Stratasys sues Afinia

+1

Quote
nicholas.seward
@iquizzle: I think we should embrace the idea that people will want to make a business that runs on open source ideals. We owe Ubuntu to a company for example. While I think that RepRap at its core has nothing to be afraid of there are some businesses that RepRap directly and indirectly benefits from that do have reason to be afraid. I propose we do freak out and we do get concerned and we do get mad at the patent system. It is healthy response. The system prevents innovation and that is something that I think RepRap should be very concerned about.

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.

It's got nothing to do with the fact the machines come from China. A great deal of what Stratasys uses in their machines come from China. If those machines were made in the US Stratsys would still have an issue with them.

Quote
MattMoses
Wouldn't it be amazing if someone could invent a 3D printer that could print all the parts to make a complete copy of itself? And then people who wanted one wouldn't go to CDW, Best Buy, Radio Shack, or Tiger Direct, they would just buy one from someone who already had one? It would have to be some kind of self replicating 3D printer.

Oh, but this is just crazy talk. Who would invent a self replicating 3D printer? You couldn't go in to business with it, because you'd go out of business as soon as you sold your first unit. And if you can't go in to business with it, why invent it?

Maybe some community of like-minded volunteers could develop something like that: humanity's first self-replicating 3D printer. Base it on some known system and gradually add capabilities to make it more and more self-replicating, until anyone can print copies on their own... Nah, that would never work. As soon as someone got their machine to print something, they would forget all about making it self-replicating and run off to start their own little company. (Which then would promptly be sued into oblivion.)

I see a different end to that story.

Guy that runs company, after they ditch the guy that buiit the first machine that really started the company, sells the company to a much larger company who then begins litigation to attempt to gain market share.

It's so plausible it almost seems real...

Quote
iquizzle

Quote
thejollygrimreaper
maybe we should be approaching them to talk about some sort of coexistence in the future?

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. If you build a reprap at home, nobody is going to sue you. Patents really only exist to protect money and markets and to gain footholds in ways of making it. They can shut down all of their competitors, but they really can't touch reprap. Fundamentally, this is a community of ideas.. which despite what it may seem, has little to do with patents.

If you're here to sell stuff, yeah maybe this power move should concern you. But lets keep it in perspective -- as far as the goals of the reprap project go, this is hardly a blip on the radar.

having pulled apart the up!plus to retrofit a Smoothieboard into it (due to badly written firmware bricking a board) i can pretty confidently say that most Prusa i2's are built better and can be more reliable and even do better print quality on crappier filament, strictly speaking Afinia getting sued by stratasys or being bought out is probably the best thing for the some consumers in the us buying these machines

i would agree they can't really touch the reprap but i think keeping that assumption and willfully living in the assumption they won't try is probably a mistake,

---

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

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



Method for controlled porosity three-dimensional modeling
US 5653925
[www.google.com]

Summary:
Workaround: Don't sell a 3D printer with a print head.

This patent pretty much locks up the market.
I don't understand why Stratasys, Inc. didn't pursue the hundreds of copy cats?

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2013 10:15PM by A2.

That patent looks like nonsense to me (as most do, including some with my name on!).

Quote

the beads are generally elliptical in cross section.

But they draw rectangles with semicircular ends, which is reality, not ellipses.

They seem to be patenting a natural consequence: If you don't extrude enough plastic to fill the build volume there will be air gaps between it. How is that an invention or discovery? It is blindingly obvious.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2013 05:40PM by nophead.

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

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.

Absolutely my thoughts.

The winners here are anyone who lives in a country that doesn't observe/implement the US / WTO Patent madness that has been happening for a number of years.

Quote
nicholas.seward
While I think that RepRap at its core has nothing to be afraid of there are some businesses that RepRap directly and indirectly benefits from that do have reason to be afraid.

If patents like heated bed's get enforced to wider scope over time, there will start to to be knock on effects to the RepRap community.
i.e Less companies will sell heated PCB's as they won't want to deal with the potential hassle of dealing with high powered US lawyers.

Kits from the US and Europe etc, will stop including any parts that vaguely go anywhere near patent infringement.
Hence kits are going to be very inferior to commercial printers.

In the end the Reprap movement will be left with only self build, which will be a very very small community.
e.g. I'm a fairly decent electrical and mechanical engineer, and I found that building my MendelMax kit used quite a lot of my skills.
IMHO. Even building a kit is beyond the capabilities of 99% of the population.


BTW. I was going to upload a load of designs (STL and OpenSCad) for various parts to repair stuff around the house, to ThingiVerse, but basically if Thingiverse is vaguely associated with Makerbot and hence Stratasys, I'm no longer going to upload. I'll just post to my blog instead.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2013 05:51PM by rogerclark.

