Form1 3D Printer and Kickstarter Get Sued For Patent Infringment

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Form1 3D Printer and Kickstarter Get Sued For Patent Infringment

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday November 21, 2012 @01:55AM from the thus-began-the-printing-wars dept.

An anonymous reader writes "3D Systems, one of the big fish in 3D printer manufacturing, filed a suit against Formlabs's hugely popular Form1 printer put forth on Kickstarter. The crowdfunding effort has amassed close to 3M US Dollars, of an initial 100K requested. 3D Systems accuses Formlabs and Kickstarter of knowingly infringing one of its still valid blanket patents on stereolithography and cross-sectional printing of 3D objects. The company is probably going to go for the kill, as one can deduce from the demands on their complaint." In "The State of Community Fabrication" presentation at HOPE9, Far McKon noted that no one had yet filed a patent lawsuit against a 3D printing company, but it looks like his fears have come true.

143 of 211 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Don't innovate, litigate! by Andrio · 2012-11-21 02:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

After all, why take time and energy creating better products when you can just set your lawyers on the competition.

These startups must me punished for their hubris.

--
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
1. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by qbel · 2012-11-21 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Just curious, are you talking about this quote?:
  
  "And how are monopolies lost? Think about it. Some very good product people invent some very good products, and the company achieves a monopoly. But after that, the product people aren't the ones that drive the company forward anymore. It's the marketing guys or the ones who expand the business into Latin America or whatever. Because what's the point of focusing on making the product even better when the only company you can take business from is yourself? So a different group of people start to move up. And who usually ends up running the show? The sales guy. John Akers at IBM is the consummate example. Then one day, the monopoly expires for whatever reason. But by then the best product people have left, or they're no longer listened to. And so the company goes through this tumultuous time, and it either survives or it doesn't. Look at Microsoft — who's running Microsoft? (interviewer: Steve Ballmer.) Right, the sales guy. Case closed. And that's what happened at Apple, as well."
  
  Citation: http://allaboutstevejobs.com/sayings/stevejobsquotes.php
2. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 02:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  While I don't approve of the patent litigation, it's not fair to characterize 3D Systems as a patent troll. They do spend plenty of time and energy (and money) creating better products, as they did to create their existing products.
3. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by crazyjj · 2012-11-21 02:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They do spend plenty of time and energy (and money) creating better products, as they did to create their existing products.
  If their products are so much better, why are they so afraid of a little competition?
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
4. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by DickBreath · 2012-11-21 02:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They are a patent troll if they are patenting something obvious and using that to stifle competition. Whether they are practicing the patent or not should not be the sole determiner of whether they are a patent troll.
  
  If you really want innovation then patent a firmware restriction that prevents printing anything rectangular having rounded corners.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
5. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by RabidReindeer · 2012-11-21 02:53 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Just curious, are you talking about this quote?:
  "And how are monopolies lost? Think about it. Some very good product people invent some very good products, and the company achieves a monopoly. But after that, the product people aren't the ones that drive the company forward anymore. It's the marketing guys or the ones who expand the business into Latin America or whatever. Because what's the point of focusing on making the product even better when the only company you can take business from is yourself? So a different group of people start to move up. And who usually ends up running the show? The sales guy. John Akers at IBM is the consummate example. Then one day, the monopoly expires for whatever reason. But by then the best product people have left, or they're no longer listened to. And so the company goes through this tumultuous time, and it either survives or it doesn't. Look at Microsoft — who's running Microsoft? (interviewer: Steve Ballmer.) Right, the sales guy. Case closed. And that's what happened at Apple, as well."
  Citation: http://allaboutstevejobs.com/sayings/stevejobsquotes.php
  
  Short form: "Nothing succeeds like Success". It's why most Free Markets end up destroying themselves. If even one participant can rise above the common herd, positive feedback mechanisms begin to form whereby the winners get bigger at the expense of the losers and the bigger they get, the harder the task of competing with them becomes. Eventually most, if not all competitors become insignificant or extinct and the driving forces for the winners get replaced with forces unrelated to what originally made them winners.
6. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 02:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Actually, it's pretty fair to characterize 3D Systems as a patent troll. The Form 1 kickstarter received considerably more press *before it was completed* than their patent ever did, and they claim in their legal filing that the press they did receive was sufficient that both Form 1 (who is actually in the 3D printer field) AND Kickstarter (who is not) should have known everything about said patent due to it's coverage in a single blog posting online. If a single blog posting online is sufficient for persons and groups uninvolved in the field to be legally expected to be fully aware of all details of the relevant patent and it's ownership, then the coverage Form 1's project received _well in advance of completion_ would be sufficient that 3D Systems should be legally expected to have known about it, and been aware that all that was required of them to prevent any violation of their patent was communicating with Kickstarter and informing them of said patent violation, which is against Kickstarter's terms, and would have resulted in the termination of the project before any infringement could occur.
  
  Instead, 3D Systems willfully allowed said project to go to completion, rather than stopping it before it became a violation, and therefore if the same level of expectation of awareness their lawyers place upon Kickstarter is placed upon them, they are in fact the ones responsible for said infringement, by virtue of knowingly allowing it to proceed.
  
  In all likelyhood, they decided there was more money to be gained from suing a successful project in an attempt to "claim" the funds collected without having to produce any product for it (as well as "treble damages, which would likely in their minds constitute considerably more than three times the collected project funds). Therefore, yes, they are in fact patent trolls.
7. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by hsmith · 2012-11-21 03:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why should they invest all of the money in R&D so someone else can just take it for free?
8. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Xeth · 2012-11-21 03:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think you may be misunderstanding GPP. It was a simple (somewhat pedantic) statement about how the traditional definition of a patent troll is someone that doesn't have a product. Since they have products, they're not a patent troll.
  
  --
  If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
9. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by canadiannomad · 2012-11-21 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  AC is right. My first thought was "wtf Kickstarter isn't even in that industry!"
  
  --
  Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
10. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by darronb · 2012-11-21 03:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You're essentially asking why bother with patents at all. The hobbyists have been copying patented innovations of these commercial 3D companies. It was only a matter of time before this happened. Before, it would have been swatting at mosquitos. Now, a rabbit's popped up with $3 million, and they're going to shoot it.
  The hobbyists have created a lot of innovation, too. The basic hobbyist MO is copy and improve. That's fine when you're copying other open source/hardware stuff... but when you copy someone's proprietary crap, you're in a grey area.
  Hobbyists will obviously argue against patents, because they don't benefit from them much at all. Commercial companies need to do something to prevent large scale ripping off of their work, or they can't survive. (Case in point: the recent MakerBot Industries change of heart... which depresses and dissapoints me but as a small manufacturer myself I understand why they might think they have to do that)
  This absolutely affects these commercial companies' bottom line, and they have every legal right to protect the investments they've made in R & D. I have a commercial 3D printer myself and I just went out of maintenance partially because a brand new Replicator 2 is possibly better and costs the same as one year's maintenance. This is an absolutely clear textbook case of what patents are supposed to be for.
  This is essentially a collusion of worlds. "Cool, I could make that" vs. someone's got to make a living. Believe me, it sucks when you know you could make something but you're just not allowed to. I have a good deal of sympathy for both sides. I've released open source software (including -very- minor contributions to the Linux kernel), I'm becoming active at my local hackerspace, AND I sell proprietary industrial products that I could not make a living doing if they were free to copy.
11. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  They do spend plenty of time and energy (and money) creating better products, as they did to create their existing products.
  If their products are so much better, why are they so afraid of a little competition?
  Because this competitor is benefiting from 3D Systems $10+ Million dollars a year research and development
12. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by LordLimecat · 2012-11-21 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Its not about being afraid. If the existing system offers them legal protections, it makes zero business sense not to utilize them.
13. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Whether they are practicing the patent or not should not be the sole determiner of whether they are a patent troll.
  Hate to break it to you...
14. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by necro81 · 2012-11-21 03:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  why are they so afraid of a little competition
  Legitimate competition, perhaps. But I think they can justifiably object to competition that significantly copies their technology. [I am not trying to make a statement about 3D systems' patents, their validity, or any possible infringement by Form1's embodiment - I haven't evaluated it enough to judge.]
  
