Prusa Jr. Chastises & Leaves THINGIVERSE ><

Ahhh, I was reading

Related U.S. Patent Documents

Application Number Filing Date Patent Number Issue Date
12858622 Aug., 2010
See no Patent Number nor Issue date given so I am a tad confused since I see July 2012 and Nov, 2011.

Maybe you will be able to follow this one a little easier [www.google.com] although all the info is on the first one too.

---

FFF Settings Calculator	Gcode post processors	Geometric Object Deposition Tool Blog
Tantillus.org	Mini Printable Lathe	How NOT to install a Pololu driver

Yep, that one I could follow.

Nathaniel B. Pettis Well, now I see his first name isn't Bre afterall.

[www.tms.org] discusses patent jargon.

Apparatus Claim: This refers to a patent claim, which describes structurally a piece of equipment and is embraced by the expression "machine" in the definition of patentable subject matter in the U.S. Patent Statute.


Is this not typical of any company to protect a specific product? basically they own the specific machine build platform for conveyor belt. there are other machines that they can not own. I think that the specific design that they spent time on should be protected.

I'm not wanting to take sides in this.

Well, it is a slippery slope because they, when they applied for a patent, a 100% open source company so either they knew they would not remain an open source company or they were being a hypocrite and going against the entire idea of what is open hardware.

Rob is right that it is difficult to get reliable up to date feed back on the RepRap site.

For example, I don't think you can find an in depth explanation of the current popular all metal hot-ends (such as the ones used by RepRapPro) on the wiki.

It feels like the wiki is just that: a wiki; more of a smattering of information than a cohesive guide...

The RepRap project needs some kind of cohesive guide that receives predictable updates (6 month rotation ala Ubuntu?)

Something to help folks get started and spur new ideas and creation.

I think we RepRap Hobbyists spend a lot of time solving problems our peers have already figured out.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2012 05:16AM by Idolcrasher.

Idol, I agree. Here I am wanting to do a RepRap and I know I need 4 Nema 17 steppers but beyond that I dunno and this is why I will probably do a kit.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

It's interesting to watch these debates, less fun to get involved, because people tend to have strong opinions of right and wrong, and the opinions vary person by person and often case by case.

The ethical principles appear to be "ideas should be free" and "people should be rewarded for their efforts". Unfortunately, since people's efforts now are largely about producing ideas, there is an inherent conflict. I don't see that being resolved anytime soon, either legally, or with some universal declaration of principles.

The law on IP is probably 100 years out of date. Big business pretty much get what they want, and now we have a grass-roots Free/Open movement to add to the mix. The patent system is totally screwed up. People's understanding of the actual law on IP is pretty poor, and the people who are most vocal often seem to understand it the least.

Traditonal busines models involve owning IP and granting access to it, usually in the form of a physical product, or as licenced product. Free or open model goes directly against that, especially for physical products. It is quite difficult to find a viable alternative business model. Companies that start with open source ideals invariably find the realities of investors, employers and legal protection mean that they end up going closed.

I don't mind closed source companies, as long as they don't pretend to be open for marketing purposes. Equally I don't mind people publishing designs and making them free/open, as long as they don't turn around and say "but if you make money from it I want a cut". The problem comes when trying to mix up open and closed principles, everyone gets confused and some people get angry.

Dr Bowyer's very sensible point is that we can't do anything about the closed source mindset, and it is a dead-end anyway, so we should just not worry about it. Getting steamed about ethics is unproductive and a diversion. Concentrate on the ideas that are in the open domain, and work from those.

Quote
Robrep2
See the problem with reprap- is that there are 100+ ways to do anything- but no critical feedback or Peer review mechanism. So you never know if a "great idea" on reprap is working or not. From my own experience with reprapr, it is fair to say that reprap is failing members in this regard- because you never know if something works or not.

Hmm. What do you mean with "is failing members"? What is a "RepRap member"? RepRap is a very loose organisation and as you can read above, it's founder pretty much refuses to try to direct RepRappers in any direction. Actually, this refusal might be one of the reasons for the success of RepRap over similar projects like Fab@Home.

Quote
Robrep2
Also reprap members largely do not use scientific evaluation methods- so most technology stuff is not verified by Peer review or even a simple XY listing of results... [ i guess the slap-dash approach is fun for some- but it is also hugely frustrating for others]

I think the recognition of open source has changed quite a bit singe the days the Free Software Foundation was founded, Linux found it's beginnings ang gcc was the superior compiler rebel. Back then, it was recognized as something like: "you can participate in this project". People not willing to participate had no fun with open source.

