Stratasys sues Afinia
Posted by Have Blue
|
Re: Stratasys sues Afinia November 29, 2013 01:44PM |
Maybe Bre Pettis was 'advised' that MakerBot were infringing Stratasys' patents and was 'asked' if he would like to settle their claim without resort to the courts? Maybe MakerBot selling to Statasys was an 'out of court' settlement? Maybe Afinia were also given the same 'advice' and declined taking it? Anybody else been 'offered advice' by Stratasys? I point out that these are questions and should not be taken as points of fact or opinion?
Maybe Bre Pettis felt he had no choice in the matter and doing what he did and continues to do because he feels that this is the best way to ensure the lively hood of himself, his family and the people whom he employs. It's very easy for 'mob rule' to take over and then you end up with a mob of angry cyber-bullies that achieve nothing but blood, heartache and misery. No doubt, what ever the situation, Bre will have to be very careful what he says going forward so as not jeopardise his position.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2013 01:45PM by MotoBarsteward.
Using ABSPrusa Mendel Zaphod with Pronterface and slic3r 1.3.0. Printing well with 3mm PLA and ABS through 2 x J Head Mk IV b and Wade Geared Exruders. Controlled using RAMPS1.4 board running Marlin_v1.1.9
Maybe Bre Pettis felt he had no choice in the matter and doing what he did and continues to do because he feels that this is the best way to ensure the lively hood of himself, his family and the people whom he employs. It's very easy for 'mob rule' to take over and then you end up with a mob of angry cyber-bullies that achieve nothing but blood, heartache and misery. No doubt, what ever the situation, Bre will have to be very careful what he says going forward so as not jeopardise his position.
Quote
A2
Disclaimer: This post does not constitute legal advice. I am not an attorney. I do not have expertise in these matters.
Bre Pettis
"It makes me sad when I see things that are just the same technology; you aren’t passing the technology forward."
"(people were) taking our technology we had spent a lot of time developing.
They weren’t innovating."
“Until we merged with Stratasys, we spent a lot of our efforts … respecting their IP”
"we really set ourselves up to get beaten up when we made that shift."
[gigaom.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2013 01:45PM by MotoBarsteward.
Using ABSPrusa Mendel Zaphod with Pronterface and slic3r 1.3.0. Printing well with 3mm PLA and ABS through 2 x J Head Mk IV b and Wade Geared Exruders. Controlled using RAMPS1.4 board running Marlin_v1.1.9
|
Re: Stratasys sues Afinia November 30, 2013 03:43AM |
Disclaimer: This post does not constitute legal advice. I am not an attorney. I do not have expertise in these matters.
@ maboo
After reviewing a small handful of Stratasys patents, I agree there is little to no room for more 3D printer patents.
It appears that Stratasys has a monopoly on the 3D printer market.
As I understand it, HP is presently selling Stratasys 3D printers rebranded.
HP plans to release an in house manufactured 3D printer summer 2014.
I can only imagine that they are paying a licensing fee. I wonder how much per printer they are paying?
I can also imagine that Stratasys will limit the number of licensing agreements,
as they wouldn't want to hurt their relationship with a mega manufacture like HP.
Thus the mom and pop 3D printer companies will most likely never have a chance at obtaining a license from Stratasys.
I will have to conduct a search to verify that statement. As I understand it you can copy IP if it's for academic study,
or for trying to figure out how to advance the technology.
But it's not OK to copy IP if your plans are to make things for you own or others use,
or sell parts generated from said machines derived from the IP.
My understanding is that the owner of the IP has ~6 or 7 years to act.
After that time period the IP becomes public domain any one can copy it.
I'm under the impression that Stratasys is violating this “rule”?
If money can be made by simply having your lawyers send a letter to the hundreds of mom and pop 3D printer manufactures,
Stratasys lawyers might do it. I believe that Stratasys can take all the profits, and a fine from the mom and pop companies for the past 6 or 7 years.
