Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Form1 3D Printer and Kickstarter Get Sued For Patent Infringment

Posted by Unknown on 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.

31 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. Don't innovate, litigate! by Andrio · · 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 Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by crazyjj · · 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?
    3. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by DickBreath · · 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.
    4. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by RabidReindeer · · 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.

    5. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    6. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by hsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why should they invest all of the money in R&D so someone else can just take it for free?

    7. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Xeth · · 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.
    8. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by darronb · · 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.

    9. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by necro81 · · 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.

    10. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by jandrese · · 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.
    11. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by loneDreamer · · 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.

    12. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by darronb · · 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.

    13. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by erroneus · · 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.

    14. Re:Don't innovate, litigate! by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · 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.

  2. Thanks for the Info by amiga3D · · 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.

  3. Software patch might overcome this patent by Anonymous Coward · · 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 TheGavster · · 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".
    2. Re:Software patch might overcome this patent by Theaetetus · · 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.

  4. Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  5. Obvious --- craftsmen have always done this by WillAdams · · 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 · · 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.

  6. Looks like a legit patent. by Qbertino · · 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 · · 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 Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:Looks like a legit patent. by PurpleCarrot · · 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.

    4. Re:Looks like a legit patent. by Grond · · 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.

  7. Litigate Kickstarter out of existence by Danathar · · 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 gstoddart · · 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.
    2. Re:Litigate Kickstarter out of existence by stiggle · · 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.

  8. 3D systems = 3d printing microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · 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.