Stratasys sues Afinia

BTW, I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but another reason why Stratasys may have trouble targetting Adrian Bowyer is he lives in the UK and that's also where his company is based and AFAIK he doesn't really have any US operations for them to go after. So far all the patents mentioned have been US ones. I don't know if Stratasys has related patents in the UK, but if they don't targetting him would be rather difficult. They could stop him selling stuff to the US. And they could perhaps try to go after him for historic infrigement related to stuff he did sell to the US, but as it would have to be in the US and is just a civil suit, he could always ignore any lawsuit and make sure he never visits the US ever again. They couldn't stop him producing stuff in the UK for people there and elsewhere where they don't have patents.

In any case, beyond the bad publicity, targetting people with deep pockets, is generally the norm in patent battles particularly when you think your lawsuit actually has merit. Even if you're less sure, it still makes sense to target the real competitive threats first. Even with the aquisition of Makerbot, the hobbyist/open source community is so probably too far from their market to be of major concern. It's those making completely built printers with a more upmarket/retail goals who are of concern. Not to mention targetting the open source community often means they just find a way around your patent. In other words targetting Adrian Bowyer is likely not on their radar.

(The FormLabs case is IMO a bit different. With the Kickstarter and everything, they had a much more commercial focus from the get go and were also one of the first prominent ones to go in to SLS. Not to mention one of the key patents of concern was expiring in 2014.)

if you go back through the reprap blog logs and nophead's blog, also the reprap control software/slicer and skeinforge you will see the initial references to sparse infill even before the first replication. the origional extruders for darwin were teribly slow and sparse infill was concieved of to speed up print times and reduce plastic usage. the oldest version of skeinforge ive been able to still find is 09 and it was released 11/6/2009. This proves that the sparse infill patent is invalid and stratasys new that it was invalid when they filed for it. None of their printers used sparse infill untill very recently since one of their money makers is in consumables which they dont want to reduce usage of.

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

Quote
RBisping
if you go back through the reprap blog logs and nophead's blog, also the reprap control software/slicer and skeinforge you will see the initial references to sparse infill even before the first replication. the origional extruders for darwin were teribly slow and sparse infill was concieved of to speed up print times and reduce plastic usage. the oldest version of skeinforge ive been able to still find is 09 and it was released 11/6/2009. This proves that the sparse infill patent is invalid and stratasys new that it was invalid when they filed for it. None of their printers used sparse infill untill very recently since one of their money makers is in consumables which they dont want to reduce usage of.

Do you or any one have a link that can verify this, any thing on GitHub?

... found "sparse infill" mentioned 2006 and 2008 in the blogs - [blog.reprap.org]

But this option was discussed and programmed since the first firmwares ...

---

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 company I used to work for have a Stratasys Dimension printer that was bought in 2007. The slicer program had a sparse infill option....

Quote
RBisping
None of their printers used sparse infill untill very recently since one of their money makers is in consumables which they dont want to reduce usage of.

Incorrect - Stratasys has used sparse infill since at least 1997, and almost assuredly even earlier (Quickslice 4.2 is the oldest software I have, which was from '97).

---

[haveblue.org]

I wonder how SOMOS tretrashell falls into all this?

Quote
CdnReprap
I wonder how SOMOS tretrashell falls into all this?

My guess is that it doesn't apply at all, since tetrashell generates an entirely new STL with the sparse supports added in. The Stratsys patent would appear to cover the slicing software's generation of actual toolpaths.

---

[haveblue.org]

well, if stratsys has been using sparse infill for a long time why would they attemp to patend it in 2013? they would have long past any grace period for patend filing.

hmm. sorry I just read the infill patent again and it was granted in 97 not 2013. I will have to look over them again to see which one is the 2013 patent

ok, its the seam concealment patend that was published in 2013. filed in 2009.

Update: Afinia responds - [www.afinia.com]

---

[haveblue.org]

Wow, all guns blazing. Glad to see they are not taking it lying down.

Unfortunately, the main winners will be lawyers. I think there is an interesting link between this sort of litigation, US foreign policy and poker : they are all played the same way. In a sense that reflects the US pioneering spirit, gambling with the odds in order to win big.

