We’ve been observing some of the fantastic features offered by the major 3D printer manufacturers and realized there could be a growing problem.While all 3D printers can produce objects, some manufacturers use unique (and patented) approaches to getting that done. They also offer some great features:
- ZCorp’s printers can print in full color. Their technology involves mixing pigment with the print material during the print process.
- Objet’s printers include PolyJet, a way to mix two different materials during the print. You can print a single object that includes both hard and soft areas, for example.
Terrific features, yes, but what if we want a color object with hard and soft areas? Perhaps ZCorp could license PolyJet from Objet? Or perhaps Objet could license color printing technology from ZCorp? Maybe 3D Systems could license both technologies for their 3D printers?
We find ourselves in a rather peculiar situation, analogous to a bizarre 2D paper printing world in which if you wanted to print in color you’d have to buy an (say) Epson printer, but if you wanted to print envelopes you’d have to get a Canon. And don’t even think about color envelopes! Not so cool. Yet that’s what we actually experience today in 3D printing.
How can this be resolved? There’s a couple of ways:
- Companies can cross-license their technology as mentioned above. We feel this is unlikely, as it reduces (or even eliminates) the differentiation that exists between vendors today and would increase costs
- Manufacturers can somehow design similar features in their products – but use a completely different approach to avoid patent licensing issues. That sounds pretty difficult and probably would take too much time to bother
And that’s it, just two options. Both seem unlikely or distant, unfortunately.
Will we see a “universal” 3D printer include all of the obvious features? Probably not any time soon. For now we’ll have to iive with 3D printing’s Great Divide.
Love the 3d printing services. Graphics are amazing and it always comes out so unique.
Love the 3d printing services. Graphics are amazing and it always comes out so unique.
It's not a licensing or patenting issue, in the examples given it's simply the limitations of the respective technologies as the way they make an object is very, very different.
Z-Corp won't be able to do elastomers using either their powdered plaster polymers or DLP photpolymer materials, and certainly not rigid and elastomer at the same time. I guess there is some potential in the Objet process for colour by having separate heads with RGB dyes in them, but given the strict nature of the process parameters I doubt it'll be something they pursue. However I'm not the sure the ability to mix RGB colour channels is something Z-Corp holds a patent over.
This holds true accross all 3D Printing technologies, the killer technology that merges all these possibilities simply don't exist yet.
It's not a licensing or patenting issue, in the examples given it's simply the limitations of the respective technologies as the way they make an object is very, very different.
Z-Corp won't be able to do elastomers using either their powdered plaster polymers or DLP photpolymer materials, and certainly not rigid and elastomer at the same time. I guess there is some potential in the Objet process for colour by having separate heads with RGB dyes in them, but given the strict nature of the process parameters I doubt it'll be something they pursue. However I'm not the sure the ability to mix RGB colour channels is something Z-Corp holds a patent over.
This holds true accross all 3D Printing technologies, the killer technology that merges all these possibilities simply don't exist yet.
Or 3) We reverse-engineer everything, distribute information on how to recreate it over the web, and tell the owners of "Intellectual Property" to go to hell.
Shanzai it all. Create a black-market of distributed manufacturing.
I work with engineering firms – these are the people that our economies should be based on… and I have no desire whatsoever to see any of them go out of business.
If on the other hand a business is dependent on restricting the flow of information to stay in business, then it needs to go out of business as quickly as possible. What we're seeing here (in this case of 3D printers) is the sort of thing that would have made the computer revolution impossible… if "IP" law was as stupid and out of control 30 years ago as it is now.
"Patents" are choking innovation – and should be treated with the contempt they deserve.
Just a thought like. Distributed shanzai.
Or 3) We reverse-engineer everything, distribute information on how to recreate it over the web, and tell the owners of "Intellectual Property" to go to hell.
Shanzai it all. Create a black-market of distributed manufacturing.
I work with engineering firms – these are the people that our economies should be based on… and I have no desire whatsoever to see any of them go out of business.
If on the other hand a business is dependent on restricting the flow of information to stay in business, then it needs to go out of business as quickly as possible. What we're seeing here (in this case of 3D printers) is the sort of thing that would have made the computer revolution impossible… if "IP" law was as stupid and out of control 30 years ago as it is now.
"Patents" are choking innovation – and should be treated with the contempt they deserve.
Just a thought like. Distributed shanzai.