I'm thinking about patenting the concept of Web 27.0, seeing that I can't find prior art to it - everyone else has mentioned the previous versions.
I'm not sure what it will contain yet, but I believe some vague waffle should be enough - with a couple of key choice ideas like "digitization of self from virutal to physical form and vice versa through server", "transfer of schematics of physical devices from server to device for materialisation", "quantum visualization of data" in the off chance that they might mean something in the future.
Being so far forward looking, it's obviously non-obvious, so I'm ok there.
I'm a bit worried about the patent duration though, can you speed up the adoption of this whole web 2.0 stuff and move onto the next version - otherwise my patent will run out and I won't be rich.
thanks
Dove
"If Necessity is the mother of Invention, then Ownership is the mother of Innovation" Horatio Longbottom, 2005
"If Necessity is the mother of Invention, then Ownership is the mother of Innovation"Horatio Longbottom, 2005
I'm speculating that there is an obvious correlation between the amount we sue, and how innovative we are as a society (aka the research investment argument).
Ultimately we will be so innovative that we will just spend all our time suing others.
Is it possible to have a sustainable economic system in which the only good or service manufactured is the legal pursuit of another entity for derivative rights infringement?
Enlightenment, Liberty, Freedom of Speech are just examples of spin banded about by "wacko commie copyright thieving IP environmentalists". Ideas aren't abstract things, they are concrete, definite, with walls, ceilings, central heating and cutesy french patio doors - that's why they are property and need to be owned.
We need DRM, cookyright, perpetual copyright and much more, otherwise nobody will invest in research and society will grind to a halt. Innovation needs ownership.
If proof was ever needed of these obvious points, I'd like to refer you to my previous comments on Slashdot and how my "original, physical, property like and therefore owned by me" parody was then obviously (to me only) rehashed, re-written into a completely different parody on Groklaw with no resemblance to the original. The act was so cunning that any right minded person would say that both articles are completely different, that's why we need ownership on everything and DRM everywhere to stop such "free thinking" (another spin word) events.
The full story is here, in my society's letter to Groklaw
The Kabal for Notional Abstract Conceptual Knowledge and its Empowerment through Regulation, Enforcement and Dividends [KNACKERED] has recently discovered the following publication on GrokLaw.
However, the ColdPizza parody would appear to us (if looked at obtusely in just about the right amount of pitch darkness) to be a derivative work of our business proposal, that of physical rights management (PRM) - as published on Slashdot by one of our members (Dove_From_Above) in Nov 2005http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168546&cid=140 52469
As such it is in breach of article 5 of the KNACKERED society's list of great ideas, namely that of:-
5. Creative Rights Management - all new works are to some respect derivative products, hence the printing press was based upon writing which was based upon slapping coloured material on cave walls. This is a fascinating project under our "all new knowledge is theft" programme.
This is a concept which we hope to introduce shortly into your legal systems, through our extensive use of lobbying and freebies.
Legal Analysis
The following is an in-depth analysis of why ColdPizza is a derivative work - provided by our legal sleuths of BlockHead and Tackle.
1. Both articles mention Pizza.
Furthermore
2. Both system use registration at point of sale.
3. Both systems provide greater choice to the consumer by removing the burden of freedom.
4. Both systems provide a clearly inaccessible EULA which can be conveniently agreed to without inconveniencing the consumer.
5. Both systems have possible minor but unlikely side effects which on first glance look pretty depressing.
Legal Conclusion
Though our legal sleuths suggest that points 2 to 5 may in fact be universally common to many rights management systems - there can be no doubt on point 1.
We hereby give notice that any further publication of ColdPizza is obviously a breach of our rights (once we've implemented them) and you owe us. However, in the interests of an open and free society, we are willing to compromise on the first part (publication, breach of rights) but not on the later (you owe us).
Future Opportunity
At this point, we wish to propose our societies latest and greatest idea -
Having read the recent news on DRM, I wrote down these exciting new business opportunities on the train to work.
Forget music.
All over the world people are copying recipes.
Ok you might [possibly] know how to make a good pizza, but does the original inventor [chef / cook / whatever] ever get credits or royalties?
No!
Society even supports this activity and allows groups such as the Women's Institute (WI) to run cake stalls, selling potentially copyright infringing material. Who owns the recipe to dundee or banana cake?
In order to stop this outrage, I raise a call for arms for the introduction of PRM (physical rights management). Using nano-technology, PRM will introduce mechanisms to ensure that any ingredients purchased (i.e. a tin of tomatoes) are used only in a lawful, non copyright infringing way.
