Uh Oh, formlabs is a no go?

Well guys, this just sucks,

[www.nasdaq.com]

So, did they not do their homework? Or is 3DS just being a bunch of dickbags

---

John "Oly"
SeeMeCNC.com

Yes. Dickbags.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

Probably both.

Wow, major dick move. If the suit is successful I would love for Formlabs to release a open source derivative just to say "F^*k You". Good luck Formlabs, you had a pretty nice thing going there.

It seems like everyone who sees a company protecting their patents claims that the company is being a "dickbag". Why is this? Why is it a problem for a company to protect their intellectual property?

This is probably a move to lower the buy out cost. They want to assimilate that 3d printer, and they believe resistance is futile

---

Most of my technical comments should be correct, but is THIS one ?
Anyway, as a rule of thumb, always double check what people write.

Quote

Why is it a problem for a company to protect their intellectual property?

It's a matter of reception, on how people see the world. Anything trying to enforce reward for the work put into a design, gently or not, is seen as being condemnable.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

PomeroyB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems like everyone who sees a company
> protecting their patents claims that the company
> is being a "dickbag". Why is this? Why is it a
> problem for a company to protect their
> intellectual property?

Probably because "protecting their patents" != "protect their intellectual property", it's sometimes just "preventing someone else to use their's". Company can throw out of window years of research and lot of money just because someone else finished research and applied for patent week earlier.

No worries everybody. The jury will of course be a technological savvy group of 70 year old evangelicals from Tyler Texas that have never heard of 3d printing, Kickstarter, or Star Trek.

[news.priorsmart.com]

Half of it they're trying to setup willful infringement for triple damages. I guess 3DS needs more money to buy more companies. Why innovate when you can buy or sue others instead?

I do find it interesting how the complaint is trying to position that it is just unfathomable that a company might not know about the specifics of all competitor patents. 3DS probably has a lawyer army for such things, but little companies have better things to do than troll patent databases and try to decipher purposefully obfuscated claims for potential infringement.

I very much doubt this will ever go to court, I doubt form labs has the funding to fight a patent case my guess is they just end just going away.
The issue most people have with patents is that they don't allow for reinvention, I don't know what the 3D labs stereo lithography patent is, but there is a good chance it's broad enough to cover any competitive machine in the space, which effectively gives them a lega monopoly.

Quote
miso
Probably because "protecting their patents" != "protect their intellectual property", it's sometimes just "preventing someone else to use their's". Company can throw out of window years of research and lot of money just because someone else finished research and applied for patent week earlier.

But that's not the case in this scenario. 3D systems has had a stereolithography patent for a while. This is a case where Formlabs thought that the patents had expired, but 3DSystems is claiming that there are still active patents.

See:
[www.wired.com]


"3D Systems invented and pioneered the 3D printing technology of stereolithography and has many active patents covering various aspects of the stereolithography process,” said Andrew Johnson, General Counsel of 3D Systems. “Although Formlabs has publicly stated that certain patents have expired, 3D Systems believes the Form 1 3D printer infringes at least one of our patents, and we intend to enforce our patent rights."

It's been said before, but having a patent is only good if you have around $8M to fight any infringements of it. 3DS have that much to spend, I doubt Formlabs have enough to defend a claim against them.

Having a $1M idea is not good enough nowadays, it needs to be a $10M idea.

Sad day for Formlabs, I hope they find a way to keep going.

---

[richrap.blogspot.com]

The patent at dispute is one relating to either support structures or creating finer detailing (a form of antialiasing), I can't quite tell. The patent is quite arcanely detailed in terms of how the claims are implemented, but apparently from watching the videos 3DS lawyers can tell that Form 1 infringing. Their crystal ball also tells them that Formlabs sought out the patent that 3DS still held and deliberately set out to willfully ignore it.

Formlabs got about $3M VC funding, not sure if the $2.5M from Kickstarter got released yet. Formlabs haven't shipped any product but have taken money, so I guess the damages to 3DS are in lost sales, cos everyone one of the KS backers would have rushed out to buy a $30,000 3DS machine instead.

