Stay Classy Makerbot(openbeamusa.com)
openbeamusa.com
Stay Classy Makerbot
http://www.openbeamusa.com/blog/2014/5/22/stay-classy-makerbot
60 comments
Same thing with networking, queueing etc. It has existed since the dawn of desktop printers, but now that they add "3D" to the name, it's considered a novel invention? The patent system is flawed.
The author claims prior art based on things that were published in 2013, but Makerbot filed their provisional application on October 29, 2012. This also explains why the patent was filed October 29 of 2013, as that would be the last date they can file.
I don't really care if you hate the patent system, or hate that somebody wants to treat 3D printing as a traditional business instead of altruistically open sourcing all the things. To publicly lambaste a competitor through disinformation just because they don't share your personal values is about as classless as it gets. This is open-and-shut witch-hunt territory.
I don't really care if you hate the patent system, or hate that somebody wants to treat 3D printing as a traditional business instead of altruistically open sourcing all the things. To publicly lambaste a competitor through disinformation just because they don't share your personal values is about as classless as it gets. This is open-and-shut witch-hunt territory.
First, from elsewhere in this thread, from April 23rd, 2012, there is this auto-leveling technique, which probes by applying a slight current to detect contact:
http://hackaday.com/2012/04/23/automated-bed-leveling-with-o...
Second, I disagree with your priorities and/or point of view on this, and I think it might be anti-hacker. It must be at once obvious to everyone that desktop 3D printing is both vital to the future and currently a "cottage" industry. What matters more: the future, or our personal notions of what's classy?
I feel that any action intended as a land-grab for enormous swathes of intellectual territory in an industry so driven by, and amenable to, individual invention and modification, rightly deserves the opprobrium of all hacker types.
Trying to patent compensating for a non-level bed in 3D printers is a jerk move. You could provide a similar defensive moat by just publishing your work, without stifling any of your peers in this infant industry.
Edit: when I said "priorities", I was talking about specifically about prioritizing being classy over protecting a nascent industry, and how that could be anti-garage-innovator. Re-reading my comment, though, I guess it sounds a bit more personal, which wasn't my intent!
http://hackaday.com/2012/04/23/automated-bed-leveling-with-o...
Second, I disagree with your priorities and/or point of view on this, and I think it might be anti-hacker. It must be at once obvious to everyone that desktop 3D printing is both vital to the future and currently a "cottage" industry. What matters more: the future, or our personal notions of what's classy?
I feel that any action intended as a land-grab for enormous swathes of intellectual territory in an industry so driven by, and amenable to, individual invention and modification, rightly deserves the opprobrium of all hacker types.
Trying to patent compensating for a non-level bed in 3D printers is a jerk move. You could provide a similar defensive moat by just publishing your work, without stifling any of your peers in this infant industry.
Edit: when I said "priorities", I was talking about specifically about prioritizing being classy over protecting a nascent industry, and how that could be anti-garage-innovator. Re-reading my comment, though, I guess it sounds a bit more personal, which wasn't my intent!
I don't think you have any idea what my priorities are, you seem to have misinterpreted my point of view, and I find it amusing to be called an anti-hacker for all sorts of reasons.
The reality is that the patent system exists, in all it's horrible innovation-stifling glory. It's business, nothing more. It's not right and it's ruining the world, but you have to work within the system until the system changes.
If there is other prior art, that's fine. So be it. But the author did not provide any of that art, and instead made false claims based on a knee-jerk reaction to something that he misread.
I don't like having to defend the patent system at all, but the author is in the wrong. Simple as that.
The reality is that the patent system exists, in all it's horrible innovation-stifling glory. It's business, nothing more. It's not right and it's ruining the world, but you have to work within the system until the system changes.
If there is other prior art, that's fine. So be it. But the author did not provide any of that art, and instead made false claims based on a knee-jerk reaction to something that he misread.
I don't like having to defend the patent system at all, but the author is in the wrong. Simple as that.
It's not right and it's ruining the world, but you have to work within the system until the system changes.
I disagree with anyone calling anyone here anti-hacker. But I just wanted to point out that the above sentence can be used to justify any legal horror in any time. Think of all the atrocities that once were legal. If you think something is ruining the world, that's a pretty good reason not to work with it.
I disagree with anyone calling anyone here anti-hacker. But I just wanted to point out that the above sentence can be used to justify any legal horror in any time. Think of all the atrocities that once were legal. If you think something is ruining the world, that's a pretty good reason not to work with it.
> What matters more: the future, or your personal notions of what's classy?
His point was about neither of those; it was about what is legal - something you seem completely uninterested in. Yeah, it might not be "classy" to file patents, but claiming they've done something that would invalidate the patent when they haven't surely isn't classy, either.
