Formlabs In Settlement Talks Over 3D Printing Patent Lawsuit 57
curtwoodward writes "Formlabs raised nearly $3 million in a month for its new Form 1 3D printer, which uses stereolithography to make precise models and other physical objects out of photoreactive liquid polymer. But 3D Systems — the publicly traded company founded by the guy who invented that process — sued the startup for patent infringement. Formlabs recently announced that it would start shipping its pre-ordered Form 1 printers, and that was no coincidence: the two companies quietly entered into settlement talks in early May, and hope to have a deal done by September."
Re:legit patent suit? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, it is, but at the same time, it feels like the legitimate intent of those laws is still doing more harm than good. We could, in theory, be facing a revolution(I don't personally think so because engineering is complicated), and instead we'll get the complete and utter inability to refine the new technology since only one organization is allowed to do so.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:legit patent suit? (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that with more players it becomes cheaper, and more feature rich. Monopolies have no economic incentive to improve.
Re:in a word: screwed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and right there you have it: that's 27 years ago and the patents are expiring.
It is, and that is what is supposed to happen when patents expire.
Re:legit patent suit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not agreeing or disagreeing on the patent side of things but I think that China had some other issues going on that might have something to do with their level of innovation. Instead of risking starting a flame war by suggesting that Chairman Mao's policies might have had something to do with innovation, especially in the technical arena, I'll just let the honest reader ponder that possibility quietly.
Re:legit patent suit? (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to forget your history. Look at airplanes. The Wrights had patents and then this happened:
"In 1906 the Wrights received a patent for their method of flight control which they fiercely defended for years afterward, suing foreign and domestic aviators and companies, especially another U.S. aviation pioneer, Glenn Curtiss, in an attempt to collect licensing fees. Their legal threats suppressed development of the U.S. aviation industry for several years"
Things got so bad, the US Government had to step in and basically forced them and the Curtiss company to license patents in a patent pool arrangement since by 1917 almost no new planes were being built anywhere in the US and they were desperately needed for the war effort.
Just think where General Aviation would be today if the Wrights hasn't used their patent as a bat to keep everyone else out of the industry for a decade and a half.
Re:legit patent suit? (Score:4, Insightful)
So you believe then that its OK for someone to steal another idea
Your argument that ideas should be property is circular because you have, right here and without justification, declared that ideas are property.
You will find that in your search for a real justification instead of this bullshit circular one you just tried to sell us, that you will learn the history of patents and the original form that they took here in America.
Patents were addressing the problem of trade secrets, of closely guarded manufacturing processes. The natural order of things is that if you have come up with a better way of manufacturing something that you keep it a secret, and if you are successful at keeping it a secret then you enjoy a large advantage over your competitors.
The observation that its both true that its hard to keep secrets and that society doesnt benefit from secrets is obvious. The justification for patents is that you no longer have to try to keep your manufacturing process a secret, that the government is willing to grant you exclusive rights to it for a limited time, but this service is in exchange for public publication of your process. You still have liberty and can choose not to patent your process, but then you run the risk of a competitor spying on you or independently coming up with it themselves.
But what we have today is a situation where not only are manufacturing processes patented, but also features of the products that those processes make. One-click, rounded corners, and so on.
You see that the justification for manufacturing process patents doesnt justify these new types, for these new types cannot be kept secret and in fact are by definition only valuable when they arent a secret and are displayed openly as features of the product. The public doesnt win when the government protects these new forms of patents, its quite the opposite; the public loses when the government protects them.