively few machines (commercial and open source) in the wild. It will no doubt be rejected, the 3d community wins and now there's precedent before the population at large cares. Don't hate the player, hate the game - and such :p

Richard Stallman points out how the corporate legal tarts are at pains to try and have copyright, patent and trademark law all sheltering under the same IP umbrella when they're distinctly different things, and in fact try to convince the world that "intellectual property" is something material that should be enshrined as corporate property for perpetuity. Rather than being scared that we might infringe some corporation's patent, we should be agitating so that our own innovations can't be scooped up. That's what society needs. Reasonable protection for an innovator that doesn't require lawyers and legislative infrastructure attached like barnacles on the submerged hull of a vessel. While there are "petty patents" or "innovation" patents that are lighter-weight than full-on, you can't get the sort of protection from them that an author or musician can get from declaring copyright the instant the work is done, nor is a device patent even recognised across borders. You have to apply for national patent recognition in each of your market countries. Anyone can sell a rip-off in any country that you haven't claimed patent protection in, and often even claim their own patent on your idea.

Fight back. Be an activist. If you've got an idea, or even a design for a cartoon character, write down an explanation of your reasoning, explanatory sketches and as much supporting material as you can muster. Record it in any media you have access to, put it in an envelope, post it to yourself, and copyright your media. It's not such a big deal, but if a company uses your idea to grab a patent that freezes everybody out, your copyrighted record stands as what's referred to as "prior art". If prior art exists, a patent can't be granted, because it establishes that the applicant isn't the innovator. You won't get it either, and this will only apply in your own country's IP environment, but at least you've "given" it to your country instead of it being sequestered for corporate benefit, the community being the poorer. What that also means is that if a device is patented in another country and introduced to your marketplace, if you've got the prior art, patent protection that applies in it's home market or elsewhere doesn't apply to yours where that patent couldn't be granted, although of course that's a minefield in itself, because those corporate legal tarts want cross-border patent recognition that works to their advantage, but not yours, but you have given yourself some protection. Make a habit of noting down your ideas and copyrighting them. Take back the IP landscape.

Drunken rant follows:

IP laws really get my goat. If I dig a hole, does that give me the right to demand payment if someone else digs an identicle hole?

OK so if I was the first person to ever dig a hole.........So what? My labour was in that specific hole. All the digging and planning that was involved. If someone was watching and decide, 'hell yes, digging a hole is a great idea' then good luck to them. Copying the meme of hole digging progresses mankind. However claiming that no one else can copy what has been done without payment is infantile and greedy to the extreme.

Why should someone that dug a hole slightly deeper and wider than your's have to pay you, just because you were the first to think of it? They have commited more time and effort than you ever did. In short they have done more than you, but you claim superiority and demand compensation for work you have not done! ??

As an inventor I have been first to dig many holes. However I am not savvy with the patent and legal system and far more interested in getting what is needed to where it is needed. I am interested in progress and fairness, not profit. Although I still have to pay the bills!. Mainly due to the corrupt and greedy system which dictates our lives.

When the issue of IP comes to light, I cringe. When someone says they were first I know that usually it is a bold faced lie. they may have been the first to patent, First to copyright, First to shout from the roftops 'look at me!' but rarely are they actually the very first to have ever come up with the idea or followed it through to a reality. So what have they done that is above and beyond those that follow and do the same work, and because of following they have to pay?
Well they had a spark of inspiration. Whoopy doooooo.

When I was 7 my mother took me to the corner shop. she left me outside so I wouldn't constantly harras her for sweets and so I stood there waiting and watching the traffic go by. I watched as a car pulled up, manouveured and tried to get into a parking space behind another parked car. it went back , forth then BANG! it ploughed straight into the stationary car behind it.
Having seen a programme about the invention of radar, I thought to myself ' if that car was fitted with radar, they would know exactle how far away it was and that would never have happened'.
And thus the parking sensor was born out of such a spark of inspiration.

However I never developed it, never brought it to fruition and never made a single penny from my invetion and the inspirational idea.

So what did the man who currently holds the patent for parking sensors do that I didn't. Well he made it. OK he put in some work. But no more than anyone else that copies the idea. Just like him, they still have to dig the hole.

To be fair, I have been guilty of exactly the same. Every inventor reinvents or reproduces something that has come before.

