Slashdot Mirror
DRM Could Come To 3D Printers
another random user sends this excerpt from TorrentFreak:
"Downloading a car – or a pair of sneakers – will be entirely possible, although Ford and Nike won't be particularly happy if people use their designs to do so. A new patent, issued this week by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and titled 'Manufacturing control system', describes a system whereby 3D printer-like machines (the patent actually covers additive, subtractive, extrusion, melting, solidification, and other types of manufacturing) will have to obtain authorization before they are allowed to print items requested by the user. In a nutshell, a digital fingerprint of 'restricted items' will be held externally and printers will be required to compare the plans of the item they're being asked to print against those in a database. If there's a match, printing will be disallowed or restricted."
because it's bloody obvious.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
So, no one else can patent it, thus disabling "DRM" authorization?
I won't hold my breath.
At least this means that if DRM comes to 3D printers, it won't be for at least 20 years.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
This will require significant bandwidth and processing power, especially to stop circumvention by rotating scaling, cutting (for later assembly) or adding or subtracting insignificant features. This bandwidth and processing power will add significant cost, which I see as fortunate in that it will be a competitive disadvantage for DRM enabled printers.
Just saying, it's going to be a long while before we have to worry about "printing" anything mechanically complex...
for rectangles with rounded corners.
a free 3d model of a 3d printer that doesn't have all this crap in it
God, the patent wars are coming to 3d manufacturing. What the heck is the point? I have to check with colgate before I can use my own machine to make myself a custom toothbrush? Is there going to be a DMCA provision for manufacturing at home now? Is it going to be abused like the current process is. I say BULLSHIT!
How can they believe that they can control this in a world where highly advanced 3D printing is possible at home? People will just print their own 3D printers that do not have these restrictions.
We can't have disruptive technologies that force us to change how we monetize creativity! Let's make the technologies useless, cumbersome, and expensive, so that later on we can claim they were never really worth what everyone thought!
Oh, and did I mention how terrible it is that we failed to do it with the automobile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_laws
Palm trees and 8
Looks like the patent protects a technology to implement DRM on printers. So... if you want to implement DRM on your printer, you'll have to pay the owner of this patent licensing fees. Otherwise, no DRM. So, non-DRM printers will be cheaper and more readily available.
Remember guys, a patent is not a law that things must be done this way! It's the opposite -- if things are done this way, you'll have to pay for it.
It might take 1 whole week to circumvent it!
...I hope "The Invention Science Fund" uses this patent to troll and keep this off the market. That way, I know which 3D printers NOT to buy. Given the popularity of DIY models, there are no worries here. No one is interested in a printer, file formats, or software/drivers that would implement such a thing - and now, it could constitute infringement. Genius!
The DRM fingerprint would have to include the exact calculations used to get there, otherwise independent designers using different formulas or algorithms to design pieces to meet certain requirements would not be able to print their parts that look identical but took a different route to get there.
thankfully, we'd just be able to redirect the URL in question to a blank database somewhere else, and print whatever we want.
DRM needs to end, not be extended.
More likely, this company wants to make money on some future standard that will kill 3D printing. You know, a standard that will be required by law for all 3D printers, which will be so loaded with junk like this that only large industrial operations will be able to use 3D printers. Us little people can buy or rent the products of 3D printers, but to own or operate one in your home will be out of the question.
After all, when we allowed people to have computers in their homes instead of x.25 terminals, look at the disaster that ensued.
Palm trees and 8
What the fuck?!
do not buy a US made 3D printer, ever.
simple
Now, imagine if there were a 3D printing standard that included this restriction system, and a law (for your safety!) that required all 3D printers to implement the standard. I predict that the standard will create such monstrously bloated 3D printers that only industrial applications will be possible.
Palm trees and 8
Welcome to the power of open source. There is only one Ford and only one Nike. They can only hire so many designers. In a world of 3D printers there are potentially millions of designers creating and sharing millions of patterns. Who should be scared about who stealing designs?
I'm sure there is a lot of incipient maggot meat clamoring for such legislation but it remains to be seen whether the maggots get to their brains before they can get it signed into law.
Seastead this.
All VCRs must be vulnerable to the Macrovision attack, by law. What makes you think that 3D printers won't have a similar problem?
