They are bound to have a pretty big portfolio of 3D printing related patents. A case of 'join or be sued'? Strictly speaking, wouldn't even be against the law, would it?
I think that this kind of behavior is against the law, but no fully sure on that.
3DS has been under anti-trust before and was forced to sell operations to Sony (?) I believe. They've sued (and won) against EOS (Germany maker of SLS equipment). They're known to be very litigious. I've actually been surprised this hasn't happened yet...
Of course - I suspect that most existing tech would exist, but some things (drug discovery) would need to be further subsidized. However, things like drug patents are arguably as apt to be funded as roads or a court system - public health mustn't be held hostage.
The cost of research for a new drug is dwarfed by the cost to get it approved by the FDA, and dwarfed again by further marketing costs. Not to mention most "researched" drugs are just "me-too" copies of financially successful drugs. Not to mention that of the top 46 selling drugs worldwide, 20 of them do not owe their existence to patents. And the case for pharmaceutical patents just gets worse and worse, it's a great case study of patents being totally ineffective in encouraging innovation or benefiting the consumer. http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf
Well, we don't know that this lawsuit will lose us any technology. I would hope the point of the suit is that this technology already exists and is being sold but some other company is trying to gain funding using the patented idea.
If you had no patents I have to imagine you'd lose a lot more technology because there just wouldn't be any reason for any non-super corporation to come up with anything. As soon as someone had a good idea, a big corp could just throw 100 human resources at it and create it before the person with the actual idea could.
Having said that, the current system is an embarrassment.
Ok, I understand why they might sue Formlabs - it's a shame, but without knowing the details there's opportunity for patent infringement there. But Kickstarter? Seriously?
How is Kickstarter at fault? Is it really within their scope of responsibilities to conduct due diligence with regard to IP before allowing someone to fundraise?
I hope this does not "kickstart" a new trend of bullying crowdfunding sites.
Kickstarter did profit from the funding of Formlabs' project, which 3D Systems thinks infringes one of their patents, so Kickstarter's inclusion as a defendant doesn't seem especially bizarre to me.
I'm not a lawyer, and this is just wild speculation on my part, but it seems that including Kickstarter as a defendant adds another dagger looming over Formlabs: Kickstarter's Terms of Use, which Formlabs presumably agreed to, includes an indemnification clause.
If Kickstarter chooses to exercise its rights under the indemnification clause, it could demand that Formlabs pay Kickstarter's legal costs (plus damages awarded, if any). Even if Kickstarter is dropped from the lawsuit as soon as a judge looks at the case, they will incur legal costs that Kickstarter could demand Formlabs pay.
The more money Formlabs has to spend on its defense (or Kickstarter's), the less money it has to develop and manufacture products that compete with 3D Systems' products.
I am a little naive as to American legal process, but does Kickstarter enjoy any safe harbor provisions as a fund raising website? They are not the ones producing the 3D printer technology in question, only facilitating its funding. If they are being sued for such service, wouldn't that also make Amazon Payments culpable?
As has been mentioned elsewhere, they're probably not being sued to get money but rather to freeze the funding. If they transfer that money then the infringing company can just keep going while delaying the trial as long as possible.
And if that is indeed the case, then Amazon could be sued for the same reason.
Instead of wasting money on lawyers, why don't they focus their time and efforts on making great products? In a young space, such as printing, companies that behave like this usually go out business eventually.
That's a really simplistic. The real world isn't that simple and it can take years to get your business off the ground. Suppose the original inventor spent several years perfecting a 3D printing process and then 4 months after he starts selling his printers (before he's built up a rep, a steady stream of clients, maybe with still no staff) some other schmuck with a shitload of VC cash swoops in, does the same thing, but undercuts him by having a more efficient manufacturing process or outsourcing to China or something. That'd be kinda shitty and you wouldn't just tell the guy to suck it up, work faster and invent something new.
The purpose of patents is to give new companies with brilliant ideas some breathing room where they can grow their business.
