Form1 3D Printer and Kickstarter Get Sued For Patent Infringment 211
An anonymous reader writes "3D Systems, one of the big fish in 3D printer manufacturing, filed a suit against Formlabs's hugely popular Form1 printer put forth on Kickstarter. The crowdfunding effort has amassed close to 3M US Dollars, of an initial 100K requested. 3D Systems accuses Formlabs and Kickstarter of knowingly infringing one of its still valid blanket patents on stereolithography and cross-sectional printing of 3D objects. The company is probably going to go for the kill, as one can deduce from the demands on their complaint."
In "The State of Community Fabrication" presentation at HOPE9, Far McKon noted that no one had yet filed a patent lawsuit against a 3D printing company, but it looks like his fears have come true.
Don't innovate, litigate! (Score:5, Insightful)
These startups must me punished for their hubris.
Re:Don't innovate, litigate! (Score:5, Insightful)
While I don't approve of the patent litigation, it's not fair to characterize 3D Systems as a patent troll. They do spend plenty of time and energy (and money) creating better products, as they did to create their existing products.
Re:Don't innovate, litigate! (Score:4, Insightful)
They do spend plenty of time and energy (and money) creating better products, as they did to create their existing products.
If their products are so much better, why are they so afraid of a little competition?
Re:Don't innovate, litigate! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should they invest all of the money in R&D so someone else can just take it for free?
They did R&D for the startup? And for free? Knowingly? Then why did they do it? I suspect, however, that the startup did all their prototyping etc. on their own.
Re:Don't innovate, litigate! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem with patents. It presumes that the ideas are "stolen" and not independently developed.
Why should they spend money on R&D? So they can create the product they want to sell. Other people should do the same. As far as I'm concerned, as long as it can be shown that a technology which has been patented has also been independently developed by another party, then claims of infringement should be lost. After all, if the reasoning stems from money invested in R&D, what about the R&D done by the competition? What if they actually did their own research and development? And what if they did a better job than the plaintiff?
I'm sorry, but blood, sweat, tears and resources argument doesn't move me. Lots of and lots of people work their asses off daily and only get paid for it once. If someone does all the R&D, patents and markets their thing first and they make a profit, then they achieved their goal and established a reputation. There should be NOTHING that guarantees their business model except continued hard work and effort. This notion of doing it once and getting paid forever is just broken. Worse is the notion of getting someone else to do it once and then getting paid forever. But now we're talking about patent trolls and the entertainment industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it benefits us,the people.
At the expense of them, the company.
Re:Don't innovate, litigate! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it benefits us,the people.
At the expense of them, the company.
Exactly, and that is the way it's supposed to happen. Patents, Copyright and others are not supposed to guarantee that a few people get rich, but instead that the benefit to society is maximized. I lost count on how many times the constitution has been quoted (on both cases) to prove it so. The question remains on how the hell did they manage to sell us the first definition so it's now the most common argument.
Re: (Score:3)
Have the patents that pertain to this product expired? Are they in some other way invalid? If not, the company should still enjoy their protection, since that way the benefit to society is maximised. The company innovates and profits, we get new and better (cheaper, bigger, more effective, whatever - better is a broad term) products. After some time, other companies get to make products using the same innovation and prices decrease, or supply improves or whatever. Rinse and repeat.
We can debate the alternat
Re: (Score:3)
The first concern of a company is their income, not if people would benefit from a better product.
Company no benefit, company not producing.
Company small benefit, people huge benefit, company probably not producing,
Company huge benefit, people small benefit, company definitely producing,
Re: (Score:3)
That will simply never happen. There will always be a passioned individual here or there who will create something useful or interesting.
You fail to appreciate what it means to be human. People often paint, and sing and build and create simply for the fun of it. Being creative and expressive is part of human nature. Youtube is FILLED with examples of this behavior. They don't do it in hopes of getting rich. And they aren't all any good. But some stars appear now and again don't they?
The real crime ag
Re:Don't innovate, litigate! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't innovate, litigate! (Score:5, Insightful)
You're essentially asking why bother with patents at all. The hobbyists have been copying patented innovations of these commercial 3D companies. It was only a matter of time before this happened. Before, it would have been swatting at mosquitos. Now, a rabbit's popped up with $3 million, and they're going to shoot it.