His point was about neither of those; it was about what is legal - something you seem completely uninterested in. Yeah, it might not be "classy" to file patents, but claiming they've done something that would invalidate the patent when they haven't surely isn't classy, either.
Well, I did mention what I was interested in: the future.
Viewed in that light, if you take the view that many (perhaps a majority) of HN types do of the stifling effect of patents on industries as malleable as (software/maker/diy), even if they may be acceptable in more staid industries, then a witch-hunt about companies making land-grabs in one of these vulnerable and very important areas may well be worthwhile and beneficial to mankind.
And it's not impossible that it could be beneficial ... and simultaneously classless, and on shaky legal ground. (Although note other comments citing better evidence from April 20th, 2012).
I do think there's something to be said for calling out "this is crazy, we all know the community has worked on X, it would be an obscenity if the desktop manufacturing industry, of all things, got stifled by patents, let's find the prior art and shame the land-grabbers while we're at it." Which is what the original poster is doing, obviously as a very interested party.
I think that's a pretty coherent, and really strong, point of view. I mean, it's desktop manufacturing, dude!
Viewed in that light, if you take the view that many (perhaps a majority) of HN types do of the stifling effect of patents on industries as malleable as (software/maker/diy), even if they may be acceptable in more staid industries, then a witch-hunt about companies making land-grabs in one of these vulnerable and very important areas may well be worthwhile and beneficial to mankind.
And it's not impossible that it could be beneficial ... and simultaneously classless, and on shaky legal ground. (Although note other comments citing better evidence from April 20th, 2012).
I do think there's something to be said for calling out "this is crazy, we all know the community has worked on X, it would be an obscenity if the desktop manufacturing industry, of all things, got stifled by patents, let's find the prior art and shame the land-grabbers while we're at it." Which is what the original poster is doing, obviously as a very interested party.
I think that's a pretty coherent, and really strong, point of view. I mean, it's desktop manufacturing, dude!
Where do you find the provisional application date? I read the post, and skimmed the linked patent application but never would have found that in the patent application while skimming the filing.
I'm glad that you did find it - that is indeed very important information to take into account.
One note though - your tone and suggestion of "an open-and-shut witch-hunt" is very aggressive and makes me instantly think that you have ulterior motives. No idea if you do, but I feel like you were jumping to conclusions about the intent of the author. Can you imagine a scenario where the author didn't know about the provisional application? That's not an excuse, but changes the scenario from disinformation to misinformation and witch-hunt to mistake.
I'm glad that you did find it - that is indeed very important information to take into account.
One note though - your tone and suggestion of "an open-and-shut witch-hunt" is very aggressive and makes me instantly think that you have ulterior motives. No idea if you do, but I feel like you were jumping to conclusions about the intent of the author. Can you imagine a scenario where the author didn't know about the provisional application? That's not an excuse, but changes the scenario from disinformation to misinformation and witch-hunt to mistake.
You need to view the actual application to see the provisional filing date.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20140117575.pdf
As for my tone, it may sound aggressive, but I also feel that the aggressiveness is justified. This person is (successfully) attempting to leverage an already patent-weary community to force Stratasys into unnecessary legal drama based on nothing. It doesn't really matter if it's misinformation or intentional disinformation, because it is completely inexcusable to make such claims as absolute truth without doing any reasonable amount of research.
Witch-hunt (noun): An intensive effort to discover and expose disloyalty, subversion, dishonesty, or the like, usually based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence.
This situation is the definition of a witch-hunt. A mistake would be to just raise the question of patent illegitimacy based on misinformation. It becomes a witch-hunt when he encourages people to submit prior art to invalidate the patent, thereby wasting everyone's time and money.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20140117575.pdf
As for my tone, it may sound aggressive, but I also feel that the aggressiveness is justified. This person is (successfully) attempting to leverage an already patent-weary community to force Stratasys into unnecessary legal drama based on nothing. It doesn't really matter if it's misinformation or intentional disinformation, because it is completely inexcusable to make such claims as absolute truth without doing any reasonable amount of research.
Witch-hunt (noun): An intensive effort to discover and expose disloyalty, subversion, dishonesty, or the like, usually based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence.
This situation is the definition of a witch-hunt. A mistake would be to just raise the question of patent illegitimacy based on misinformation. It becomes a witch-hunt when he encourages people to submit prior art to invalidate the patent, thereby wasting everyone's time and money.
"It becomes a witch-hunt when he encourages people to submit prior art to invalidate the patent, thereby wasting everyone's time and money."
If there is prior art that invalidates the patent (and on a cursory examination taking a few minutes, I have found prior art dating back to 2008 that covers the main claim), then it should be submitted and the patent invalidated.
That isn't a witch-hunt, that is the system working, albeit belatedly.