If I was a 3D printer manufacture I would be plenty worried.
That is not true any more. Posted in a RepRap forum a person who identified them selves working for a major 3D printer manufacture,
said that the RepRap machines of today are as good or better than the $10,000 professional 3D printers.
Book: 3D Printer: Patents and Inventions (future technologies)
MA Buth (Author)
Published (8 September 2013)
[www.amazon.de]
Can you provide a list of orphaned and expired foreign 3D printer patents?
I would enjoy the opportunity to review them.
Do you have plans of releasing an English version of your book?
By the way, great timing on the release of your book
A2
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2013 03:50AM by A2.
Quote
maboo
I worked on some patents in my professional past and I have also studied the 3D related patents in the last months and I published a book on them. I also feel great sympathy for OS and Reprap. There is a vast number of patents that is 3D printing related. Stratasys alone holds over 400 of them. Even for a person that considers himself aquainted with the matter and has an engineering background like me, it is barely impossible to know all of the patent claims that one may have to consider if he wants to bring out a 3D printer. That - in my option - is the major cause for large printer company like HP,Canon,Lexmark etc. why they did not get into this market yet. There are simply very few technologies remaining that have yet not been covered by patents.
Private individuals have nothing to fear from this kind of patent law suits.
But if you are going to set up a business, it is the same game everywhere, wheter you produce cars, refrigerators or .. 3D printers.
If the holder of a patent gets aware of an infringement, he must react within a certain timespan in order to keep his claims upright. In that sense making big KS campains or marketing 3D printersis a risky thing.
If one gets into busines, it could be smarter to ask the patent holder for a licence agreement, even after he was sued and try to find a way to get along with the patent holder. I do not think that those major players are so much afraid of Reprap - type clones. It is a different price segment and I guess even different customer group, that requiers good aftersales service, financing etc.
And let´s be honest: The professional printers are often far ahead concerning features, hardware, software, quality of parts etc. So I assume, it is the danger of loosing the claims of their patent if they do not react. So keep a low profile, try not to copy the appearance of their products (That is really, really stupid and calling for trouble) and if you are beeing approached try to negotiate a licence agreement.
One has to realistic, patent laws are globally and they wont be changed because of enthusiast who don´t want to accept them. This is the truth, even if some won´t like to heart it.
@ maboo
Quote
maboo
“There are simply very few technologies remaining that have yet not been covered by patents.”
After reviewing a small handful of Stratasys patents, I agree there is little to no room for more 3D printer patents.
It appears that Stratasys has a monopoly on the 3D printer market.
As I understand it, HP is presently selling Stratasys 3D printers rebranded.
HP plans to release an in house manufactured 3D printer summer 2014.
I can only imagine that they are paying a licensing fee. I wonder how much per printer they are paying?
I can also imagine that Stratasys will limit the number of licensing agreements,
as they wouldn't want to hurt their relationship with a mega manufacture like HP.
Thus the mom and pop 3D printer companies will most likely never have a chance at obtaining a license from Stratasys.
Quote
maboo
“Private individuals have nothing to fear from this kind of patent law suits.”
I will have to conduct a search to verify that statement. As I understand it you can copy IP if it's for academic study,
or for trying to figure out how to advance the technology.
But it's not OK to copy IP if your plans are to make things for you own or others use,
or sell parts generated from said machines derived from the IP.
Quote
maboo
“If the holder of a patent gets aware of an infringement, he must react within a certain timespan in order to keep his claims upright... ...So I assume, it is the danger of loosing the claims of their patent if they do not react. ”
My understanding is that the owner of the IP has ~6 or 7 years to act.
After that time period the IP becomes public domain any one can copy it.
I'm under the impression that Stratasys is violating this “rule”?
Quote
maboo
“I do not think that those major players are so much afraid of Reprap - type clones. ”
If money can be made by simply having your lawyers send a letter to the hundreds of mom and pop 3D printer manufactures,
Stratasys lawyers might do it. I believe that Stratasys can take all the profits, and a fine from the mom and pop companies for the past 6 or 7 years.