The hobbyists have created a lot of innovation, too. The basic hobbyist MO is copy and improve. That's fine when you're copying other open source/hardware stuff... but when you copy someone's proprietary crap, you're in a grey area.
Hobbyists will obviously argue against patents, because they don't benefit from them much at all. Commercial companies need to do something to prevent large scale ripping off of their work, or they can't survive. (Case in point: the recent MakerBot Industries change of heart... which depresses and dissapoints me but as a small manufacturer myself I understand why they might think they have to do that)
This absolutely affects these commercial companies' bottom line, and they have every legal right to protect the investments they've made in R & D. I have a commercial 3D printer myself and I just went out of maintenance partially because a brand new Replicator 2 is possibly better and costs the same as one year's maintenance. This is an absolutely clear textbook case of what patents are supposed to be for.
This is essentially a collusion of worlds. "Cool, I could make that" vs. someone's got to make a living. Believe me, it sucks when you know you could make something but you're just not allowed to. I have a good deal of sympathy for both sides. I've released open source software (including -very- minor contributions to the Linux kernel), I'm becoming active at my local hackerspace, AND I sell proprietary industrial products that I could not make a living doing if they were free to copy.
Re: (Score:3)
FDM has been around since the 80s it's not new. And neither 3D systems or Stratasys came up with it. S Scott Crump did. Now they may have patents on STL that's a different story. And I am sure they have BS patents around FDM but they didn't invent FDM and the tech is over 30 years old now. And that is what the Replicator 2 and RepRap use not STL so bullshit to all of this statement that they should have patent protection on FDM.
Re:Don't innovate, litigate! (Score:4, Interesting)
I think STL predates FDM, actually.
I'm being a bit lazy by not looking this up, but what about FDM using support material? I'd bet that was somewhat later than FDM itself. I'd bet there are a lot of cumulative improvements in FDM that are still covered by patents.
So, everyone's free to make basic FDM machines as they were described by the earliest patents. There's a lot of ground Stratasys covered since then that is probably being copied and leaving even FDM producers exposed to potential legal problems.
I'm pretty conflicted on the whole thing. Give the hackers a basic tech like FDM, and they'd make most of the same improvements themselves... but they're going to be hitting ground covered and patented by commercial entities along the way. Many many times, however, someone's going to have looked at a commercial printer for inspiration... and that's essentially an unfair shortcut.
I think people should be free to produce what they can FOR THEMSELVES without worrying about patent infringements... which would cover most hardware hackers (sort of a fair use concept). However, once you get funding and try to commercialize something, you're subject to normal commercial rules.
Re: (Score:3)
This absolutely affects these commercial companies' bottom line, and they have every legal right to protect the investments they've made in R & D. I have a commercial 3D printer myself and I just went out of maintenance partially because a brand new Replicator 2 is possibly better and costs the same as one year's maintenance. This is an absolutely clear textbook case of what patents are supposed to be for.
Is it though? If we look at something like the Robertson screw head, the patent allowed them a monopoly on that product which allowed them to recoup initial r&d, machine costs etc over their patent life. Fair enough. Don't want a big screw company that does Torx or Phillips to retool then blow you out of the water with lower pricing because they already have their machinery paid for.
But in modern systems when advancement is so quick do we need these long patent lives? It's basically artificially slow
Re: (Score:3)
Well, those are called royalties... and that's an extremely common way to handle things.
In fact, it's a potential outcome in this specific case. Many royalty agreements started as lawsuits. It's probably not likely here, though... since the per unit profit for the little guys is so drastically different than the bigger guy's margins. 3D Systems will just want this stopped.
It'd sure be nice if there was a uniform way to know what patents apply to your product idea and a fixed formula for what royalties sh
Re: (Score:2)
Its not about being afraid. If the existing system offers them legal protections, it makes zero business sense not to utilize them.
Re:Don't innovate, litigate! (Score:4, Insightful)
Legitimate competition, perhaps. But I think they can justifiably object to competition that significantly copies their technology. [I am not trying to make a statement about 3D systems' patents, their validity, or any possible infringement by Form1's embodiment - I haven't evaluated it enough to judge.]