Palm trees and 8
Huh. This is DEFINITELY one of the cases where anyone who reads Sci-Fi knows there's prior art, in the sense of published material describing a system operating in essentially this way. Patent was filed on January 31, 2008... Anyone want to help find stories that mention volumetric printer DRM pre-2008? Cory Doctorow's used the point in several stories - but Makers, at least, wasn't published until 2009. Anything pre-dating? Also, I think I've read an old classic short story that described people surviving a war by use of a synthesis device where they'd disabled the mechanism that prevented the creation of various goods... anyone know what I'm talking about?
How long before someone creates a spoof server just to print copyrighted objects, or likewise, how long before the authorized server is filled with spam designs to keep users from using their printers?
This kind of DRM will be about as effective as the copy protection on DVDs or, perhaps, Blu-Ray. That is to say: not very effective at all. Creating machines or software that bypasses this protection will be available to anyone interested not too long after the protection itself has rolled out.
A patent doesn't mean it's required to implement. Something like this would have to be integrated into the control software most likely, and many 3d printers and some (but not all) of the software that runs them is open source anyway. You could just remove this bit of code, compile, and go.
Good luck with that. I don't see it happening for quite some time, if ever.
I once tried to print some black-and-white currency (non-US 100 dollar bills) for a Halloween prop, and my printer instead printed out a link to some fair use of currency images site. Photocopiers do this too.
I printed from Linux using the open-source HP driver, and it worked! This DRM-related tech was built into the print software on Windows, not the printer itself. I ran an experiment with a scanner, and observed the same thing - I could only scan currency using a Linux machine connected to my scanner.
If the hardware exists, the firmware can be hacked.
They patented DRM? So that means all you have to do is NOT buy 3D printers from them, because nobody else will implement this DRM themselves, because they don't have to? This isn't an obligation enforced by law. This is a restriction on the manufacturing of a product (in this case, the DRM) by others. Who the hell WILL licence this technology? I mean, all it will do it hinder the customers and increase the price, so why would anybody add it to their products?
I wouldn't buy a licence for that patent if I made a 3D-printer.
bickerdyke
I suppose we won't license that technology.
"Downloading a car – or a pair of sneakers – will be entirely possible"
But totally uneconomical and impractical.
You may be able to print out various car parts (at least the body work, but not the engine,or transmission) but what about the cost of the printer cartridges. and then you've got to put it all together...
Kitset cars (like sportscars and replicas, have been available for some time, it hasn't cut into the sales of the major auto companies by any measurable amount.
(
This sort of thing can be snuck into the law without too much difficulty, by first creating a standard and then passing a law that requires all 3D printers to implement the standard. The standard will not be able DRM, but about things people will want standardized: data formats, chemistry, electrical safety, etc., and then also the DRM requirement, tucked away in the standard.
I gave this prediction elsewhere, but I bet that such a standard will make 3D printers too bloated, expensive, and complicated for home use. None of the big industries that sell incompatible parts that make consumers' lives harder want to see a repeat of how PCs and the Internet affected the recording and movie industries. They will line up behind a 3D printing standard that makes industrial scale printing interoperable (but also ensures that their rounded rectangles are not being printed without authorization), but which is not feasible for small scale or home use.
Palm trees and 8
Downloading a car – or a pair of sneakers – will be entirely possible, although Ford and Nike won't be particularly happy if people use their designs to do so.
I wouldn't worry about it. The MPAA has already stated that people wouldn't steal cars. What concerns them is the possibility that people will start 3D printing DVDs.
<BLINK>DOWNLOAD CANCELLED</BLINK>
Any type of technology along these lines, be it the printing press, the original phonograph, tape recorders, DATs, MP3 players, has had its makers fight extreme resistance to their existance.
3D printers are more of the same. DRM isn't surprising, and it will be championed upon the fear of bad guys printing firearms (of course the small detail of barrel pressures will not be mentioned) to get this through Congress as a law, and the patent holder of this will make a mint, since 3D printer makers would have to buy their DRM scheme.
We saw this before... SDMI and digital signatures with music around 2000 or so.
So, what about my metal press? My hammer? My drill? Should my other fabrication tools be required to upload pictures of what I'm working on so that they can refuse to function if I am replicating a design I found online? Where do we draw the line?
