Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Patents That Threaten 3-D Printing

Posted by Soulskill on from the system-and-method-for-existing-in-three-dimensions dept.

An anonymous reader writes "We've watched patents slow down the smartphone and tablet markets. We've seen patent claims thrown against Linux, Android, and countless other software projects. Now, as 3-D printing becomes more capable and more affordable, it seems a number of patents threaten to do the same to the hobbyist and tinkerer crowd. Wired has highlighted some of the most dangerous ones, including: a patent on soluble print materials that support a structure while it's being printed; a ridiculously broad patent on distributed rapid prototyping, which could affect "every 3-D printing service that has launched in the past few years"; and an 18-year-old patent on 3-D printing using a powder and a binding material, held by MIT."

19 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. That is what they're for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This comes up every now and then, and it honestly looks like the majority of 3d printing patents are legitimate, original inventions that the owners created.

    Take the "soluble print materials that support a structure whie it's being printed"; that's genius, I would never have come up with that.

    1. Re:That is what they're for... by Kupfernigk · · Score: 5, Insightful
      In the manufacture of Diesel engine pistons, which are cast, a soluble ring of high melting point salts has long been used to form the internal oil gallery. And I am sure that this technique did not originate with pistons. The problem is that the patent office now allows inventions to be "something A which already exists + something B which already exists", without any actual inventive step.

      As an example, I am a little sorry for Trevor Bayliss who never really made any money out of his wind up radio, but given hand cranked magneto telephones had been around for many years, the idea of a hand cranked magneto radio set really should not be patentable. It is just another communications device with a hand charger.

      --
      From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    2. Re:That is what they're for... by samkass · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the manufacture of Diesel engine pistons, which are cast, a soluble ring of high melting point salts has long been used to form the internal oil gallery. And I am sure that this technique did not originate with pistons. The problem is that the patent office now allows inventions to be "something A which already exists + something B which already exists", without any actual inventive step.

      As an example, I am a little sorry for Trevor Bayliss who never really made any money out of his wind up radio, but given hand cranked magneto telephones had been around for many years, the idea of a hand cranked magneto radio set really should not be patentable. It is just another communications device with a hand charger.

      In that case it's solving a different problem. The problem with 3D printing is that in most methods it's put down layer by layer. Thus, any "stalactites" are impossible to build without putting a support under them. There are a variety of ways to solve this; they are using a particular dissolvable-yet-printable material to solve it. Would it be immediately obvious to you which material to pick that can be deposited by a 3D printer and be structurally sound yet dissolved away?

      There is a lot of solid invention that's been done over the last dozen years in the field. Ever seen InvisAlign, the invisible plastic braces? They've done all their molds with 3D Systems' stereolithography machines since 1999 and also have a bunch of patents on 3D printing mass-production/mass-customization. They spent millions developing ways to produce tens of thousands of unique, precise pieces of plastic a day, and have had issues with competitors trying to cut out all the R&D costs and undersell them.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    3. Re:That is what they're for... by devjoe · · Score: 3, Informative

      This comes up every now and then, and it honestly looks like the majority of 3d printing patents are legitimate, original inventions that the owners created.

      Take the "soluble print materials that support a structure whie it's being printed"; that's genius, I would never have come up with that.

      I agree that the soluble print materials one is quite likely valid, a patent on an ingenious choice of materials that makes 3-D printing possible. This is an innovative field, and this patent is old enough to possibly be able to legitimately claim to have invented this idea and not be invalidated by prior art.

      However, the patent linked in the summary on distributed rapid prototyping does not appear to have been granted, only filed (almost 6 years ago), and no doubt is having some trouble getting accepted due to broadness, prior art, and other considerations. This patent does not even appear to cover any specific 3-D printing method, but just the general process of setting up a service to produce 3-D models, and as such, should be invalidated due to being an obvious adaptation of services for conventional (2-D) printing into a new market for 3-D printing given the availability of 3-D printers.