  We're not talking about an Apple-Samsung patent war here, quibbling over bounce-back software patents and rounded corners. Rapid prototyping is the kind of thing that the patent system was designed to protect: genuine, tangible technology that makes things and makes things better. All the current players in the market invested a lot of money, time, and ingenuity to create theirs; they are allowed by law to defend themselves.
15. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by ratbag · 2012-11-21 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  Because it benefits us,the people.
  At the expense of them, the company.
16. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-11-21 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Why should they invest all of the money in R&D so someone else can just take it for free?
  They did R&D for the startup? And for free? Knowingly? Then why did they do it? I suspect, however, that the startup did all their prototyping etc. on their own.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
17. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Applekid · 2012-11-21 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  There are a lot of patents for somewhat obvious things.
  I don't think stereolithography is one of them, to be honest. This isn't even in the same class as rounded corners or rangeCheck().
  
  --
  More Twoson than Cupertino
18. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 04:27 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Thank you, Humpty Dumpty, but words do not mean whatever you want them to mean. You have illustrated their likely strategy, but this does not make them "patent trolls". "Patent troll" means something else:
  Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.
  Seems one crucial criterion is missing from this case.
19. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by wjousts · 2012-11-21 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  It is not the patent holders responsibility to publicize their patents. It is the responsibility of any inventor to do a patent search first to understand the patent landscape and determine where they have freedom to operate.
  Ignorance is not a defense in the eyes of the law.
20. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by lxs · 2012-11-21 04:39 · Score: 2
  
  Two questions: What is the source of that passage and how are they the final authority on the meaning of this term.
  Thanks in advance for your eloquent ans exhaustively documented reply.
21. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by jandrese · 2012-11-21 04:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Kickstarter doesn't give out money unless the project goes all the way to completion and meets its goals. There wouldn't be much point in suing them before the Kickstarter was over, they would just kill the Kickstarter and have no money to sue over. You have to wait until they've got a few million bucks. That's how patent trolling works.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
22. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Sheik+Yerbouti · 2012-11-21 05:11 · Score: 2
  
  FDM has been around since the 80s it's not new. And neither 3D systems or Stratasys came up with it. S Scott Crump did. Now they may have patents on STL that's a different story. And I am sure they have BS patents around FDM but they didn't invent FDM and the tech is over 30 years old now. And that is what the Replicator 2 and RepRap use not STL so bullshit to all of this statement that they should have patent protection on FDM.
23. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by loneDreamer · 2012-11-21 05:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Because it benefits us,the people.
  At the expense of them, the company.
  Exactly, and that is the way it's supposed to happen. Patents, Copyright and others are not supposed to guarantee that a few people get rich, but instead that the benefit to society is maximized. I lost count on how many times the constitution has been quoted (on both cases) to prove it so. The question remains on how the hell did they manage to sell us the first definition so it's now the most common argument.
24. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by JD-1027 · 2012-11-21 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  This sure seems to make sense. It would be interesting to find some data on this. Something like "number of automobile companies by year" and such for various industries. I couldn't find anything with a quick search, but someone here has probably run across some data like this.
25. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by dubbreak · 2012-11-21 06:05 · Score: 2
  
  This absolutely affects these commercial companies' bottom line, and they have every legal right to protect the investments they've made in R & D. I have a commercial 3D printer myself and I just went out of maintenance partially because a brand new Replicator 2 is possibly better and costs the same as one year's maintenance. This is an absolutely clear textbook case of what patents are supposed to be for.
  Is it though? If we look at something like the Robertson screw head, the patent allowed them a monopoly on that product which allowed them to recoup initial r&d, machine costs etc over their patent life. Fair enough. Don't want a big screw company that does Torx or Phillips to retool then blow you out of the water with lower pricing because they already have their machinery paid for.
  
  But in modern systems when advancement is so quick do we need these long patent lives? It's basically artificially slowing the race to the bottom. It prevents competition more than the situation of destroying another company. I mean we are talking complex systems that aren't a direct copy, than in themselves take much R&D to create what is being called a rip-off. It's not a rip-off it's riffing on a theme. Of course the patents are for the end technology to prevent that from being copied wholesale, it's on small, but necessary pieces of the equation. Sometimes these are legitimate hurdles that need to some kind of protection to recoup R&D costs, but it seems most often these days it's simply a stop gap to prevent competition. I'm fine with companies requiring time to recoup expenses investing in inventing something. That makes sense as it encourages innovation, "We can only go ahead with investing this R&D money if we can get a guarantee we have exclusivity to it for some time so we can recoup." Sounds good. But now we are seeing stuff with basically no R&D being patented. In software patents they are patenting ideas basically.
  
  I personally think time and money put into (or that will need to be put into something) should be what validates a patent. The most recent person I knew to apply for a patent definitely needed it. They were working on a new fuel (that would work in a normal gas/petrol ICE). They had an initial formula and some initial promising test results, but it would take a few years of testing, jumping through hoops and working on a way to produce on commercial scales (i.e. money) to make it into a product. They needed a patent. Do I need a patent for a solution to a problem that was created beginning to end in a day, week, month? I could go out and patent using a piezoelectric element on the printing surface of a 3d printer for calibrating the z-axis. It's a trivial (and possible lame, but I'm just shooting from the hip) solution. Piezo on the printing surface, wired to A2D on microcontroller, print head slowly depresses over piezo while we poll the A2D. Assuming no prior art etc.. do I deserve a patent for that? I mean I can write it up and send it in to the patent office. Once I file fees regardless of it being new or unique I'll probably get the patent, but what for? I don't need to recoup anything.
  
  Regardless of my poor made up example I think my point is somewhat clear. The current US patent system is full of patents that weren't needed to recoup any kind of expense or to encourage innovation. They are simply road blocks. No matter what you try to create these days it seems you'll run into some obscure patent on some seemingly obvious solution. And that patent holder will come with one hand out asking for money and a hammer in the other hand. To me that doesn't seem in the spirit of the patent system.
  
  --
  "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
26. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by yndrd1984 · 2012-11-21 06:25 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, that's a common argument. Except that Steve Jobs was saying exactly the opposite of that.
27. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Fuzzums · 2012-11-21 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Why would you invest in product improvements when you can hire lawyers?
  
