Formlabs In Settlement Talks Over 3D Printing Patent Lawsuit

curtwoodward writes "Formlabs raised nearly $3 million in a month for its new Form 1 3D printer, which uses stereolithography to make precise models and other physical objects out of photoreactive liquid polymer. But 3D Systems — the publicly traded company founded by the guy who invented that process — sued the startup for patent infringement. Formlabs recently announced that it would start shipping its pre-ordered Form 1 printers, and that was no coincidence: the two companies quietly entered into settlement talks in early May, and hope to have a deal done by September."

Comments

legit patent suit?

[D1G1T]

We are so used to seeing stories about patent trolls suing over some obvious extension of existing technology "on the internet." Is this one of those rare cases where a patent holder is using patent laws as they were originally intended?

Re:legit patent suit?

[stenvar]

The basic 3D Systems patents have expired or are expiring within less than a year. They have some later patents, but they are not essential. Since Formlabs hadn't started shipping anything when 3D Systems filed their suit, this was also a bit of a fishing expedition, since they really couldn't know what, if anything, Formlabs was infringing.

This is some last gasp effort to hold back the tide of low cost competitors a little longer. I'm not sure whether that makes them "patent trolls", you have to decide that for yourself.

Re:legit patent suit?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Is this one of those rare cases where a patent holder is using patent laws as they were originally intended?

It's almost a trick question. If we break the Clause into its two parts:

purpose: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts

and policy: by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

then we can analyze it better. In this case very few people have access to this type of 3D printer. Through the use of Kickstarter, the developers at Formlabs came up with a business model and manufacturing capability to get these things manufactured and into people's hands. In almost all cases the recipients will invent other things using the 3D printers. That sounds like what the Founders envisioned as the desirable way for Society to proceed.

Now, then, the patent (monopoly grant) could stop them. It can also be used to funnel some of their money to the people who sued them. Both cases would be consistent with the policy part of the "Copyright Clause".

If the Internet has taught me anything, it's that ideas are a dime a dozen (humans are a gregarious, clever bunch) and execution is 95% of any product success. Cheap communication changes the way a society functions in many ways, none of which were clearly anticipated by the Founders. None of them intended their document to last this long either (and in many ways it hasn't, often for the worse).

Back to your original question, the most common current interpretation of the Constitution is that it's a document that grants powers, and any named excuses for those powers (or limitations thereof) are just rhetorical flourish. I'm not sure if that's original intent of its interpretation, but the Courts clearly found that in Heller and McDonald. So, I think the answer to your question is a resounding 'yes'. But also one that should be slated for Amendment after centuries of practical experience.

Unfortunately, the other practical experience is that the Copyright Clause makes the wealthy wealthier, and they control the political machine, so I don't expect such an Amendment would ever pass with the current government.

Re:legit patent suit?

[St.Creed]

Actually, there were times and even now, places, where patent laws aren't upheld as strict as in other places.

And usually, they do pretty well as long as they have to catch up. Once they've caught up, they suddenly find themselves with no-one to copy from, but a lot of people looking hungrily at their latest inventions. And suddenly they discover patent laws.

Re:legit patent suit?

[kwbauer]

Not agreeing or disagreeing on the patent side of things but I think that China had some other issues going on that might have something to do with their level of innovation. Instead of risking starting a flame war by suggesting that Chairman Mao's policies might have had something to do with innovation, especially in the technical arena, I'll just let the honest reader ponder that possibility quietly.

Re:legit patent suit?

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Being ignorant of something does not mean its harmful.

What exactly is "unproven" about patents doing more good then harm? What, just because you don't like them they are obvious harmful? Your ignorance is more harmful then patents.

You claim that patents restrict someone's freedom? So you believe then that its OK for someone to steal another idea and make money off it when someone else spends the time, effort and money to create the idea? You think the world is going to run on the honor system the moment patent and copyright laws are abolished? What a insanely stupid thing to believe.

Yes, there are many patents that are not just worthy, and I agree there is a huge issue with the patent application and granting process. The patent system needs reform for sure.

However patents themselves were ACTUALLY created to allow someone to invent something and then have it protected from unscrupulous people that would otherwise simply steal the idea and profit off it for themselves. Patents also actually publicly disclose the invention so that another person or company could build off them, provided they enter a partnership with the original patent holder. That could include licensing, royalty, or even agreeing to merge the ideas so both can profit off the end results. It gives the "freedom" of the person that invented the idea to decide how to proceed with it. The opposite of a patent, by the way, is a trade secret in which a company does not disclose in any form the invention and hope their competition is no capable of discovering how the invention works. It's a pretty much dead concept because even the most complicated system can be reversed engineered, but imagine how much innovation would be stifled if all companies worked off the idea of trade secrets and every company had to build something from scratch without any chance of cooperation or partnership.