We're not talking about an Apple-Samsung patent war here, quibbling over bounce-back software patents and rounded corners. Rapid prototyping is the kind of thing that the patent system was designed to protect: genuine, tangible technology that makes things and makes things better. All the current players in the market invested a lot of money, time, and ingenuity to create theirs; they are allowed by law to defend themselves.
Re:Don't innovate, litigate! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you really want innovation then patent a firmware restriction that prevents printing anything rectangular having rounded corners.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of patents for somewhat obvious things.
I don't think stereolithography is one of them, to be honest. This isn't even in the same class as rounded corners or rangeCheck().
Re:Don't innovate, litigate! (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, 3D Systems willfully allowed said project to go to completion, rather than stopping it before it became a violation, and therefore if the same level of expectation of awareness their lawyers place upon Kickstarter is placed upon them, they are in fact the ones responsible for said infringement, by virtue of knowingly allowing it to proceed.
In all likelyhood, they decided there was more money to be gained from suing a successful project in an attempt to "claim" the funds collected without having to produce any product for it (as well as "treble damages, which would likely in their minds constitute considerably more than three times the collected project funds). Therefore, yes, they are in fact patent trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
AC is right. My first thought was "wtf Kickstarter isn't even in that industry!"
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Thank you, Humpty Dumpty, but words do not mean whatever you want them to mean. You have illustrated their likely strategy, but this does not make them "patent trolls". "Patent troll" means something else:
Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.
Seems one crucial criterion is missing from this case.
Re: (Score:3)
Two questions: What is the source of that passage and how are they the final authority on the meaning of this term.
Thanks in advance for your eloquent ans exhaustively documented reply.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not the patent holders responsibility to publicize their patents. It is the responsibility of any inventor to do a patent search first to understand the patent landscape and determine where they have freedom to operate.
Ignorance is not a defense in the eyes of the law.
Publicizing patents (Score:3)
It just occurred to me: might this be the very thing which is needed in order to repair the patent system? What if patent enforcement did require that the patent holder could demonstrate that they put great effort/expense into publicity?
Can anyone think of a downside? Sure, it's an expense and no one wants invention to be expensive, but it's got to be far less expense than independent parallel patent searches by the thousands/millio
Re:Don't innovate, litigate! (Score:4, Insightful)
It is the responsibility of any inventor to do a patent search first to understand the patent landscape and determine where they have freedom to operate.
Bullshit. You have absolutely no affirmative obligation to perform a patent search. In fact, it amounts to negligence to do so, because the USPTO's policy of rubber-stamping everything that crosses their desks means that whatever you're going to do almost certainly is covered by multiple trivial patents. If it can be shown that you were aware of those patents, any damage awards will be trebled.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not the patent holders responsibility to publicize their patents. It is the responsibility of any inventor to do a patent search first to understand the patent landscape and determine where they have freedom to operate.
Ignorance is not a defense in the eyes of the law.
This argument is absurd because there are simply so many patents - no small company could possibly be able to search through them to make sure they aren't infringing. I don't know if you have seen this article [bbc.com] in which they quote an estimate, made by the American Intellectual Property Law Association, of the total cost if each software company employed enough patent lawyers to check through even a year's worth of software patents, spending only 10 minutes on each: $1.5 trillion, nearly 10% of the US GDP. It
Re:Don't innovate, litigate! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you invest in product improvements when you can hire lawyers?
Re:Don't innovate, litigate! (Score:5, Interesting)
Just curious, are you talking about this quote?:
"And how are monopolies lost? Think about it. Some very good product people invent some very good products, and the company achieves a monopoly. But after that, the product people aren't the ones that drive the company forward anymore. It's the marketing guys or the ones who expand the business into Latin America or whatever. Because what's the point of focusing on making the product even better when the only company you can take business from is yourself? So a different group of people start to move up. And who usually ends up running the show? The sales guy. John Akers at IBM is the consummate example. Then one day, the monopoly expires for whatever reason. But by then the best product people have left, or they're no longer listened to. And so the company goes through this tumultuous time, and it either survives or it doesn't. Look at Microsoft — who's running Microsoft? (interviewer: Steve Ballmer.) Right, the sales guy. Case closed. And that's what happened at Apple, as well."
