Phenix Systems Defends Its Position

You may recall our post the other week regarding a lawsuit filed by 3D printer manufacturer EOS against Phenix Systems. We were contacted by a representative from Phenix with an official statement countering EOS' claims.

 

The statement reads: 

 

Phenix Systems, is aware that EOS has filed a lawsuit alleging patent infringement, although EOS has not yet proceeded with formal service of the lawsuit on Phenix Systems.  Phenix Systems does not infringe the patents; and, if EOS decides to proceed with its unfounded allegations, Phenix Systems will prove the patents are not infringed.   Further, Phenix Systems believes press releases made by EOS regarding its false accusations are defamatory and Phenix Systems has demanded that EOS cease such activity immediately.

 

It seems that the issue surrounds Additive Manufacturing Technologies, Inc (AMT), whose headquarters is in Chicago. AMT is a subsidiary of Phenix Systems set up to market Phenix Systems technology in the USA. Perhaps the opening of the subsidiary last year may have prompted EOS to take action. 

 

Who's right in this dispute? We don't know, but we're certainly going to watch this carefully. 

EOS Files 3D Printing Patent Infringement Lawsuit

Oh oh - we're now seeing major lawsuits flying in the 3D printing industry for perhaps the first time. EOS, the Munich-based manufacturer of laser sintering 3D printing gear, has filed suits against Phenix Systems of France. 

 

Apparently this scenario began when Phenix produced their PXL, PXM, PXS and PXS Dental 3D printers, all of which use lasers to sinter parts from powder. Evidently EOS believes this is a violation of their patent and we suspect they may have a case here. 

 

We'll be watching to see how Phenix reacts here. If the suit's allegations are genuine, then Phenix has few options: abandon those products (and likely their business) or license the technology from EOS at a cost demanded by EOS.  

 

Does this mean that lawsuits are now the rule among 3D printer manufacturers? Now that the 3D printing space has grown large, will others come forward and submit lawsuits for alleged infringements? We suspect there are quite a few violations in play, particularly in the 3D printer kit market, which has been largely ignored by the patent holders due to the limited size of the infringements.  

 

Via EOS

Should You Protect Your 3D Design?

You've spent hours to create the perfect 3D model in your favorite 3D tool. Do you own this digital property? Probably, but can you prove it? 

 

Exactly. That's the problem that's solved by third party intellectual property registration services, such as ProtectRite. They'll accept (for a fee) your digital file and timestamp it within their secure storage system. You'll then be more able to prove ownership as their is third party documentation providing evidence of your works and the date they were registered. 

 

How does a service like this work? You "register" a work by uploading it and paying a fee. ProtectRite's fee, for example, is USD$18.95 for a ten-year period. Only you will be able to pull the file from their servers. A side benefit is that you could use their copy as your backup in case of total personal digital disaster. 

 

Is this service for you? Maybe, if your work is of such value you feel it warrants special protection.  

 

On the other hand, there's always the Creative Commons License if you want others to make use of your work. 

  

Via ProtectRite

Intellectual Property Rights vs 3D Printing

In a post on Tech.pinions, reporter Steve Wildstrom writes his thoughts on the collision of 3D printing and intellectual property rights, which we've discussed previously on several occasions. All agree this will be a messy business, at least until we figure out the answers. 

 

Wildstrom thinks that it may be possible for 3D printer owners to be able to reproduce many commercial objects, simply because they are not specifically protected as thoroughly as other forms of work such as movies, books, processes or marks. Since the production and sale of replacement parts is a large and profitable business, he suggests that the replacement parts industry may try to constrain the abilities of 3D printer owners through the use of trademarks, DMCA and other existing legal means. 

 

It's possible these industries may even lobby for the creation of new physical object protections, but Wildstrom suggests the maker community could successfully counter that as was done for the recently deceased SOPA legislation. 

 

Time will tell, but regardless of the law, people who have making equipment will do one thing: Make Stuff. It will be very difficult to stop. 

 

Oh oh, did we break a law by creating the replacement part above? 

 

Via Tech.pinions

Thingiverse Terms Changed

3D Model download site Thingiverse has made a dramatic change in its licensing terms. As most startups tend to do, the initial version of legal terms are typically cobbled together from other sources. MakerBot Chief Bre Pettis writes:

 

I went and looked at Blip.tv’s and Etsy’s and Youtube’s and I basically copied them and changed the names to MakerBot. This made the document sound very official. Laywers the world over are shaking their head scornfully in my direction upon hearing this, I’m sure. Thankfully, I copied the part that says that we can change the terms of use or we’d be stuck with those terms!