It seems a bit of a fishing exercise by 3DS, a preemptive strike to knock out a potential competitor early. If 3DS wanted they could licence the patent for a few dollars per. Despite what 3DS say on their website about providing better products, clearly their strategy is to get a stranglehokd on the market. The unfortunate customers of 3DS subsidiaries are aware of how crap their products and service are.

Reading the claim is funny, it is so ludicrous. One paragraph basically says "everyone in the industry knows that 3DS are litigious bastards, what the hell were Formlabs thinking!"

bobc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1 infringing. Their crystal ball also tells them
> that Formlabs sought out the patent that 3DS still
> held and deliberately set out to willfully ignore
> it.

Or, more likely, they sent a letter telling them about the patent and offering a licensing agreement and it was rejected or ignored by Formlabs.

Andy

In this case I'd guess this is not true, there is no requirement to license a patent, and I suspect 3DS is more interested in proactively preventing form labs from hurting their sales than collecting a few dollars on something that will only sell a few thousand.
Fighting any patent case even absurd ones is stupidly expensive, there is a chance if the VC funding form labs has deep pockets they might be able to go to court, but I don't think it's in 3DS interests to do anything other than drag the case out until form labs goes under.

ajayre Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bobc Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 1 infringing. Their crystal ball also tells
> them
> > that Formlabs sought out the patent that 3DS
> still
> > held and deliberately set out to willfully
> ignore
> > it.
>
> Or, more likely, they sent a letter telling them
> about the patent and offering a licensing
> agreement and it was rejected or ignored by
> Formlabs.
>
> Andy

ajayre Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bobc Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 1 infringing. Their crystal ball also tells
> them
> > that Formlabs sought out the patent that 3DS
> still
> > held and deliberately set out to willfully
> ignore
> > it.
>
> Or, more likely, they sent a letter telling them
> about the patent and offering a licensing
> agreement and it was rejected or ignored by
> Formlabs.

I think not for two reasons. In their extensive complaint they filed, they did not mention they had tried to be nice but were rebuffed, whereas they mentioned every other perceived slight. Secondly, opening up negotiation can let the infringee gain some advantage by seeing your hand, so if the patent holder is not interested in negotiating a licence, then it is apparently favoured practice to go straight in with the full 3,000 lb gorilla. I see no sign that 3DS are interested in sharing the market.

3DS hold over 7000 patents, I would be surprised if a small outfit like Formlabs had the resources to go through every relevant one, which could be hundreds. Given the nature of the patent system and the tech industry, it was just a question of time before this happened to a 3d printer.

There was some discussion earlier about a patent that Stratasys have applied for regarding color mixing in the extruder, people said "don't worry, it doesn't apply/they won't sue etc". Companies do not apply for patents for fun. I would not like to bet that they would not also try to slap a suit on anyone they see violating that one.

Quote

I don't think it's in 3DS interests to do anything other than drag the case out until form labs goes under.

Boy I really hope thats not the case. I backed the project to pick up an affordable stereolitho machine for my University. 3DS is a monster and it will be hard for Formlabs to do much I suspect unless the patent just cant be defended. The patent seems very specific to a type of finishing algorithm to layers from hardening too quickly. Let's hope Formlabs prove that they dont use said process and move on.

Fingers crossed.

The biggest issue here is Kickstarter no longer being able to do technology stuff just in case they get sued. Normally it's a process of someone having a good idea, getting it going, putting it on Kickstarter, Kickstarter having a look at it and giving it a go-ahead or not. Anyone imagine Kickstarter having vast teams of patent lawyers to go through everything before an idea gets put up? There is no way that can work.. I hope they can find a way around it. Otherwise this is a massive loss to the world of innovation.

People here are like "companies throw big money at innovation and need to protect their ideas". Fair enough. Anyone here worked in big company innovation? Just because they spent big money does not mean their innovation was original, meaningful, worthwhile or contributed anything to the intellectual content of the field.

Most likely big money got spent on a trolling spree that put vague "intellectual shrapnel" out there to hamstring anyone that went near them. Patent trolls. This ought to be banned. Clearly this kills innovation and there is nothing just or noble about it.