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



Thin-wall tube liquifier (i.e. extruder or hot end)
US 6004124
[www.google.com]

Summary:
Don't use a thin wall tube to guide the filament towards the heated nozzle.

Claim 1. a first thin-wall tube having an inlet end for receiving a flament of a first material,
an outlet end for delivering the first material in a molten state, and having a first section adjacent the
inlet end and exterior to the heating block and a second section which passes through the heating block;

Workaround: Don't use a thin-wall tube that is inserted into the heater block as a filament guide.
This sounds like it is describing features of the Bowden extruder.

4. The extrusion head of claims 1, 2 or 3 wherein: the first thin-wall tube is made of metal.
Workaround: Don't use a thin wall metal tube.

I think Stratasys has been focused on B2B revenue, and not on the retail market,
and that's why they haven't pursued suing the small fish.

But now that there is a market for their technology and handsome profits to be made,
they are going to enforce their patents to stop the competition.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2013 10:15PM by A2.

We all knew there was patent for anything in this world right ? true also for anything in our nice repraps

Go check any DIY , makers website and i bet you find a patent for ANY item described there.

You just take care to don't win more than $1.00.000 / year an you will be fine

If Stratasys establish their patents, and their legal arm becomes a profit centre, then there is nothing to stop them going against progressively smaller targets. That means people like RepRapPro, nophead and all the others. Even if you have no money, they can send a cease & desist letter, which is pretty cheap to send, and most web providers follow DMCA so will take you offline until it is sorted out.

When the fuss over Makerbot, Thingiverse kicked up last time, I said the worst that Makerbot could do is not going proprietary, but asserting IP rights and preventing others making and using 3d printers. OK, so it is Stratasys and not Makerbot, but they are now pretty much the same entity. Pretty much the worst case playing out now. Can't say I am surprised, corporate interest has bought out government.

---

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

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

I took a quick look at a few more of Stratasys patents (they have lot of patents),
and I'm shocked by what they have earned.
New, novel, non obvious to one skilled in the art, were not on the USPTO check list.

It's as though the patent reviewer didn't look on the internet to see what has been already done.
Stratasys can shut every one down from what little I have reviewed.

But in the coming 2 to 5 years a few major patents will expire so it will be interesting to see
how much enforcement Stratasys will employ, and who they go after.

I would like to review the printer that was first on RepRap.
Who designed/invented it, the year, and did they copy an existing printer technology?

I would also like the name of companies that are in direct competition with Stratasys filament 3d printers,
companies with sales >$10,000,000. These companies names will provide more insight as to what technologies can be used.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2013 10:32PM by A2.

This all reminds me of the Sublimation Printing industry I was in for 15+ years. Nobody had patents and one company basically took out all kinds of patents on the main methods for printing, they hired very good patent layers that covered pretty much every aspect of the industry. One by one the company started suing the little companies and sometimes buying them out as part of the deal. To this day they are the only supplier of desktop sublimation inks and systems. Everybody in the industry hates them but uses their product if they wish to continue the printing. Their patents expire soon but I think they already applied for extensions. It's sad to because other companies had better products and with the competition there was reason to innovate and make better products. Since the last company jumped ship there has been very little technological improvement in that process.

""It's as though the patent reviewer didn't look on the internet to see what has been already done.
Stratasys can shut every one down from what little I have reviewed.""

The patent reviewers only look for other patents. They don't look into the real world. If a company already has being doing it, it's up to them to defend it as "Prior Art". Since open source is not patented there is no one to defend it as prior art. It's sad but they are in the legal right of way.

Quote
tmorris9
""It's as though the patent reviewer didn't look on the internet to see what has been already done.
Stratasys can shut every one down from what little I have reviewed.""

The patent reviewers only look for other patents. They don't look into the real world. If a company already has being doing it, it's up to them to defend it as "Prior Art". Since open source is not patented there is no one to defend it as prior art. It's sad but they are in the legal right of way.

The fact that it's open source does not exempt it from being prior art If anything it would help because the ideas are widely known and distributed. If a patent holder chose to sue someone claiming infringement the defense could be prior art. What is required is to show that the method was in use prior to the patent being issued and the party requesting the patent was not the originator of the idea.

Quote
bobc
If Stratasys establish their patents, and their legal arm becomes a profit centre, then there is nothing to stop them going against progressively smaller targets. That means people like RepRapPro, nophead and all the others. Even if you have no money, they can send a cease & desist letter, which is pretty cheap to send, and most web providers follow DMCA so will take you offline until it is sorted out.

