Slashdot Mirror
What Will Ubiquitous 3D Printing Do To IP Laws?
Lucas123 writes "With scanners able turn objects into printable files and peer-to-peer file sharing sites able to distribute product schematics, 3D printing could make intellectual property laws impossible or impractical to enforce. At the Inside 3D Printing Conference in San Jose this week, industry experts compared the rise of 3D printing to digital music and Napster. Private equity consultant Peer Munck noted that once users start sharing CAD files with product designs, manufacturers may be forced to find legal and legislative avenues to prevent infringement. But, he also pointed out that it's nearly impossible to keep consumers from printing whatever they want in the privacy of their homes. IP attorney John Hornick said, 'Everything will change when you can make anything. Future sales may be of designs and not products.'"
"3D printing could make intellectual property laws impossible or impractical to enforce."
That won't stop the old boys from trying, like they are doing it with music and movies.
Print me a Lawyerbot! (c:
Sue me, baby, I can make a million of them!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
One of the stories that get told around the financial crisis is how the relationship between Rating Agencies and Investment Banks changed because of Xerox. Before Xerox rating agencies would charge investment banks for copies of their data. But once Xerox copying machines came out, the rating agencies feared that they would only have one customer and investment banks would just make copies of the data and pass it around. So they made the data free for all intents and purposes and started charging the banks on how their products got rated. We all know how that turned out.
Patent law specifically allows people to "make their own" based on the patented design. You aren't allowed to produce the items for sale or distribution, but you are allowed to make one for yourself.
This is where patent law and 3D printers are really going to collide, because 3D printing makes it easy to make your own.
One might be able to argue that the model used to do the printing is "distributing the design", but it's not illegal to distribute a patented design, only to produce the designed items for sale.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Designs, like MP3s, are digital data which is by nature infinitely reproducible. You can only build an industry on selling designs if you introduce legally sanctioned mechanisms of artificial scarcity. Which means a bunch of lawyers will get together calling themselves the Design Industry Association of America. They will argue for a tax on raw plastic, to be paid to them; and will sue anyone they think might have a 3D printer stashed away in the attic. Of course they won't actually have any connection with real designers any more than the Recording Industry Association of America has any connection with real musicians, but that doesn't matter because as everyone knows it's the lawyers who get to keep all the money. They are, after all, the only people (apart from bankers) who actually add value in this economy.
Cynical? Moi?
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Take a look at the patents. And take a look at the stuff around you. How much of the stuff around you is patented and amenable to being 3d printed? And what fraction do you believe you could put together cheaper and more conveniently?
Let's take a look at a stapler. $5 from Amazon. I'm sure it was patented at one time. Let's pretend it still is. Even with the best 3-d printing today, using million dollar machines, you're not going to be able to make a good one. So let's assume the machines get good enough and cheap enough you could make a stapler at home. How about the staples? Ok fine, let's assume you can make those too.
You want to go through the trouble of making the parts and assembling? Oh, you've got a cheap machine that can make it from multiple materials and even does some of the post processing?
Congratulations. It's 2050 and you've made a stapler that could be bought for $5 in 2013 from Amazon. And now Amazon has it for $1 because they own a better machine that runs 24/7 and buys more varieties of materials at lower cost. And the patent ran out decades ago.
Next up, a microwave oven. Or car tire. Or tv remote.
3D printing is going to be a problem for only a very few items. Not the vast majority of stuff you use or is patented. Economies of scale will make even those items impractical to knock off. It'll be decades before it becomes even a miniscule problem. Why are we getting in a tizzy now worrying about it?
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
you can print real cotton clothes that are completely washable on a 3d printer? where do you get the raw cotton for it to form into clothing?
You asked "can you".
Asked and answered. Your supply chain problems are a different issue.
You must be a consultant.
Unless alcohol sales US are suffering terribly from the advent of home brewing, the statement of this lawyer is a bag full of sh*t aimed at creating legislature that will only benefit IP lawyers.
I agree with you, and I don't really think that brewing beer at home will ever really threaten the industry. After all, you want a cold beer now, not next month . . . Also, I don't need another hobby and I'm lazy.
However, (some, many?) states actually do have some fairly strict (and odd) laws governing brewing beer at home. Alabama and Mississippi lifted their total bans on the practice just this year. California lets you brew 100 gallons per house, 200 if more than one 21+ year old lives there. You can take it to contests but not sell it. A license is not required. In Iowa, you can bottle beer and remove it from the home to give away, but not charge for it. Actual brewing is not specifically allowed. In Kentucky, you can't give it away or sell it, but you can take it to a bar for a beer judging competition. In New York, you can maybe make beer at home, but certainly not sell it. Possession of homemade beer is not specifically prohibited as an illicit substance. It's a pretty bizarre and tangled web of laws.
I am not a crackpot.
If it became cheaper to build a car, then i would expect the prices of ready-built cars to drop accordingly.
It will almost certainly never be cheaper to print your own than to buy one made by Ford or Toyota. The materials alone would cost more than the car in the quantities you could buy them in. Volume discounts when you are talking millions of units a year are enormous. The per-unit production cost to a big auto company for a comparable vehicle is going to be far, far lower than any one off, even if there is no profit motive attached. (Disclosure: I am an accountant)
Unless you are talking about luxury cars, they aren't priced "artificially high". Even the most profitable auto makers (Porsche, Toyota, etc) only have profit margins in the high single digits. They make money by selling a LOT of vehicles but they don't generally make all that much on each one. A few luxury makes make a lot of money per vehicle (Ferrari, etc) but they don't and can't sell all that many at the price points they charge.
This keeps coming up on Slashdot, and it's mostly a non-issue. The only reason it's an issue now is that hobbyist 3D printers are so crappy that they're used mostly to produce copies of game and movie related decorative items.
If you use one to make a dashboard knob for a '57 Chevy, there's no IP issue. Design patents are only for 14 years. You can't copyright a functional part, and most functional parts aren't original enough for a utility patent. There's a robust third-party auto parts industry because of this.
When 3D printing in metal really gets going, it's going to be a Joe Sixpack thing. The same people who own welders will own 3D printers. If you do not presently own at least one power tool, you will probably not have a 3D printer.