Anyway, I think this one is going all the way to the showdown.

---

What is Open Source?
What is Open Source Hardware?
Open Source in a nutshell: the Four Freedoms
CC BY-NC is not an Open Source license

@bobc: There is no way this isn't going to settle out of court. Neither side has motive to take it all the way. For Stratasys there is the possiblity of establishing pecedents that they don't like and could block future suits and Afina will pay to avoid having to retool. (Lose a little and live to fight another day or possibly lose it all. I know which one they will pick.) Everyone loses except for Stratasys and lawyers.

Well, it's always hard to read who is bluffing, but Stratasys's patents seem weak to me. I think Afinia have a decent amount in the pot. 3D printing market is a big hand to play for. I don't know if a licence has been offered and refused, of course Stratasys don't have to license. But Afinia may have no business if Stratasys shut them down, maybe they are willing to bet? It would be interesting to know the market cap of Stratays vs Afinia's parent.

---

What is Open Source?
What is Open Source Hardware?
Open Source in a nutshell: the Four Freedoms
CC BY-NC is not an Open Source license

Initial analysis by Michael Weinberg of Public Knowledge is up: [www.publicknowledge.org]

Michael's appraisal is that Afinia is putting up a fight and is not indicating a willingness to settle - a request for a jury trial, an expansive search for prior art, and asking for a declaratory judgement that the patents are invalid (and not simply that Afnia is not infringing) are indicators that Afinia's intent is not to simply settle. Now, settlement may ultimately be what comes to pass, but for now, they are clearly conveying in legal terms "oh, it's on!"

---

[haveblue.org]

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

I hope that they don't settle out of court, and the patents are declared invalid.
Reversing a patent would clearly indicate to all the other 3d printing companies
that they are not infringing.

It will be interesting to see how Stratasys Ltd stock price responds to this suit as it progresses.

The bigger the market, the more likely things are to go to court, no?

Someone was telling me rights from a big name for use in their own product(vehicule parts) was about a million dollars a year. For under one hundred thousand units per year. Seems it would very quickly get to the point where a $10 000 0000 or more lawsuit would be a good bet if it had a decent chance to work out.

---

Yvan

Singularity Machine

I noticed that the new 3DS CubePro (http://cubify.com/cubepro/index.aspx) touts a "controlled print environment". I wonder if they paid Stratasys a licensing fee?

---

[haveblue.org]

Quote
RBisping
if you go back through the reprap blog logs and nophead's blog, also the reprap control software/slicer and skeinforge you will see the initial references to sparse infill even before the first replication. the origional extruders for darwin were teribly slow and sparse infill was concieved of to speed up print times and reduce plastic usage. the oldest version of skeinforge ive been able to still find is 09 and it was released 11/6/2009. This proves that the sparse infill patent is invalid and stratasys new that it was invalid when they filed for it. None of their printers used sparse infill untill very recently since one of their money makers is in consumables which they dont want to reduce usage of.

Wouldn't anything with infill be prior art or at lest make this non-novel ? They better go after those evil corrugated cardboard manufactures and honey bees next! WTF!!!

Oh we'll, I guess if they put "on a 3D printer" in front of it then that makes it novel. Thanks USPO!

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2014 12:46AM by appdev007.

The end of American 3d Printers.

The Stratasys/Afinia Patent Infringement lawsuit will spell the end of any and all American 3d printer companies.

The major US 3d printer companies, 3d Systems, Stratasys, etc. are cash strapped, Stratasys very much so. These companies, although American based, buy most of their parts from China.

Now here comes Beijing TierTime Technology Company, Ltd, a manufacturer of 3d printers comparable in features to the above at a fraction of the price. Lower labor costs, lower expenses, a supportive government, no unions, and they get unmatchable sweetheart deals from the very same component makers our companies use. Thanks to our blitheringly stupid government our manufacturers cannot compete.