Citation: http://allaboutstevejobs.com/sayings/stevejobsquotes.php [allaboutstevejobs.com]
Short form: "Nothing succeeds like Success". It's why most Free Markets end up destroying themselves. If even one participant can rise above the common herd, positive feedback mechanisms begin to form whereby the winners get bigger at the expense of the losers and the bigger they get, the harder the task of competing with them becomes. Eventually most, if not all competitors become insignificant or extinct and the driving forces for the winners get replaced with forces unrelated to what originally made them winners.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
True. When someone's a dyed-in-the-wool statist and wants to denigrate free-market economics at every turn, as the GP obviously wanted to do, then it doesn't matter if you're Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or a politician or a hairdresser. There's not much you can say about the subject that won't be turned against you.
Re: (Score:2)
I can show where the opposite can be just as bad if not worse.
I work for a company where the engineers lead the company instead of sales/marketing. Long ago and for a long time, I have always felt that no one can steer a company better than the people who make it work. The company I work for has proven that notion to be untrue.... at least in this instance.
Where I work, we are beholden to the interests of customers and the requirements of government regulators. Problem is, the engineering side does not a
Only a matter of time (Score:2)
In "The State of Community Fabrication" presentation at HOPE9, Far McKon noted that no one had yet filed a patent lawsuit against a 3d printing company, but it looks like his fears have come true.
It's not really a surprise, but was probably only a matter of time. If there is money to be made, patents and lawsuits will be filed.
Thanks for the Info (Score:5, Informative)
Now I know who I'll never buy anything from. Anything from 3D systems should be blacklisted. I wonder what they'd do if no one bought any of their stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what they'd do if no one bought any of their stuff.
MORE lawsuits?
That's profitable, you know.
America, F-Yeah! (Score:2, Funny)
This is the new America! They don't need to sell stuff, just sue the people who do and take their money.
Re: (Score:2)
Software patch might overcome this patent (Score:4, Interesting)
The patent in the link has the limitation: "the support structure selectively having different energy levels applied to it at at least the down-facing interfacing region than do the intermediate region and the object to thereby create weak points with less solidification in the solid state transformed liquid medium than the intermediate region and the three-dimensional object at at least the down-facing interfacing regions to facilitate ease of removal of the support structure from a completed three-dimensional object".
So if Form 1 software is tweaked not to do this, then it would not infringe. At the same time, by the filing of the lawsuit, 3D Systems may have done irreperable harm to Form 1. Counter suit anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
A counter suit against somebody for filing a (as it seems) justified suit concerning real patent violation?
Why ? What would be that point? If this does irreperable harm to Form 1, it just proves that their whole buisness depented on violating that patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Software patch might overcome this patent (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the automatically generated, easy to remove support structures were a key feature that form 1 advertised for the machine (probably second only to the high resolution of the prints). The tool becomes much less versatile without them.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe they should have gone with someone else writing the sw?
I mean, replicatorg, slic3r and some other slicing sw do support structures with varying success(and parameters) for ease of removal.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this just like those polystyrene model kits for kids that would have all the parts connected to the main plastic piping by thin, short stems where they could be easily broken off by hand?
That's been around at least 30 years easy.
Re:Software patch might overcome this patent (Score:4, Insightful)
So if Form 1 software is tweaked not to do this, then it would not infringe. At the same time, by the filing of the lawsuit, 3D Systems may have done irreperable harm to Form 1. Counter suit anyone?
If Form 1 currently infringes, such that they would have to tweak their software to not infringe, then 3D Systems did nothing wrong in filing their lawsuit. A countersuit on such grounds would be frivolous and unjustified, and only get them into more trouble.
Re: (Score:3)
You are suggesting that they remove the part that they are being sued for, which pretty much indicates that the plaintiff was correct. Then they countersue because the plaintiff's totally valid patent suit did them irreparable harm? Sounds foolproof!
Not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
The US have brought this onto themselves, now live with the patent mess and watch the US economy sue itself into oblivion and slowly self-destruct.
Re: (Score:3)
Obvious --- craftsmen have always done this (Score:3, Insightful)
When I make something as simple as a dovetail box, when it's time to cut off the lid, I carefully do not cut the lid all the way off, leaving some uncut areas around the edges to hold the lid in place so that the saw blade doesn't bind.
The patent in question is for generating supports to hold a model in place as it's being printed --- if one does this same thing in a subtractive process, it's obvious that one would be able to in an additive process.