  --
  Privacy is terrorism.
28. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by darronb · 2012-11-21 06:39 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I think STL predates FDM, actually.
  I'm being a bit lazy by not looking this up, but what about FDM using support material? I'd bet that was somewhat later than FDM itself. I'd bet there are a lot of cumulative improvements in FDM that are still covered by patents.
  So, everyone's free to make basic FDM machines as they were described by the earliest patents. There's a lot of ground Stratasys covered since then that is probably being copied and leaving even FDM producers exposed to potential legal problems.
  I'm pretty conflicted on the whole thing. Give the hackers a basic tech like FDM, and they'd make most of the same improvements themselves... but they're going to be hitting ground covered and patented by commercial entities along the way. Many many times, however, someone's going to have looked at a commercial printer for inspiration... and that's essentially an unfair shortcut.
  I think people should be free to produce what they can FOR THEMSELVES without worrying about patent infringements... which would cover most hardware hackers (sort of a fair use concept). However, once you get funding and try to commercialize something, you're subject to normal commercial rules.
29. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by darronb · 2012-11-21 06:45 · Score: 2
  
  Well, those are called royalties... and that's an extremely common way to handle things.
  In fact, it's a potential outcome in this specific case. Many royalty agreements started as lawsuits. It's probably not likely here, though... since the per unit profit for the little guys is so drastically different than the bigger guy's margins. 3D Systems will just want this stopped.
  It'd sure be nice if there was a uniform way to know what patents apply to your product idea and a fixed formula for what royalties should be. Then, people could know exactly what things would cost them and put that in the plan from day one.
30. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Fuzzums · 2012-11-21 06:53 · Score: 2
  
  The first concern of a company is their income, not if people would benefit from a better product.
  Company no benefit, company not producing.
  Company small benefit, people huge benefit, company probably not producing,
  Company huge benefit, people small benefit, company definitely producing,
  
  --
  Privacy is terrorism.
31. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by erroneus · 2012-11-21 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  I can show where the opposite can be just as bad if not worse.
  I work for a company where the engineers lead the company instead of sales/marketing. Long ago and for a long time, I have always felt that no one can steer a company better than the people who make it work. The company I work for has proven that notion to be untrue.... at least in this instance.
  Where I work, we are beholden to the interests of customers and the requirements of government regulators. Problem is, the engineering side does not agree with the customers or the regulators. There are other issues at play as well, but that's the jist of it. My company is in the shitter right now largely because customers have lost ALL confidence and regulators don't think the company is taking them seriously.
  Thanks be to you, engineering leadership. As a US American, I have always believed the customer's interests come first because that's where the money comes from and we're in business to ... what? That's right! Make money! We can't pride and dignity to the bank... turns out there is no conversion rate for that.
32. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by erroneus · 2012-11-21 07:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's the problem with patents. It presumes that the ideas are "stolen" and not independently developed.
  Why should they spend money on R&D? So they can create the product they want to sell. Other people should do the same. As far as I'm concerned, as long as it can be shown that a technology which has been patented has also been independently developed by another party, then claims of infringement should be lost. After all, if the reasoning stems from money invested in R&D, what about the R&D done by the competition? What if they actually did their own research and development? And what if they did a better job than the plaintiff?
  I'm sorry, but blood, sweat, tears and resources argument doesn't move me. Lots of and lots of people work their asses off daily and only get paid for it once. If someone does all the R&D, patents and markets their thing first and they make a profit, then they achieved their goal and established a reputation. There should be NOTHING that guarantees their business model except continued hard work and effort. This notion of doing it once and getting paid forever is just broken. Worse is the notion of getting someone else to do it once and then getting paid forever. But now we're talking about patent trolls and the entertainment industry.
33. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by darronb · 2012-11-21 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Many small manufacturers or innovators have a product based on a single "ah ha!" moment that took no effort in that moment to think of. They usually took a (potentially deep) background in the field and some luck in having the right thoughts in the right order or being exposed to the right stimulus that day. However, they THEN took tremendous risks in quitting the day job, getting a business loan, building out an office space, setting up tooling, hiring employees, and starting production. The real risk is in that leap of faith that you'll be able to capitalize on your idea and make something out of it. That's what people want some minimal level of protection for. In that sense, your theoretical piezo innovation as a product might qualify.
  However, if you just took your idea and ran to the patent office for something to sell to a patent troll... no. There's value there, sure... but it needs to be value that is actively exploited in the economy. If you're just creating land mines to extract money from the marketplace, you're not helping anyone. The goal should be to protect people's investments in creating new things that everyone benefits from.
  Very simiar to the patent troll case... I could see how if you're a serial inventor and just sit around coming up with great ideas you should be able to make money selling those ideas to people who will actually bring them to market. It's a tough distinction to make.
  The core idea should be competition that is fair. If I spend a year to develop an improvement that takes a competitor one day to copy... that's not fair. If I spent three seconds coming up with a great idea that I know isn't going to be obvious to anyone, so I then spent a huge amount of money and effort to produce the product.... and a factory retools a line overnight to produce the same thing.... that's not fair. However, if someone working in isolation does in three days what some less talented/experienced people did in six months... that's fair. It's nearly impossible to NOT notice the results of your competitor's labors, too. Where do you draw these lines? How arbitrary can this crap get?
  I think terms are too long. The current system is pretty crappy. It certainly seems weighted towards the big players. It's a hard problem, though. I don't know what the answers are.
34. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by erroneus · 2012-11-21 07:47 · Score: 2
  
  That will simply never happen. There will always be a passioned individual here or there who will create something useful or interesting.
  You fail to appreciate what it means to be human. People often paint, and sing and build and create simply for the fun of it. Being creative and expressive is part of human nature. Youtube is FILLED with examples of this behavior. They don't do it in hopes of getting rich. And they aren't all any good. But some stars appear now and again don't they?
  The real crime against humanity here is that people are seeking to profit from someone ELSE's passion most of the time. The real inventors are just employees most of the time and got paid exactly once for their work. The people making the money are company owners.... and the lawyers.
35. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2012-11-21 09:10 · Score: 2
  
  True. When someone's a dyed-in-the-wool statist and wants to denigrate free-market economics at every turn, as the GP obviously wanted to do, then it doesn't matter if you're Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or a politician or a hairdresser. There's not much you can say about the subject that won't be turned against you.
36. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2012-11-21 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Something like "number of automobile companies by year" and such for various industries
  What would that prove? It's possible that the optimal number of automobile companies in a given market is small. If that's what the market says, then that's what the market says.
37. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by ratbag · 2012-11-21 09:33 · Score: 2
  
  Have the patents that pertain to this product expired? Are they in some other way invalid? If not, the company should still enjoy their protection, since that way the benefit to society is maximised. The company innovates and profits, we get new and better (cheaper, bigger, more effective, whatever - better is a broad term) products. After some time, other companies get to make products using the same innovation and prices decrease, or supply improves or whatever. Rinse and repeat.
  We can debate the alternatives if you wish, but in this case the patent holder seems to be behaving "constitutionally" (I'm not a citizen of your fine nation). If you really want companies to behave in a way that maximises societal benefits I think you'll need to change more than the patent system.
38. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2012-11-21 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  So -- isn't there a kickstarter for wannabe-litigators?
  Closest thing would probably be Intellectual Ventures. Their business plan is basically centered on becoming the Wal-Mart of patent trolls.
39. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2012-11-21 09:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It is the responsibility of any inventor to do a patent search first to understand the patent landscape and determine where they have freedom to operate.
  Bullshit. You have absolutely no affirmative obligation to perform a patent search. In fact, it amounts to negligence to do so, because the USPTO's policy of rubber-stamping everything that crosses their desks means that whatever you're going to do almost certainly is covered by multiple trivial patents. If it can be shown that you were aware of those patents, any damage awards will be trebled.
40. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by loneDreamer · 2012-11-21 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not stating any opinion in this particular case. It just seems dangerous to me how the arguments in favor of "creators" seem to include a legal "right to profit", despite any (positive or negative) consequence to society.
  
  Otherwise, your argument is sound and well-intended, although I doubt the real-world outcome is the one you present. I'm personally very skeptical of monopolies and restrictions as a solution. The reasons why we avoid them (or prosecute them) in the first place is because they tend to work the complete opposite, and IP seems to me no exception. I find this book to be particularly compelling in detailing the history and actual impact of IP: (warning, it's 300 pages long, but and interesting read nonetheless you can at least skim the conclusions).
  