This future will transform your kitchen from a melting pot of illegality [note to advertising group: use images of cute kids making chocolate brownies in an unlawful way interlaced with shots of muggers, burglars and murderers] into a controlled safe environment where both you (as good parents) and your children can cook non copyright infringing food. [note to advertising group: use happy faces of a family unit interspersed with images of a caring yet cool corporation]
Furthermore, PRM, will help prevent any counterfeiting of popular goods (fairy cakes, shepherds pie) by organised crime or terror groups looking for fundraising.
Under PRM, you will no longer buy unlicensed ingredients but instead the right to use an ingredient or product for a legal safe purpose protected by the PRM nano-technology (trademarked as SAFE FOOD).
At the supermarket, SAFE FOOD will determine your purpose of use at the point of sale (i.e. you want to make pizza etc). SAFE FOOD patented technology will then check all the necessary copyright law, pay the relevant royalties necessary by automatically debiting your credit card and finally provide you with a personalised EULA, printed in a clearly unreadable micro-dot on the inside of the tin.
To avoid the consumer being put to any inconvenience, SAFE FOOD does not require any input from the consumer and the placing of the tin in a shopping bag will be legally binding as acceptance of the EULA.
How do we know the purpose of say a tin of tomatoes without input from the consumer?
Simple, using our advanced technology we have been able to create mathematically proven algorithims which use all the currently available information on a consumer to accurately predict the consumer choice. This is our patented technology known as CORRECT CHOICE.
Should you wish to change your mind after purchasing and decide not to make the CORRECT CHOICE recipe (such as making spaghetti bolognese, because let's face it you've eaten too much pizza) then you will be required to purchase another tin of tomatoes licensed for that purpose.
In order to protect your rights and safety - should your ingredient be used for any unlicensed purpose (i.e. not the CORRECT CHOICE recipe), then SAFE FOOD will turn your ingredient into an obnoxious foul smelling mess in order to stop any unlawful acts occurring or being consumed.
This will also prevent theft of your product by another person, as the EULA will specify the recipients of the ingredients eg. the named members of your household and any guest you may have specified at the point of sale.
Furthermore to avoid consumers becoming concerned or confused over how SAFE FOOD or CORRECT CHOICE works, we are introducing new legislation to make it illegal for anyone other than us to understand or question it.
Any possible minor but unlikely side effects?
* an unexpected guest arrives and you have no ingredients with appropriate licenses.
Having read the recent news on DRM, I wrote down these exciting new business opportunities on the train to work.
Forget music.
All over the world people are copying recipes.
Ok you might [possibly] know how to make a good pizza, but does the original inventor [chef / cook / whatever] ever get credits or royalties?
No!
Society even supports this activity and allows groups such as the Women's Institute (WI) to run cake stalls, selling potentially copyright infringing material. Who owns the recipe to dundee or banana cake?
In order to stop this outrage, I raise a call for arms for the introduction of PRM (physical rights management). Using nano-technology, PRM will introduce mechanisms to ensure that any ingredients purchased (i.e. a tin of tomatoes) are used only in a lawful, non copyright infringing way.
This future will transform your kitchen from a melting pot of illegality [note to advertising group: use images of cute kids making chocolate brownies in an unlawful way interlaced with shots of muggers, burglars and murderers] into a controlled safe environment where both you (as good parents) and your children can cook non copyright infringing food. [note to advertising group: use happy faces of a family unit interspersed with images of a caring yet cool corporation]
Furthermore, PRM, will help prevent any counterfeiting of popular goods (fairy cakes, shepherds pie) by organised crime or terror groups looking for fundraising.
Under PRM, you will no longer buy unlicensed ingredients but instead the right to use an ingredient or product for a legal safe purpose protected by the PRM nano-technology (trademarked as SAFE FOOD).
At the supermarket, SAFE FOOD will determine your purpose of use at the point of sale (i.e. you want to make pizza etc). SAFE FOOD patented technology will then check all the necessary copyright law, pay the relevant royalties necessary by automatically debiting your credit card and finally provide you with a personalised EULA, printed in a clearly unreadable micro-dot on the inside of the tin.
To avoid the consumer being put to any inconvenience, SAFE FOOD does not require any input from the consumer and the placing of the tin in a shopping bag will be legally binding as acceptance of the EULA.