      The MIT patent is expired. It is more than 17 years since issue and more than 20 years since filing. The article says this one is "on the brink of expiration" so I assume it was written sometime last year when the patent was still valid. But it was very likely valid until it expired, and another innovation that helped establish the field.

      The article contains some other possibly valid patents, e.g., the smoothing one (if there is not prior art), the temperature control one from 2004, and possibly the filament coil one if their methods for keeping the filament feed smooth and/or automatically switching spools are really original. The summary just chose (2 out of 3) bad examples out of the article which stretched a bit to make a "top 10" list.

  2. Let's not confuse patent applications with patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The wired article also admits as much (before drumming up the hysteria).

    If you dig into PAIR on the broad patent for all 3D printing done over the web, for example (http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair, search for application 11/818,521 and go to "image file wrapper) the examiner and prospective patenter are engaged in a pretty intense fight over the obviousness of the application.

  3. Re:How have patents helped the world lately? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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."

  4. Re:How have patents helped the world lately? by shentino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That would be better than the present state of affairs where patents are used to force monopolies on the market and the small inventors get screwed over anyway by getting bullied out of the courtroom with superior legal budgets.

    The small guy will get fucked over anyway, may as well make it so that the big evil corporations don't get all the windfall.

  5. Re:How have patents helped the world lately? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bullshit. They're about protecting the rights of large companies, rather than having inventors steal their work and reproduce it in a manner they can't compete with.

  6. Not all that bad by LMariachi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The distributed rapid prototyping one is absurdly broad and pretty obvious, but it's worth noting that it is still pending. The soluble materials one covers specific formulations, not the general concept of a "lost armature." Makerbot, on the other hand, appears to have successfully patented the conveyor belt.

  7. World dev. shifting to Asia due to patent lawyers? by fantomas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lawyers do seem to be crushing innovation in the USA. Do you think it's possible that innovation and the world's lead in technical developments will shift to places where inventors/creators/small start ups are less inhibited by patent /copyright etc laws, and new products get pushed out without so much risk of being crushed by established old organisations? I'm wondering if places where legal frameworks aren't so closely adhered to will take the lead in the near future and be tolerated by their national governments as a way of increasing their share of the world economy?

  8. Re:How have patents helped the world lately? by ikaruga · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Back in the late 19th/early 20th century patents still made some sense as most devices were pretty much single purpose. But nowadays, when the trend is to make everything do everything and there is this fusion of all types of technologies going on, this classical patent system is completely inappropriate. Depending on the field you're working, it's an inhuman task to even keep track of all patents you're infringing.
    The physical/chemical 3D print methods mentioned in the article are just the tip of the iceberg. If you start nitpicking, I wouldn't be surprised by the potential huge number of both software/firmware and electromechanical/mechatronics/robotics hardware patents they break.
    The worst thing is that 3d printers are just highly specialized robots. Imagine in a few years when semi-general purpose robots start becoming common appliances, as healthcare, entertainment, maintenance or security tools. Robotics is known as the field of engineering that joins all other fields and because of that, even a basic cleaning robot will infringe pretty much every type of patent in the world. I think like the moment robot companies like iRobot or Cyberdyne release a killer consumer product they will pretty much be sued in oblivion by all other companies.

  9. Wasn't this said of Japan in the 50s and 60s? by fantomas · · Score: 5, Informative

    "No, because China only copies others..... There just won't be much innovation."

    Wasn't this the claim made about Japan in USA and Europe in the 1950s and 1960s? that they just produced inferior copies of Western goods and competed by selling poorer quality copies at cheaper prices? e.g. in the camera and automotive industries?

    The counter argument was that they learnt production methods and began to understand the desires of the USA/European market and then went on to improve quality and offer innovations, while Western companies were complacent and said "we know what our people want, we'll continue to make the same kind of autos / cameras etc.". I'd be interested in opinions from Detroit for example ("Motor City").