 

But now Thingiverse is a big deal and deserves more finely tuned legalities. The new terms emphasize personal and open use of models by changing the terms of use and focusing directly on standard Creative Commons licenses. They've also updated their privacy and intellectual property policies to handle issues they've had in the past. 

 

This should make use of Thingiverse easier, since the reduction in "All Rights Reserved" licenses permits more direct and easy use of "things". 

 

Via Thingiverse

Trademark vs. 3D Printing

Helen Sloan of World Trademark Review writes an interesting analysis of the effect of 3D printing on trademarks. This was prompted, of course, by the recent announcement by The Pirate Bay that they're adding a category for 3D object files. The implication is that anyone would theoretically be able to download a 3D model of a commercial product and reproduce it at their home without paying the designers and owners of the product. 

 

Sloan's analysis correctly shows that scenario is highly unlikely to happen in the near future for any interesting commercial products. It may indeed happen for commodity-type objects, such as generic construction hardware or very simple replacement parts, but those items are usually not at issue when it comes to trademarks. Even if something is copied, legal steps can be taken that echo what's done today when counterfeit products are discovered. 

 

But, as Sloan says, the problem shows up in homes equipped with a futuristic 3D printing capability:  millions of people can individually reproduce objects and it would be extremely difficult to track them all down.  

 

Sounds a lot like the current state of the music and movie industries, doesn't it? Perhaps a solution will emerge before 3D printing capabilities can catch up to matter. 

 

Via World Trademark Review

Pirate Baying 3D Printing

The other week infamous BitTorrent site The Pirate Bay announced a new category for contraband digital media: Other/Physibles. The idea is that this category would hold 3D model files representing physical objects. Horrors! Not only will movies and music will be pirated, but now Everything Else! 

 

Listen, it's just a category. And it's not even a new idea - two years ago we wrote of something called "The Product Bay" (since deceased, apparently) that attempted this same approach. Certainly digital 3D model files have been passed around between friends for some time now. 

 

So is this event a big deal? We think it simply means this: in this century value is increasingly placed on digital representations over physical representations. The Pirate Bay's actions merely reflects that progression; they see value in digital representations, too. 

 

But will we see the physical world pirated away? Likely not soon, as printing physical 3D models is still quite limited in capability. Materials, properties, speed of printing, color, texture and even file format quirks all mean there's only so much you can do. In fact, an inspection of TPB's list of physibles shows a short (20ish) list of odd bits, including objects from the already free-of-charge Thingiverse, a couple of unprintable possibly commercial 3D models and of course a pirate ship. Hardly anything to be worried about. 

 

At least for now. 

KraftWurx's Patent Available

The legalities behind the KraftWurx 3D print service/software are now available for public viewing, courtesy of the US Government's Patent and Trade office. Patent application number 20110313878, entitled "Made-to-order direct digital manufacturing enterprise" includes this abstract:

 

Methods and systems for designing and producing a three-dimensional object selection of a base three-dimensional object from a customer device. A base three-dimensional model corresponding to the object is displayed on the customer device, and one or more custom modifications are received. A modified three-dimensional model corresponding to the modified object is prepared and displayed. Once confirmation to produce the modified object is received, data corresponding to the modified three-dimensional model is transmitted to a manufacturing device for production of the object, using the data to do so, such that the object corresponds directly to the modified three-dimensional model. 

 

What does this mean? We believe this could be interpreted as a method to customize a partial design in order to build unique, one-off 3D objects. This is precisely what several other popular 3D print services do today, including Shapeways. We're wondering how this will affect Shapeways, as they could be seen as violating this particular patent. 

 

The patent covers not only the consumer side of the customization operation, but also the behind the scenes processing that must take place. Included are detailed descriptions of: 

 

• Website operations
• Customer order processing
• Customized 3D view preparation
• Customer database
• Customized design creation
• Production management
• Print job optimization
• Build optimization
• Payment processing
• Materials management
• Remote printing management
• Quality tracking
• And more.. 

 

Things could get very interesting in the 3D print services business in 2012!

 

BTW, the FreePatentsOnline site is immensely easier to use than the official US Patent site; we'd recommend you view the patent there. 

 

Via KraftWurx, USPTO and FreePatentsOnline