..who is going to be at the other end of the wire, this gatekeeper of whats legally printable? Can you see Disney allowing their printers to communicate their new character designs to some other entity (with poor network security that allows others to scoops them) and have exact copies coming from China days later? Ditto for numerous other large conglomerate with design secrets to be kept. As a live, current example of this in action, see what happens when you try to check the status of an interesting URL with one of the registrars. If you don't register it immediately, you'll be forced to go through someone who 'somehow' came up with the exact same idea at the same time. Our printers currently look the five circles in our currencies before preventing the printing of banknotes. Thats about as far as you're going to get with inhibiting what can be reproduced.
Alright people, form a group. Short people in front, tall people behind. Does everyone have their props? Lighting, fix that tripod. Tone down the fans, I SAID TONE DOWN THE FANS. These are makers, not storm-chasers. ... ok.
Alright people, serious face, game time. ROLLING! All together now, 3... 2... 1...
You, you, to the left. Spread out on the right.
NOT IF WE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT!
We the People have to move faster than bureaucracy and stupid people can. If we can end-run around these gatekeepers of the status quo then the future will be very, very bright. If not, it will be dystopian in the extreme and freedom will only be won with a shocking amount of blood.
If you are a technologist of any stripe who holds freedom above all other values, this must be your life's Calling.
It is mine.
If not us, who? If not now, when?
So, if the "maker" community were to create an LLC to hold the patents for all possible ways we can think of enforcing DRM on 3D printers, and then choose not to license such technology, we could be DRM free for the next decade or two?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Two of the biggest factors in making a motor vehicle are materials and labor. But in the case of 3D replication, you supply the material and the labor in the form of a robotic platform. So in essence they should be selling you the design files for a lot less money than new car costs because as I said, you are supplying the raw materials.
The point here is that there is a race between the recognition that the government is essentially lawless (its "laws" are not laws by any reasonable Constitutional interpretation) and the imposition of government control on people to make the world safe for lawless government. The incipient maggot-meat is basically hoping that people won't understand the real point behind such DRM legislation, which is not to protect intellectual property but rather to protect human property owned by government.
Seastead this.
Getting around this is trivial for the knowledgeable. It'll stop everyday people from doing what they do to films - you won't just be able to download anything and use it. But there is absolutely nothing to stop us from recreating a design for personal use.
That said, because of the costs of the printer and the plastic material, it'll almost always be cheaper to buy the object than to try to manufacture a counterfeit for yourself. You'll sleep easier too.
Perhaps the people who have approved decades of "existing idea X, but on a computer" and "existing idea-on-a-computer X, but over the network" claims will decide that "existing idea-on-networked-computers X, but using a 3D printer" claims are where the obviousness line is finally being crossed?
Well *ahem* the solution obviously is to use the excellent Lulzbot AO-100 printer.
On your DRM-enabled 3D printer, 3D-print a DRM-disabled 3D-printer.
Ezekiel 23:20
Sure, but could dmr come to 3D printers?
If they had waited for 3D printers to actually become useful before they attempted to make them useless.
This would be the future of wang measuring contests though; how many downloads did yours get this week?
This should last about as long as the blu ray drm protection.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
If 3D printers become regulated such that it is illegal to own a 3D printer without DRM. The technology is being designed, improved and assembled by amateurs. There are opensource file formats and 3D modeling software to design and input with. The most complex components can be sold separately and the technology is not so delicate that you can regulate the whole product with patents and only deliver the finished product to the user like with a blu ray player. This is going to be as difficult to enforce as stopping people from hand drawing Mickey Mouse. This is going to be more difficult than stopping me from printing any copyrighted photo I want to off of a regular old printer on propriety firmware with proprietary drivers on my PC.
There is no memory shortage. yes I have heard of XFCE. Go away.
Sorry, but companies and patent holder can completely and utterly bite me. I can make for my own use copies of your precious precious ideas and there is NOTHING you can do about it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
AS IF anyone who would give a damn about 3D printers would even buy one with this.
It is as stupid as buying a computer with a "Trusted Computing" DRM Chip on it. You saw exactly the reaction to that.
Not only that, WHO is going to pay for the servers, the bandwidth and policing of it?
Added price to the models? Oh yes, US, that is who.
Not to mention how hilarious stupid this is.
"What's that, you want to print an Apple? Too bad dude, I patented that. "
"Oh well I guess I'll just have to add a few bits of noise, enjoy your checksum / hash DRM crapware."
Implementing any other kind of complex checking system won't be done because they, like their entire businesses, are cheap and wasteful.
They'll not stop the 3D printing age. They can try everything they can, but it won't work.