If I was a 3D printer manufacture I would be plenty worried.
Quote
maboo
“The professional printers are often far ahead concerning features, hardware, software, quality of parts etc.”
That is not true any more. Posted in a RepRap forum a person who identified them selves working for a major 3D printer manufacture,
said that the RepRap machines of today are as good or better than the $10,000 professional 3D printers.
Book: 3D Printer: Patents and Inventions (future technologies)
MA Buth (Author)
Published (8 September 2013)
[www.amazon.de]
Quote
MA Buth
“...orphaned and expired patents that can be used also for commercial, without infringing the patent right,...”
Can you provide a list of orphaned and expired foreign 3D printer patents?
I would enjoy the opportunity to review them.
Do you have plans of releasing an English version of your book?
By the way, great timing on the release of your book
A2
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2013 03:50AM by A2.
|
Re: Stratasys sues Afinia November 30, 2013 06:47AM |
Infill claims : Nature sues Stratasys !
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2013 06:51AM by M_Xeno.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2013 06:51AM by M_Xeno.
|
Re: Stratasys sues Afinia November 30, 2013 11:31AM |
Disclaimer: This post does not constitute legal advice. I am not an attorney. I do not have expertise in these matters.
By not sharing 3D printer technology, could Stratasys monopoly create some thing similar to the Nylon Riots of post WWII?
1945 Nylon Riots:
During the shortage, many people began to suspect that Du Pont was deliberately delaying production.
Reporters suggested the company was being greedy and unpatriotic for maintaining exclusive patent and production rights to a substance in such popular demand.
Du Pont’s factories were actually operating at full capacity but nonetheless, public discontent remained high.
In 1945, an ad appeared in Knit Goods Weekly that called on readers and other retailers to write to their congressmen in protest.
In light of the public scandal, Du Pont tried to shift the blame to selfish housewives who had nothing better to do than stand in line and hoard stock.
The public remained unconvinced. In 1951, after the riots had long subsided, Du Pont was finally threatened with an antitrust suit.
In response, they agreed to share Nylon licensing with the Chemstrand Corporation. They soon allowed other licenses as well.
[en.wikipedia.org]
By not sharing 3D printer technology, could Stratasys monopoly create some thing similar to the Nylon Riots of post WWII?
1945 Nylon Riots:
During the shortage, many people began to suspect that Du Pont was deliberately delaying production.
Reporters suggested the company was being greedy and unpatriotic for maintaining exclusive patent and production rights to a substance in such popular demand.
Du Pont’s factories were actually operating at full capacity but nonetheless, public discontent remained high.
In 1945, an ad appeared in Knit Goods Weekly that called on readers and other retailers to write to their congressmen in protest.
In light of the public scandal, Du Pont tried to shift the blame to selfish housewives who had nothing better to do than stand in line and hoard stock.
The public remained unconvinced. In 1951, after the riots had long subsided, Du Pont was finally threatened with an antitrust suit.
In response, they agreed to share Nylon licensing with the Chemstrand Corporation. They soon allowed other licenses as well.
[en.wikipedia.org]
|
Re: Stratasys sues Afinia November 30, 2013 09:08PM |
Disclaimer: This post does not constitute legal advice. I am not an attorney. I do not have expertise in these matters.
It's good to learn that there was some collaboration in the early days between RepRap, and Stratasys.
Stratasys helped the fledgling RepRap community that's awesome.
But will that change? Bre Pettis switched to closed sourced, any thing is possible.
A trend analysis of the RepRap name shows it's more popular than the Stratasys name.
Mom and pop companies are benefiting by using the RepRap name.
Stratasy by purchasing Makerbot is now an owner of a mom and pop company derived from the RepRap commuinity,
and is now benefiting from the RepRap name.
Maybe Stratasys will respect the RepRap mom and pop companies because of this name relationship?
