3D Printer Models For Universal Construction Toy Connectors

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

3D Printer Models For Universal Construction Toy Connectors

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday March 21, 2012 @01:35AM from the you-would-pirate-a-car-wouldn't-you dept.

dangle writes "F.A.T. Lab and Sy-Lab have officially released their Free Universal Construction Kit, allowing builders to freely interconnect parts from Lego, K'Nex, Fischertechnik, and other common building sets. ZomeTool and Zoob patterns will be available after related patents expire. The makers have also spent considerable effort investigating and anticipating legal complaints from manufacturers, using an Inverse Think of The Children Argument: Some may express concern that the Free Universal Construction Kit infringes such corporate prerogatives as copyright, design right, trade dress, trademarks or patents of the supported toy systems. We encourage those eager to enforce these rights to please think of the children — and we assert that the home printing of the Free Universal Construction Kit constitutes protected fair use." Model files are available over at Thingiverse. The designs are all covered by the CC BY-SA 3.0.

76 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I don't think it's the copyright that upsets peopl by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 01:39 · Score: 1, Informative

What's the deal with the Kit's name? F.U.C.K? Is it good or is it whack?
Acronym... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 01:40 · Score: 5, Funny

Free Universal Construction Kit... F... U...C... mmmhmmm....
1. Re:Acronym... by b4dc0d3r · 2012-03-21 01:49 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It's actually a free Universal Construction Kit, if you check out the Things, they are "uck's Things" and the URL us http://www.thingiverse.com/uck/things/
  You can make a big deal about the acronym if you want, as they are probably hoping for free press. Or you can ignore that part, silently giggling when you think of all the lawsuits that will likely include the full acronym, capitalizing 'Free' and including it.
2. Re:Acronym... by Ihmhi · 2012-03-21 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  But then, the link (http://fffff.at/free-universal-construction-kit/) and this poster... manual... thing, whatever it is, both have the full name on here.
  Mildly amusing and the concept for melding all of these different sets of toys together is fantastic, but the low-brow name probably won't appeal to the parents who would buy this for their kids very much. Kinda stupid and short-sighted of them, really.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
3. Re:Acronym... by idontgno · 2012-03-21 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  The thumb-in-the-eye to the Man is wrapped up in the juxtaposition of that acronym and "Think of the kids".
  They want to F.U.C.K. kids.
  I can't decide if it's brilliantly subversive or gobsmackingly stupid. Definitely one of those "Can't tell if trolling..." moments.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
4. Re:Acronym... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  no, in better grammar it's a kit for kids. so, they want to F.U.C.K. for kids. it's got a charity or fundraiser feel to it. forget those boring 5K races for a cure...
5. Re:Acronym... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  And don't forget to think of the children.
6. Re:Acronym... by six11 · 2012-03-21 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  I have it on very good authority that the "F.U.C.K" name was intentional. It was developed by the guy sitting 5 feet behind me. Well, one of them, at least.
dangit by P-niiice · 2012-03-21 01:43 · Score: 3, Funny

more importantly, why in the living hell did I not come up with this?
1. Re:dangit by docilespelunker · 2012-03-21 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  I hope it's not the same reason I didn't.
Re:I don't think it's the copyright that upsets pe by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 01:43 · Score: 0

F.A.T.F.U.C.K! Quite the acronym there
Trademarks? I doubt it. by Barbara,+not+Barbie · 2012-03-21 01:43 · Score: 3, Funny

Some may express concern that the Free Universal Construction Kit infringes such corporate prerogatives as copyright, design right, trade dress, trademarks

If someone has really trademarked F.U.C.K, we're f***ed.

--
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
1. Re:Trademarks? I doubt it. by tepples · 2012-03-21 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Look at the "attractive B1 poster" and count how long it'll take for Electronic Arts to recognize that its old box-ball-cone logo has been given the old "rip and flip".
2. Re:Trademarks? I doubt it. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 02:23 · Score: 0
  
  That's not what that means.
3. Re:Trademarks? I doubt it. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  FTFA:
  "the Kit encourages totally new forms of intercourse"
4. Re:Trademarks? I doubt it. by Barbara,+not+Barbie · 2012-03-21 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Do you mean the one they stole from Borland more than 2 decades ago?
  