The DMCA is specific to copyright and copyright protection mechanisms, not patents.

Sony tried to corner the market by having patents on nearly every mechanism, method and circuit in their Beta video machines. So, the rest of the industry created new ways of doing the same thing and created VHS machines. VHS machines are nowhere near as efficient as the Beta system, and require 4 heads to do the same job as the single head in a Beta machine. The Beta was simply a cleaner and better design but Sony wouldn't share. The designers of VHS however, did share, and to anyone and everyone. VHS machines started popping up everywhere and sales people lauded their much beefier size (needed because of more circuitry and mechanics) and the fact that they had 4 heads, whereas Sony Beta had only 1. Sony lost the video market quickly after that because VHS"s were abundant, and cheap, and because the average consumer would naturally want the machine with 4 heads over the unit that only had one.

Quote
vegasloki

Quote
bobc
If Stratasys establish their patents, and their legal arm becomes a profit centre, then there is nothing to stop them going against progressively smaller targets. That means people like RepRapPro, nophead and all the others. Even if you have no money, they can send a cease & desist letter, which is pretty cheap to send, and most web providers follow DMCA so will take you offline until it is sorted out.

The DMCA is specific to copyright and copyright protection mechanisms, not patents.

Legally yes, but the point is that companies must follow DMCA for copyright, so they have a procedure that is easily extended to other types of IP infringement. In fact both Google and ebay allow takedown requests for alleged trademark and patent infringement, as well as other things. It's actually worse than copyright, because DMCA provides some statutory balance, which isn't required for other things. Effectively companies are voluntarily operating a DMCA for patents.

The legal issue is that unknowingly hosting infringing material provides some sort of defence, but if a company has been informed of infringement they are into the wilful infringement, and they want to avoid that.

The point still stands, a C&D request to a web host for any type of IP infringment can result in your stuff being taken offline until legal disputes are resolved. Web hosts are not going to spend money defending you.

---

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

Quote
vegasloki

Quote
tmorris9
""It's as though the patent reviewer didn't look on the internet to see what has been already done.
Stratasys can shut every one down from what little I have reviewed.""

The patent reviewers only look for other patents. They don't look into the real world. If a company already has being doing it, it's up to them to defend it as "Prior Art". Since open source is not patented there is no one to defend it as prior art. It's sad but they are in the legal right of way.

The fact that it's open source does not exempt it from being prior art If anything it would help because the ideas are widely known and distributed. If a patent holder chose to sue someone claiming infringement the defense could be prior art. What is required is to show that the method was in use prior to the patent being issued and the party requesting the patent was not the originator of the idea.

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.

---

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

It's sad to see the industry coming with the marketing, products,consumers,patents..etc.

I have a little think about Adrian Bowyer who started this hype after all. He wanted to share and make (again) a new world , now what ?

They take the hype and block everything, thank you reprap guys, now we're here !

Prior art covers what's in the public domain. If the examiner fails to discover prior art (and it passes tests for obviousness, etc.) and the patent is granted, the patent must then later on be challenged and reexamined, which can be a lengthy and costly affair.

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

There is dialog on Reddit on this topic.


[imgur.com]

Quote
Timaz
Data corresponding to a desired shape of a prototype is transmitted to a rapid prototyping system.
The system calculates a sequence for extruding flowable material that thermally solidifies so as to create the desired geometric shape.
A heated flowable modeling material is then sequentially extruded at its deposition temperature into a build environment
that maintains the volume in the vicinity of the newly deposited material in a deposition temperature window between the
material's solidification temperature and its creep temperature. Subsequently the newly extruded material is gradually cooled
below its solidification temperature, while maintaining temperature gradients in the geometric shape below a
maximum value set by the desired part's geometric accuracy.

In short- they claim sole ownership of FDM modeling.
This specific technology is the milling machine of additive manufacturing.
This case is saying that they [Stratasys] can prevent ANY FDM machine in the WTO from being sold without their permission.

Quote
oli_rain
Well then , we need to stop using thingiverse because it's made by makerbot and use another website!

Quote
traverseda
Anyone who wants to help out with an open source object repository let me know.
If you know python (django web framework and other stuff), javascript/jquery, html/css/design, usability, or pretty much anything else, let me know.
There's a lot of stuff that could get done. You can see what I've got so far here. It scales well and makes heavy use of CDN's.
[testing.rhombik.com]

[www.reddit.com]

Another Reddit thread:
[www.reddit.com]

And another Reddit thread:

Quote
snarfy
Anything that infringes a patent can still be sold in kit form, so we'll at least have that.