  On a side note, I'm also not a US citizen (I'm from Chile), but I mention the US constitution for three reasons: Because the origins in IP in England are much more about power-grabbing and censorship than anything, thus not a valid point for the discussion. Because the US founder fathers addressed the issue in a much more relevant and interesting way (and were great thinkers, especially Jefferson). And finally because, whether we like it or not, that is were global law and enforcement is coming from these days. As most people outside, I abhor the current US foreign policy and general hypocrisy, although most individuals are just fine people.
41. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by ratbag · 2012-11-21 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry for the assumption I made about your nationality. I've downloaded the PDF and look forward to finding the time to read it :)
42. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Brannoncyll · 2012-11-21 10:20 · Score: 2
  
  It is not the patent holders responsibility to publicize their patents. It is the responsibility of any inventor to do a patent search first to understand the patent landscape and determine where they have freedom to operate.
  Ignorance is not a defense in the eyes of the law.
  This argument is absurd because there are simply so many patents - no small company could possibly be able to search through them to make sure they aren't infringing. I don't know if you have seen this article in which they quote an estimate, made by the American Intellectual Property Law Association, of the total cost if each software company employed enough patent lawyers to check through even a year's worth of software patents, spending only 10 minutes on each: $1.5 trillion, nearly 10% of the US GDP. It would also require 50 times more patent lawyers than the total number currently practising in the US. Although there are presumably less patents on 3D printer technology, the point is still clear: the system is broken because it is generally impractical to be fully aware of every possible patent that you might accidentally violate while developing your product.
  In fact the real absurdity of the system is that is allows people to claim ownership over an idea, which they can then use to extort honest people developing their own technology entirely independently. I agree that some sort of protection over copying someone's design can make sense, but there should be no protection against people independently developing something that just so happens to resemble your design.
43. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by loneDreamer · 2012-11-21 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  No issues whatsoever :-) Incidentally, you might also find this interesting: Johanna Blakley: Lessons from fashion's free culture | Video on TED.com. I have more sources if you are interested.
44. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · 2012-11-21 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  While I don't approve of the patent litigation, it's not fair to characterize 3D Systems as a patent troll. They do spend plenty of time and energy (and money) creating better products, as they did to create their existing products.
  I'd half agree except that they're totally going for the jugular rather than merely asserting their rights.
  
  And then I totally don't agree after reading the BBC article about this which mentions (at the bottom) that they're also involved in another dispute about a patent describing how database software can be used to raise cash for creative works. That probably explains why they're attacking Kickstarter too.
45. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by NoMaster · 2012-11-21 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  If we look at something like the Robertson screw head, the patent allowed them a monopoly on that product which allowed them to recoup initial r&d, machine costs etc over their patent life. Fair enough. Don't want a big screw company that does Torx or Phillips to retool then blow you out of the water with lower pricing because they already have their machinery paid for.
  Just as an aside, you do realise that neither Torx nor Philips screw drives are particularly good examples to use, don't you? Both were patented until the early/mid 90's - Torx was invented in 1967 & the patent ran out in (IIRC) 1993, while Philips was patented in 1933 and expired in (again, IIRC) 1996.
  The difference is that the Philips design was licenced to many manufacturers from the start and gradually became genericised, while Camcar Screw (later Textron) refused to widely licence the Torx design. Robertson had a bad experience with licencing (having to sue, and then buy back the rights from an English manufacturer) and ended up manufacturing the screws himself.
  
  --
  What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
46. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Dereck1701 · 2012-11-21 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  "What if they actually did their own research and development?"
  I don't know about now, since the US government saw fit to screw up the patent system even further recently by trying to "fix it". But at least a few years ago there was a caveat in the patent system that an independently developed patent was just as valid as another. Significant documentation was required and many courts chose to all but ignore this part of the law but it was there. With the idiotic switch to "first to file" though I don't know if it still exists.
47. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by erroneus · 2012-11-22 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  Oh I don't know... I seem to recall stories here about hobbyists trying to send themselves into space and stuff like that. Serious money being spent and all that you know?
48. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Ost99 · 2012-11-22 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  No real market works in the way you suggest; no real market say anything about the optimal configuration of actors, it doesn't self regulate like that in the real world. The market might self regulate to a state that's better than some other forms of market regulation, but it will never (in the real world) achieve optimal configuration.
  The free market theory postulates a strict set of pre-requisites for an ideal market that are NEVER present in any real market.
  Some of the factors missing in a real market include:
  * All market actors act rationally
  * All market actors (or at least all buyers) have perfect market knowledge
  Those two factors alone precludes any market where any actor engages in any form of marketing from achieving an optimal market configuration through self regulation.
  Marketing generally could be said to have two main modes of operation:
  1) Informing potential buyers; this is not necessary in an ideal market, all buyers already have perfect market knowledge; spending money on marketing in this setting is irrational and inefficient use of resources
  2) Creating an emotional response to your product - if this action is successful the market ceases to be ideal, since all actors no longer act rationally.
  Furthermore; it can be shown mathematically that any ideal market with fluctuations in supply and demand will be in an not-optimal state most (or all) of the time. There is nothing in the feedback loops that suggests that the market will be in a near optimal state while it corrects itself.
  
  --
  ---- Sig. gone.
49. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by lsatenstein · 2012-11-23 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  After all, why take time and energy creating better products when you can just set your lawyers on the competition.
  These startups must me punished for their hubris.
  On another front. The patent for Viagra in Canada was invalidated. You could have heard the sobbing. The result is that Viagra is going to drop from $49.95 per package to $37.00 per package. And the patent holder, after trying all litigation, failed. In their Canadian patent, they failed to mention the active ingredient. Ergo, all of the ingredients were inadmissable. I am not sure about pharmaceutical patents, but this invalidation means that the genetic pharamceuticals will sell viagra at the identical quantity for $15/less per package. Woowww hooow.
  
  --
  Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
50. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by wjousts · 2012-11-26 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  It is the patent holders responsibility to defend their patent.
  And that would appear to be what they are doing. Also, patents aren't trademarks. You don't lose them if you don't sue.
Only a matter of time by azalin · 2012-11-21 02:02 · Score: 1

In "The State of Community Fabrication" presentation at HOPE9, Far McKon noted that no one had yet filed a patent lawsuit against a 3d printing company, but it looks like his fears have come true.

It's not really a surprise, but was probably only a matter of time. If there is money to be made, patents and lawsuits will be filed.
Thanks for the Info by amiga3D · 2012-11-21 02:04 · Score: 4, Informative

Now I know who I'll never buy anything from. Anything from 3D systems should be blacklisted. I wonder what they'd do if no one bought any of their stuff.
1. Re:Thanks for the Info by kav2k · 2012-11-21 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder what they'd do if no one bought any of their stuff.
  MORE lawsuits?
  That's profitable, you know.
2. Re:Thanks for the Info by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  That's pretty obvious....they'll sue whoever is successful in the industry.
3. Re:Thanks for the Info by kiehlster · 2012-11-21 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  That will probably happen, but I have an idea, a painful one, but it could work. We could abandon the industry that is held captive by the patent(s). If everyone abandons the industry and boycotts the industry, perhaps the PTO will wake up and listen to the people on patent reform. Mr. President wants the country to have jobs, and the 3D printing industry is a good job stream, but if we let the industry fall on its face because of patent issues, it'll look bad for the administration. Perhaps then the president will push for patent reforms.
4. Re:Thanks for the Info by bfandreas · 2012-11-21 20:59 · Score: 1
  
  Easy. If suing gets them nowhere then they'll sue some more.
  SCO is a pioneer for this business model.
  