  --
  Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
5. Re:Trademarks? I doubt it. by tepples · 2012-03-21 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Do you mean the one they stole from Borland more than 2 decades ago?
  I did a Google image search for borland logo and all I got was the current logo of Borland Software Corporation, which is just the word "Borland" in Impact typeface. Wikipedia's article about Borland didn't have a logo history section. And then I remembered that Borland had used the "Inprise" brand for some of its products for three years starting in 1998. Inprise had a different box, ball, and cone that didn't look quite as much like the old EA logo as the shapes on the "attractive B1 poster". And I thought EA had dropped this logo in favor of its current vaguely ESPN-inspired logo right around the time Borland started using the Inprise brand.
6. Re:Trademarks? I doubt it. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, you are too similar to French Connection UK
7. Re:Trademarks? I doubt it. by docilespelunker · 2012-03-21 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Who's for tradmarking "If". Try and code without that ****** *******.
  
  Oh no, they got those words too:O(
8. Re:Trademarks? I doubt it. by Barbara,+not+Barbie · 2012-03-21 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Who's for tradmarking "If". Try and code without that ****** *******.
  
  Trivially easy.
  replace:
  
  if (condition) { .... code .... }
  
  with
  
  while (condition) { .... code .... break; }
  
  Both execute on the condition only once at most.
  Alternatively, use the ?: for an if/else.
  
  --
  Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
9. Re:Trademarks? I doubt it. by Barbara,+not+Barbie · 2012-03-21 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm talking about the icon used to indicate data in programs such as Borland ObjectVision and Delphi 1.0 - a ball, a triangle, and a cube.
  BTW, your link to the EA logo is broken - it points back to slashdot :-)
  
  --
  Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
Oh, they didn't really call it THAT, did they. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 01:45 · Score: 0

Idiocracy lego much?
Date? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 01:48 · Score: 0

What date is it (almost)?
This... by p0p0 · 2012-03-21 01:48 · Score: 2

Is the BEST THING EVER!

Lincoln Logs to Lego adapter? Brilliant.
Though that time spent looking for that *one* piece I think will double, and become increasingly frustrating.
Also, these things look like a huge threats to people heels.
1. Re:This... by jellomizer · 2012-03-21 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  Well for Lincoln Logs the tools exist to make new Lincoln logs and probably cheaper then a 3d printer.
  You buy wooden dowels, You use a table saw to flatten the edges. and cut holes on each end.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
2. Re:This... by p0p0 · 2012-03-21 17:48 · Score: 1
  
  It's more the just plain freedom in combining lego and lincoln log structures together.
  I'm speaking specifically the adapter itself, which are all ingenius, not just the logs themselves.
8020 by vlm · 2012-03-21 01:51 · Score: 1