My understanding is 3DS have some 7000 patents. Typically a patent has between 15-20 claims. A claim is a "unique idea".

Anyone believe that there are 140,000 unique, meaningful ideas in a 3D printing system that 3DS can possibly hold? Or does such a metric clearly define them as trolls?

Amongst the 140,000 unique 3D printing ideas 3DS controls, 3DS claim that Form-labs must be infringing on at least 1 of them. That is the basis of the case.

Is that fair? Does that nurture innovation or destroy it? Do you want innovation?

In Australia we have crowd protest sites. They work.

You Yanks need to practice some democracy...

i do wonder what do they have in regards to hotend patents

If I understand it right, including Kickstarter in the case is unlikely to get past the first round of lawyers - it's like Apple taking a patent case out against PayPal for allowing people to buy a Samsung Galaxy. The worst that's likely to happen is that any future sales are blocked.

Otherwise, it's not surprising that a company selling 3D printers for $30,000 should try to stop another company selling 'similar' printers for under a tenth the price.

If the infringement is for function rather than the physical makeup of the printer, Formlabs might be able to commit to selling the printer with firmware that doesn't infringe. They might be able to ward off the case by 'rolling over' on that one and requesting details of the nature of the infringement in order to eliminate it. Sadly even if they behave impeccably, lawyers still charge by the hour and I don't think the community is quite strong enough to build up a war chest on Formlabs' behalf.

On the other hand, 3DS may have underestimated the spirit of the open source/3d printing community. If Formlabs are killed off, it would be very unsurprising if a series of open source devices were created in attempts to create a device that doesn't infringe. That could destroy the value of their company and be almost impossible for them to fight off.

Tuna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I understand it right, including Kickstarter in
> the case is unlikely to get past the first round
> of lawyers - it's like Apple taking a patent case
> out against PayPal for allowing people to buy a
> Samsung Galaxy. The worst that's likely to happen
> is that any future sales are blocked.

Patents do cover sales and offers for sale of patented technology. In this case, Kickstarter may have acted as a sales agent for Formlabs. Kickstarters legal role is not entirely clear - crowdfunding is a new idea, and they have lots of money, so it is logical to include them in the complaint.

Formlabs have VC funding so they are not penniless. Any VC funding should have done due diligence on IP issues as a matter of course, so they should be aware there was some risk of action from 3DS.

bobc Wrote:

> Patents do cover sales and offers for sale of
> patented technology. In this case, Kickstarter may
> have acted as a sales agent for Formlabs.
> Kickstarters legal role is not entirely clear -
> crowdfunding is a new idea, and they have lots of
> money, so it is logical to include them in the
> complaint.

I can see why the complaint was brought against them, but Kickstarter have been very carefully distancing themselves from being a 'shop selling products' for a few months now. They're quite clear that when you back a Kickstarter project, it's not a purchase of a product - not least because projects fail even after they've raised their funding, so Kickstarter do not want to be liable for that failure, or the non-delivery of goods. They seem to be quite legally clued up, but I'm sure there will be much lawyering going on in the background right now.

Tuna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can see why the complaint was brought against
> them, but Kickstarter have been very carefully
> distancing themselves from being a 'shop selling
> products' for a few months now. They're quite
> clear that when you back a Kickstarter project,
> it's not a purchase of a product - not least
> because projects fail even after they've raised
> their funding, so Kickstarter do not want to be
> liable for that failure, or the non-delivery of
> goods. They seem to be quite legally clued up, but
> I'm sure there will be much lawyering going on in
> the background right now.

From a legal point of view, just saying "we are not a shop" does not make them not a shop Courts take a pragmatic view, if goods or services are offered in exchange for money, that looks a lot like a sales transaction. The intent of Kickstarter not to be a shop and the method of fulfillment would be regarded as obfuscation from the basic facts.

It seems the ramifications of this suit are actually far larger for Kickstarter than Formlabs. If they are deemed to be acting as a shop, at least for some projects, then that has a bunch of legal implications as you suggest. If they can't offer rewards, that limits the appeal greatly. If they genuinely offer investment opportunities, they would also seem to be liable for all the legal obligations of financial companies. Operating in the UK for example, would require registration with the FSA.