I would imagine that there would be a rather large blow back to Stratasys stock,
if Stratasys started to attacked mom and pop RepRap 3D printer companies.
The press would be all over it.
I imagine sophisticated stock owners might view an attack on a fledgling mom and pop RepRap 3D printer companies a bad practice.
As of late many of my friends are asking more questions about what companies to invest in.
By purchasing Makerbot Stratasys made their stock more susceptible to fickle investors,
bad news could amplify volatility in a strongly negative manner.
My concern is the patent monopoly that Stratasys has built over the years, and the potential for abuse.
It appears that Stratasys has patents on previous art, and have patented non novel ideas?
It's massively difficult to over turn a patent, so I doubt we'll see much if any action there.
The post WWII Du Pont Nylon riots are indicative of how upset people can become when a monopoly can't meet consumer demand.
It might also be applied to the lack of alternatives of a product, or an act of aggression on RepRap mom and pop based companies.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2013 09:10PM by A2.
It's good to learn that there was some collaboration in the early days between RepRap, and Stratasys.
Stratasys helped the fledgling RepRap community that's awesome.
But will that change? Bre Pettis switched to closed sourced, any thing is possible.
A trend analysis of the RepRap name shows it's more popular than the Stratasys name.
Mom and pop companies are benefiting by using the RepRap name.
Stratasy by purchasing Makerbot is now an owner of a mom and pop company derived from the RepRap commuinity,
and is now benefiting from the RepRap name.
Maybe Stratasys will respect the RepRap mom and pop companies because of this name relationship?
I would imagine that there would be a rather large blow back to Stratasys stock,
if Stratasys started to attacked mom and pop RepRap 3D printer companies.
The press would be all over it.
I imagine sophisticated stock owners might view an attack on a fledgling mom and pop RepRap 3D printer companies a bad practice.
As of late many of my friends are asking more questions about what companies to invest in.
By purchasing Makerbot Stratasys made their stock more susceptible to fickle investors,
bad news could amplify volatility in a strongly negative manner.
My concern is the patent monopoly that Stratasys has built over the years, and the potential for abuse.
It appears that Stratasys has patents on previous art, and have patented non novel ideas?
It's massively difficult to over turn a patent, so I doubt we'll see much if any action there.
The post WWII Du Pont Nylon riots are indicative of how upset people can become when a monopoly can't meet consumer demand.
It might also be applied to the lack of alternatives of a product, or an act of aggression on RepRap mom and pop based companies.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2013 09:10PM by A2.
|
Re: Stratasys sues Afinia December 01, 2013 07:09AM |
Disclaimer: This post does not constitute legal advice. I am not an attorney. I do not have expertise in these matters.
I was unaware that there was a challenge period for a newly submitted patent.
The USPTO website does not make it easy to locate where the patent challenges reside, I'm not able to find where the challenge link is?
This is very interesting, I'm curious if you can get on the patent challenges mailing list?
mattrobbo10 provided the following link in the RepRap IRC.
FYI: the challenges have expired.
DECEMBER 14, 2012 | BY JULIE SAMUELS
We Need Your Help! Join Our Fight to Keep 3D Printing Open
A few weeks ago, we asked for your help to identify patent applications that threaten to stifle innovation in the 3D printing community.
Now more than ever, it's critical to make sure the free and open source community and others who work in the space have freedom to operate and to continue to innovate.
With your help, we have identified a lineup of top-priority patent applications that seem both overly-broad and dangerous to the free and open source community.
Now it's time to find proof that these patent applicants do not deserve the monopolies they are asking for: that what they are trying to patent was known or was obvious before the patent was filed.
Specifically, we need documents published before the filing date of each application. Web pages, emails, journal articles,
or patents are all appropriate documents, as long as they were reasonably public. An email to a friend is not public,
but an email to a large mailing list likely is, particularly if the mailing list was open for anyone to join.
If the date of publication is not clear from the face of the document, we'll need to submit evidence of the date for the reference to count.