Doing that with kids stuff is pretty safe... when they start trying it with 8020 is when the copyright SWAT teams will literally descend upon them. I would like to see cheap 8020 but I probably will not within my lifetime, which is too bad.
There's at least $10K of 8020 in a artsy architectural detail sculptural framework thing in the entrance at work... Can't wait till they redecorate, although unfortunately it'll probably be scrapped for scrap aluminum prices (probably over a hundred pounds of aluminum) instead of 8020 prices.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
1. Re:8020 by bytestorm · 2012-03-21 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure a piece of extruded plastic can compete with that, but here's an important note: A form that is functional is not patentable. This goes for clothes, cars, etc. If you are making replacement/repair aluminium extrusions that are 80/20-compatible for your own use, I rather doubt 80/20 Inc can do a lot about that. Of course, I am not a lawyer so I might be completely wrong about that.
2. Re:8020 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  It must be Confuse-Patents-With-Copyrights Day -- oh wait, that's EVERY day!
  A utility patent (the normal kind, as opposed to design patents) is entirely about a functional invention (not a "form" per se, more in a bit), and cannot apply to any non-functional element. In general, it doesn't cover form at all, except where the form is directly tied to the functionality -- this is the case for 80/20, thus it turns out to be "a form that is functional".
  A design patent covers ornamental/decorative elements of a useful product, such as the coke bottle shape, the iPad shape, etc.; these are generally used on cars. Perhaps you were confusing "patent" with "design patent" rather than "copyright" as per my opening one-liner... either way, you're wrong.
  A copyright covers a standalone non-functional creative work. These commonly apply to clothes -- which makes it look like you were confusing all three into one giant mess.
  A single ornamental design may be both eligible for design patent and copyright, e.g. if Samsung, in a mighty effort to avoid confusion with Apple products, took to producing tablets with a bas-relief of Steve Jobs sucking a dick on the back. The bas-relief, removed from the tablet, would be an original sculptural work, thus eligible for copyright; it's use as a non-functional decoration of a tablet computer would be eligible for a design patent. It would in no case be eligible for a utility patent.
  The iPad design patent (known to detractors as "rrect", though it's a bit more than that), OTOH, would not be eligible for a copyright, because it's not sufficiently complex to be an independent artistic work.
VUCK by tepples · 2012-03-21 01:54 · Score: 1

They could just use the Dutch word for free, like the developer of the compiler originally intended for GNU (before GCC). Stallman asked to use it but got a "VUCK you" in reply: "the university was free but the compiler was not."
Sure, it allows you to "connect" things by GameboyRMH · 2012-03-21 02:01 · Score: 2

...but why am I immediately reminded of the "genetic fusion" technology from Invader Zim?

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Interesting, but ... by tgd · 2012-03-21 02:09 · Score: 2

Interesting but, do any of the various "home" 3-D printers have the ability to produce things with enough accuracy? You can't be off even a tiny bit with thickness or sizing for a LEGO to not fit, etc
I've seen the output from a Makerbot plenty of times, and never got the impression it had the ability to make something that fine grained, much less strong enough.
1. Re:Interesting, but ... by WillAdams · 2012-03-21 02:18 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Nope.
  Even the commercial systems used by Shapeways don't have sufficient accuracy.
  Here's an old post where I looked up the numbers:
  http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2395582&cid=37191528
  The problem is you can't make bricks of the same quality as Lego bricks using any 3D printer currently in existence or on the drawing board --- the tolerances simply aren't tight enough --- Lego uses _tons_ of pressure in their molding equipment, moreover, Lego is constantly doing QA on their production and will pull a mold and grind it up to re-use it at the slightest deviation --- the new Lego bricks I purchase for my kids still work fine w/ four decade old bricks from my childhood. Lego's precision for brick parts is something on the order of 2 micrometers.
  By way of contrast, the printer which Shapeways ( http://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=tree&goto=1339&#page_top [shapeways.com] ) uses has a tolerance of, ``... about .1mm, but the material can change it slightly. Overall, .5 should be fine, just make sure that they are not any sort of support walls or they may get broken during shipping or printing.'' .1 mm == 100 micrometers
  If you want to know what its like when the tolerances are sloppy, buy a set of Mega Blok bricks, but even those have tighter tolerance than the tenth of a millimeter which Shapeways quotes.
  
