Makerbot patenting network 3D printing

Maybe it has been discussed before, but has anyone looked at some new patents of makerbot guys?

[www.google.com]

[www.google.com]

[www.google.com]

I'm not a expert on these things but did bre pettis "INVENTED" this?? 3D printing through webserver/network/social media

doesn't the Cube 3D printer have a wifi wireless option to send files to it ? and don't you have to invent it before you can patent these things? I mean I have a great ideas but I can't patent a Idea right... anyone want to shed some light on the subject?

You don't have to build or even intend to build anything to apply for a patent.
You just have to be first, and it has to be not an obvious extension of existing things.

I'd say a large portion of that patent is obvious, but once granted getting a patent overturned for being obvious is almost impossible.
Assuming your judged to infringe, you're pretty much reduced to prior art and because of the cost of patent cases they are rarely worth actually fighting, even if you are sure it's invalid.

---

___________________________________________________________________________

My blog [3dprinterhell.blogspot.com]

Right but how did they get a patent while Cubify printer already makes use of 3D printing through network? and wouldn't 3D systems be the first to overrule such patent?

So do we boycott Makerbot for putting these in?

I thought makerbot was already boycotted

We fought off a company which claimed to have a patent on a product we produced for a customer. They sued our customer and us for patent infringement. Turned out the *sshole didnt even have a patent but it cost us $20k to defend ourselves in court and have it thrown out. He was bluffing to the very end.

If someone else has been using networked printing on their models Makerbot can still legitimately apply for a patent if they were the first to apply and no similar product has been on the market for more than 6 months if i recall correctly. Being the first doesnt really mean anything, its who applys first and can prove it.

Have a look at this [blog.reprap.org]

---

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

True, but the patent will become invalid since other companies have been doing this for a while now. In fact the Cube printers use network printing and have since they came out.

They are not patenting 3D printing over a network.

They are applying for a patent on network printing where the monitoring of the printer is shared on Facebook or other social media. Then they are applying for a patent where you have a UI where can drag 3D objects into icons representing various printers.

I am not aware of anyone doing either of those before, nor do I particularly care if those features are never in Repetier.

---

[www.matter-replicator.com]

makerbot, the apple of 3d printing, seriously haha.

This isn't wholly unexpected. They're driving at mainstreaming their devices. In order to do that it needs to be dead-stupid simple. they're probably developing an application that allows you to drag a model on thingiverse to your sign-in and your connected makerbot spits the model out. Pretty ingenious actually. Would we ever use it? Probably not. But making it easy for the average consumer to print something out is a big hurdle.

Yet again, MBI is leveraging Thingiverse content - AKA "your" IP, haha - to sell their stuff.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

Monsanto won a patent for the genetic code for common corn simply because nobody had applied before. They didn't invent that particualar strain, it developed over millenia by natural means, but now they own a patent on it...

Some laws are just stupid...

Tekwizard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Monsanto won a patent for the genetic code for
> common corn simply because nobody had applied
> before. They didn't invent that particualar
> strain, it developed over millenia by natural
> means, but now they own a patent on it...
>
> Some laws are just stupid...

I know people say stuff like that on Facebook, but that is just not how patents work. It has to be a novel invention. You can't patent something just because no one else did. It cannot exist before you invented it.

interesting,

I recently read a article about a company who owns a patent on printing through a network and they were knocking on your average small company for damages and compensations.

The funny bit, they had the right to do so. The printer companies were not infringing their patent... but the moment when you connect the printer to a network... then you are infringing it apparantly

[stop-project-paperless.com]

do these patent even get granted by people in the specific field? I can't imaging someone granting a company patents on biomedical sciences while the person has never seen a molecule in their life...it just doesn't make any sense...

*sigh*

GITRDUN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Turned out the *sshole didnt even
> have a patent but it cost us $20k to defend
> ourselves in court and have it thrown out. He was
> bluffing to the very end.
>

You would be able to countersue for the costs of defending the non-infringement, right? Did you seek any damages?

sam80 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I
> mean I have a great ideas but I can't patent a
> Idea right... anyone want to shed some light on
> the subject?

In the UK I believe you must have a functional prototype. In the US you can patent without a prototype.

From a quick Google search "United States patent laws do not require you to have a prototype in order to apply for a patent, all that is required is that you be able to describe the invention so that others could both make and use it.."