  --
  20 minutes into the future
Software patch might overcome this patent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 02:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

The patent in the link has the limitation: "the support structure selectively having different energy levels applied to it at at least the down-facing interfacing region than do the intermediate region and the object to thereby create weak points with less solidification in the solid state transformed liquid medium than the intermediate region and the three-dimensional object at at least the down-facing interfacing regions to facilitate ease of removal of the support structure from a completed three-dimensional object".
So if Form 1 software is tweaked not to do this, then it would not infringe. At the same time, by the filing of the lawsuit, 3D Systems may have done irreperable harm to Form 1. Counter suit anyone?
1. Re:Software patch might overcome this patent by imsabbel · 2012-11-21 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  A counter suit against somebody for filing a (as it seems) justified suit concerning real patent violation?
  Why ? What would be that point? If this does irreperable harm to Form 1, it just proves that their whole buisness depented on violating that patent.
  
  --
  HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
2. Re:Software patch might overcome this patent by TheGavster · 2012-11-21 02:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Unfortunately, the automatically generated, easy to remove support structures were a key feature that form 1 advertised for the machine (probably second only to the high resolution of the prints). The tool becomes much less versatile without them.
  
  --
  "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
3. Re:Software patch might overcome this patent by gl4ss · 2012-11-21 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  maybe they should have gone with someone else writing the sw?
  I mean, replicatorg, slic3r and some other slicing sw do support structures with varying success(and parameters) for ease of removal.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
4. Re:Software patch might overcome this patent by Theaetetus · 2012-11-21 03:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So if Form 1 software is tweaked not to do this, then it would not infringe. At the same time, by the filing of the lawsuit, 3D Systems may have done irreperable harm to Form 1. Counter suit anyone?
  If Form 1 currently infringes, such that they would have to tweak their software to not infringe, then 3D Systems did nothing wrong in filing their lawsuit. A countersuit on such grounds would be frivolous and unjustified, and only get them into more trouble.
5. Re:Software patch might overcome this patent by Clovis42 · 2012-11-21 04:14 · Score: 2
  
  So if Form 1 software is tweaked not to do this, then it would not infringe. At the same time, by the filing of the lawsuit, 3D Systems may have done irreperable harm to Form 1. Counter suit anyone?
  You are suggesting that they remove the part that they are being sued for, which pretty much indicates that the plaintiff was correct. Then they countersue because the plaintiff's totally valid patent suit did them irreparable harm? Sounds foolproof!
  
  --
  Clovis
  ^ Clovis, look! It's that guy you are!
6. Re:Software patch might overcome this patent by mattr · 2012-11-21 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't this just like those polystyrene model kits for kids that would have all the parts connected to the main plastic piping by thin, short stems where they could be easily broken off by hand?
  That's been around at least 30 years easy.
7. Re:Software patch might overcome this patent by suutar · 2012-11-21 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  Not necessarily. Bad publicity surrounding the patent accusation can damage their business even if the accusation is found to be false.
8. Re:Software patch might overcome this patent by suutar · 2012-11-21 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  I take it back, I misunderstood one premise of your statement in this part of the discussion: that the suit is in fact valid. You are correct.
Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 02:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

The US have brought this onto themselves, now live with the patent mess and watch the US economy sue itself into oblivion and slowly self-destruct.
1. Re:Not surprising by DickBreath · 2012-11-21 02:52 · Score: 2
  
  The US won't sue itself into oblivion. The US will sue itself into prosperity! Think of the boost to the economy of all that money changing hands. Think of the employment opportunities for patent lawyers, judges, court clerks and paralegals. Think of the courthouse construction boom. Think of the children! It has long been the dream of mankind to effortlessly gain wealth without doing any actual hard work. Patents are the realization of that dream. Eventually, we won't even need scientists or engineers anymore because everyone can think of some idea, however trivial, that they could patent. We could patent the process of suing over patents. No more work, and unlimited wealth! It will be a true utopia on earth I tell you. A dream made reality. The patent system is working as intended.
  
  (I hope I don't have to put a sarcasm tag around that.)
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
2. Re:Not surprising by nurb432 · 2012-11-21 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Its not just the US, its the entire 'first world' that is doing this nonsense ( and other destructive things )
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
Obvious --- craftsmen have always done this by WillAdams · 2012-11-21 02:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

When I make something as simple as a dovetail box, when it's time to cut off the lid, I carefully do not cut the lid all the way off, leaving some uncut areas around the edges to hold the lid in place so that the saw blade doesn't bind.
The patent in question is for generating supports to hold a model in place as it's being printed --- if one does this same thing in a subtractive process, it's obvious that one would be able to in an additive process.
William

--
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
1. Re:Obvious --- craftsmen have always done this by ledow · 2012-11-21 02:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Have you never had to pull small plastic model parts from a sprue?
  Seems to me that this is a necessary and obvious part of doing any sort of 3D modelling in any kind of material, or things won't mould/print properly (because it's not technically possible for them to float in space while you work on them).
  If anything, I would hope the patent was dismissed on the grounds of obviousness, but certainly it should be obvious to one "skilled in the art" of 3D printing. And, failing that, if they just got some reasonable and non-discriminatory patent licensing terms, there's a few million dollars lying about that they could have a chunk of just by NOT suing.
2. Re:Obvious --- craftsmen have always done this by SuricouRaven · 2012-11-21 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  But, on a computer!
3. Re:Obvious --- craftsmen have always done this by Dr.+Evil · 2012-11-21 02:25 · Score: 2
  
  If I read the patent correctly, it seems they're varying the power in the laser to create a weak point at the break-off part of the support structure.
4. Re:Obvious --- craftsmen have always done this by Vintermann · 2012-11-21 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  That changed everything right there.
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
5. Re:Obvious --- craftsmen have always done this by dmbasso · 2012-11-21 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Wow! Who could have possibly think that? Genius (U+2e2e, damn /., allow unicode already!)
  I'll start teaching classes for kindergarten, I'm pretty sure I'll be able to steal dozens of patentable ideas!
  
  --
  `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
6. Re:Obvious --- craftsmen have always done this by oGMo · 2012-11-21 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  And, failing that, if they just got some reasonable and non-discriminatory patent licensing terms, there's a few million dollars lying about that they could have a chunk of just by NOT suing.
  
  A few million dollars is nothing .. a fraction, even less. I'm guessing these guys would be happy to spend a few million dollars stifling any competition and clutching on to their dying monopoly for just a bit longer.
  