The only middle ground they will be able to create is have large printing facilities that people can rent out, and smaller "printing cafés" for other things.
"oh looks like the sinks tap handle broke, I'll just print a new one and munch on some food or shop"
This will end up being the same for other media really soon as we move to digital age, games stored might adopt hubs that can download digital copies for people, them acting as a proxy. Not everyone has good connections even now, nor will they in the next 2 decades. (I mainly speak for places spoken about mostly in here, such as the US, UK and other large areas where you would expect there to be good internet. )
Then companies could do crap like "download the manual, only $1499! With added DLC, a notes section!" (yes, that is 1499, not 14.99)
I'm gonna make my own 3D printer anyway...
DRM was about encrypting end-users copies. This is a centralized command/control framework that manually checks the content of each model.
The difference might seem small, but this is more akin to Hollywood's wet dreams of magical control over everything that happens online. Good luck with that.
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
Suck my nuts.
The patent is useless so long as you can obtain or build DRM-free 3D printers.If people want to control their designs, it's their right. But their designs aren't the only option.
The more rules and regulations they throw at 3D printers, the more firmware/software will get hacked and alternative designs for consumer goods will appear.
I see 3D printers in the same light as the music industry, now someone can own a printer and make their own items (like they can professionally produce music at home now) in addition the piracy factor alone is amazing, imagine a 3d printer you can own that can make anything you would buy at Walmart or Target, imagine the impact this would eventually have on society.
The corporate strangle hold is gone, so I expect them to maintain position by making 3d printers illegal for individual use, or the components to make one and feed it's "printer" to be too expensive due to regulation or some other government/corporate interference.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
The idea of downloading and printing a car is absolutely retarded.
Consider what is involved in printing a car that will actually copy a car from a car company.
You will need several tonnes of raw material to feed the printer and thousands of dollars it will cost to buy and ship and store it.
You will need the printer large and robust enough to handle building parts that will weigh at least several hundred pounds and the smallest sized part, which is probably at minimum, enough to print an engine block, transmission, or length of frame of the car. Pretty sure this printer is not going to cost $69.99 at Staples. People thinking they are going to print a copy of a Ford using a bunch of parts that are no bigger than a shoebox are sorely out of touch with reality. You are NEVER going to have some system that print a car from the ground up into some completed and fully functional piece of machinery.
Also consider printing something like a shoe that would be worth wearing. Last I checked my shoes are not made from one material in some unibody design, it contains many components and different types of materials, least of which includes leather which is just not going to be printed out of a machine. I could print something that looks like a shoe, but I am not going to find it enjoyable to wear or as stylish as what Nike is going to sell me.
People seem to think these limitations are going to be improved or resolved in the immediate future, that home 3D printers are just going to get better with time and this will all be magically feasible. People need to apply some basic common sense and actually think of the logistics of what is involved in printing a car at home. The idea of ripping of a $30k car for a few hundred dollars of parts on a home 3D printing system is going to produce something nobody is going to drive in.
Sure, I agree that from an industrial point of view, the ability for one corporation to rip off and steal some other design and the print them in some large multi-million dollar printing system is feasible in the near future, but then why go through all the trouble of ripping off another design when its just as easy to create your own design and build it with this system. I don't think Car Company A is going to get away with making cars that look exactly like Car Company B, fundamentally I have no respect for a company that has to steal someone elses designs. I don't think DRM is required because current patent, trademark, and copyright laws will prevent companies from copying designs verbatim and passing them off as their own.
Some crap industry producing cheap plastic toys or products will be hit hard with home 3D printers, but people got to stop thinking that they are going to have home systems capable reproducing ing ANYTHING with the same quality and standards AND for prices that are significantly cheaper, like Cars or anything else worth owning.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
It's about prior restraint.
If you print something identical to a patented or copyrighted item, you deserve the rights holder's notification and requirement to stop, destroy, and no longer do so. But if you 'own' your printer, and load a file, and it happens to be identical to a protected object, well, you get the same notice, just in advance.
It won't end there.
If you load a file that is 'substantially' identical, DRM will probably work as well as DMCA takedowns are working, which is 'very well for putative rights holders, not well at all for fair use, for example'.
I suspect it will evolve from checking for identical files, to checking for 'very similar', to 'like something else'. Eventually, if I get a sneaker sole file from someone, I'll be unable to print it if it loks 'like' a Nike sole, as in relatively flat, foot-shaped, repeititive design elements on the bottom of it, and intended to perform well on asphalt surfaces. Like all the rest.
