McMaster-Carr 3D Models

McMaster-Carr now has 3D models of some of its products available for download [blog.makezine.com]. It'd be interesting to see how these could be imported into RepRap.

IGES should be the commonly convertable format for our needs, isn't it?

Nice idea...

BUT
it may be okay to print a screw or hexnut or something, but what about knobs and so on,
since at least some products may not be allowed to replicate.

'sid

hehe, back to that old patent issue...

Demented

You can't patent an object, only the plans. If you want to create a digital description of a patented object, you're in the clear. You can even print the patented object from your independently created plans.

Forrest Higgs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can't patent an object, only the plans.


I am not a Lawyer, but I don't think that's correct, al least under US law.
If the object has utility, novelty, and is "non-obvious" then it can be patented (utility patent, the more well-known kind of patent.) For example, zip-lock bags (though that patent has expired.)

Under US law, there are also design patents, which specifically cover form, style, etc. distinct from utility. These are used to protect objects, designs, etc. If you were to reproduce a sports car (think corvette, porche, etc.) and those companies found out about it, I think you'd be looking at litigation, based on those companies design patents.

There's an (IMHO) good book called _Patent it Yourself_ The author is David Pressman: [www.nolo.com]

-- Larry

Let me put it this way. Pratt and Whitney manufacture turbine blades for GE fan jet engines. I asked the guy who did it whether the licensing fees didn't eat them alive. He said no, they don't pay any license fees because they did 3D scans of the GE blades and used those to manufacture duplicate blades. The patent only applies if you use GE's blueprints and/or CAD/CAM original files to make blades. THEN you have to pay license fees.

I know it sounds creepy, but that's how it works. It's a hole in the patent laws big enough to drive an Abrams battle tank through, but there you are. :-)

If Pratt and Whitney can get by with it, I see no reason why we shouldn't. :-D

As I understand it (subject to UK/US differenses too & I am not an expert, just an inventor) a Patent is totally different to copyright.

Simply put, a patent is for an Idea. If Pratt&Whitney scan or do their own drawings or just make somthing that has the features of GE's blade, then they are only in trouble if P&W have a patent over some novel aspect of that blade.

So for a knob, you can produce a copy of a knob, but if the original knob manufacturer has a petent to do with, say, a clever way the knob swivels, then you cant copy it without breaching that patent. Even if you just look at a photo of it then draw up the design yourself.

Copyright generally applies to designs, logos etc.

Richard is correct; at least in the US.

[www.uspto.gov]

Patent:

agree with d0ubled...had this discussion with many a prof...people seem to be confused on it and not in any one definable way. I'm sure the coming proliferation of RepRap's (starting with Wade's!) will force a clear understanding of this on all of us.

Demented

Greetings all,

Design patents (though less well known than utility patents), are a valid legal construct in the US. There is information at
[www.uspto.gov] and
[en.wikipedia.org]
among many others.

Wikipedia's article begins thus:
In the United States, a design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers (see Fig. 1) and computer icons are examples of objects that covered by design patents.

[Comment by Larry: Figure 1 in the wikipedia article shows the original Coca-Cola bottle, designed by Raymond Loewy -- a very interesting and talented industrial designer!]

I don't know what items are covered by design patents; I'm just pointing out that they exist in the US (and similar exist in other countries; see the wikipedia article.) Design patents have a shorter term than utility patents, in the US. A functional object (turbine blade) without either specific patentable features or ornamental design may just be out of luck. As would be, I now realize, sufficiently old "classic" car designs. So, I guess we could reprap scale model vintage cars, so long as we're careful not to call them "Matchbox Cars." That term is probably a registered trademark. (Lets not get into that....)

-- Larry


-- Larry

I hope everybody is prepared mentally for Reprap to have kicked off as big a tantrum from government and established manufacturers as CD and DVD burners have with the big media holding companies. All you have to do is look at how the RIAA and MPAA have tried to cope with the availability of cheap and efficient copying devices for media files to see how manufacturers and vendors of consumer items are going to react to Reprap.

This little story from Heilbroner's 1953 book, The Worldly Philosophers really shows you how it keeps on working down the centuries...

*********************************************************************

We are back in France; the year, 1666.

The capitalists of the day face a disturbing challenge that the widening market mechanism has inevitably brought in its wake: change.

The question has come up whether a guild master of the weaving industry should be allowed to try an innovation in his product. The verdict: "If a cloth weaver intends to process a piece according to his own invention, he must not set it on the loom, but should obtain permission from the judges of the town to employ the number and length of threads that he desires, after the question has been considered by four of the oldest merchants and four of the oldest weavers of the guild." One can imagine how many suggestions for change were proposed.