  --
  Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
7. Re:Obvious --- craftsmen have always done this by orgelspieler · 2012-11-21 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Remember that this patent was filed in 2000. I think it's pretty safe to say that a lot of things that are common practice in injection molding were not exactly obvious when translated to 3D printing. It's easy to look at it now and say "of course," but back then it wasn't exactly commonplace.
8. Re:Obvious --- craftsmen have always done this by Dr.+Evil · 2012-11-21 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  I agree completely, some of these patents are stupid.
  On the upside, it shouldn't be tooo hard to circumvent if the claims are narrow.
9. Re:Obvious --- craftsmen have always done this by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2012-11-21 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  To the Slashtard horde everything is obvious after the fact. Don't dare to ask them why no one else did it before said company did it because all you will get will be blubbering excuses.
  And to ancephalic ACs like yourself, it's best for society if twenty-year government-enforced monopolies are awarded to the first person to encounter a given problem and adopt the most obvious solution, even if said monopoly has the effect of stalling further progress in an entirely new industry.
  See the Amazon one-click patent, for instance. Nobody had done that before, because nobody needed to. There can be only one winner in a foot race to the patent office, and it's not the consumer.
10. Re:Obvious --- craftsmen have always done this by nurb432 · 2012-11-21 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  It may be obvious to you and i, but we dont matter. Who does matter is who reviews the patent application. If it doesn't appear obvious to him and its awarded, we can look forward to decades of take down notices ( mostly notices as what small project can afford to fight? )
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
America, F-Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 02:10 · Score: 2, Funny

This is the new America! They don't need to sell stuff, just sue the people who do and take their money.
Looks like a legit patent. by Qbertino · 2012-11-21 02:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seems as though the patent is legit. Although it's not nice of them to sue without talking to the From1 builders first. ... Or did they attempt to do that and got rejected? If so, it's their given right to start legal action.
Could Form1 licence the patent is the next question I'd ask.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
1. Re:Looks like a legit patent. by Joehonkie · 2012-11-21 02:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  To me this looks like the 3D printing version of an " X but on a phone" patent. Using a break-away scaffolding on a solid object is a classic part of casting.
2. Re:Looks like a legit patent. by TheSpoom · 2012-11-21 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  Why should Form1 allow their competition to exist if they can eradicate them?
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
3. Re:Looks like a legit patent. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 02:39 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You may not have read the patent carefully enough (or gotten past the 80-ish pages of drawings). What the patent is actual claiming is a way of getting higher resolution out of stereolithographic materials by blending cross-sectional layers that have a resolution greater than that of the material. By using the claimed method of blending those layers and their cure times in just the right way, you can get thinner (higher-resolution) cross-sectional layers than the material, would get alone.
  It was a novel and non-obvious advance in stereolithographic techniques.
4. Re:Looks like a legit patent. by rollingcalf · 2012-11-21 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Why should the legal system enable Form1 to use litigation to eradicate the competition?
  
  --
  ---------
  There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
5. Re:Looks like a legit patent. by PurpleCarrot · 2012-11-21 02:45 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You may not have read the patent carefully enough (or gotten past the 80-ish pages of drawings). What the patent is actual claiming is a way of getting higher resolution out of stereolithographic materials by blending cross-sectional layers that have a resolution greater than that of the material. By using the claimed method of blending those layers and varying the cure exposure times in just the right way, you can get thinner (higher-resolution) cross-sectional layers than the material, if cured using normal layer-by-layer techniques, would get alone.
  It was a novel and non-obvious advance in stereolithographic techniques.
6. Re:Looks like a legit patent. by Joehonkie · 2012-11-21 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Oh. That sounds pretty valid. My bad.
7. Re:Looks like a legit patent. by Grond · 2012-11-21 03:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Although it's not nice of them to sue without talking to the From1 builders first
  Since the 2007 MedImmune v. Genentech case it has been very difficult for a patentee to discuss potential infringement or licensing with another party without creating declaratory judgment jurisdiction. DJ jurisdiction allows the alleged infringer to file a suit for a declaratory judgment that the patent is invalid, unenforceable, or uninfringed (or some combination). The big advantage is that it lets the alleged infringer pick the time and place of the suit. So patentees have become more likely to file suit and talk about settlement later rather than trying to negotiate a license and then filing a suit only if that fails.
8. Re:Looks like a legit patent. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 03:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So to compress the 80 pages of drawings into stuff a regular geek can understand: they are antialiasing, in the z-axis.
  Stop the world, I want to get off.
9. Re:Looks like a legit patent. by idontgno · 2012-11-21 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Because the Constitution said so?
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
10. Re:Looks like a legit patent. by guttentag · 2012-11-21 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Seems as though the patent is legit.
  You don't think it's fabricated? That's certainly odd. I thought the plaintiff was known for its fabrication reputation.
11. Re:Looks like a legit patent. by EvolutionInAction · 2012-11-21 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  And an Intel processor is just a collection of switches.
  Details are important.
12. Re:Looks like a legit patent. by spire3661 · 2012-11-21 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  What the Constitution says, and what is actually enacted in practice are very different things.
  
  --
  Good-bye
13. Re:Looks like a legit patent. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  So wait... by varying the cure times, they are letting the cross sectional layers create a higher resolution...
  Unless I'm mistaken, what you just said is their patent is for "letting things dry slowly so they blend together"
  I didn't realize that my high school art classes were teaching me patented material. But wait, they were doing this bymelting PLA rods and a computer, so clearly it's totally patentable.
14. Re:Looks like a legit patent. by tocs · 2012-11-21 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for that description. I will have to remember it when I build my own 3D stereolithography printer.
15. Re:Looks like a legit patent. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, and to complete your obviously incomplete comparison... Intel does not have a patent that prevents everyone from using those switches to make their own processors, even though they may perform the same functions.
Litigate Kickstarter out of existence by Danathar · 2012-11-21 02:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

I can see them going for the Kickstarter project, but going for Kickstarter itself?
Yea, great business model. Piss off nerds that use a HUGELY popular web site. [sarcasm]
1. Re:Litigate Kickstarter out of existence by kiehlster · 2012-11-21 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I don't see the point of going after Kickstarter itself either. Kickstarter is just a middleman for acquiring funds. How would Kickstarter know that Form1 was avoiding patent licensing? 3D Systems is in the wrong for suing Kickstarter, but they have a case as far as Form1's project goes.
2. Re:Litigate Kickstarter out of existence by gstoddart · 2012-11-21 02:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yea, great business model. Piss off nerds that use a HUGELY popular web site. [sarcasm]
  You might be surprised to find out that nerd rage doesn't go a long way to intimidate corporations and lawyers.
  Us pissing and moaning about such things doesn't really tend to actually change much.
  And, of course, that idiot who heads the USPTO will claim this is how the system is supposed to work and that it's driving innovation. It's not, but he'll still continue to claim that.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
3. Re:Litigate Kickstarter out of existence by thestudio_bob · 2012-11-21 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, great business model. Piss off nerds that use a HUGELY popular web site. [sarcasm]
  Yeah, that seemed to work so well with the iPhone. I hear that Apple will be going bankrupt any day now.
  
  --
  The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
4. Re:Litigate Kickstarter out of existence by stiggle · 2012-11-21 02:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Their claim is that Kickstarter knowing sold infringing the products to the project backers, and that as a seller they are liable.
  They don't see Kickstarter as an innocent middleman, they see them as an active reseller.
5. Re:Litigate Kickstarter out of existence by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  So, Kickstarter has to individually look at every single project that people put up there, do a a patent and copyright search on everything, then act as the final arbiter of if something is or is not infringing? That puts the entire burden of IP enforcement that not even the big guys can do right onto that company.
  The car example: Someone puts some pirated CDs in their Kia, then Kia gets sued for contributery infringement because their vehicle didn't actively detect infringing content and keep the door locks from opening?
  Realistically, just have a f-ing "report" button and be done with it. If something infringes, click the button, type in what the issue is, and the project gets taken down. Even the filesharing sites that have a rep for being places for piracy keep up and operable by offering this.
6. Re:Litigate Kickstarter out of existence by Desler · 2012-11-21 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, great business model. Piss off nerds that use a HUGELY popular web site. [sarcasm]
  I'm sure their quaking with fear right now over this idle threat.
7. Re:Litigate Kickstarter out of existence by kiehlster · 2012-11-21 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  Funny thing is, Kickstarter does have a 'report this project' button. Who knows why that didn't affect the result in this case.
8. Re:Litigate Kickstarter out of existence by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · 2012-11-21 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  Why go after to Kickstarter? Maybe because according to the BBC:
  
  "The firm is also embroiled in a dispute with ArtistShare - another crowd-funding site - about the rights to a patent describing how database software can be used to raise cash for creative works."
  I think there's more to this than just asserting rights over a 3D printing patent.....
Deduct? by wonkey_monkey · 2012-11-21 02:22 · Score: 2

as one can deduct from the demands
I have deduced that someone has made a typo.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re:Deduct? by mfnickster · 2012-11-21 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Don't be disingenious.
  