Yes,

here in Europe patents are more strict. You can't patent ideas, but ideas WITH a prototype, and that should be the first in its own category. The patent is not accepted if there is someting similar, and patents on natural species are not accepted.
So the situation is that there are things covered by patent in US and not in Europe.

Just produce 3D network printers in Europe ...

Cheers

... but you can't sell them to US then

---

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

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

The US just converted to a "First to File" patent country.

Theoretically, a company could attend a Makerfaire, find a a great idea someone else developed, be the first to file for a patent on that invention, and end up with the patent protection for 20 years for a device they didn't create or develop. It is a great benefit for large companies with teams of patent lawyers on their payroll.

... I've read somewhere, the inventor has a timeline of one year to file his own IP's ... but this is sometimes a real hard and expensive task, so not common in the DIY-scene

---

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

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

Right so if you patent a idea in US, and you want to extend the patent globally, the company has to abide by the EU patent law and should produce a prototype if they want to "protect their property" when filing for a patent in EU...

Very sad and disappointing if the US is allowing to patent a idea. because indeed as mentioned before... you can just go to makerfaire and start patenting whatever you think is worth money.

very sad...

What if an inventor beats the patent trol to it and makes it open source with exemption to make use of if commercially ??? would the patent still be granted?....

dumb question I think, when you can patent "slide to unlock" from apple, and rounded corner.... and you can patent things which are obvious and even a Idea..... It makes me really think twice for releasing anything into the wild ... which is even more sad....

rsilvers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are not patenting 3D printing over a network.
>
>
> They are applying for a patent on network printing
> where the monitoring of the printer is shared on
> Facebook or other social media. Then they are
> applying for a patent where you have a UI where
> can drag 3D objects into icons representing
> various printers.
>
> I am not aware of anyone doing either of those
> before, nor do I particularly care if those
> features are never in Repetier.

I'm going to have a webcam setup looking at my printer, and I will be remote-desktop'ing into it.

Does that count?

Interesting new development:

[www.botqueue.com]

"The biggest new feature added to BotQueue v3.0 is webcam support

maddox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GITRDUN Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Turned out the *sshole didnt even
> > have a patent but it cost us $20k to defend
> > ourselves in court and have it thrown out. He
> was
> > bluffing to the very end.
> >
>
> You would be able to countersue for the costs of
> defending the non-infringement, right? Did you
> seek any damages?


Yes, could have countered and should have IMO but my father who owns the company didnt want to. The government was supposedly going to go after him for falsely claiming to have a patent but nothjng ever came of it.

The big corporations just walk right over many small competitors with patents by tying up lawsuits in the courts for years and years and running up gross amounts of legal fees for the small patent owner trying to sue for infringement. Just like everything else in this country the ones with the $$ can get away with more than you or i can. A patent is only worth however much money someone has to defend it with.

There are companies that will patent anything and everything because they

ShadowRam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm going to have a webcam setup looking at my
> printer, and I will be remote-desktop'ing into
> it.
>
> Does that count?

No, because there is no social media integration.

---

[www.matter-replicator.com]

Is there even an alternative to thingiverse? Physiblexchange has been down for quite a while now.(just as i had stuff to put there...) I have become less annoyed with 'defense distributed', i might just take the shit they say as a 'will not censor stance' and put stuff completely unrelated to defense there.(assuming you can decently upload) And there is githubiverse-template, of course.(still have to apply it, assuming the api-call thing isnt an issue anymore or i can solve it.. no point if it goes down fast.) Also thought there was a website somewhere specifically for linking to stuff?

ShadowRam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rsilvers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They are not patenting 3D printing over a
> network.
> >
> >
> > They are applying for a patent on network
> printing
> > where the monitoring of the printer is shared
> on
> > Facebook or other social media. Then they are
> > applying for a patent where you have a UI where
> > can drag 3D objects into icons representing
> > various printers.
> >
> > I am not aware of anyone doing either of those
> > before, nor do I particularly care if those
> > features are never in Repetier.
>
> I'm going to have a webcam setup looking at my
> printer, and I will be remote-desktop'ing into
> it.
>
> Does that count?


I used to do that when i was at work from my phone, lol just hope theres no dust on your print bed haha that would suck.

aduy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> makerbot, the apple of 3d printing, seriously
> haha.

Nah..
More like the SCO of 3D printting.

Seriously though.. The VC boys are just getting as much stuff patented as they can, so they have something to sell off when they fold Makerbot in a few years from now.

VC groups looove patents . Nice easily sold for money patents.