For each of the applications below, we've described the prior art we think would be most helpful.
If you think we're missing something important about one of these applications, don't hesitate to write in and let us know. We're counting on your expertise.
Please email 3Dprinting@eff.org with any submissions and, if appropriate, let us know which target you think it applies to. Thanks!
Target 1: U.S. PATENT APP. NO. 12/976,111
PRINT HEAD ASSEMBLY FOR USE IN FUSED DEPOSITION MODELING SYSTEM
This application relates to inkjet-style removable print head cartridges used in Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) printing.
Target 2: U.S. PATENT APP. NO. 12/976,204
PRINT HEAD FOR USE IN FUSED DEPOSITION MODELING SYSTEM
This application relates to a print head cartridge with a liquefier pump assembly for use in FDM printing.
Target 3: U.S. PATENT APP. NO. 12/687,996
METHOD FOR GENERATING AND BUILDING SUPPORT STRUCTURES WITH DEPOSITION-BASED DIGITAL MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS
This application relates to a method of building up support structures layer-by-layer for 3D-printed objects.
Target 4: U.S. PATENT APP. NO. 13/043,876
BUILD MATERIALS AND APPLICATIONS THEREOF
This blandly-titled application relates to 3D printing with a material that can be cured (particularly with UV light), and also claims every object that is printed with such a method.
[www.eff.org]
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2013 07:11AM by A2.
I was unaware that there was a challenge period for a newly submitted patent.
The USPTO website does not make it easy to locate where the patent challenges reside, I'm not able to find where the challenge link is?
This is very interesting, I'm curious if you can get on the patent challenges mailing list?
mattrobbo10 provided the following link in the RepRap IRC.
FYI: the challenges have expired.
DECEMBER 14, 2012 | BY JULIE SAMUELS
We Need Your Help! Join Our Fight to Keep 3D Printing Open
A few weeks ago, we asked for your help to identify patent applications that threaten to stifle innovation in the 3D printing community.
Now more than ever, it's critical to make sure the free and open source community and others who work in the space have freedom to operate and to continue to innovate.
With your help, we have identified a lineup of top-priority patent applications that seem both overly-broad and dangerous to the free and open source community.
Now it's time to find proof that these patent applicants do not deserve the monopolies they are asking for: that what they are trying to patent was known or was obvious before the patent was filed.
Specifically, we need documents published before the filing date of each application. Web pages, emails, journal articles,
or patents are all appropriate documents, as long as they were reasonably public. An email to a friend is not public,
but an email to a large mailing list likely is, particularly if the mailing list was open for anyone to join.
If the date of publication is not clear from the face of the document, we'll need to submit evidence of the date for the reference to count.
For each of the applications below, we've described the prior art we think would be most helpful.
If you think we're missing something important about one of these applications, don't hesitate to write in and let us know. We're counting on your expertise.
Please email 3Dprinting@eff.org with any submissions and, if appropriate, let us know which target you think it applies to. Thanks!
Target 1: U.S. PATENT APP. NO. 12/976,111
PRINT HEAD ASSEMBLY FOR USE IN FUSED DEPOSITION MODELING SYSTEM
This application relates to inkjet-style removable print head cartridges used in Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) printing.
Target 2: U.S. PATENT APP. NO. 12/976,204
PRINT HEAD FOR USE IN FUSED DEPOSITION MODELING SYSTEM
This application relates to a print head cartridge with a liquefier pump assembly for use in FDM printing.
Target 3: U.S. PATENT APP. NO. 12/687,996
METHOD FOR GENERATING AND BUILDING SUPPORT STRUCTURES WITH DEPOSITION-BASED DIGITAL MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS
This application relates to a method of building up support structures layer-by-layer for 3D-printed objects.
Target 4: U.S. PATENT APP. NO. 13/043,876
BUILD MATERIALS AND APPLICATIONS THEREOF
This blandly-titled application relates to 3D printing with a material that can be cured (particularly with UV light), and also claims every object that is printed with such a method.