  --
  "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
Bad Patent by Xeth · 2012-11-21 02:23 · Score: 2

The purpose of patents is to ensure that people can spend a lot of money on research, with some kind of general guarantee that it can pay off for them. Making support struts thinner at the point of contact doesn't really strike me as something that resulted from a protracted compaign of research, but rather an isolated flash of insight. Those flashes of insight aren't irrelevant; they're important to making things move forward. But they don't need to be patented; people will have them anyway. In order to encourage the progress of science and the useful arts, I think one really only needs to protect the things that require a great deal of effort to discover.

--
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
1. Re:Bad Patent by PurpleCarrot · 2012-11-21 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  People seem to be commenting without having actually read the '520 patent. The claim is not to make support struts thinner, though that is a natural following benefit of the claimed technique.
  What is actually claimed is a method of getting higher resolution layers out of a stereolithographic material than would normally be attained using the materials native cure depth. The method by which the higher resolution cross-sectioning could be achieved is what this patent claims.
2. Re:Bad Patent by Xeth · 2012-11-21 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  It's possible you're right. Inuitively, one would think that removing a possible incentive for spending a lot of money in R&D would reduce money spent there (which, in general, probably reduces results). There are things in this world that it takes a lot of money to find out. Generally, that means a profit motive (which might not exist if you can't necessarily capitalize on your own discoveries), or government funding (which makes sense for things like medical research, but not necessarily for things that are less essential, like consumer luxuries). I really don't think that if you remove that motivation, the amount of results would be the same. But if you happen to have any hard evidence (both of us are making claims derived from reasoning and extrapolation), I'd be interested to see it.
  
  --
  If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
3. Re:Bad Patent by andydread · 2012-11-21 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  The purpose of patents is to ensure that people can spend a lot of money on research, with some kind of general guarantee that it can pay off for them.
  
  actually? thats not correct. According to the US constitution " The Congress shall have power...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" In exchage for publishing the details of your invention. The promotion of the progress of science and useful arts relies on you publishing the details of your invention. When you do this the government secures that exclusive right to that invention for a limited time. The purpose of patents therefor is not to guarantee profits for research but to encourage inventors to publish the details of that invention so as to promote the progress of science and useful art.
4. Re:Bad Patent by Xeth · 2012-11-21 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Hm, serves me right for assuming the patent linked in the summary was the one the lawsuit was actually about. It appears that the one linked to has no actual relation, based on looking at the demand letter.
  
  --
  If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
5. Re:Bad Patent by Xeth · 2012-11-21 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  You speak of the ultimate end, I spoke of the local mechanical one. Both are correct; patents are intended to allow you to profit, in the hopes that the profit motive will drive innovation.
  
  --
  If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
6. Re:Bad Patent by canadiannomad · 2012-11-21 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  This is especially true in software.
  One person can take months doing something that another person thinks is intuitively obvious.
  Then, since no one is going around reading every patent, you could easily reproduce a method that someone patented. Thus punishing the good developer who could "just do it," as well as punishing the company for not finding a way to read every software patent and their own code to avoid infringement.
  Somehow this helps creativity and innovation?
  
  --
  Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
7. Re:Bad Patent by Desler · 2012-11-21 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  And yet beither you or anyone else came up with the concept before them. It's always easy to declare something obvious after someone else does it first.
Re:Plstic cock ? by DickBreath · 2012-11-21 02:36 · Score: 1

Is it technically possible or feasible to put some sort of flavoring into the 3D printer plastic material?

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Re:Plstic cock ? by sFurbo · 2012-11-21 02:47 · Score: 1

Even better, you can print in chocolate. Of course, that might not be a habit you would want to induce in "the lady", as GPP puts it.
printed cocks and pussies galore by gl4ss · 2012-11-21 02:58 · Score: 2

I print my cock in 3d for the lady !!!!
She suck the plastic.
mmmmmm...so good plastic 3d cock.
not unsurprisingly enough this subject comes up just about every time 3d printing is discussed after hours. that or pussy.
anyhow, with objets(a firm) style jet printers you can print rubber-like parts(it uses a resin and uv.. but an inkjet style head, it's a pretty cool technique but sadly I suppose it's patent encumbered as well. also it's not very fast, but makes super nice models. ).
now excuse me while I go back to cutting up a figurine mesh model for making a butt-bowl(seriously, check thingiverse in a day or two) with my replicator(fdm style machine, like repraps and all cheap machines).
now, there probably was a reason why nobody had built a cheap sla machine before for sale. what sucks about the company suing form1 is that apparently they didn't even tell _what_ patent it is. maybe it's the orientation of the model? maybe it's heating the fluid or some shit like that which could be worked over. anyhow, they can go suck a fat one - the process isn't _that_ novel in principle once you got access to the resin.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
What's next? Apple suing Wal-Mart for Android? by The-Forge · 2012-11-21 03:02 · Score: 2

These guys suing Kickstarter makes about as much sense as Apple suing Wal-Mart for selling Samsung tablets and phones. Are we going to expect Wal-Mart, Best Buy and eBay to start doing patent checks on everything they put on their shelves or list on their site? If by some strange quirk this case moves forward with Kickstarter attached, that will be the legal expectation by precedent.
IANL, but in the complaint they may have already given Kickstarter cause to get removed. They mention Kickstarter's TOS and the judge should see that as a safe harbor establishment.
1. Re:What's next? Apple suing Wal-Mart for Android? by idontgno · 2012-11-21 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe a tiny patentholder (and possible troll...I don't care to research it enough to differentiate) suing Nintendo and many of Ninitendo's biggest retailers for the WII allegedly violating a patent on handheld pointer technology.
  It makes exactly as much sense. It may make no sense to an outside observer, but it seems to be a legitimate outcome of the thought process: "Manufacturer, you're violating my patent and making money off of it. Retailer, you're making money too, by supporting Manufacturer's violation of my patent by giving them a market. Both of you, knock it off and pay me my share."
  The practical upshot is often that a retailer will pull a dubious product off the shelf in response to the initial legal sabre-rattling. That puts pressure on the manufacturer to settle the issue one way or the other.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Damages yet? by raidfibre · 2012-11-21 03:11 · Score: 1

Preface with typical IANAL and whatnot. But with Formlabs not actually shipping anything yet, the best they can do is a cease and desist, right? That could screw them, but as others have mentioned they can seemingly get around the unexpired patents. Litigation costs are another issue of course. It could easily kill the kickstarter-sourced funding.
EDITORS: Summary is incorrect by Xeth · 2012-11-21 03:17 · Score: 1

This is the correct link for the patent at issue: http://www.google.com/patents/US5597520

--
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
3D printing vs stereo lithography by gr8_phk · 2012-11-21 03:21 · Score: 1

Rep-rap and the like should not worry too much. IANAL but upon reading the patent claims (all of which expand on claim 1) the primary innovation seems to be curing the resin to a lesser degree to create weak points in the support structure. If you're extruding plastic from a nozzle this IMHO does not apply. So I looked at the Form1 website and indeed they are curing a resin to create solid objects. Bummer, cause that method is in may ways better than extruding melted plastic and only requires a single axis machine. Lithography != Extrusion/deposition.
3D systems = 3d printing microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 03:28 · Score: 5, Informative

To be honest, 3d systems is the microsoft of the 3d printing community, they've been buying everybody out, even the small guys who make diy printers, and buying up all the patents. I'm going to guess that Formlabs refused to be bought up into 3D systems borganism, so they're suing them.
3d systems also does other evil things like charging lots for ink(should I call it toner instead?) and punish you if you use any ink that isn't from them. This is especially troublesome when you're using specialty inks to make real parts where you need special properties like fire resistance, something that 3d systems more often than not doesn't offer. Lately they've been trying to push this new cartridge system that uses RFID to make sure you're only using their cartridges. Luckily, it's not catching on.
3d systems is universally hated by all in the 3d printing community.
1. Re:3D systems = 3d printing microsoft by calvis · 2012-11-21 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for making us aware how evil this company actual is.
Submitter can't read? Wrong patent! by Erich · 2012-11-21 04:22 · Score: 1

The complaint clearly states they are filing suit based on the 520 patent.