  --
  Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
2. Re:Interesting, but ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Lego tolerance is very tight because when you start stacking brick upon brick upon brick, any deviations can realy begin to screw things up. But if you are talking about a lego-to-tinkertoy conversion, that doesn't really matter so much. You put on one converter brick and now your measurements are in a totally different system. Sure the adapter might be a little loose or tight, but it's good enough to get the job done.
3. Re:Interesting, but ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Stackup's a part of it, yes -- and that's a big part of why Lego are so much better than Megablok (which have a looser tolerance than Lego, but still tight enough to almost always fit well).
  But on the 100um tolerance of typical 3D printers, you're not just talking "a little loose or tight", you're talking "may not go together or may fall apart" -- and the latter is a really big problem, since you can always sand/file a bit of interference fit down for acceptable assembly force. I think it'd work out OK in practice -- you just model it with a bias to interference so you get 10% too loose (scrap), 40% acceptable, and 50% require manual finishing; as a machinist by trade, that doesn't bother me at all. But it does go against the conceit of 3D printing most geeks seem to have, where you download a model, modify it as needed, feed it to the machine, and get a finished product.
4. Re:Interesting, but ... by metrometro · 2012-03-21 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  My toddler has built a homebew brick castle which I interpret to mean "Citation needed".
  Also, our bricks can have (gasp!) 30 degree angles. Shove than in your high pressure compression mold! http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:13531
5. Re:Interesting, but ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  UV photopolymer based printers such as Objet brand printers are some of the highest resolution available. I own one and they *CAN* print working lego blocks that snap together just like you would expect - you can even read the lego logo on the top of each round protrusion on top of each post. The "LEGO blocks" that my printer can print are not made from ABS plastic but they do work as intended. Granted, this is a $120,000 industrial printer that reaches 16 micron resolution. I suspect 3D Systems ProJet and other SLA printers could also match that resolution. Various colors and materials are available - including some that come close to ABS. But the texture will never be glossy with these machines although the side walls will be somewhat between matte and very slightly ribbed. High tolerance injection molding wins on that front - as well as cycle time and cost. So it's *POSSIBLE* to print out LEGO blocks.
  But doing this with a RepRap? Forget about it.
Bah by Hognoxious · 2012-03-21 02:14 · Score: 2

In my day, if you wanted an interconnector for your construction kit you made it yourself with a rusty hacksaw, milliput and a hand drill.
In fact, you made your construction kits the same way. And that's how we liked it!

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
3d printing??? Uhmm... not yet, guys. by mark-t · 2012-03-21 02:17 · Score: 5, Informative

3d printers have a precision tolerance of something on the order of about eighty to a hundred microns, or often worse... particularly for non-commercial home 3d-printers.
Lego is manufactured to a precision of less than 2 microns.
We're probably at LEAST another 5 to 10 years away from being able to use 3d printing technologies with tolerances in the 1-2 micron range, which is what would be required to adequately fit together with Lego.
For comparison, Megabloks is manufactured to a precision of approximately 10 microns.
Megabloks routinely slip, Lego does not. I shudder to imagine how poorly these 3d printed connectors are going to work.
We're not reliably connecting to Lego anytime soon. At least not with 3d printing.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. Re:3d printing??? Uhmm... not yet, guys. by vlm · 2012-03-21 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  Stable in compression, although you're correct, completely unsuitable in tension.
  What does work, so I've read, is supergluing a "real lego block" making a sandwich with real lego above and real lego below and printed block in the middle.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
2. Re:3d printing??? Uhmm... not yet, guys. by macklin01 · 2012-03-21 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  3d printers have a precision tolerance of something on the order of about eighty to a hundred microns, or often worse... particularly for non-commercial home 3d-printers.
  Lego is manufactured to a precision of less than 2 microns.
  ...
  For comparison, Megabloks is manufactured to a precision of approximately 10 microns.
  That's absolutely incredible. For comparison, the typical oxygen penetration length in tissue (the diffusion length scale: sqrt( diffusion constant / uptake rate)) is on the scale of 3-D printer precision: 100 microns.
  Human cells are on scale of Megabloks precision: 10-20 microns in diameter.
  A human cell nucleus is on the order of 5-7 microns in diameter: still larger than the 2 micron Lego precision! 2 microns is on the same order as the size of bacteria!
  If you want some more introductory reading on (cancer) biology, written by a mathematician for those inclined towards physical sciences, I have a few free pubs you can visit. (Including the oxygen diffusion limitations above.)
  Biological Background from Cristini and Lowengrub (2010) and some some tutorials here.
  