[www.eff.org]
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2013 07:11AM by A2.
|
Re: Stratasys sues Afinia December 05, 2013 11:38PM |
Disclaimer: This post does not constitute legal advice. I am not an attorney. I do not have expertise in these matters.
Wouldn't it make more sense for Stratasys to first sue Adrian Bowyer, and his company RepRapPro Ltd?
Bringing a lawsuit against Adrian Bowyer (invented the RepRap Project ) would generate a massive amount of free press exposure.
I think this is the most efficient approach for Stratasys to get their message out to the hundreds upon hundreds of companies infringing upon Stratasys I.P.
I would think that all 3d printer companies would willingly, and quickly go out of business, if Stratasys went after Adrian Bowyer first.
Adrian Bowyer wikipedia:
[en.wikipedia.org]
RepRap Project:
[en.wikipedia.org]
RepRapPro Ltd:
[www.reprappro.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2013 11:39PM by A2.
Wouldn't it make more sense for Stratasys to first sue Adrian Bowyer, and his company RepRapPro Ltd?
Bringing a lawsuit against Adrian Bowyer (invented the RepRap Project ) would generate a massive amount of free press exposure.
I think this is the most efficient approach for Stratasys to get their message out to the hundreds upon hundreds of companies infringing upon Stratasys I.P.
I would think that all 3d printer companies would willingly, and quickly go out of business, if Stratasys went after Adrian Bowyer first.
Adrian Bowyer wikipedia:
[en.wikipedia.org]
RepRap Project:
[en.wikipedia.org]
RepRapPro Ltd:
[www.reprappro.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2013 11:39PM by A2.
|
Re: Stratasys sues Afinia December 06, 2013 09:56AM |
May we call them Stratasuits? 
|
Re: Stratasys sues Afinia December 09, 2013 06:38AM |
Disclaimer: This post does not constitute legal advice. I am not an attorney. I do not have expertise in these matters.
Source of the quotes:
Stratasys Lawsuit, Patents and More: An Interview with MakerBot’s Bre Pettis
By Phillip Torrone Posted 12/03/2013 @ 9:03 am
[makezine.com]
Where I found the quote:
[www.reddit.com]
Does it imply that the Makerbot is free and clear of Stratasys Ltd. patents before Makerbot was bought by Stratasys Ltd.?
Found this in the comment section below the main article:
Found this in the comment section below the main article:
Can the comments about RepRap inventions/innovation be validated?
Found this in the comment section below the main article:
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2013 08:02AM by A2.
Source of the quotes:
Stratasys Lawsuit, Patents and More: An Interview with MakerBot’s Bre Pettis
By Phillip Torrone Posted 12/03/2013 @ 9:03 am
[makezine.com]
Where I found the quote:
[www.reddit.com]
Quote
"When we were growing MakerBot, there were many times where we came up with an idea that we thought was new only to find that it had been patented years before.
So we would rethink it and do something different." -Bre
Quote
...So we would rethink it and do something different." -Bre
Does it imply that the Makerbot is free and clear of Stratasys Ltd. patents before Makerbot was bought by Stratasys Ltd.?
Quote
Bre Pettis
PT: Are you planning on suing individually hobbyists who are making 3D printers at home?
BRE: I legally can’t make forward-looking statements on behalf of MakerBot or Stratasys.
I can say that we are regularly inspired by the innovation created by individual hobbyists.
At MakerBot, we often try to hire and collaborate with clever and smart people.
Found this in the comment section below the main article:
Quote
Tyson Haverkort on December 3rd, 2013 at 10:44 am said:
“When we were growing MakerBot, there were many times where we came up with an idea that we thought was new only to find that it had been patented years before. So we would rethink it and do something different.”
Perhaps I misunderstand, but based on what I’ve read about the Stratasys vs Afinia claim, it would appear that prior to being acquired, MakerBot violated (at least) the following (claimed) Stratasys patents:
’925 patent by using non-solid infill
’058 patent by using a heated platform
Am I wrong in thinking this? Maybe you were paying royalties to StrataSys?