I think that Kickstarter would very much like to settle this out of court ASAP, rather than have their business model put through the legal wringer.

bobc Wrote:

> I think that Kickstarter would very much like to
> settle this out of court ASAP, rather than have
> their business model put through the legal
> wringer.

I very much doubt that - there are a series of large, high profile Kickstarter projects that are court cases waiting to happen. If they were to settle, that would weaken their position for the next case, and the one after that, and the one after that. Kickstarter is pretty well funded and has a good, consistent revenue stream, so they're not in a weak position when it comes to lawyers fees.

Kickstarter does operate in the UK and is not affected by FSA regs because Kickstarter projects are not allowed to offer equity as rewards. There are other crowdfunding sites that do, and the FSA regs apply to them in full. As far as the rewards that they do offer are concerned, the contract is between you as a funder and the group or individual that you fund. First and foremost, you are not guaranteed to receive your reward as a result of funding - you are not paying for it to be manufactured, and there is no deadline by which you can expect it to be delivered. Their business model relies on this (due to the high number of projects that fail), so I'm fairly sure they've taken serious legal advice on their position.

Tuna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> individual that you fund. First and foremost, you
> are not guaranteed to receive your reward as a
> result of funding - you are not paying for it to
> be manufactured, and there is no deadline by which
> you can expect it to be delivered. Their business
> model relies on this (due to the high number of
> projects that fail), so I'm fairly sure they've
> taken serious legal advice on their position.

Quite obviously, in a lot of projects, funders are paying for something to be manufactured. They make a payment, and later something arrives in the post. The point is, the courts look at what actually happens, not the words people say is happening. Otherwise there is a massive loophole in the law. Manufacturers could say, "invest $500 in our company, and we will send you a "reward" of a washing machine".

On the face of it, consumer sales regulations are likely to apply.

It'll be inetsresti f to see if Kickstarter end up going to court, IMO they put themselves in a worse legal position because they review and approve projects. It nullifies any we didn't know, or we're just offering a service defense IMO.
As to the sales thing, I agree with the other poster it would come down to how is the transaction perceived by a reasonable person, and as much as Kickstarter states it is not a sale, it looks an awful lot like a sale.
If Kickstarter thinks it has the legal high ground, I'd expect the to take the opportunity to get some precedent in the books.
Honestly I thought it would take one of the high profile Kickstarter's failing and not returning the money before we saw them taken to court, but it was really just a matter of time.

PomeroyB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems like everyone who sees a company
> protecting their patents claims that the company
> is being a "dickbag". Why is this? Why is it a
> problem for a company to protect their
> intellectual property?

agreed.

A dickbag move is when they sue without just cause in their claims, as a drawn-out legal process to squash the little guy.
Truly, it takes a LOT less money to pursue (like $3 million to defend versus 10K) according to my patent attorney friend.

It's a dickbag move to start a lawsuit as a first resort. Their approach strikes me as trying to kill a fly with a nuclear weapon. Why bring out the heavy artillery unless your intent is to destroy a nascent rival? Why not approach form labs about the infringement and come to a mutually beneficial arrangement? As it stands now a lawsuit destroys form labs and leaves DDD marginally better off - no winners, only losers. Sorry, there are winners - their lawyers.

What if everyone behaved this way? What if I called the police for someone unwittingly trespassing on my property and had them arrested/etc rather than approach them and asking them to leave myself. That would be a dickbag move.

Granted, we don't know whether or not DDD approached form labs, but their lawsuit doesn't mention anything about it.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

Thanks Akhlut. Yes, i meant a dickbag move not from the point formlabs may be infringing on a patent, but from a point of waiting until the campaign was over. They could have said something sooner, and yes, offered a license or something.

My belief is, someone copies your stuff? You better get your butt in gear and come up with something better. Mediocracy and stale technology is boring.

Now, im mot a fan of sl yet, i havnt seen anything useful done with resin prints, but i would HOPE they get a fair shake at changing whatever it is before they ship the machines. Unless, if they find out form knew they were infringing, thats a whole diff story, not sure how i would feel about that one.