I don't know the background of the given companies in this situation, but it's possible that 3D Software was being muscled out by a bunch of kidz with a flashy kickstarter and a nice promo vid.
I disagree. If some guy can just swoop in with more cash and beat you then you deserve it. Using your argument, no startup would have a chance against Google or Oracle because they have more cash and more resources.
On the same note, more cash != success and that goes for startups. It is all down to execution. If you are not executing, don't have market awareness, and your engineering is not up to snuff then you do not deserve to survive in the marketplace. You should not use draconian laws to offset your mis-execution.
That's simply not true for a manufacturing start-up.
To develop a physical product takes a long time, with a lot of (costly[1]) trial and error. You'll start with single items, then move on to batch production (10s-100s) on a few versions to test proof of concept. Depending on the size of the market, you may move on to mass production. For each scale increase, the start-up cost is higher, and the unit cost is lower.
If I develop a product, and in doing so show it has great potential, I've done most of the hard work. It's then easy for someone to go straight in at the top end with relatively little investment, because I've already proved the concept and sucked up the risk.
It's fair that people are able to protect their investment for something like this, otherwise it's not possible to compete against larger players.
Physical manufacturing is not the same as software.
Well, they had more than 30 years since the main technology was developed!!.
These kids are bringing 3d printing to the masses because the IBMs of the 3d printing won't do it on their own.
There is a balance between granting monopolies(patents), and making those monopolies eternal, or not respecting or giving credit to the creators of something.
And yes, there is a balance, and I'm not suggesting it's been reached. I just want to dispel the notion that it'll all be hunky dory with no patent laws.
They are a company that sells very high price equipment to very few people. All the company structure is optimized for that. The engineers, the sales channel, everything.
They simply can't compete in a market of low cost 3D printers, selling in the millions, like Silicon Graphics could not compete with NVidia selling cheap cards for gamers.
All-up that's quite a chunk of change going into 3D printing projects. I would imagine this has to have raised a flag at 3D Systems. They do have a number of personal 3D printing systems shown here:
Imagine selling product in the $1,200 to $5,000 range and having a Kickstarter campaign suck well over three million dollars from the market. This is what is called a displacement market. For the most part people are not going to go out and purchase multiple hobby 3D printers simultaneously. They'll either buy one or the other, not two or more. This means that this is three million dollars of potential 3D Systems sales that simply evaporated from the horizon.
I can understand what that might feel like from their vantage point. I have not reviewed the patent or patents in question. Perhaps someone can post links to them. This means that I really can't have an opinion as to whether these are bullshit patents or real invention patents. Having read through hundreds of patents over the years it is my opinion that most patents --software or not-- are solidly in the category of bullshit patents.
My test is the distinction between implementation and true invention. The first is something that any individual or team of reasonably qualified engineers could execute on if asked to do so. Invention is where you ask a bunch of engineers to solve the problem and only one or two out of ten might do it and the rest are left scratching their heads. If we adopted some such definition as a validity test the world might just be a much nicer place for all.
I just don't know on this one yet. I do know that loosing three million dollars in business will make anyone angry enough to reach for legal recourse if they have it.
The Formlabs project is unlike the other projects you have mentioned.
Most hobbyist level 3D printers rely on extrusion (also known as fused deposition modeling) - heating up a spool of soft plastic (such as PLA) and extruding it out of a print head similar to how a desktop printer works. The Formlabs project is using a technique called stereolithography (1) where each layer is created by printing a layer of material (again, similar to a desktop printer) that is then cured by a laser (usually ultraviolet). It's a technique that allows for higher resolution objects to be created
I understand the difference. We've used big-boy SLA a bunch to print mechanical prototypes. I was just pointing out that this is a displacement market (SLA or not) and that over three million dollars just left the market because of Kickstarter/Formlabs. At least that's what it probably looks like from 3D Systems' vantage point.
The reason why I was so excited about FormLabs — over RepRap, MakerBot, and all of the other above Kickstarters — was the fact that they were looking to do stereolithography (SLA), vs a more CNC extrusion method like the above. It is a much higher quality process.