William
Re:Obvious --- craftsmen have always done this (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you never had to pull small plastic model parts from a sprue?
Seems to me that this is a necessary and obvious part of doing any sort of 3D modelling in any kind of material, or things won't mould/print properly (because it's not technically possible for them to float in space while you work on them).
If anything, I would hope the patent was dismissed on the grounds of obviousness, but certainly it should be obvious to one "skilled in the art" of 3D printing. And, failing that, if they just got some reasonable and non-discriminatory patent licensing terms, there's a few million dollars lying about that they could have a chunk of just by NOT suing.
Re: (Score:2)
A few million dollars is nothing .. a fraction, even less. I'm guessing these guys would be happy to spend a few million dollars stifling any competition and clutching on to their dying monopoly for just a bit longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, on a computer!
Re: (Score:2)
That changed everything right there.
Re: (Score:3)
If I read the patent correctly, it seems they're varying the power in the laser to create a weak point at the break-off part of the support structure.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! Who could have possibly think that? Genius (U+2e2e, damn /., allow unicode already!)
I'll start teaching classes for kindergarten, I'm pretty sure I'll be able to steal dozens of patentable ideas!
Re: (Score:2)
I agree completely, some of these patents are stupid.
On the upside, it shouldn't be tooo hard to circumvent if the claims are narrow.
Looks like a legit patent. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems as though the patent is legit. Although it's not nice of them to sue without talking to the From1 builders first. ... Or did they attempt to do that and got rejected? If so, it's their given right to start legal action.
Could Form1 licence the patent is the next question I'd ask.
Re:Looks like a legit patent. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You may not have read the patent carefully enough (or gotten past the 80-ish pages of drawings). What the patent is actual claiming is a way of getting higher resolution out of stereolithographic materials by blending cross-sectional layers that have a resolution greater than that of the material. By using the claimed method of blending those layers and their cure times in just the right way, you can get thinner (higher-resolution) cross-sectional layers than the material, would get alone.
It was a novel and
Re:Looks like a legit patent. (Score:5, Informative)
You may not have read the patent carefully enough (or gotten past the 80-ish pages of drawings). What the patent is actual claiming is a way of getting higher resolution out of stereolithographic materials by blending cross-sectional layers that have a resolution greater than that of the material. By using the claimed method of blending those layers and varying the cure exposure times in just the right way, you can get thinner (higher-resolution) cross-sectional layers than the material, if cured using normal layer-by-layer techniques, would get alone.
It was a novel and non-obvious advance in stereolithographic techniques.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So to compress the 80 pages of drawings into stuff a regular geek can understand: they are antialiasing, in the z-axis.
Stop the world, I want to get off.
Re: (Score:2)
Details are important.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should Form1 allow their competition to exist if they can eradicate them?
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the legal system enable Form1 to use litigation to eradicate the competition?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the Constitution said so? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Looks like a legit patent. (Score:4, Informative)
Although it's not nice of them to sue without talking to the From1 builders first
Since the 2007 MedImmune v. Genentech [wikipedia.org] case it has been very difficult for a patentee to discuss potential infringement or licensing with another party without creating declaratory judgment jurisdiction [wikipedia.org]. DJ jurisdiction allows the alleged infringer to file a suit for a declaratory judgment that the patent is invalid, unenforceable, or uninfringed (or some combination). The big advantage is that it lets the alleged infringer pick the time and place of the suit. So patentees have become more likely to file suit and talk about settlement later rather than trying to negotiate a license and then filing a suit only if that fails.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems as though the patent is legit.
You don't think it's fabricated? That's certainly odd. I thought the plaintiff was known for its fabrication reputation.
Litigate Kickstarter out of existence (Score:5, Interesting)
I can see them going for the Kickstarter project, but going for Kickstarter itself?
Yea, great business model. Piss off nerds that use a HUGELY popular web site. [sarcasm]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Litigate Kickstarter out of existence (Score:4, Interesting)
Their claim is that Kickstarter knowing sold infringing the products to the project backers, and that as a seller they are liable.
They don't see Kickstarter as an innocent middleman, they see them as an active reseller.
Re:Litigate Kickstarter out of existence (Score:4, Insightful)
You might be surprised to find out that nerd rage doesn't go a long way to intimidate corporations and lawyers.