Already they want to suppress our ability to print things like firearm lower receivers, under the premise that this is a regulated activity, and you need a license, which in the US is not correct - so long as you are not selling your part either by it self or as part of a working gun. Prior restraint.
This is going to be an important, hugely important fight. We will have to defend our right to create.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
It's a real shame I already built my own CNC milling machine, and am planning on open sources the parts for the hardware. It's a shame that the software to run it is already open sourced... Too late guys.... Tony
A 3D printer with DRM already exists. There's an "app store" from which you buy designs, and pay per copy. It seems to be aimed at people who want to turn out models of popular-culture objects.
The new thing in this patent is recognizing copies of 3D objects by form, rather than merely having DRM on existing files. This looks like one of Intellectual Ventures' front companies. Note the name and location.
While 3D printing a car is silly, 3D printing replacements for small interior plastic parts is possible now. There are 3D printers big enough to make a car fender, and they're used to make mockups of new car designs.
Anyone here ever run a milling machine? That's a subtractive prototyper.
Apparently they can jack straight into my mind and tell what I'm going to either program on my CNC, or turn handles to make on my manual lathe and mills?
The patent office needs a huge overhaul.
We'd be better off without it and take the position that speed to market of new innovations can keep development income going.
It will be jailbroken. It's not even a question of if, just when.
Just "adjust" the database. Problem solved.
This signature intentionally left blank.
Why patent when no manufacturer will implement this piece of crap in their printers? Nobody wants to scare away their customers.
And us of a's govt won't be able to create a law that makes them use a patented technology.
So in fact this patent prevents Digital Restrictions Management from being implemented. Goog job, troll.
And who says the patent system doesn't foster innovation?
Here we have a new and innovative method to stop people from doing things.
That this is a patent covering 3D printing is a misunderstanding of the patent by TFA. The patent doesn't talk about 3D printers but manufacturing machinery, defined broad enough to include almost anything from CNC machines to casting. They don't have to wait until 3D printers become commonplace, because this patent covers much more.
What happens when I use my 3D printer to print another 3D printer without DRM?
TL;DR: Moore's law doesn't apply to mechanical manufacturing; the rate of progress in this field is slow and disconnected from the rate of progress in electronics; and "highly advanced 3D printing" won't be possible at home any time in the near future.
Conventional printers are also constrained by mechanical manufacturing. Nonetheless, we've seen a very nice progression from the dot-matrix electromechanical printers of the 1970s to the superphotographic quality of today's cheap inkjet or laser. We thoroughly understood the science involved in both electromechanical impact printing and photographic chemistry. But advances in software and microcontrollers gave us ways to use those technologies more effectively and cheaply, and made practical other technologies that let us do even better. I see no reason to believe that the same thing won't happen with 3D printing.
The sooner business adapts to new models the better off everyone will be. We keep retreading the same ground with every industry that gets shaken up by new technology. Adapt and let's just get on with the New Victorian Age.
For fun, mentally link the second part of the statement above (how many downloads) to the first part (wang measuring contests).
Discuss.
But I guess I'm not an evil bastard.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
They still think DRM is worth anything or is able to control anything. ROTFLMFAO!!!
Here's one totally off the wall, but may be interesting;
Sat in a meeting with Nathan at an encryption company. On the table, patent to encrypting objects. Nathan's observations; worthless patent.
fast forward time, Nathan: "patenting objects is a great idea I just came up with, and let's encrypt them."
Not only is his idea dumb and stupid, he got it somewhere else, at a time when he said it was dumb and stupid.
BTW Nathan, they played the patent game too. Microsoft gave in, everyone else left the courtroom laughing.
Have some common sense, most people at least put some effort into work when they steal investors money, not just recycle stolen ideas.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
I'll be heading to Vegas to collect my winnings in predicting some horseshit like this would happen. I can only assume the scumbags at Intellectual Vultures are behind this.
We will one day see 3D printing one molecule at a time with material feeds directly to your home, for a fee per unit volume... until someone comes up with the seed technology. [Diamond Age, by Neal Stephenson].