  --
  OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
3. Re:3d printing??? Uhmm... not yet, guys. by WillAdams · 2012-03-21 03:30 · Score: 2
  
  I believe the measurement unit mark-t meant to use was micro-meter.
  
  --
  Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
4. Re:3d printing??? Uhmm... not yet, guys. by mark-t · 2012-03-21 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  microns and micrometers are the same.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
5. Re:3d printing??? Uhmm... not yet, guys. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 04:12 · Score: 0
  
  Stable in compression, although you're correct, completely unsuitable in tension.
  What does work, so I've read, is supergluing a "real lego block" making a sandwich with real lego above and real lego below and printed block in the middle.
  If you're going to do that, what's the point in printing anything -- you may as well just superglue a standard Lego brick to a standard *whateverelse* brick, and be done with it.
6. Re:3d printing??? Uhmm... not yet, guys. by sjames · 2012-03-21 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  micron == micro-meter.
7. Re:3d printing??? Uhmm... not yet, guys. by vlm · 2012-03-21 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  The printing tech is waaay the heck more than adequate for lincoln logs and the like. Only lego needs the special treatment.
  Also like I wrote, in compression it's already good enough. you only need to do superglue tricks if you need tension strength. Not that lego is all that strong in tension anyway.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
That's it... I'm going to get reincarnated by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-03-21 02:17 · Score: 2

Shame- it won't be until my grand-kids generation that Makerbots become really good and common cheap house-hold appliances.
I'm officially not going to heaven/hell/land of 16 virgins/nirvana whatever when I die. I demand to be reincarnated so that I get to play with stuff built with 3D printers and get to have these type of adapters whilst still a kid.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Just Wait by glorybe · 2012-03-21 02:37 · Score: 0

My 3d printer will be programmed to spit out lego blocks by the thousands.
1. Re: Just Wait by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-03-21 02:47 · Score: 2
  
  Get enough of them- and you could build a house out of home-made lego.
  Building a house with lego has to be better than dealing with drywall.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
2. Re: Just Wait by ledow · 2012-03-21 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Make your 3D printer out of Lego, provide some automation - hey, presto - self-replicating robots who "feed" on the source plastic.
  Bonus points for 3-laws interpretations, and not forgetting to put in a "kill switch" somewhere.
3. Re: Just Wait by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 03:14 · Score: 0
  
  We already know that bullets are effective against replicators, so you can just strap a standalone "kill switch" to your hip. Just don't rely on the 3D printer to make the bullets...
4. Re: Just Wait by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  Better yet, find out how to turn Mt. Dew bottles into feedstock - think of it, drink a soft drink and get a few legos to play with afterward. Although I can only imagine the promos where Coke/Pepsi give away the converter that only works on their bottles.
5. Re: Just Wait by Minwee · 2012-03-21 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry about a kill switch. Just make sure that each one has a preset kill limit. Then, knowing their weakness, all you need to do is send wave after wave of your own men at them until they reach their limit and shut down.
6. Re: Just Wait by simcop2387 · 2012-03-21 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Being worked on right now.
  http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/rocknail/filabot-plastic-filament-maker
  Currently waiting to receive mine to give a try, last message from the guy (in the comments, not the posted updates) says that the major systems are working and gives an indication that the issures right now are going to be getting parts sourced and kits made and everything. Still definitely at the hobby stage but it'll work great for recycling bad prints or for reclaiming material from other sources.
Don't copy that-.... car? by Dekker3D · 2012-03-21 02:56 · Score: 1

So, this article led me on something almost resembling a wiki-walk. While I was reading about the IP implications of all this, I remembered the commercials-... you wouldn't steal a car, so why would you steal music? Well... we're already copying music (which does not take away the original) and I'm sure plenty of us would LOVE to copy a car. Or hell, design their own.
The coming century is likely to become a golden age for consumer industry if we have our way, or a dark age of gradually-reinforcing IP laws if the big companies have their way. Hence, it's extra important that we fight back against things like SOPA/ACTA/PIPA and the like.
That said-.. I'm going to play "don't copy that floppy". Just for the hell of it.
1. Re:Don't copy that-.... car? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  http://thepiratebay.se/browse/605
re: A few free pubs you can visit by jabberw0k · 2012-03-21 03:35 · Score: 2