This is what 3D Systems calls out specifically and I imagine the patents are about this. I'm not saying I agree with it but I am saying that FormLabs is the first Kickstarter I've seen to tout SLA, which is probably why 3D Systems thinks they have grounds.
I believe the original SLA patents have expired - they're from the 80's. I suspect there's something akin to "page turning" patents in 3DS's portfolio that they're trying to use. It's no surprise this is happening, but it's pretty crazy none the less.
I never got why Stratasys didn't sue MakerBot on simple stupid grounds? I'm also interested to see if MakerBot has a response as well - as they may also be infringing some stupid minor thing.
Annoyingly, this report doesn't say anything about which patents 3D Systems believes Formlabs is infringing. Thus, it's really difficult to figure out whether there's a legitimate claim here or just BS.
It's virtually impossible to judge the legitimacy of this case without looking at the claims of the patents they believe were infringed. I definitely don't think it's appropriate to assume that those patents are illegitimate. There's a role for patents and this is a field where R&D costs may warrant careful protection of the underlying technology.
From what I understand they are infringing on a patent by 3D Systems which has something to do with pin head support structure. If this is the case they can easily update the software to use a different style of support and they would be in the clear... That's just speculation and I have no confirmation on if thats the case or not.
Shame the patent numbers were not included in the press release.
A comment below mentioned the patent being possibly related to creating support structures (additional 3D printing to support overhanging sections of a model), and a quick search on Google patents brought up these:
There are a number of clues that 3D Systems will be the Big Evil of the coming 3D printing decade. Cube is proprietary, their model store has almost no free content, and they are emulating the standard printer market in their cartridge pricing. All signs point to a mundane corporate mindset that is playing itself out here with a litigious reaction to competition.
44 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 87.5 ms ] threadThey are bound to have a pretty big portfolio of 3D printing related patents. A case of 'join or be sued'? Strictly speaking, wouldn't even be against the law, would it?
3DS has been under anti-trust before and was forced to sell operations to Sony (?) I believe. They've sued (and won) against EOS (Germany maker of SLS equipment). They're known to be very litigious. I've actually been surprised this hasn't happened yet...
If you had no patents I have to imagine you'd lose a lot more technology because there just wouldn't be any reason for any non-super corporation to come up with anything. As soon as someone had a good idea, a big corp could just throw 100 human resources at it and create it before the person with the actual idea could.
Having said that, the current system is an embarrassment.
I hope this does not "kickstart" a new trend of bullying crowdfunding sites.
I also hope this means that the "technology" (i.e. hardware) category is still safe at Kickstarter.
I'm not a lawyer, and this is just wild speculation on my part, but it seems that including Kickstarter as a defendant adds another dagger looming over Formlabs: Kickstarter's Terms of Use, which Formlabs presumably agreed to, includes an indemnification clause.
If Kickstarter chooses to exercise its rights under the indemnification clause, it could demand that Formlabs pay Kickstarter's legal costs (plus damages awarded, if any). Even if Kickstarter is dropped from the lawsuit as soon as a judge looks at the case, they will incur legal costs that Kickstarter could demand Formlabs pay.
The more money Formlabs has to spend on its defense (or Kickstarter's), the less money it has to develop and manufacture products that compete with 3D Systems' products.
And if that is indeed the case, then Amazon could be sued for the same reason.
The purpose of patents is to give new companies with brilliant ideas some breathing room where they can grow their business.
I don't know the background of the given companies in this situation, but it's possible that 3D Software was being muscled out by a bunch of kidz with a flashy kickstarter and a nice promo vid.
On the same note, more cash != success and that goes for startups. It is all down to execution. If you are not executing, don't have market awareness, and your engineering is not up to snuff then you do not deserve to survive in the marketplace. You should not use draconian laws to offset your mis-execution.