How do we know the purpose of say a tin of tomatoes without input from the consumer?
Simple, using our advanced technology we have been able to create mathematically proven algorithims which use all the currently available information on a consumer to accurately predict the consumer choice. This is our patented technology known as CORRECT CHOICE.
Should you wish to change your mind after purchasing and decide not to make the CORRECT CHOICE recipe (such as making spaghetti bolognese, because let's face it you've eaten too much pizza) then you will be required to purchase another tin of tomatoes licensed for that purpose.
In order to protect your rights and safety - should your ingredient be used for any unlicensed purpose (i.e. not the CORRECT CHOICE recipe), then SAFE FOOD will turn your ingredient into an obnoxious foul smelling mess in order to stop any unlawful acts occurring or being consumed.
This will also prevent theft of your product by another person, as the EULA will specify the recipients of the ingredients eg. the named members of your household and any guest you may have specified at the point of sale.
Furthermore to avoid consumers becoming concerned or confused over how SAFE FOOD or CORRECT CHOICE works, we are introducing new legislation to make it illegal for anyone other than us to understand or question it.
Any possible minor but unlikely side effects?
* an unexpected guest arrives and you have no ingredients with appropriate licenses.
* the licensed owner of the product dies, lea
Grant mongering and I'm already doing it
on
Fab
·
· Score: 1
[I'm already doing it]
The argument is more one of the use of printing as a means of manufacture. Whether that is in the home place or mass production of goods. The best example at this moment of mass production via printing is the work being done on printed electronics and the use of flexographic printing and other techniques to produce RFID tags, sensors etc. Printing is very good for mass production - as per your examples of newspapers and wallpaper - it may well become a viable means of mass producing electronic components and other systems.
For more information on this see the work of Professor Bruce Kahn, Rochester Institute of technology as well as the other research labs around the world (company and university).
[Grant Mongering]
Now, for my favourite part - some gentle ribbing of those who see things in black and white and are certain of what is going to happen.
Dear Eric,
Thank you for your future prediction that "As for the assertion that we will one day be able to build anything with personal fabrication machines...well, that's so laughable I won't even bother addressing it."
Given that the negative assertion breaks no physical laws, then your comment has the future potential to be included in the list of other people's completely wrong absolute predictions for the future. Such predictions famously include:-
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."-Ken Olson, president, chairman, and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." -Western Union internal memo, 1876.
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.
"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." - Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented." - Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction". - Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872
At the present time various technology exists to print in metals, ceramic, plastics, various other polymers and glass using additive processes (as opposed to subtractive methods such as milling).
The use of nano like materials (small groups of for example copper atoms, surrounded by for example a UV sensitive hyrophobic layer) enables copper to be printed in solid lines well below the melting point of copper. Other more unusual properties are being discovered with small groups of atoms.
Technology exists which is capable of inkjet printing basic passive and active electronic components - for example workable transistors with no signs of degredation after 6 months at the 30 - 70 mircometre scale.
Work is being conducted on printing RFID tags, use of organic semiconductors, printing of display screens (e.g. OLED displays), even printing batteries and optical electronics.
The cost of the machines is reducing (simple economies of scale) - consider the first inkjet printers. If you said to someone fifteen years ago that you could buy a colour inket printer capable of producing photographic quality prints in your home for $200 - they would have laughed. A photo lab operation was a fortune, not $200.
There are even groups looking at printers capable of printing printers - which in effect would enable the viral spread of the means of manufacture.
This collision of the physical and digital world, is unavoidable. The process of manufacture will change whether through the availability of mass customisation (the individual production run), the mass printing of electronics (RFID tags etc) or the eventual home as a factory.
As an observer, I have watched this trend follow a well trodden path over the last ten years. As with all technology trends it goes through cycles of bursts (thunderstorms) and then lulls.
The next thunderstorm in my view is the combination of printed electronic techniques with 3D fabrication techniques. Allowing for the creation of mass customised novel electronic devices, and the subsequent growth in electronic hacking.
The internet was a communication revolution. 3D printing has the potential to be a manufacturing one with an estimated market of between $200bn - $1 Trillion+ (depending on who you listen to).
Value is ultimately in the raw material and the design - which of course raises an interesting question for the open source movement, and whether open source hardware can ultimately become as influential as open source software has.
The technology has the potential to profoundly affect our society, and it is no longer a question of if but when.