Also, there’s more than one kind of patent troll. Companies that patent purposely vague or over general ideas qualify in my mind. By reading ’124, you would think StrataSys invented the glue gun.
Found this in the comment section below the main article:
Quote
makomk on December 4th, 2013 at 3:22 am said:
Right, I think I’ve said this before, but Stratsys did not actually invent the things that they’re suing over and that Makerbot are still selling products based on:
- They did not invent the kind of extruder that they’re suing over and that Makerbot are also using. It was originally created and developed by the RepRap community and subsequently by the company whose printers Stratasys are suing over. If you look at the Stratasys patent, the Up! extruder – and indeed every extruder I’ve seen – is a rather different design which so far as I can tell lacks a key feature of the patent, namely the thin-walled tube running through the middle of the heater block for the filament. Stratasys’ extruder needs it because for some reason they’re feeding the filament through the heater block in a curved path, but neither Up!/PP3DP/Afinia nor any other printer does this – they feed in a straight line and use a drill hole through the heater block. (I’ve no idea how they’re managing to argue infringement – this feature is in both independent claims of their patent, so they’ve got to convince the courts Afinia’s printers have it.)
- They did not invent heated beds. Their patent is on almost any method of controlling the temperature of the environment whilst 3D printing. Nothing in the patent that I can see suggests heated beds or indeed any specific method of heating the local build environment (which they probably really ought to for the patent to be valid – am I missing something or were their patent lawyers asleep on the job?)
- They did not invent infill, the RepRap community did. No part of the patent that they claim is being infringed describes infill that even vaguely resembles the kind used by the Afinia printer. Their patent is on creating small pores in printed objects by changing how adjacent parallel rows of extruded material lay against each other. The infill they’re claiming infringes on it involves creating a rigid, thin-walled honeycomb-like structure inside the object. Quite a lot of community development went into this, and I’m pretty sure Makerbot are using it too. (Unfortunately, their claims are worded broadly enough that they may be able to argue any FDM printer that controls how air is trapped inside the printed object infringes, though it’s obvious from their wording they didn’t anticipate this technique – their claims requires the deposited strands to be “adjacent”, which arguably the honeycomb ones aren’t.)
- I’ve no idea about the seam concealment, I’ve never seen any 3D printer do that.
In short, Bre Pattis is making money from selling printers that use other people’s inventions and R&D work whilst Makerbot’s parent company sues using broad, creatively interpreted patents to make sure that no-one else can benefit from the fruits of those inventions – and yet is somehow portraying his actions as supporting innovation. This especially galls given how enthusiastically he pressured others into releasing their work in forms that allowed him to commercialise it for free.
Can the comments about RepRap inventions/innovation be validated?
Found this in the comment section below the main article:
Quote
-Brook Drumm, CEO/Founder Printrbot
If only the metric for success was how much a company actually helped the human race…
And not how much intellectual property and legal leverage you wield. In my book, it is.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2013 08:02AM by A2.
|
Re: Stratasys sues Afinia December 09, 2013 12:58PM |
Disclaimer: This post does not constitute legal advice. I am not an attorney. I do not have expertise in these matters.
Go to 8:30
[katiecouric.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2013 12:59PM by A2.
Quote
Katie Couric
...Bre did you ever imagine that, you know, when you came up with the concept of a 3d printer...
Go to 8:30
[katiecouric.com]
[www.reddit.com]Quote
ShrimpCrackers
I actually think it's the editing. I was doing amateur documentary video editing, and we use these visual transitions to cut short long speeches from people.
These shows are heavily edited for brevity. Katie obviously stutters as she is recovering from something as she asks the question.
He may have corrected her, they may have just cut it out as they transition to Katie before he gets to finish. So likely they may have cut him off in audio.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2013 12:59PM by A2.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.