It is simply not valid to assume that someone has a right to build off or refine an invention without entering a partnership or cooperation with the original inventor. And under MOST circumstances both parties will find some way to work together that benefits both of them. It's companies like Apple that abuse patents that operate under the premise of wanting to destroy their competition by holding a larger patent portfolio they refuse to cross license. But even then I would argue it forces companies like Google to out-innovate to compete rather then just building off of another idea. So even the premise of constant refinement through free and open invention is a fallacy.

Finally, patents are not mandatory. Nobody forces you to have to file a patent, so NO freedoms are being restricted here. I can't stand ignorant statements involving "Freedom" because it misses the point that someone has the right and freedom TO protect their content just as much as freely offer it to the world. And you can freely choose to invent something and offer it to the world as public domain however you have absolutely NO right to expect or assume compensation or even acknowledgement of being the creator of the invention. The world just doesn't work that way, there is ALWAYS someone looking for the easy way to make money. Even Open Source was created to protect acknowledgement of the original inventor of a piece of work and prevents another individual from "closing" it to profit off of someone else's idea. So even in the benevolent world of Open Source you still do not have total freedom to rip someone off and profit from their invention.

Re:legit patent suit?

[barc0001]

You seem to forget your history. Look at airplanes. The Wrights had patents and then this happened:

"In 1906 the Wrights received a patent for their method of flight control which they fiercely defended for years afterward, suing foreign and domestic aviators and companies, especially another U.S. aviation pioneer, Glenn Curtiss, in an attempt to collect licensing fees. Their legal threats suppressed development of the U.S. aviation industry for several years"

Things got so bad, the US Government had to step in and basically forced them and the Curtiss company to license patents in a patent pool arrangement since by 1917 almost no new planes were being built anywhere in the US and they were desperately needed for the war effort.

Just think where General Aviation would be today if the Wrights hasn't used their patent as a bat to keep everyone else out of the industry for a decade and a half.

Re:legit patent suit?

[Rockoon]

So you believe then that its OK for someone to steal another idea

Your argument that ideas should be property is circular because you have, right here and without justification, declared that ideas are property.

You will find that in your search for a real justification instead of this bullshit circular one you just tried to sell us, that you will learn the history of patents and the original form that they took here in America.

Patents were addressing the problem of trade secrets, of closely guarded manufacturing processes. The natural order of things is that if you have come up with a better way of manufacturing something that you keep it a secret, and if you are successful at keeping it a secret then you enjoy a large advantage over your competitors.

The observation that its both true that its hard to keep secrets and that society doesnt benefit from secrets is obvious. The justification for patents is that you no longer have to try to keep your manufacturing process a secret, that the government is willing to grant you exclusive rights to it for a limited time, but this service is in exchange for public publication of your process. You still have liberty and can choose not to patent your process, but then you run the risk of a competitor spying on you or independently coming up with it themselves.

But what we have today is a situation where not only are manufacturing processes patented, but also features of the products that those processes make. One-click, rounded corners, and so on.

You see that the justification for manufacturing process patents doesnt justify these new types, for these new types cannot be kept secret and in fact are by definition only valuable when they arent a secret and are displayed openly as features of the product. The public doesnt win when the government protects these new forms of patents, its quite the opposite; the public loses when the government protects them.

in a word: screwed.

[nimbius]

3d systems, the patent holder for both the process and the hardware that in fact realizes the process, has been doing this since 1986. their polymer, conveniently termed a "resin" on the Form 1 website, seems like nothing more than a creative attempt at skirting patent law. Looking at the 3d systems CubeX or ProJet 1000, the Form1 is the fucking definition of knock-off.
3d printers funded by a kickstarter make for your traditional slashdot-du-jour, but after the litigation dont expect Formlabs to be able to release their product for anything less than what a 3d systems entry-level model should cost. best to save your money go for a Mendel.

Re:in a word: screwed.

[stenvar]

3d systems, the patent holder for both the process and the hardware that in fact realizes the process, has been doing this since 1986.

Yes, and right there you have it: that's 27 years ago and the patents are expiring.

the Form1 is the fucking definition of knock-off.

It is, and that is what is supposed to happen when patents expire.

Re:in a word: screwed.

[stenvar]

The basic patents have already expired. The main patent 3D Systems sued over is effectively a software patent on a detail that improves printing quality of some objects. The Formlabs hardware has many non-infringing uses, so there was no justification on preventing its shipment based on that patent. In addition, 3D Systems had no way of knowing whether the Formlabs software would be infringing it (there are workarounds that can be used to achieve the same effect in a different way). The whole lawsuit looks like they were simply trying to make a nuisance of themselves to hinder the launch of the Formlabs printer.

(As for the later patents by 3D Systems, they look pretty crappy to me.)