These days, the recognition has shifted to "somebody else does it for you". Many people don't get the idea to report a problem, much less to describe it (which is half the fix) or to fix it them selfs. Teacup firmware and PCB milling are typcial examples. Instead of providing help, the (almost) only comments you see are like "I'd like to have this feature, too, why doesn't this work yet and when can I expect this feature to be done?".

So, don't count on any help from the RepRappers[1]. You're on your own. RepRap is a community of entrepeneurs, here they announce their work and get in contact with their customers. Being open source is the entry ticket to this community.



[1] I hope I don't step on the toes of these few bright RepRappers actually helping with development. Some such people exist and they're highly motivating an helpful.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Dark Alchemist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep, that one I could follow.
>
> Nathaniel B. Pettis Well, now I see his first
> name isn't Bre afterall.

It's Nathaniel Brehaspati Pettis.
Where Brehaspati is a misspelling of Brihaspati, i'm guessing.


Robrep2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Makerbot got a big $ injection and now has
> corporate aspirations. eg they want to be listed
> on the stock market- which is what $ investors
> expect. To do this they have to block competitors
> and look inward rather than open source. That is
> how the game is played once investors come on
> board.

Indeed it is. And if MBI having those aspirations is true, i'd STRONGLY encourage the RepRap community at large and the creators of original RepRap designs to start thinking about patenting them to protect themselves. Patenting a design does not automatically make it closed source, if it's meant to be used defensively, as someone stated in this thread.

If MBI truly is headed in the direction Robrep2 outlined, you will need that protection, because sooner or later, they will start getting rid of competition, no matter how "small" or open. Yes, that will essentially be them shooting in their own leg, because that same competition brings them designs and ideas they can use in their product, but unfortunately, time and time again, it was proven corporations do not nor ever will understand that.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2012 07:40AM by orcinus.

orcinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dark Alchemist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yep, that one I could follow.
> >
> > Nathaniel B. Pettis Well, now I see his first
> > name isn't Bre afterall.
>
> It's Nathaniel Brehaspati Pettis.
> Where Brehaspati is a misspelling of Brihaspati,
> i'm guessing.

Interesting.
>
>
> Robrep2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Makerbot got a big $ injection and now has
> > corporate aspirations. eg they want to be
> listed
> > on the stock market- which is what $ investors
> > expect. To do this they have to block
> competitors
> > and look inward rather than open source. That
> is
> > how the game is played once investors come on
> > board.
>
> Indeed it is. And if MBI having those aspirations
> is true, i'd STRONGLY encourage the RepRap
> community at large and the creators of original
> RepRap designs to start thinking about patenting
> them to protect themselves. Patenting a design
> does not automatically make it closed source, if
> it's meant to be used defensively, as someone
> stated in this thread.
>
> If MBI truly is headed in the direction Robrep2
> outlined, you will need that protection, because
> sooner or later, they will start getting rid of
> competition, no matter how "small" or open. Yes,
> that will essentially be them shooting in their
> own leg, because that same competition brings them
> designs and ideas they can use in their product,
> but unfortunately, time and time again, it was
> proven corporations do not nor ever will
> understand that.
I agree because if anything money, and the greed of it, makes them short sighted and we all know Wall Street only thinks in quarters so they don't care if they are shooting their own leg off next quarter as long as this quarter looks fantastic.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Ok, this MakerBot situation has gotten bad.

Time to call on the help of the lesser of two evils!

Alright internet trolls, we need your help. Here I will translate for you:

/*Troll Speak*/

MakerBot is nau teh evil! ATTACKA!

Idol, I don't see much talk going on about the situation I see noise and a lot of people asking what is in 3.2 plus the name calling but I don't see any viable conversations going on. I am about to unsub Discus since nothing is really happening and no information has come forth just supposition and fear.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Suppositories and fear?

In truth guys,

Worry not. As long a MakerBot is unable to patent a RepRap, all their conniving underhanded efforts will do nothing but spread public knowledge of 3D printing, and hopefully bolster the RepRap project in the long run.

Stay calm and carry on everybody

We have been warned in the past that open source/hardware would come under pressure form commercial interests, so this should not be a suprise, the question is what should happen now, in my view you are either open source/hardware or commercial, one or the other and cannot be both.

---

Random Precision

... remembered some old post about needs, usability and future of 'home-3D-printing: [forums.reprap.org]

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

johnrpm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We have been warned in the past that open
> source/hardware would come under pressure form
> commercial interests, so this should not be a
> suprise, the question is what should happen now,
> in my view you are either open source/hardware or
> commercial, one or the other and cannot be both.

Sure you can. No one forces you to enforce (hurr) your licenses at all cost, indiscriminately.
You *can* protect yourself from being pressured into commercial oblivion while, at the same time, nurturing the open source community.

Also, you *can* be commercially attractive and at the same time be open source.
Heck, that's what RepRap currently is, but for a very small and specific market.