Free pubs? Let the beer and knowledge flow! Where are they???
How about Creating a Open source construction kit? by Nexusone1984 · 2012-03-21 03:44 · Score: 2

How about Creating a Open source construction kit? That is unique, easily printable on current 3D printers/ or off the self parts from your local hardware store. and does not violate someone copy right. This way all parts will interconnect and improve over the current line of Toy construction kits limitations.
Eric
No, no, no, no! by WillHirsch · 2012-03-21 03:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

If I didn't know better I'd say this is a deliberate caricature of the misappropriated hype around 3D printers.
3D printers are good for making unique parts. As soon as the worldwide demand for a part exceeds more than about 100, the time and energy cost of manufacture per part will exceed the cost of tooling up one of the many mass manufacture processes available to make the part in bulk. That is highly unlikely to change - not least because the better 3D printing gets, the quicker and cheaper it gets to make the unique tools for a bulk operation.
If it wasn't for the total unsuitability of 3D printing for press fit interfaces, this might have had a niche application for circumventing the IP restrictions on establishing a mass manufacture operation. As it is, it's just another chapter in the myth that one day we will download and manufacture most of our own hardware at home. The world is a big place with a lot of people in it, and against the odds we are actually relatively efficient at cooperating with each other when it comes to products that lots of us want.
Correction: precision for _molds_ is 2 microns by WillAdams · 2012-03-21 04:34 · Score: 1

for _bricks_ it's 10 microns / micrometres.
So the difference in precision is 10 to 1, rather than 50 to 1.

--
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Re:How about Creating a Open source construction k by WillDraven · 2012-03-21 04:39 · Score: 1

But once you have your Created Open-source Construction Kit in your hand you should let it get in the Free Universal Construction Kit. Cause after all what good is a C.O.C.K if you can't use it with your other toys and F.U.C.K.?
Sorry I couldn't resist.

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Sooooo... by docilespelunker · 2012-03-21 04:59 · Score: 1

Who's going to tell them that glue also works?
Universal Constructor, huh. by DC2088 · 2012-03-21 05:07 · Score: 1

I was never properly trained in its operation.
1. Re:Universal Constructor, huh. by HelioWalton · 2012-03-21 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Laugh it up, Denton.
So it begins by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-03-21 05:08 · Score: 1

This will probably be the first major lawsuit by corporations alleging 3D printers and printing services encourage IP theft. The companies will be sued into oblivion or driven into bankruptcy by insane licensing fees.

'This has happened before, and will happen again.'
Think of The Children? by PPH · 2012-03-21 05:11 · Score: 1

Sorry. Children are expendable when it comes to the enforcement of copyright/trademark/patent rights.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
No Meccano? by Dusty101 · 2012-03-21 05:26 · Score: 1

Lame.
What copyright? by Animats · 2012-03-21 06:49 · Score: 1

You can't copyright a functional part in the US. That was settled years ago, which is why there's a third party auto parts industry. Some other countries allow that, but not the US. Patents may apply, but patents only cover the "invention" part, whatever that may be. Unless someone has a new method of connecting things, a patent isn't likely to cover an adapter.
As far as I can find, there's has never been a US lawsuit over replicating a part with stereolithography.
and grammar nazis bore kids without compassion by Thud457 · 2012-03-21 09:30 · Score: 0

H'e'r'e''s' 's'o'm'e' 'a'p'o's't'r'o'p'h'e's' 'f'o'r' 'y'o'u'.' ' 'S'i'm'p'l'y' 'd'i's'r'e'g'a'r'd' 't'h'e' 'u'n'e'c'e's's'a'r'y' 'o'n'e's'.'

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff