It was inevitable, but the personal 3D printing community is not reacting well to the announcement by Stratasys that it was suing Afinia for patent infringement. It seems that the feeling is that other new 3D printer manufacturers might also become legal targets as patented technology could be found in their equipment.
The image above is a portion of a larger graphic screaming an appeal to stop buying products from the main patent holders, 3D Systems and Stratasys. Recent events may not be desirable for the open source community, but in the USA the patent laws do exist and both companies are legally within their rights.
We suspect campaigns such as pictured here will not significantly affect the sales of either company. Their market is those new to 3D printing, people who have no idea of the issues and laws involved. They are typically amazed to see any 3D printer and will buy machines that are easy to use – which is precisely what the two companies are doing.
I recently found out another individual patented my design in a foreign country even though I clearly had the product for sale online about a year before they submitted an application
A good example of how the patent system is totally broken!
But of course, if you can get a government granted handout for product development you would do anyway, why not take advantage of it. It's just like the old practice of paying the King for exclusive trading rights.
I recently found out another individual patented my design in a foreign country even though I clearly had the product for sale online about a year before they submitted an application
A good example of how the patent system is totally broken!
But of course, if you can get a government granted handout for product development you would do anyway, why not take advantage of it. It's just like the old practice of paying the King for exclusive trading rights.
Just because someone "supports" open source doesn't mean they are contributing to it. Also I could be wrong but Afinia/UP does not provide to the open source community. Their printers might be based on open source, but I don't believe they contribute to the open source community much if any so your statement probably doesn't apply.
I don't care to research this, but feel free to correct me if they do in fact contribute to the open source community specifically in their hardware design.
Fact is Stratasys spent lots of time and money developing FDM technology and they believe Afinia/UP violated the patents granted by the USPTO.
We all know Chinese companies do not generally care about US patents/IP and this case appears to be no different.
I designed a very simple product a few years ago that I decided not to patent because it simply wasn't worth my time or money for many reasons. I recently found out another individual patented my design in a foreign country even though I clearly had the product for sale online about a year before they submitted an application. Their patent illustrations are an exact copy of my design. It would cost me 10's of thousands to even think about invalidating that patent. Many more thousands than the profit I received from selling my product…
Could I still pursue the invalidation? Sure, but there is no way it would ever be worth it.
The same type of scenario most likely applies to the case against Afinia. Stratasys most likely decided that it was worth perusing Afinia due to how large they have become. We may never know but there is a great possibility that Stratasys sent Cease & Desist letters to Afinia, but they refused to stop selling their 3D printers or modify them.
Just because someone "supports" open source doesn't mean they are contributing to it. Also I could be wrong but Afinia/UP does not provide to the open source community. Their printers might be based on open source, but I don't believe they contribute to the open source community much if any so your statement probably doesn't apply.
I don't care to research this, but feel free to correct me if they do in fact contribute to the open source community specifically in their hardware design.
Fact is Stratasys spent lots of time and money developing FDM technology and they believe Afinia/UP violated the patents granted by the USPTO.
We all know Chinese companies do not generally care about US patents/IP and this case appears to be no different.
I designed a very simple product a few years ago that I decided not to patent because it simply wasn't worth my time or money for many reasons. I recently found out another individual patented my design in a foreign country even though I clearly had the product for sale online about a year before they submitted an application. Their patent illustrations are an exact copy of my design. It would cost me 10's of thousands to even think about invalidating that patent. Many more thousands than the profit I received from selling my product…
Could I still pursue the invalidation? Sure, but there is no way it would ever be worth it.
The same type of scenario most likely applies to the case against Afinia. Stratasys most likely decided that it was worth perusing Afinia due to how large they have become. We may never know but there is a great possibility that Stratasys sent Cease & Desist letters to Afinia, but they refused to stop selling their 3D printers or modify them.
"These same people that have a problem with this would be just as angry if they had their IP stolen."
Since many of them support Open Source 3D printers, that statement is wrong in its insinuation as well as in its terminology.
"These same people that have a problem with this would be just as angry if they had their IP stolen."
Since many of them support Open Source 3D printers, that statement is wrong in its insinuation as well as in its terminology.
SImply put patent laws are conciderably broken and are used to hinder competition and creativity.
SImply put patent laws are conciderably broken and are used to hinder competition and creativity.
There is a reason for patents. If in fact Afinia is found to be violating these patents then legally they should be held accountable.
These same people that have a problem with this would be just as angry if they had their IP stolen.
There is a reason for patents. If in fact Afinia is found to be violating these patents then legally they should be held accountable.
These same people that have a problem with this would be just as angry if they had their IP stolen.