On the question of when, this is moving faster than most people realise.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm thinking about patenting the concept of Web 27.0, seeing that I can't find prior art to it - everyone else has mentioned the previous versions.
I'm not sure what it will contain yet, but I believe some vague waffle should be enough - with a couple of key choice ideas like "digitization of self from virutal to physical form and vice versa through server", "transfer of schematics of physical devices from server to device for materialisation", "quantum visualization of data" in the off chance that they might mean something in the future.
Being so far forward looking, it's obviously non-obvious, so I'm ok there.
I'm a bit worried about the patent duration though, can you speed up the adoption of this whole web 2.0 stuff and move onto the next version - otherwise my patent will run out and I won't be rich.
thanks
Dove"If Necessity is the mother of Invention, then Ownership is the mother of Innovation" Horatio Longbottom, 2005
"If Necessity is the mother of Invention, then Ownership is the mother of Innovation" Horatio Longbottom, 2005
I'm speculating that there is an obvious correlation between the amount we sue, and how innovative we are as a society (aka the research investment argument).
Ultimately we will be so innovative that we will just spend all our time suing others.
Is it possible to have a sustainable economic system in which the only good or service manufactured is the legal pursuit of another entity for derivative rights infringement?
Enlightenment, Liberty, Freedom of Speech are just examples of spin banded about by "wacko commie copyright thieving IP environmentalists". Ideas aren't abstract things, they are concrete, definite, with walls, ceilings, central heating and cutesy french patio doors - that's why they are property and need to be owned.
We need DRM, cookyright, perpetual copyright and much more, otherwise nobody will invest in research and society will grind to a halt. Innovation needs ownership.
If proof was ever needed of these obvious points, I'd like to refer you to my previous comments on Slashdot and how my "original, physical, property like and therefore owned by me" parody was then obviously (to me only) rehashed, re-written into a completely different parody on Groklaw with no resemblance to the original. The act was so cunning that any right minded person would say that both articles are completely different, that's why we need ownership on everything and DRM everywhere to stop such "free thinking" (another spin word) events.
The full story is here, in my society's letter to Groklaw
The Kabal for Notional Abstract Conceptual Knowledge and its Empowerment through Regulation, Enforcement and Dividends [KNACKERED] has recently discovered the following publication on GrokLaw.
Cold Pizza, by Scott Lazar http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200601041 61112858 published in January 2006 - a so called parody of EULA within Food.
However, the ColdPizza parody would appear to us (if looked at obtusely in just about the right amount of pitch darkness) to be a derivative work of our business proposal, that of physical rights management (PRM) - as published on Slashdot by one of our members (Dove_From_Above) in Nov 2005 http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168546&cid=140 52469
As such it is in breach of article 5 of the KNACKERED society's list of great ideas, namely that of:-
5. Creative Rights Management - all new works are to some respect derivative products, hence the printing press was based upon writing which was based upon slapping coloured material on cave walls. This is a fascinating project under our "all new knowledge is theft" programme.
This is a concept which we hope to introduce shortly into your legal systems, through our extensive use of lobbying and freebies.
Legal Analysis
The following is an in-depth analysis of why ColdPizza is a derivative work - provided by our legal sleuths of BlockHead and Tackle.
1. Both articles mention Pizza.
Furthermore
2. Both system use registration at point of sale.
3. Both systems provide greater choice to the consumer by removing the burden of freedom.
4. Both systems provide a clearly inaccessible EULA which can be conveniently agreed to without inconveniencing the consumer.
5. Both systems have possible minor but unlikely side effects which on first glance look pretty depressing.
Legal Conclusion
Though our legal sleuths suggest that points 2 to 5 may in fact be universally common to many rights management systems - there can be no doubt on point 1.
We hereby give notice that any further publication of ColdPizza is obviously a breach of our rights (once we've implemented them) and you owe us. However, in the interests of an open and free society, we are willing to compromise on the first part (publication, breach of rights) but not on the later (you owe us).
Future Opportunity
At this point, we wish to propose our societies latest and greatest idea -
Having read the recent news on DRM, I wrote down these exciting new business opportunities on the train to work.
Forget music.
All over the world people are copying recipes.
Ok you might [possibly] know how to make a good pizza, but does the original inventor [chef / cook / whatever] ever get credits or royalties?
No!
Society even supports this activity and allows groups such as the Women's Institute (WI) to run cake stalls, selling potentially copyright infringing material. Who owns the recipe to dundee or banana cake?