Shortly after the matter of cloth weaving has been disposed of, the button makers guild raises a cry of outrage; the tailors are beginning to make buttons out of cloth, an unheard-of thing. The government, indignant that an innovation should threaten a settled industry, imposes a fine on the cloth-button makers. But the wardens of the button guild are not yet satisfied. They demand the right to search people's homes and wardrobes and fine and even arrest them on streets if they are seen wearing these subversive goods.

And this dread of change and innovation is not just the comic resistance of a few frightened merchants. Capital is fighting in earnest against change, and no holds are barred.

*************************************************

Governments love "established industries" because their easier to tax. Reprap turns manufacturing on its head.

><

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2008 05:06PM by Forrest Higgs.

---

-------------------------------------------------------

Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something.

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

Thomas A. Edison

I've heard it is illegal to download songs and movies and all that crap too. That doesn't stop people from doing it. Nor does it make it immoral.

Patents have always been a waste of money. They waste poor inventors' money, which could have been used on developing their work. They patent tons of things which shouldn't be allowed to be patented, and block progress. Many companies won't think twice about copying a patented product, they'll do it without a thought. In fact, many companies search patents to find products to produce without paying royalties. The people who make big money off patents are the lawyers. An inventor is far better off to not waste money or time on patents.

Companies make money off of patents, not inventors, not designers, not the people who did the work to create the ideas. Monsanto patents God's work, DNA codes. Monsanto doesn't do any of the work in creating those codes, they simply patent them and make others pay.

Soon millions of people will be illegally producing patented objects, just as millions of people are illegally downloading songs and movies on the Internet. I for one, do not think that is a bad thing. Rather, I believe we are entering a new form of society, a moneyless form of society, and only a moneyless form of society will allow the human race to survive.

A moneyless society will not be subject to peak oil, global warming, poverty, or the threat of nuclear war. All those things won't exist in a moneyless society. Global population can rise to 100 times what it is now in a moneyless society, before there will be any problems of over population. By then, there will be sufficient technology that it won't matter.

Mankind has simply out grown Capitalism,and we are evolving into a new form of society. Embrace the future!

I won't tell you to do anything illegal yourself. There is no need to. It is legal to make a machine, if people use that machine to do illegal things that is not your fault or your problem.

In fact, the illegal activity will be quite little in wealthy nations. Only in the poor nations will the illegal copying of products be rampant, and that will stimulate the economies of the poor nations. It will bring wealth to the poor.

The copying is not the biggest threat to Capitalism, the bigger threat is that we will soon be able to create new open source products and produce and sell them in small quantities cheaper than big companies can mass produce and sell. The new products will be better and cheaper than existing products, which will put companies out of business much faster than people copying existing products.

I'm creating an open source company, which will do everything legal. It'll develop new products that are better and cheaper than existing products. It'll be fully worker controlled and leaderless. It'll be shared income and shared property.

My design goal for the machine I'm making, is to be super cheap to make. I'm planning to make a sheet metal die to mass produce some parts of this machine for pennies each. I found some motors for $1 each (surplus), more on that later after I run some tests on them. It'll cost several thousand dollars to setup to start making these machines, but per machine cost will be really low.

Tony

Hi,

Just thought I'd mention another great source of 3d models. The company that makes Solidworks hosts a website called 3dcontentcentral.com where they allow all sorts of manufacturers to post the CAD models of their products in multiple formats. I'm not sure what the licensing or patent issues would be there, but they shouldn't be any different than the ones with McMaster-Carr's site.

Shawn

A patent covers a unique object or process. P&W can copy GE's turbine blade because turbine blades have been around forever and GE did not or could not patent the particular shape of this blade. If GE had patented a particular manufacturing method required to make that blade P&W would be out of luck until they developed their own version or licensed GE's. A design patent only applies if the object is available to the public so that the appearance of the object is part of it's function. The best protection that a RepRaper has from a patent suit is that in order to sue you have to prove damages. Producing a single item for oneself is unlikely to cause damage as you can argue you would not have bought one otherwise. If you start distributing items you print then you might have a problem. The biggest threat to Reprap is the possibility of a law forbidding "enabling technologies" modeled on the provisions of the DMCA.

In order to outlaw RepRaps and "enabling technologies", they'd have to outlaw all 3D printers and CNC milling machines and any machine that can make something. Nothing to worry about.

Tony