Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Yes, and right there you have it: that's 27 years ago and the patents are expiring.
It is, and that is what is supposed to happen when patents expire.
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.