The invention of art & Literature along with the quick reproduction of original work has brought forth the IP laws of greed. It must be said that I am also an artist and know how long it takes to create an original work. But the value is in the original, not the copy. I may take weeks to paint a portrait and then taken 2 second to copy it. And this highlights the problem with IP law. The real value is in the original, the copy is only worth the time and resources that are put into them. A 2 second copy is worth 2 seconds of time and should be sold as such, but greed demands that work not done be rewarded with riches not earned. Can a hole digger sell a picture of the hole for the same ammount? Of course not.

It is Plain and simple. it is wrong.

Im affraid I don't have the solution to the problem, especially in this drunken state.
But all I will say is that I long for the day when mankind work for the achievement, not the reward. Then we will all be rich.

We must have a system where the 7 year old inventor will be rewarded for their idea, the maker will be rewarded for their work and the buyer will be happy to pay a fair price.

So copy away. Claim reward for your work, not the value of the original. Reward the inventor for their inspiration and let the buyer pay what is fair.

A

and thus the beer has spoketh

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2010 09:44PM by ablainey.

murrayd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

...
> media you have access to, put it in an envelope,
> post it to yourself, and copyright your media.
> It's not such a big deal, but if a company uses
> your idea to grab a patent that freezes everybody
> out, your copyrighted record stands as what's
> referred to as "prior art". If prior art exists,
> a patent can't be granted, because it establishes
> that the applicant isn't the innovator.
....

Allow me to interject....

As someone that has dealt with patent attorneys for both US and international patents.... I would like to just get it out there that the so called "poor man's patent" of mailing it to yourself doesn't hold water and is quickly thrown out.

The pure existence of prior art doesn't absolutely prevent a patent from issuing (in many cases, it will - but unless it's out there on a massive scale, it will most likely be overlooked). It's then your responsibility, as the prior art inventor to litigate to take back your rights. If you win (which you probably won't and you'll instead settle for some value and perhaps royalties), you can then go through the process and assume maintenence fees and all that jazz....

Oh yes, once your patent issues, you then owe maintenance fees to keep that patent alive.


Look, I don't like the current state of patents... But, if I have technology that lets me dig deeper holes faster and for less cost and my competitive business is in digging holes - I'm going to patent it. Without a patent, I'm going to make it trade secret. My example hole digging business has a finite number of customers and I compete with other businesses - the customer wants it fast and cheap and safe (because safer=cheaper). If I get an edge with some IP, I'm not risking my livelihood by sharing it with the competition. It's not a capitalistic thing, it's a bread on the table and kids in college thing. You are sadly mistaken if you think all patent holders are fat cats in smoke filled rooms :p

Remember - patents aren't just the right for protection..... It's an exchange: the right to protect for PUBLIC DISCLOSURE. (not yelling, just more emphasis than bold text :p).


There's zero protection on the coca cola recipe - it's trade secret. Similarly, if the option is public disclosure with zero protection or public disclosure with protection... The option is clear for those who make their living on the hard work put into R&D. Not all patent holders are huge corporations (some of us work in garages or garage like rooms and eat ramen to get stuff out to the masses).

My final point is - patenting something doesn't exclude it from being open source. In order to be patentable, someone must be able to recreate the utility based on the patent documents. Open source projects generally have more documentation (but is not a requirement).


Trade secrets are not your friend - MUCH less so than patents are.

trebuchet, I'm not saying that the "poor man's patent" is a patent. That's why I didn't use the expression. What I'm saying is that prior art is grounds for a patent not being awarded. If one is awarded, and the awardee litigates against you for using "their" IP, the "poor man's patent" is protection from that situation, because when prior art attaches, the patent can not be awarded, or must be disallowed. Prior art establishes that searches have not been comprehensive, because searches are usually exclusively within patent databases, not the wider world, but a patent can't be granted on a device or idea that somebody else has already used or put to market. It doesn't profit you monetarily, that's not what I'm telling you, but it does exclude anyone else controlling an innovation and profiting by it by shutting you out.

And BTW, while patents may not stop something from being open source, something open source is not able to be subsequently patented.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2010 01:59AM by murrayd.

murrayd,

I'm not saying a Poor man's patent is a patent either (it's just the colloquial term)... Only a patent is a patent and only a provisional gives you the ability to say "patent pending." Provisional's are cheap (less than $100 and you can file yourself, but they only last 12 months.

From a legal stand point, mailing documentation to yourself does not satisfy any tests for prior art. Courts have, and will continue to, reject such claims. Certified letters prove one thing - you sent a letter. Certified letters do not prove what was sent (if anything) or when the documents in the envelope were created. Letter tampering is illegal and it happens and is damn near impossible to remove doubt weather or not a letter has been tampered with.