There is only one way in theory this could work at all and be practical. You'd need the printer itself to essentially just be a mechanical shell of servos, have a good deal of flash and a small ROM onboard with a thin client that dials out to a server to download the bits of the OS it needs as it needs them. You turn it on, chip dials out, authenticates, downloads a minimal OS to non-volatile flash for the current session, and then uses a design authentication phase to check the design file with the server and then, instead of just getting a "Yes" bit sent back the server actually sends back the instruction set necessary to the machine so that it can print just that design, and does so only in small segments, to ensure that a constant internet connection is required throughout the entire manufacturing session for the object to be printed.
From there your printer will do its job, and once the object is done, the thin-client flashes its instruction set and on power-off removes the remaining fragments of its OS. Of course, such a process would likely be so annoying and cumbersome that I can't imagine the entire market adopting it short of Federal law mandating it be done that way. Otherwise all it takes is one person/company to make a regular 3D printer that has all of its software onboard to break that model. Since with the internet being what it is outside of major metro areas why would anyone want to tie the performance of their 3D printer to what could be a spotty connection? It'd be worse than Ubisoft's DRM, and it'd certainly NEED to be, to actually "secure" the maker market.
Similar systems exists to 2d printing. This patent is obvious "derivative work" and must be dismissed. IMHO
Same here! Completed it last night and it milled the test LinuxCNC sign near perfectly ;-)
Planning on open sourcing it too, and to that end designed it with all hardware store components like drawer slide rails for linear bearings. Only 150$ of steppers and controller were ordered - though china! Only another $150 in hardware, and thats for 18 inch full-slide-out rails for effective 36 inch travel, though my design is for a 36x24x12 travel.
Hardest part was making high torque shaft couplers - ended up making a sandwich compression coupler from 2 metal square plates bolted together. Tried making a few more standard couplers that were aluminum tube and 3 bolts holding each shaft, but they couldn't take high torque.
Can only imagine 1/4 the slashdot crowd has started their own too or at least has dreams of making/buying one... Good luck regulating stepper motors - they can always be torn out of other devices and even homemade controllers are not out of reach.
Who would want to use a 3D printer to print something like a car? Material costs for the printer would be 4 - 5 x the cost of a new car off the dealer lot!
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
A patent for a DRM system for 3D printers is not the same as a mandate that all 3D printers must implement it. That will be a legislative battle fought a long time from now. I imagine a much more realistic application of this will have nothing to do with home users, since it will be trivial for those tech-savvy enough to own a home 3D printer to circumvent the system, or buy one without it. No, this will be targeted at industrious types who look to make a business out of piracy-based manufacturing. Just like it shouldn't be legal for Kinkos to accept payment for copyright-infringing requests (e.g. someone wants to print five hundred bound copies of 50 Shades of Grey for their "personal use"), it shouldn't be legal for a 3D print shop to take a fee for you to print out a bootleg of a hot new Christmas toy for your kid you found on The Pirate Bay because your local Toys R Us ran out of them before you could grab one off the shelf.
3d printed cars haven't happened yet???
http://jalopnik.com/5938012/first-3d+printed-racecar-is-real-and-real-fast
If you then add home CNC laser cutters and you have a pretty interesting, and much less expensive fabrication industry showing up.
But one example, that i can give you right now, with today's home technology is:
Automotive Replacement Parts.
the little door under my stereo has broken: do i pay 35 bucks for another from a toyota parts department? Or do i model it in blender, convert to STL, and print one out for 2 bucks in materials.
If i have a bigger printer i can print corvette body panels for perhaps 20-50 in materials, sell them with a 200 dollar markup. Still probably cost less than half of what gm would charge.
So, umm... I would have to run an internet connection out to my workshop to get a DRM enabled printer to work out there. And if my internet connection was out, I'd have to stop working on my project.
Since DRM adds no value to the end consumer, actually costing them money (to pay for the DRM implementation), and causing inconvenience when it doesn't work right, then nobody is going to want this "feature". Therefore DRM for 3D printers would have to be legislated into existence.
We need laws passed to make it illegal to make things that are designed to NOT work by default!
... from using this patent if I don't pay the royalties on it? Oh wait!
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
posting to undo a bad moderation.
Just to stay on topic a little, the patent holders are likely to only be able to use this patent to try to protect specific 3d parts that will enable manufacturers to extend the service while keeping it under some semblance of control.
Are these 3D printer "apps" encrypted?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Pics or it didn't happen.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
From all these comments prior me, it's pretty clear a LOT of people are hilariously confusing a Patent with a Law.