--
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Re:Submitter can't read? Wrong patent! by Erich · 2012-11-21 04:26 · Score: 1

And IANAL, but it looks like the independent claims have a part that can be worked around; for example, copying or shifting data from one layer to the next.

--
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Am I missing something? by mark-t · 2012-11-21 05:53 · Score: 2

What the heck would kickstarter have to do with it?
If it's a patent violation, then it's a patent violation by the person who infringed on the patent. All kickstarter did was provide a venue for raising and delivering the funds.
This is like holding the Mint to blame for a bank heist.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. Re:Am I missing something? by RockDoctor · 2012-11-21 10:53 · Score: 2
  
  What the heck would kickstarter have to do with it?
  
  According to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20434031, Kickstarter get a 5% (?) cut of the money pledged to $PROJECTNAME$, which seems to be sufficient involvement to satisfy enough lawyers to get them co-cited.
  Whether it sticks ... is another question.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
2. Re:Am I missing something? by mark-t · 2012-11-21 11:42 · Score: 2
  
  Wow.... just wow. That's daft.
  I would liken it to the notion of holding the government partially accountable for tax fraud because if people didn't have to pay taxes, then there wouldn't be tax fraud in the first place.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
3. Re:Am I missing something? by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · 2012-11-21 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Also worth reading the last paragraph of that BBC article.
4. Re:Am I missing something? by mark-t · 2012-11-21 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  True... but their defense is somehow that kickstarter "promoted" it. I wasn't aware that kickstarter "promoted" anything... the people running the fundraisers do their own promotion. Kickstarter is just a service.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
5. Re:Am I missing something? by RockDoctor · 2012-11-21 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  I get enough emails from Kickstarter about "projects you may be interested in ", "projects we love" etc that a lawyer has got sufficient to work on to demonstrate active, vigorous promotion.
  If I didn't know that I had signed up for several KickStarter projects in the last year, it would be pushing the edge towards "spam". Certainly decidedly annoying.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
6. Re:Am I missing something? by mark-t · 2012-11-22 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Those "projects you might be interested in" are probably no more a promotion of those specific projects on kickstarter than Amazon's "suggested reading list" is a promotion of those specific books. It's really just about making more money. The actual recommendations are just based on a computer algorithm that attempts to profile what else might interest you based on only your involvement so far, not on the merit of those recommendations, and just picks ones that are somehow related to what you've already done (in Kickstarter's case, possibly through other donators who have donated to different projects in addition to ones that you yourself have donated to) so that they can make more money from the kickbacks on more projects.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
7. Re:Am I missing something? by RockDoctor · 2012-11-22 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  Those "projects you might be interested in" are probably no more a promotion of those specific projects on kickstarter than Amazon's "suggested reading list" is a promotion of those specific books.
  
  i.e. bloody irritating spam.
  I understand perfectly well how the emails are generated. I loathe and detest the mentality that allows marketing twats (EN_GB : rude word) to think that they can design plastic marketing robots that I can't recognise. It does nothing but bring the brand into disrepute.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Publicizing patents by Cajun+Hell · 2012-11-21 06:10 · Score: 2

It is not the patent holders responsibility to publicize their patents.
It just occurred to me: might this be the very thing which is needed in order to repair the patent system? What if patent enforcement did require that the patent holder could demonstrate that they put great effort/expense into publicity?
Can anyone think of a downside? Sure, it's an expense and no one wants invention to be expensive, but it's got to be far less expense than independent parallel patent searches by the thousands/millions of people who work in an industry. And in addition to the orders of magnitude reduction in the number of people who do the work, there's also the fact that hiring the advertising media is far cheaper than hiring patent lawyers.
So on the whole, this would reduce the expenses that patents incur on an industry.
It wold work, too. Think back to the LZW patent for example (maybe this is a bad example, because it's a software patent, but bear with me). People used it in GIF because they didn't know better. Then Unisys wrote that letter to DDJ, and soon everyone knew and many people really did stop infringing the patent.
After that, someone might have still had excuses to keep using LZW, but ignorance really wasn't a credible excuse anymore. Publicity worked.

--
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
1. Re:Publicizing patents by chrismcb · 2012-11-21 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  It is not the patent holders responsibility to publicize their patents.
  It just occurred to me: might this be the very thing which is needed in order to repair the patent system? What if patent enforcement did require that the patent holder could demonstrate that they put great effort/expense into publicity?
  What is the upside? And what does it mean to publicize it? Have it printed in the local newspaper?
  Patents are publicly available. So I'm not sure if having them publicized all over the place is going to help someone over the current method where they are published in one place.
2. Re:Publicizing patents by wjousts · 2012-11-26 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Can anyone think of a downside?
  One...
  
  there's also the fact that hiring the advertising media is far cheaper than hiring patent lawyers.
  And that's it. Remember a lot of politicians are/were lawyers. But seriously, the only downside is that it might encourage companies to keep things as trade secret so that they don't have to publicize it.
ouya by B.Stolk · 2012-11-21 06:13 · Score: 1

The same will happen to the Ouya android based game console.
That $8M kickstarter money will be picked to the bone by IP vultures.
If you are a backer: there goes your money.

--
http://www.stolk.org/tlctc
And so it begins by nurb432 · 2012-11-21 08:42 · Score: 1

Took long enough.
Now you will have to have DRMized hammers and screwdrivers to prevent someone from making something 'wrong'..

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This is going to be very unpopular to say by ModernGeek · 2012-11-21 09:36 · Score: 1

But this company is definitely not a patent troll, and it looks like they make great products:

http://www.3dsystems.com/personal-3d-printers

I think that they should try and settle with the startup and allow them to pay them a license fee for each printer sold. $50/printer and everyone is happy. They get to use the patent and everyone goes home happy. The guy heading the startup should just call the big company and see what they can work out.

Anything can be negotiated.

This is definitely not legal advice, it could make things way worse, and I am not a lawyer.

--
Sig: I stole this sig.
1. Re:This is going to be very unpopular to say by mdielmann · 2012-11-21 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  But this company is definitely not a patent troll, and it looks like they make great products:
  http://www.3dsystems.com/personal-3d-printers
  I think that they should try and settle with the startup and allow them to pay them a license fee for each printer sold. $50/printer and everyone is happy. They get to use the patent and everyone goes home happy. The guy heading the startup should just call the big company and see what they can work out.
  Anything can be negotiated.
  This is definitely not legal advice, it could make things way worse, and I am not a lawyer.
  I suspect that if this was true, 3D Systems would have contacted them when they became aware of the potential patent violation, rather than wait until they were backed in a corner. Something tells me they wanted more of that cash than just a simple licensing agreement (or even worse, a workaround).
  
  --
  Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?