In order to stop this outrage, I raise a call for arms for the introduction of PRM (physical rights management). Using nano-technology, PRM will introduce mechanisms to ensure that any ingredients purchased (i.e. a tin of tomatoes) are used only in a lawful, non copyright infringing way.
This future will transform your kitchen from a melting pot of illegality [note to advertising group: use images of cute kids making chocolate brownies in an unlawful way interlaced with shots of muggers, burglars and murderers] into a controlled safe environment where both you (as good parents) and your children can cook non copyright infringing food. [note to advertising group: use happy faces of a family unit interspersed with images of a caring yet cool corporation]
Furthermore, PRM, will help prevent any counterfeiting of popular goods (fairy cakes, shepherds pie) by organised crime or terror groups looking for fundraising.
Under PRM, you will no longer buy unlicensed ingredients but instead the right to use an ingredient or product for a legal safe purpose protected by the PRM nano-technology (trademarked as SAFE FOOD).
At the supermarket, SAFE FOOD will determine your purpose of use at the point of sale (i.e. you want to make pizza etc). SAFE FOOD patented technology will then check all the necessary copyright law, pay the relevant royalties necessary by automatically debiting your credit card and finally provide you with a personalised EULA, printed in a clearly unreadable micro-dot on the inside of the tin.
To avoid the consumer being put to any inconvenience, SAFE FOOD does not require any input from the consumer and the placing of the tin in a shopping bag will be legally binding as acceptance of the EULA.
How do we know the purpose of say a tin of tomatoes without input from the consumer?
Simple, using our advanced technology we have been able to create mathematically proven algorithims which use all the currently available information on a consumer to accurately predict the consumer choice. This is our patented technology known as CORRECT CHOICE.
Should you wish to change your mind after purchasing and decide not to make the CORRECT CHOICE recipe (such as making spaghetti bolognese, because let's face it you've eaten too much pizza) then you will be required to purchase another tin of tomatoes licensed for that purpose.
In order to protect your rights and safety - should your ingredient be used for any unlicensed purpose (i.e. not the CORRECT CHOICE recipe), then SAFE FOOD will turn your ingredient into an obnoxious foul smelling mess in order to stop any unlawful acts occurring or being consumed.
This will also prevent theft of your product by another person, as the EULA will specify the recipients of the ingredients eg. the named members of your household and any guest you may have specified at the point of sale.
Furthermore to avoid consumers becoming concerned or confused over how SAFE FOOD or CORRECT CHOICE works, we are introducing new legislation to make it illegal for anyone other than us to understand or question it.
Any possible minor but unlikely side effects?
* an unexpected guest arrives and you have no ingredients with appropriate licenses.
* the licensed owner of the product dies, lea
Having read the recent news on DRM, I wrote down these exciting new business opportunities on the train to work.
Forget music.
All over the world people are copying recipes.
Ok you might [possibly] know how to make a good pizza, but does the original inventor [chef / cook / whatever] ever get credits or royalties?
No!
Society even supports this activity and allows groups such as the Women's Institute (WI) to run cake stalls, selling potentially copyright infringing material. Who owns the recipe to dundee or banana cake?
In order to stop this outrage, I raise a call for arms for the introduction of PRM (physical rights management). Using nano-technology, PRM will introduce mechanisms to ensure that any ingredients purchased (i.e. a tin of tomatoes) are used only in a lawful, non copyright infringing way.
This future will transform your kitchen from a melting pot of illegality [note to advertising group: use images of cute kids making chocolate brownies in an unlawful way interlaced with shots of muggers, burglars and murderers] into a controlled safe environment where both you (as good parents) and your children can cook non copyright infringing food. [note to advertising group: use happy faces of a family unit interspersed with images of a caring yet cool corporation]
Furthermore, PRM, will help prevent any counterfeiting of popular goods (fairy cakes, shepherds pie) by organised crime or terror groups looking for fundraising.
Under PRM, you will no longer buy unlicensed ingredients but instead the right to use an ingredient or product for a legal safe purpose protected by the PRM nano-technology (trademarked as SAFE FOOD).
At the supermarket, SAFE FOOD will determine your purpose of use at the point of sale (i.e. you want to make pizza etc). SAFE FOOD patented technology will then check all the necessary copyright law, pay the relevant royalties necessary by automatically debiting your credit card and finally provide you with a personalised EULA, printed in a clearly unreadable micro-dot on the inside of the tin.
