Stratasys sues Afinia

One day, you're going to acuse somebody of being ohioplastics who isn't. On that day, he will have won.

What are you saying, exactly? Are you saying that you are not ohioplastics, and therefore ohioplastics, a person you seemed to know nothing about just a short time ago, has won? You went and read all about him in this short time and he has become your hero and you are here to champion for him, predicting his imminent victory and all that?

Or are you saying that you are ohioplastics, and aww shucks, you've been caught this time, but you'll keep coming back until you have won? I don't get it.

Internet trolls, crackpots, and cranks all share a basic pattern of behavior (a pattern that you seem to be matching more and more). You seem to think ohioplastics invented being a jerk. He didn't. He's just one of a long list of people that like to disrupt activity on this forum because:

• He thinks he is special
• He thinks the rules do not apply to him
• He does not respect others

If someone on the forum displays these tendencies, then it is fine to ban them whether or not they are ohioplastics.

So your saying anyone who has tendencies towards political dissidence and disrespect for authority is subject to be banned? That's half the people on this forum. That's 5 people! Or just the people you don't like? Either/or you have no grounds to ban me. As for me using an anonymous IP address, ever heard of a little thing called the NSA? Maybe I don't want people like you knowing my IP address.

Quote
Ralph.Hilton


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

The traction from the Chinese manufacturing sector is due to US brands off shoring manufacturing and then distributing here. Except in the low end Chinese brands aren't competing much directly in the US market. It's US distributors and retailers that are selling the most Chinese (or any offshore) brands and not the Chinese directly marketing to the US. Costs are rising in China, the lead times can be long and material can be questionable unless you have control over your entire chain. Like Apple, for example. As the Chinese standard of living for the urban workforce rises so has the labor price and with transportation costs rising and longer lead times, for many it will make less sense to off shore to China and either consider Mexico or South America or even repatriating some manufacturing. That is already starting to happen. At this point it's doubtful that many will close the Chinese lines altogether but for any expansion the trend is leaning toward closer the the US market if not the US.

Stratasys Drops One Patent from Its Lawsuit Against Afinia
[makezine.com]

This case is important beyond the fates of Stratasys and Afinia because the Stratasys patents could potentially cover many more desktop 3D printers. Last month, the court directed Stratasys to dismiss the accusation of infringement in relation to the patent that was related to controlling infill. In short, that means that one of the four patents from the complaint (the one that covers infill) is no longer in play. Furthermore, it is still possible that the patent could be invalidated entirely.

As part of its response, Afinia claimed to have found an example of prior art that should have prevented Stratasys from getting the ‘925 patent in the first place. But this wasn’t just any prior art. Afinia claimed that Stratasys itself already had a patent that included the invention that was being patented (again?) by Stratasys. That old patent should have prevented the ‘925 patent from ever being granted.

ACCUSATION OF INEQUITABLE CONDUCT
Afinia didn’t stop there. If an old patent really did include the parts of what became the ‘925 patent, that would be enough to invalidate the ‘925 patent. However, the old patent isn’t just an old patent. It is Stratasys’ old patent. As such, Stratasys probably knew about it (or should have known about it) when it was filing the application for what became the ‘925 patent. Afinia claimed that withholding this information from the Patent Office constituted inequitable conduct and patent misuse. Essentially, Afinia was saying that Stratasys had a duty to tell the Patent Office about its old patent – and that failing to do so was a breach of good faith.

STRATASYS ORDERED TO DISMISS
On July 11th, the Court directed Stratasys to voluntarily dismiss the claims related to the ‘925 patent. However, it did not order Afinia to dismiss its counterclaims. Instead, after Stratasys dismisses the ‘925 claims, the court will reconsider both arguments related to Afinia’s counterclaims. If nothing else, this removes a link between Stratasys’ complaint and Afinia’s counterclaim.

One other thing that we know is that the full trial date is set for Dec. 1, 2015. Between now and then we can be pretty sure to see a ruling on Afinia’s ‘925-related counterclaims. And it is at least possible that we see more rulings on other Stratasys patents and Afinia counterclaims.

by MICHAEL WEINBERG
Michael Weinberg is Acting Co-President at Public Knowledge, a nonprofit advocacy group that represents consumers on technology issues in Washington, DC. He is also also the author of a number of whitepapers including It Will Be Awesome if They Don’t Screw it Up: 3D Printing, Intellectual Property, and the Fight Over the Next Great Disruptive Technology and What’s the Deal with Copyright and 3D Printing? Follow him @MWeinbergPK

I know that ikea uses infill kind of patterns in their furniture to reduce the weight and increase the strength.
Who will sue who