Just because some guy/entity patented a system "whereby 3D printer-like machines will have to obtain authorization before they are allowed to print items" doesn't mean every 3D printer will be required to compare all designs. Only those that license this technology. Think hard, this is how patents work.
This "system" would only apply to anyone who wanted to pay this idiot a licensing fee to protect something worthwhile, such as their entire CNC/machining infrastructure (Keep in mind, patent covers additive/subtractive/extrusion/etc. manufacturing too). It's really just industrial grade DRM for complex instructions/recipes that cost a lot to make and someone wants protected.
Previously, manufacturers that wanted proprietary instructions/designs would have had to license a number of units at cost/unit, or license unlimited units at a flat rate. Tell me how this would change that?
You don't like it? Buy a printer that doesn't license this technology. At most, this patent may more clearly separate the 3D printing field into an industrial, rights-managed arena, and a free (libre/beer) one where the instructions are free and the printers are open, with the former having a more industrial application, and latter having less money driving its development.
Science WILL progress regardless of idiotic laws and politics.
I hadn't heard about the scientific progress of the Cambodians under Pol Pot. Progress must have occurred since mere LAWS could never stop it.
Sarcasm aside, I think you meant "regardless of idiotic laws and politics, as long as they are not TOO idiotic. " Unfortunately for all of us, it is very difficult to determine the exact location of the "TOO idiotic" line, and current politicians seem to be pushing as far as possible.
Great patent idea. What could go wrong?
Oh, yeah.
The 3D Chiseler.
1. Patent something nobody wants.
2. Write legislation that requires everyone to use your patent.
3. Profit.
I imagine a practical system will be somewhat similar to the techique they use to safeguard currency. In case people aren't aware of this, I put a couple links below. The basic idea is that embedded in the design of modern currency is a robust signature (created by Digimarc) which is steganographically hidden in the data.
In the case of currency, when you scan in something, programs (like Adobe Photoshop) run some code that looks for steganographic the currency signature in the image and if it finds it, then refuses to let process it. It is estimated, but not known, how this works, but empirically, a crop as small as 10% of the image a banknote can currency contains enough information to trigger the detection of the currency signature.
I imagine something could be done similarly with 3d printers. The carrot that will make the manufacturers of printers put this in will probably be legislation that shields them from legal reprecussions (sort of a safe harbor against enabling copyright infringement). As an example, color photocopiers have been convinced to include yellow ID dot codes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_Counterfeit_Deterrence_Group
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sjm217/projects/currency/
What is the life of this patent?
Why does this matter - this is a patent NOT a law. All this means is that anyone who wants to implement DRM must pay the patent holder. In effect this is an obstacle to implementing DRM. In fact perhaps this is something people ought to think about. For example if I were the holder of this patent I could presumably set the royalty fee sufficiently high such that nobody could afford to create a printer with DRM effectively blocking DRM for the life of the patent...so I suppose in that case the lifetime would matter because after that anyone could add DRM.
I own a cubify printer. It lacks DRM. I can and have gleefully printed out all manner of self-created items, as well as other things downloaded elsewhere. You can, in fact, buy items from their store. You pay per item if you have them print the item and send it to you(which is fair). You can also buy the model file if the author has chosen to offer it for sale(as I do).
Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
Large companies have the advantage in fast and cheap production and with that they also have dips on what they feed the public.
Copying existing products is one thing but I'm much more interesting in the products normal people can create.
Most of today's products are not made with the goal of making the best possible product they are made with the goal of making profit.
But just think... if you where to design a pair of sneakers for yourself would you make something that is not the best you can possibly create? Who cares about overly expensive brands with fancy patented technologies made to last a year before they break. I believe it's time we start producing products that are custom fit and are made to last.
The assignee of this patent is "The Invention Science Fund I, LLC." Sounds like a zany R&D lab, right?
Wrong.
They appear to be a law firm specializing in patent law. I smell an up-and-coming patent troll.
Porquoi?
Since its a patent, then most printer manufactures are now incentivized _NOT_ to use this kind of scheme since it would cost them licensing money.
So this is actually probably a good thing.
Seriously, think about it, a printer maker now has to pay someone else if they want to keep you from printing a car or whatnot. But a printer that is _not_ so encumbered is not participating with the "patented invention".