Us pissing and moaning about such things doesn't really tend to actually change much.
And, of course, that idiot who heads the USPTO will claim this is how the system is supposed to work and that it's driving innovation. It's not, but he'll still continue to claim that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that seemed to work so well with the iPhone. I hear that Apple will be going bankrupt any day now.
Deduct? (Score:3)
as one can deduct from the demands
I have deduced that someone has made a typo.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be disingenious.
Bad Patent (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of patents is to ensure that people can spend a lot of money on research, with some kind of general guarantee that it can pay off for them.
actually? thats not correct. According to the US constitution " The Congress shall have power...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" In exchage for publishing the details of your invention. The promotion of the progress of science and useful arts relies on you publishing the details of your invention. When you do this the government secures that exclusive right to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is especially true in software.
One person can take months doing something that another person thinks is intuitively obvious.
Then, since no one is going around reading every patent, you could easily reproduce a method that someone patented. Thus punishing the good developer who could "just do it," as well as punishing the company for not finding a way to read every software patent and their own code to avoid infringement.
Somehow this helps creativity and innovation?
What's next? Apple suing Wal-Mart for Android? (Score:2)
These guys suing Kickstarter makes about as much sense as Apple suing Wal-Mart for selling Samsung tablets and phones. Are we going to expect Wal-Mart, Best Buy and eBay to start doing patent checks on everything they put on their shelves or list on their site? If by some strange quirk this case moves forward with Kickstarter attached, that will be the legal expectation by precedent.
IANL, but in the complaint they may have already given Kickstarter cause to get removed. They mention Kickstarter's TOS and
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe a tiny patentholder (and possible troll...I don't care to research it enough to differentiate) suing Nintendo and many of Ninitendo's biggest retailers [gameinformer.com] for the WII allegedly violating a patent on handheld pointer technology.
It makes exactly as much sense. It may make no sense to an outside observer, but it seems to be a legitimate outcome of the thought process: "Manufacturer, you're violating my patent and making money off of it. Retailer, you're making money too, by supporting Manufacturer's viol
EDITORS: Summary is incorrect (Score:2)
3D printing vs stereo lithography (Score:2)
3D systems = 3d printing microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
To be honest, 3d systems is the microsoft of the 3d printing community, they've been buying everybody out, even the small guys who make diy printers, and buying up all the patents. I'm going to guess that Formlabs refused to be bought up into 3D systems borganism, so they're suing them.
3d systems also does other evil things like charging lots for ink(should I call it toner instead?) and punish you if you use any ink that isn't from them. This is especially troublesome when you're using specialty inks to make real parts where you need special properties like fire resistance, something that 3d systems more often than not doesn't offer. Lately they've been trying to push this new cartridge system that uses RFID to make sure you're only using their cartridges. Luckily, it's not catching on.
3d systems is universally hated by all in the 3d printing community.
Submitter can't read? Wrong patent! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Am I missing something? (Score:3)
What the heck would kickstarter have to do with it?
If it's a patent violation, then it's a patent violation by the person who infringed on the patent. All kickstarter did was provide a venue for raising and delivering the funds.
This is like holding the Mint to blame for a bank heist.
Re: (Score:3)
According to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20434031 [bbc.co.uk], Kickstarter get a 5% (?) cut of the money pledged to $PROJECTNAME$, which seems to be sufficient involvement to satisfy enough lawyers to get them co-cited.
Whether it sticks ... is another question.
Re: (Score:3)
I would liken it to the notion of holding the government partially accountable for tax fraud because if people didn't have to pay taxes, then there wouldn't be tax fraud in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
printed cocks and pussies galore (Score:3)
I print my cock in 3d for the lady !!!!
She suck the plastic.
mmmmmm...so good plastic 3d cock.
not unsurprisingly enough this subject comes up just about every time 3d printing is discussed after hours. that or pussy.
anyhow, with objets(a firm) style jet printers you can print rubber-like parts(it uses a resin and uv.. but an inkjet style head, it's a pretty cool technique but sadly I suppose it's patent encumbered as well. also it's not very fast, but makes super nice models. ).
now excuse me while I go back to cutting up a figurine mesh model for making a butt-bowl(seriously, check thingiverse in a