[www.reddit.com]

Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2013 10:32PM by A2.

Quote
Tekwizard
VHS machines started popping up everywhere and sales people lauded their much beefier size (needed because of more circuitry and mechanics) and the fact that they had 4 heads, whereas Sony Beta had only 1. Sony lost the video market quickly after that because VHS"s were abundant, and cheap, and because the average consumer would naturally want the machine with 4 heads over the unit that only had one.

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.

---

[haveblue.org]

Quote
vegasloki
I see a different end to that story.

Guy that runs company, after they ditch the guy that buiit the first machine that really started the company, sells the company to a much larger company who then begins litigation to attempt to gain market share.

I assume you are talking about Bre and Zach. Your version of history is incorrect. This was mentioned before in this thread.

For those that don't know, Zach used to run the RepRap Research Foundation. He could have made Thingiverse a part of the RRRF, but instead abandoned the RRRF to start a for-profit company (Makerbot). I think Zach is a good guy, but this folk hero status that people have attached to him is silly.

Zach's actions are a beautiful example of a person leaving the communitiy to start a company at the instant they build something of value.

Quote
Guizmo

Not only that:

Infill percentage

Heated beds

Extruders.

A path that conceals the ends


According to them, all FFF printers are infringing one or more of theirs patents.

@MattMoses: I believe they will protect Makerbot from all competition, so if they win this one, they will eventually sue all others.

It seems like going after infill is just as ridiculous as the heated beds. This is a basic parameter that everyone uses.

Also, how valid would a prior art argument (it existed before Stratasys filed the patent and so the patent isn't valid) be? Some of these ideas have to have been around since RepRaps and any other FFF printers first started popping up.

Quote
MattMoses
Zach's actions are a beautiful example of a person leaving the communitiy to start a company at the instant they build something of value.

I guess I will have to keep repeating this till I am blue in the face. Selling Open Source products is not leaving the community. Haven't we all said that Open Source developers need to make money somehow in order to keep funding Open Source development?

What is bad, and constitutes leaving the community, is selling proprietary designs and worse taking away from the public domain by patenting obvious ideas. People had no problem with Thingiverse and Makerbot while they were Open. Now they are proprietary and closing off public domain ideas. Completely different things. I believe Zach tried to resist that and was pushed out.

---

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

And another Reddit thread:

Quote
snarfy
Anything that infringes a patent can still be sold in kit form, so we'll at least have that.

Not true at all.. selling a kit is indirect infringement.

---

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

Quote
bobc
I guess I will have to keep repeating this till I am blue in the face...

I never said people shouldn't sell Open Source products. I never said Zach did anything wrong. What I said is:

1. Zach abandoned the RRRF so he could start Makerbot. He was a driving force in RepRap and he left. Simple as that.
2. If people are going to criticize Bre they should also criticize Zach.

Quote
MattMoses

Quote
bobc
I guess I will have to keep repeating this till I am blue in the face...

I never said people shouldn't sell Open Source products. I never said Zach did anything wrong. What I said is:

1. Zach abandoned the RRRF so he could start Makerbot. He was a driving force in RepRap and he left. Simple as that.
2. If people are going to criticize Bre they should also criticize Zach.

I disagree on all your points. It is clearly Bre who sold out and not Zach. Why do you always have a pop at Zach when this comes up? It's quite irrelevant to the topic. Is there some bad personal feeling here?

---

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

Michael Weinberg has an article summarizing the lawsuit up on Make: [makezine.com]

---

[haveblue.org]

Quote
bobc
I disagree on all your points.

How can you disagree with me on Point 1? It's uncontroversial fact!

And whenever I mention Zach (which apparently I should really stop doing - respect Zach, if you're reading this) I take pains to say that his actions are perfectly understandable, he's a good guy, etc. How is that having a pop?

What bothers me most is the distortion of history (this xkcd sums it up nicely). People act like Bre is a devil (with horns and everything, anyone see the reddit post?) and Zach is a saint. Bre's not a devil and Zach isn't a saint. That's all I'm saying.

Anyway, leaving aside all personalities (sorry everyone if I offended...) here is my little manifesto regarding the original topic of the thread:

1. A truly self replicating 3D printer would be effectively immune to patent litigation.
2. No company will ever develop a truly self replicating 3D printer because they can't make money selling them.
3. No volunteer or group of volunteers are capable of making a self replicating 3D printer because as soon as a volunteer gets something printing they stop worrying about self replication and start worrying about their Kickstarter campaign.
4. A self replicating 3D printer will never be made.
5. Unless it's made by an art student who thinks it would be funny.