To avoid the consumer being put to any inconvenience, SAFE FOOD does not require any input from the consumer and the placing of the tin in a shopping bag will be legally binding as acceptance of the EULA.
How do we know the purpose of say a tin of tomatoes without input from the consumer?
Simple, using our advanced technology we have been able to create mathematically proven algorithims which use all the currently available information on a consumer to accurately predict the consumer choice. This is our patented technology known as CORRECT CHOICE.
Should you wish to change your mind after purchasing and decide not to make the CORRECT CHOICE recipe (such as making spaghetti bolognese, because let's face it you've eaten too much pizza) then you will be required to purchase another tin of tomatoes licensed for that purpose.
In order to protect your rights and safety - should your ingredient be used for any unlicensed purpose (i.e. not the CORRECT CHOICE recipe), then SAFE FOOD will turn your ingredient into an obnoxious foul smelling mess in order to stop any unlawful acts occurring or being consumed.
This will also prevent theft of your product by another person, as the EULA will specify the recipients of the ingredients eg. the named members of your household and any guest you may have specified at the point of sale.
Furthermore to avoid consumers becoming concerned or confused over how SAFE FOOD or CORRECT CHOICE works, we are introducing new legislation to make it illegal for anyone other than us to understand or question it.
Any possible minor but unlikely side effects?
* an unexpected guest arrives and you have no ingredients with appropriate licenses.
* the licensed owner of the product dies, lea
[I'm already doing it]
:-
The argument is more one of the use of printing as a means of manufacture. Whether that is in the home place or mass production of goods. The best example at this moment of mass production via printing is the work being done on printed electronics and the use of flexographic printing and other techniques to produce RFID tags, sensors etc. Printing is very good for mass production - as per your examples of newspapers and wallpaper - it may well become a viable means of mass producing electronic components and other systems.
For more information on this see the work of Professor Bruce Kahn, Rochester Institute of technology as well as the other research labs around the world (company and university).
[Grant Mongering]
Now, for my favourite part - some gentle ribbing of those who see things in black and white and are certain of what is going to happen.
Dear Eric,
Thank you for your future prediction that "As for the assertion that we will one day be able to build anything with personal fabrication machines...well, that's so laughable I won't even bother addressing it."
Given that the negative assertion breaks no physical laws, then your comment has the future potential to be included in the list of other people's completely wrong absolute predictions for the future. Such predictions famously include
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."-Ken Olson, president, chairman, and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." -Western Union internal memo, 1876.
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.
"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." - Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented." - Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction". - Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872
- Simon
At the present time various technology exists to print in metals, ceramic, plastics, various other polymers and glass using additive processes (as opposed to subtractive methods such as milling). The use of nano like materials (small groups of for example copper atoms, surrounded by for example a UV sensitive hyrophobic layer) enables copper to be printed in solid lines well below the melting point of copper. Other more unusual properties are being discovered with small groups of atoms. Technology exists which is capable of inkjet printing basic passive and active electronic components - for example workable transistors with no signs of degredation after 6 months at the 30 - 70 mircometre scale. Work is being conducted on printing RFID tags, use of organic semiconductors, printing of display screens (e.g. OLED displays), even printing batteries and optical electronics. The cost of the machines is reducing (simple economies of scale) - consider the first inkjet printers. If you said to someone fifteen years ago that you could buy a colour inket printer capable of producing photographic quality prints in your home for $200 - they would have laughed. A photo lab operation was a fortune, not $200. There are even groups looking at printers capable of printing printers - which in effect would enable the viral spread of the means of manufacture. This collision of the physical and digital world, is unavoidable. The process of manufacture will change whether through the availability of mass customisation (the individual production run), the mass printing of electronics (RFID tags etc) or the eventual home as a factory. As an observer, I have watched this trend follow a well trodden path over the last ten years. As with all technology trends it goes through cycles of bursts (thunderstorms) and then lulls. The next thunderstorm in my view is the combination of printed electronic techniques with 3D fabrication techniques. Allowing for the creation of mass customised novel electronic devices, and the subsequent growth in electronic hacking. The internet was a communication revolution. 3D printing has the potential to be a manufacturing one with an estimated market of between $200bn - $1 Trillion+ (depending on who you listen to). Value is ultimately in the raw material and the design - which of course raises an interesting question for the open source movement, and whether open source hardware can ultimately become as influential as open source software has. The technology has the potential to profoundly affect our society, and it is no longer a question of if but when. On the question of when, this is moving faster than most people realise.