So this is actually a tax on the printer maker for keeping you from printing whatever the heck you want. Those who just give you the printer and say "do as thou will" are not affected by this tax at all.
Go Us!
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I guess these won't print rounded rectangles, eh?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
This will require a lot of bandwith with a lot of technical files coming and going, lots of processing power to match even rotated designs and similar designs.. but who will have to go through all of these in order to print his own designs,
only legitimate users, as always
for the rest, i'm perfectly sure a hack will be distributed in no time that simply stops all communication and enables the printer to print anything, without approval of any sort, soon afterwards lots of schematics will appear torrent sites and we will be able to download and print them, while legitimate users fight through the legal system to lift printing blocks from false positives ..
This is why, if we are going to have a 3D printing revolution, it needs to happen right now before such a standard can be created.
Just like DRM in other devices, it will still happen and slowly encroach as existing pre-drm devices die, or as new proteced file formats become the norm. Then the 'revolution' that did or didnt happen becomes pretty much moot.
At that point only the 'hard core' will have unencumbered devices, but 99.999% of the rest of the world will be screwed.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
While 3D printing a car is silly
Today. Tomorrow, it may not be.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Buy printer
Print DRM-free printer
Problem, rightholders?
UMAD?
The blurb states "Downloading a car – or a pair of sneakers – will be entirely possible". Sure, you can download files right now that represent cars or sneakers. The thing that people seem to fervently believe is that some sort of magical machine will then "print" an entirely functional copy of the item at home. What makes you think this is remotely possible? Do you honestly not understand how materials behave, how complex modern cars are, and the processes used to make things these days? Do you really think all the complexity can be boiled down to a single machine? Really?
a way to patent people creative prints via stealing er I mean "checking the database" your design to others. why not just copy your design and patent it then sue you for using it?
f**k you. DIAF
So physical devices are protected by patents. A patent is filed to reveal to the world how your device works, and how to build it. That's the whole point. That way if someone comes up with a similar device you can use the patent as a test to see if their device infringes on your patent.
The thought of adding a DRM layer to protect physical devices is ludicrous. I can see why someone would go down this road, but it is madness and will not end well. It's tantamount for suing someone because they might not buy something.
I think a patent filing itself should contain enough information for anyone skilled in the art to make the patented object. For software I think I think patents should be done similarly, if at all. If I as a programmer cannot build something that is described in the patent in a workable form, it should not be patentable. That should get rid of 90% of those vague, nebulous patents, many of which have never really been implemented in any useful way by the patent filer.
Welcome to Open Source sneakers -- Open Source Replication -- download and try out new updates of your favorite products. I think there will be a market for brand name but it should still be a boon to consumers if developers without plagiarizing make even better versions of the products that are available with the raw materials people will have in their 3D printer at home. (EVA for midsoles on most modern shoes, for example)
Now taking bets on how many picoseconds it will take to modify the DRM bullshit right out of the firmware on these future 3D printers.
before there is a hack to break that DRM.. The only way they can actually really regulate this is like they do with high-end color photocopier that have the ability to copy money, else, it's kinda moot point to even have DRM.
If patents are meant to allow progress in a world where you need lots of capital (money) to build stuff for the ultimate benefit of society, by instituing a method for recuperating that investment in capital goods, then in a world where you only need a cheap printer and cheap raw materials to produce a substantial amount of goods, would it make sense to have patents?
We are heading towards a world that is better off without patents, at least for most things, maybe for all... The fact that it will allow for local manufacturing may mean that the USA might not be so opposed to a world without so much IP. (Currently it seems to be the major advantage of the USA, since its not actually building things anymore)
use it to print a 3D printer that doesn't have DRM?
Ever tried to photocopy or print money?
Yep, high priced printers, printing yellow dots , supposedly invisible to catch the owner,
or your paid product - refusing to work - uh ha - crap in production NOW.
Honestly the ONLY one product replacement will be plastic. Plastic bumper bars, plastic tail lights, and polymer notes (money), or DIY credit cards (or the repair) of these items.
As USA has lost actual production control, there is little incentive for the Chinese to sell 'crippleware', especially if it costs more - to do less It would be much more profitable to sell off-patent medicine making machines or DIY drub lab. I don't expect DRM would be on the wishlist of the manufacturer.
It is not a law , only a crappy patent. Don't use this patent, that's simple. Of course if if DRM protection must be mandatory, by law, then there is a big problem and this patent would be kind of tax