Stratasys sues Afinia

Quote
MattMoses
[*] A self replicating 3D printer will never be made.
[*] Unless it's made by an art student who thinks it would be funny.
[/list]

Quote
bobc

That is no longer true, since first to file came in. The key thing about prior art is that it must be "known within the trade", they won't be googling for open source on the web.

I'm afraid that a lot of people have ideas about the patent system which are quite unlike how it is actually applied, which perhaps leads them to think the patent system is fair, in practice it is heavily skewed to a land grab by large corporates. Patent offices get paid by patent fees, they have little interest in refusing patents however obvious. If there is a dispute, they let the corporate lawyers fight it out, they don't care who wins.

Quote
Have Blue

Beta lost to VHS primarily due to the much longer recording length available on VHS - the lower price was nice, but being able to pack more shows onto a tape is what really tipped the scales in the market.

Quote
Christopher Barnatt on November 27th, 2013 at 12:28 pm said:
Excellent article. It is interesting how Stratasys are now trying to “defend” their intellectual property in terms of 3D printing hardware, while on the Makerbot.com website — in the FAQ for their Digitizer 3D scanner ( [s3.amazonaws.com] ) — they very much side-step intellectual property issues with a throw-away comment: To cite the FAQ:

===
[Q] What about intellectual property and copyrights? Does scanning something violate those?

[A] The MakerBot Digitizer is a new technology in a new frontier. If you’re interested in reading more about how copyright and other IP topics, check out writings from the public interest group Public Knowledge.
===

The MakerBot Digitizer is apparently all about “sharing” — scanning everything in the world and uploading the scans for everybody to have free access to on Thingiverse.com (which MakerBot set up and which Stratasys hence now own). Quite how this kind of pioneering attitude to intellectual property can square with a legal move that can sadly only slow the development of 3D printing is — to me at least — very unclear. Revolutions need enthusiasts as well as corporate pioneers, and Stratasys may actually find that their strategy here backfires if the grass roots community starts to boycott MakerBots and/or Thingiverse.

Quote
iquizzle
...

Afinia is selling closed source, fully built printers. Honestly, it's a pretty far cry from what the average reprap user is using. I don't think there's any reason for all the panic here.

Quote
bobc
If you don't think this is a big deal, you're an idiot.

Quote
Guizmo
@Fim Fischer

Sure, they have gone for closed source this time, but who is saying they are only after closed source sellers?

Quote
Guizmo
If you start selling 3D printers and they notice you're becoming a strong competitor, they will take action, no matter open or closed source. They don't care.

-=( blog )=- -=( thingiverse )=- -=( 3Dindustries )=- -=( Aluhotend - mostly metal hotend)=--=( Facebook )=-

Quote
A2
Disclaimer: This post does not constitute legal advice. I am not an attorney. I do not have expertise in these matters.

I recall that there is/was a patent law in which the patent holder after discovering a violation of their patent can wait no longer than 6 or 7 years? before they can file a suit.

If after 6 or 7 years? the patent holder does not take action against copy cats they loose their right to bring a suit.

If this is the case, then Stratasys may have lost their right to bring a suit?

Has anyone heard of this before?

-=( blog )=- -=( thingiverse )=- -=( 3Dindustries )=- -=( Aluhotend - mostly metal hotend)=--=( Facebook )=-

Quote
thejollygrimreaper
...make it the responsibility of the modeler to incorporate in the model an internal structure which mimics an infill density,

Quote
Fim Fischer
[[quote=Guizmo]
If you start selling 3D printers and they notice you're becoming a strong competitor, they will take action, no matter open or closed source. They don't care.
Well, i don't know if they would or if they care.
But i am relaxed anyway, i am 'selling' diy- education, i don't intend to sell '3D printers'.

Quote
Ryan Lane on November 28th, 2013 at 4:08 pm said:
Maybe I’m wrong here, but I swear I learned in a pottery class ages ago that instead of a solid block of clay it was better to lay a grid of materials with holes for the air to expand so that firing was easier. Is that a common technique? If so that would would be prior art on infill. On top of that I’m pretty sure that people working with glass have understood that you need to keep it hot. It doesn’t seem like you should be able to patent common sense. And hidden seam? I mean really. This has been part of knitting, basket weaving, to any number of other long standing traditional art forms. It isn’t special just because it’s plastic.

Quote
aduy
i believe the patents expire 17 years after the submission date, not completely sure though.

also if they do end up suing and buying up these companies, they will have a monopoly on 3d printing, which is a crime in the united states.