To develop a physical product takes a long time, with a lot of (costly[1]) trial and error. You'll start with single items, then move on to batch production (10s-100s) on a few versions to test proof of concept. Depending on the size of the market, you may move on to mass production. For each scale increase, the start-up cost is higher, and the unit cost is lower.
If I develop a product, and in doing so show it has great potential, I've done most of the hard work. It's then easy for someone to go straight in at the top end with relatively little investment, because I've already proved the concept and sucked up the risk.
It's fair that people are able to protect their investment for something like this, otherwise it's not possible to compete against larger players.
Physical manufacturing is not the same as software.
[1] Relative to developing software, that is.
These kids are bringing 3d printing to the masses because the IBMs of the 3d printing won't do it on their own.
There is a balance between granting monopolies(patents), and making those monopolies eternal, or not respecting or giving credit to the creators of something.
And yes, there is a balance, and I'm not suggesting it's been reached. I just want to dispel the notion that it'll all be hunky dory with no patent laws.
They are a company that sells very high price equipment to very few people. All the company structure is optimized for that. The engineers, the sales channel, everything.
They simply can't compete in a market of low cost 3D printers, selling in the millions, like Silicon Graphics could not compete with NVidia selling cheap cards for gamers.
http://www.3dsystems.com/personal-3d-printers
Imagine selling product in the $1,200 to $5,000 range and having a Kickstarter campaign suck well over three million dollars from the market. This is what is called a displacement market. For the most part people are not going to go out and purchase multiple hobby 3D printers simultaneously. They'll either buy one or the other, not two or more. This means that this is three million dollars of potential 3D Systems sales that simply evaporated from the horizon.
I can understand what that might feel like from their vantage point. I have not reviewed the patent or patents in question. Perhaps someone can post links to them. This means that I really can't have an opinion as to whether these are bullshit patents or real invention patents. Having read through hundreds of patents over the years it is my opinion that most patents --software or not-- are solidly in the category of bullshit patents.
My test is the distinction between implementation and true invention. The first is something that any individual or team of reasonably qualified engineers could execute on if asked to do so. Invention is where you ask a bunch of engineers to solve the problem and only one or two out of ten might do it and the rest are left scratching their heads. If we adopted some such definition as a validity test the world might just be a much nicer place for all.
I just don't know on this one yet. I do know that loosing three million dollars in business will make anyone angry enough to reach for legal recourse if they have it.
Most hobbyist level 3D printers rely on extrusion (also known as fused deposition modeling) - heating up a spool of soft plastic (such as PLA) and extruding it out of a print head similar to how a desktop printer works. The Formlabs project is using a technique called stereolithography (1) where each layer is created by printing a layer of material (again, similar to a desktop printer) that is then cured by a laser (usually ultraviolet). It's a technique that allows for higher resolution objects to be created
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fused_deposition_modeling 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereolithography
This is what 3D Systems calls out specifically and I imagine the patents are about this. I'm not saying I agree with it but I am saying that FormLabs is the first Kickstarter I've seen to tout SLA, which is probably why 3D Systems thinks they have grounds.
I never got why Stratasys didn't sue MakerBot on simple stupid grounds? I'm also interested to see if MakerBot has a response as well - as they may also be infringing some stupid minor thing.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/printrbot/printrbot-your...
It's virtually impossible to judge the legitimacy of this case without looking at the claims of the patents they believe were infringed. I definitely don't think it's appropriate to assume that those patents are illegitimate. There's a role for patents and this is a field where R&D costs may warrant careful protection of the underlying technology.
A comment below mentioned the patent being possibly related to creating support structures (additional 3D printing to support overhanging sections of a model), and a quick search on Google patents brought up these:
http://www.google.com/patents/US6558606
http://www.google.com/patents/US6797351
And from the looks of it, 3D System has quite the arsenal of patents at their disposal - see for yourself: http://www.google.com/?output=search&tbm=pts&sclient...
http://www.quora.com/Can-someone-be-sued-for-releasing-open-...
So counter-intuitive and illogical that it proves the current system is unsatisfactory.