Beijing TierTime (through Afinia) doesn't give a damn about patent infringment. They have the resources of the Chinese government and can spend Stratasys and everyone else out of business. It's about putting TeirTime's competitors in the US market out of business through outspending. TeirTime will spend Stratasys under the carpet then take their intellectual property as payment when Stratasys can no longer continue litigation. Then they will trounce everyone else, patents or no patents.

TeirTime will dominate everyone else because everyone will be afraid or unable to do anything about it. TeirTime will turn the American patent system into their tool of US market domination, watching as the last US companies struggle with IP protections and fight each other into bankrupcy just to have TeirTime mop up the rest.

Just like televisions, microwave ovens, computers, printers, and just about everything else you can think of, in 10 years time there will be NO American 3d printer makers.

This isn't the first time a Chinese company has done this, waiting long enough for others to build the market presence and public awareness, then undercut and dominate. It's business as usual. And that is what they are going to do.

They are not going to stop, they are not going to settle. Why should they when they can own the US market?

The only defense is for our government to get involved.

Try not to be too dissapointed when you hear "Trade helpes everyone" and "A rising tide..."

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2014 05:20AM by charleslow.

The USA has pioneered capitalism, free trade, free market, hire and fire, "intellectual property rights", corporate greed etc, even to the point of being a national ideology. That was fine when USA was great and selling to the world, dollars pouring in to the US, and making others countries beholden to the US.

But now when it comes to the same philosophy biting the USA in the butt... they think maybe it isn't such a good idea?

I guess that is Karma. When you are trashing someone else's economy, think about how it will be the other way round.

---

What is Open Source?
What is Open Source Hardware?
Open Source in a nutshell: the Four Freedoms
CC BY-NC is not an Open Source license

That is EXACTLY what the Chinese say. I've worked over there quite a bit and they feel that America built it's wealth by stealing the intellectual property of others and building on the backs of slave labor, much of it Chinese. They feel it a national duty to retake some of this "stolen" wealth.

Now of course, these are indoctrinated Communist Chinese, so the whole truth be dammed.

Nonetheless, they truly believe this.

I recall seeing this and it immediately occured to me that the manner in which the complaint was being based upon a loose "interpretation" of the relevant claim, and rather lopsided

i had een meaning to revist this myself and dig deepr, i have some more info collated on this and will be reading up soon.

Quote
ShadowRam
From what I've been reading about Chinese Printers as of late, Stratasys is shooting themselves in the foot.

The Chinese printers are becoming really good quality, and printing right out of the box.

People will just buy Chinese printers, if Stratasys attempts to dominate the market this way.

There is no "if" involved. The Chinese will inevitably take over the 3D printer market.

With a fairly open market economy it is inevitable that standards of living will gradually balance across the planet.
Until they do the Chinese will be able to supply manufactured goods at lower cost than competitors in EU or USA.

Has anyone noticed that the Chinese do not spend money sending troops to invade other countries like Iraq?

Democracy might be fair but it means that the rulers can be elected by people with an IQ fractionally over 100.

It would be nice if we didn't get this thread heated up again just for the sake of having an argument about politics. As far as I know, there hasn't been any new (public) developments regarding this case for quite some time. (Which is probably why the thread was cold since Feb 02 2014.)

Perhaps we can save the political debate until there are some new announcements regarding Stratasys/Afinia?

Right, be quiet. Show no independent thought. I agree %100.

goldenmongoose, if you would like to have a heated discussion about international politics, there are plenty of places to do that on the internet.

The RepRap forums are supposed to be a place where people discuss self-replicating manufacturing tools (of which 3D printers are a subset).

The RepRap forums are not supposed to be a place where anybody posts any thought about anything that pops into their heads.

It almost seems like we have had this converation before. Are you ohioplastics?

Huh?

Quote
goldenmongoose
Huh?

OK, so you don't come right out and say "No, I am not ohioplastics" but instead you act confused. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume (for now) that you are not, in fact, yet another alias for the banned user "ohioplastics", but instead you are a well-meaning new user who just happens to anonymize their IP address and just happens to sound very similar to ohioplastics. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Please allow me to welcome you to the RepRap forums. If you have not done so already, please take a moment to review the forum Rules and Guidelines. Happy posting.