If you've already made money off of an idea (be it selling IP, hardware, whatever)... Firstly, congratulations! It's hard work and I'm happy to hear it's appreciated by customers whom also think its a good idea... Additionally, that's absolutely evidence of prior art! However, that doesn't come from letters in envelopes - it comes in the form of customers and tax records Customers can vouch and tax records are dated. That's no excuse for poor documentation though. You are writing your stuff down in bound notebooks in pen with dates, right? Spiral bound doesn't count (at least makes it much more difficult to protect) :p

That said, prior art research goes far beyond the patent databases This is why it takes more than 2 years to issue if all your claims go through (at least, this was the case 2.5 years ago - I'll let you know in a few years what the time frame of today is). Of course, it can't check your offline note books....

If you don't believe me - I can't help you... I can recommend some patent attorney's who can explain with more authority. They're not leeches :p It's a sort of (as said earlier) - don't hate the player, hate the game scenario.

I'm not obliged to believe you or otherwise, despite your expansive patronising tone. I've had my own experience. You get along to the patent office and establish that your prior art means that a patent shouldn't have been awarded in the first instance. If you're right, as I have been, the patent is revoked. If you're half-smart, you don't fight a suit for patent infringement, you establish that a patent shouldn't exist.
If you pick up a recently-published book which has a statement on who owns the copyright, you'll often see an associated statement that such-and-such asserts the moral right to be recognised as the author, despite the copyright being a corporate property. Prior art evidence serves the same assertion in patent law, and disallows grant of patent to subsequent applicants. Patents are required to embody novelty and innovation, and if you don't choose to profit from your idea, it doesn't mean that the next-in-line with dollar signs in his eyes is the innovator. Everything you've stated is predicated on you asserting the right to monopolise an idea and profit by it, but if that's not what you want to do, you can protect yourself. Public licenses and copyleft are just two of the legal devices used in the software field.
Letter tampering? Really? They are out to get you, aren't they?

If my tone comes across as patronization - my apologies (text doesn't convey intonation, a problem :p). Imagine the text in front of a medow with "frolic-y" music playing in the background This is generally better conversation over beers than in text though (happen to be in the Bay Area?).

> If you're half-smart, you don't fight a suit for patent infringement, you establish that a patent shouldn't exist.
Of course! But you need evidence. If all you have are sealed certified letters, precedent stands and it won't stand as prior art If you've made sales, you've got plenty of evidence. If you've distributed in some fashion, you've got evidence. If you have dated sealed letters and nothing else :/

>Everything you've stated is predicated on you asserting the right to monopolise an idea and profit by it,
This is, generally speaking, the spirit behind a patent. Rights to exclude others for a period of time to allow one to recoup costs and ideally return on investment (for some, the bread on the table and kids in college scenario)... That said: patents, licencing, copyleft, etc. are not mutually exclusive (I know we're mixing/matching here, but the ideology is the same)... Additionally, patents aren't always the way to go and I think that was your point - I completely agree.

In some cases, patents are the way to go. What I'm trying to convey is that there are cases where patents are an acceptable path and that not all patent holders are huge companies. Is the system flawless? Hell no - it allows holding companies to generally retard the process and pharma to claim R&D costs as the reason for their high retail prices while the spend more on marketing than R&D. One doesn't repair the game by getting angry and focusing attention on the players though. Without patents, we'd have trade secret, and that is less useful to humanity than a patent.

>They are out to get you, aren't they?
Really? Normally, this is a good place to use the "You laugh [at my foil hat], but I'm protected" :p When I was a kid, I was legitimately scared of aliens out to get me... Then I read hhgttg and that fixed that... Now I'm just afraid of spiders

So I think murrayd's goal is not to obtain a patent for his idea, but to prevent other people from obtaining a patent for his idea. Is that substantially easier?

I'm not particularly keen on grabbing patents for my inventions, but I'd really hate someone else to patent my own inventions, and make me ask permission to use them. That's a nightmare scenario for me.

What's a good way of protecting my inventions from other people's patents, without going through the hassle of patenting them myself?

Post your ideas somewhere public. Then they're prior art, no longer novel and can't be patented subsequently. In that case, the intellectual property can't be appropriated.

I'll Drink to that!



murrayd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Post your ideas somewhere public. Then they're
> prior art, no longer novel and can't be patented
> subsequently. In that case, the intellectual
> property can't be appropriated.