    1. Re:Wasn't this said of Japan in the 50s and 60s? by malkavian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That was exactly what was said of the US about a century or so ago. It was notorious for not following copyright, or any other form of IP protection, and spawned many a copy of works. Then when it had become established and used its own internal knowledge to create new variants, it used foreign legal systems to prevent the idea being used there, and thus stay ahead.
      It worked for the US. It worked for Japan. It's a proven strategy that'll work for China too.. Last time I was there, I saw what looked like a sizeable town being built in the rural backroads.. I was informed it was a new university campus being built, and that it was far from the only one.
      China understands that the way to growth and development is education and work combined. They're slowly insourcing all the key components to let it succeed. When they have the R&D, the specialists and the production all done locally, that's when the MBAs will suddenly wake up and realise that the really simple thing to insource is the management.

  10. Re:How have patents helped the world lately? by mrbester · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cyberdyne are due to make a consumer killer product real soon now...

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  11. End the "Idea" Patents by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Having just submitted my first provisional patent, one for an actual, physical device, these patents for "vague ideas of doing something" look more and more absurd every day. If you don't know how to do something, then you really haven't invented anything. I've got this idea of a car that runs on rainbows and happy thoughts. Here's a poorly drawn picture of a rainbow and a smiling person sitting in the car and the car is moving.

  12. It's like mig-welding something from nothing.... by Slugster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I recall reading that bulldozer wheels were rebuilt by wire-welding at least as far back as the 1960's.

    As a (steel-track) bulldozer gets used, the dirt between the wheels and tracks causes the wheels to wear down and decrease in diameter. To fix the problem, there are automatic machines that slowly rotate the wheel while running a wire-feed welder back and forth across the worn-down surface. When the wheel's outer diameter has reached a point where it is slightly larger than necessary, the wheel is removed and machined back down to the proper diameter again.

    Seems a hassle but apparently it is a lot cheaper than making a whole new wheel.

  13. Normally a patent supporter but...... by Grayhand · · Score: 3, Informative

    The problem is companies are more and more using broad range patents to control whole industries. That is NOT how patents are meant to be used. I don't want to see a limiting so much as a modification and redirection. Notice many of these patents are from the 90s and even 80s or before. Some of them are not based on a product so much as an antiscipation of a need to they file an offensive/defensive patent then they wait until alot of major companies are using the process and rack up big profits then they sue. Two simple cures, if they really do have a product give them three years to develop it so most of these troll patents would have expired. I'm talking patents on methods and other broad range patents like gestures and such. Also force them to file within 12 months of a competing product being release. That would kill off these massive lawsuits for 5 to 10 years of infringement before they even filed. Better yet force them to file a cease and desist and give the company 6 to 12 months to stop infringing then if the company fails to comply they can sue to day one. I'm guessing the vast majority of companies had no idea they were infringing and most would make the needed changes to avoid the lawsuit. The current system encourages greed by allowing the patent holder to wait years before filing against a company. This actually prevents the company from stopping the infringement since they aren't made aware of the problem. The system doesn't need to be scrapped it needs to be fixed and reasonable rules and limitations brought in.

  14. Re:How have patents helped the world lately? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Oh shit, a large company will just steal it anyway and use their huge legal fund to squash me into the dirt. I guess I'd better just go french kiss a shotgun."

    This is probably among the reasons why software has seen so much more innovation from little guys than physical engineering has recently, and not just any software, software as a service (e.g. social networks, search engines). What really matters in that space is getting into the market early and impressing people. The serious R&D in that space is mostly about scaling the service and not producing a product - so you CAN keep it a trade secret, because it's stuck behind your firewall and not in the hands of your competitors for a few dollars.

  15. Re:How have patents helped the world lately? by JDG1980 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "why bother doing it if someone will steal your work"

    The history of the IT field pretty much disproves that. Everyone borrowed from everyone else, and most developers never even bothered to file for patents. Would it really have been better for the IT industry if no one except Dan Bricklin had been able to produce a spreadsheet program until 1999?