All the RepRap sellers and fabricators that have cropped up in the past few years atest to that.

As someone stated in another thread - things are not black and white. Not in The Real World.

IMHO, this whole debate is completely overblown.

Make no mistake, RepRap is not some miracle of technological innovation deserving of hallowed place within the development of additive manufacturing; It's underlying operating principles are based on someone elses work, from patents expired years ago. As much as I respect Dr Bowyer for his work on the project, I have no doubt that he does not credit himself with the invention of the FDM process. RepRap in itself only exists because a closed source company tread that ground before it.

The Replicator 2 going closed source was to be expected. MBI had their first real scare with the Tangibot, and have decided that there's too much risk involved with outright permitting the wholesale copy of their design. MBI is not two guys in a shed, nor is it a sole operator importing parts from China made from downloaded designs, its a Venture-Capital backed workforce of 80+ people in the USA. It cannot grow if it's constantly fending off clones of its freely available design.

The one criticism that can be levelled is that MBI marketed itself based on an Open Source principle, which they have now (in the minds on some commentators) "betrayed". I concede this is very much valid from an ethical standpoint. But one has to weigh that criticism with the stark reality of business. MBI has built an IP and an identity, and I think that taking the barest steps to protect that is perfectly reasonable to ensure their own survival.

In closing, MBI's moving to a closed source model has not infringed on anyones ability to make, buy, sell or design RepRap derivitive machines in the slightest, and I don't understand those baying for Bre's blood over this.

I would be very interested to know what licence would be perfect for thingiverse ?

[creativecommons.org] ?

anything else ?

I wonder because i'm thinking to start building a thingiverse like website, independant from any commercial company .

Don't panic, but MBI is absolutely a threat to the future of completely open source 3D printing becoming mainstream.
No, the more evolved or efficient product is not the one that will necessary succeed, it's more likely to be the one that has the most 21st century marketing bullshit.
We don't live in a rational world where the "consumers" logically think about the merits of various 3D printers, we live in a capitalist dominated cesspool where marketing is used to manipulate people's emotions.
It won't lead to Reprap's total destruction, but every Reprap built is one less Replicator bought, and when the venture capitalists have one's soul one will mitigate any threat.
Or,... if MBI fails they could become the SCO of the OSHW world and spend 5+ years patent trolling everyone.
Either way a threat's a threat, and I hope it can be eliminated

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2012 02:57PM by Kt.

Bre's latest reply to all of this.

Makerbot blog

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2012 03:42PM by royco.

Quote
Bre Pettis
For the Replicator 2, we will not share the way the physical machine is designed or our GUI because we don’t think carbon-copy cloning is acceptable and carbon-copy clones undermine our ability to pay people to do development. Will protecting the design and the GUI stop the clones? Probably not for very long, but it allows us to clearly speak one of the unspoken rules of open source hardware. Specifically the one that states that “cloning ain’t cool”. The electronics are nearly identical to our original Mighty Board electronics, the extruder is nearly identical to our original Replicator extruder with only minor tweaks to optimize manufacturing of injection molded parts. Update: What that means is that the Replicator 2 core technology is open.

So again, no Rep2 is not open source. It's Open Core, or open source enough to say it's open source in marketing the device, but closed source enough to stifle legitimate needs for source by owners of the device, or legitimate competition.

Quote
Bre Pettis
I love the way that Adrian talks about RepRap as an organism. There are so many great RepRap projects in petri dishes right now and some of them will fork and become businesses. If we banish the people who fork the projects beyond the petri dish, then they may not contribute back later.

Nice veiled threat you've got there.

That statement only made things clearer in the sense that they are going to sell the idea of opensource while being closed. They made a successful business being open so saying it is not viable is complete bulls**t. I will no longer consider them an opensource company and be sure to correct anyone saying otherwise (they were opensource).

---

FFF Settings Calculator	Gcode post processors	Geometric Object Deposition Tool Blog
Tantillus.org	Mini Printable Lathe	How NOT to install a Pololu driver

Okay, up until now i was convinced this is overblown and even had hints of vendetta in it, but Pettis' latest reply is...

...slimey.

orcinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, up until now i was convinced this is
> overblown and even had hints of vendetta in it,
> but Pettis' latest reply is...
>
> ...slimey.
I knew my view on him was right.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

He makes claims the MakerBot supports the RepRap community. I am honestly not sure what he means.

I would have counted thingiverse.com as being a support to RepRap hobbyists; but not so sure I am excited about thingiverse.com anymore...

Great dialogue to follow here.

Does anyone have time to review and improve the TOS for 3dhacker.com?

We have just created a model repository. Beta release: [3dhacker.com]

Positive, helpful input would be great.

www.3dhacker.com