If there is prior art that invalidates the patent (and on a cursory examination taking a few minutes, I have found prior art dating back to 2008 that covers the main claim), then it should be submitted and the patent invalidated.
That isn't a witch-hunt, that is the system working, albeit belatedly.
By giving the wrong date, the author has all but ensured that the patent office is going to drown in completely irrelevant prior art claims.
Not so sure, when you do a search the good ones are generally long enough ago.
Here's yet another project that covers the same ground from September 2010, for instance - http://pleasantsoftware.com/developer/3d/2010/09/26/keep-it-...
edit - another video of that one, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaEkukmnmK8 and there is also this other thing from 2011, http://hydraraptor.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/auto-bed-leveling....
Here's yet another project that covers the same ground from September 2010, for instance - http://pleasantsoftware.com/developer/3d/2010/09/26/keep-it-...
edit - another video of that one, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaEkukmnmK8 and there is also this other thing from 2011, http://hydraraptor.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/auto-bed-leveling....
As I stated in another comment, there may be legitimate prior art, but the author did not claim that. He based his claim on art that existed after the filing, and was wrong to do so.
> It becomes a witch-hunt when he encourages people to submit prior art to invalidate the patent
It's curious that you did not justify this statement. The author did not (to my reading) encourage people to spam the USPTO with the same prior art submission that he/she did. I might agree with you that such a move would be counter-productive. The reality, though is that submitting prior art to a patent application is how the system works, so how can encouraging people to work with the system be considered a witch-hunt?
Sure, the author is encouraging people to do so as a way to 'spite' Makerbot, but the end result is that the USPTO has crowd-sourced prior art with which to make an informed decision (and this is not a bad thing).
It's curious that you did not justify this statement. The author did not (to my reading) encourage people to spam the USPTO with the same prior art submission that he/she did. I might agree with you that such a move would be counter-productive. The reality, though is that submitting prior art to a patent application is how the system works, so how can encouraging people to work with the system be considered a witch-hunt?
Sure, the author is encouraging people to do so as a way to 'spite' Makerbot, but the end result is that the USPTO has crowd-sourced prior art with which to make an informed decision (and this is not a bad thing).
Submitting valid prior art is "a witch hunt?"
Neither of the pieces of prior art claimed by the author are valid, which is the entire point of my comment.
The author states:
- Here are a couple of examples of prior art that I submitted.
- Grrr. Markerbot.
- Please submit prior art to invalidate these patents.
You're stating:
- The author's examples of prior art are false because of a misunderstanding that the author has about the dates with respect to the patent application.
- By encouraging people to submit prior art to the USPTO, the author is creating a 'witch hunt.'
A few things to consider:
1. The author is not encouraging people to submit false prior art.
2. The author is not maliciously submitting prior art that isn't. He/she really believed that the prior art was valid.
3. The USPTO is the entity ultimately making the decision here, not the tech community that you fear is swayed by this blog post, nor the author of the post itself.
4. The author is not encouraging the reader to spam the USPTO.
5. The author may be smearing Makerbot's reputation here, but encouraging people to submit prior art to the USPTO really is a side-issue to this, that should end up with zero negative effect on the situation (with respect to the patent application).
- Here are a couple of examples of prior art that I submitted.
- Grrr. Markerbot.
- Please submit prior art to invalidate these patents.
You're stating:
- The author's examples of prior art are false because of a misunderstanding that the author has about the dates with respect to the patent application.
- By encouraging people to submit prior art to the USPTO, the author is creating a 'witch hunt.'
A few things to consider:
1. The author is not encouraging people to submit false prior art.
2. The author is not maliciously submitting prior art that isn't. He/she really believed that the prior art was valid.
3. The USPTO is the entity ultimately making the decision here, not the tech community that you fear is swayed by this blog post, nor the author of the post itself.
4. The author is not encouraging the reader to spam the USPTO.
5. The author may be smearing Makerbot's reputation here, but encouraging people to submit prior art to the USPTO really is a side-issue to this, that should end up with zero negative effect on the situation (with respect to the patent application).
He was perfectly right that there is prior art though, even if his example was flawed.
Reprap huxley video of dynamic bed levelling with z-probe, Apr 20, 2012 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP1ZpHlM6UI
I'm gonna go and start building the giant wicker man now.
Reprap huxley video of dynamic bed levelling with z-probe, Apr 20, 2012 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP1ZpHlM6UI
I'm gonna go and start building the giant wicker man now.
Numerous patents seem to reference that provisional:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?sort=relevance&...
I am not sure how to get a look at the original provisional application, but it looks like these are extensions on top of the original provision patent application, which could be just about anything, since the other related patents include things like
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0121813.html <- I've been filling with urethane glue for a while now, as a side note,
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20140120196.pdf <- http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:12320
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0117585.html <- everything from lexmark/HP/etc. Oh, and a workaround for existing implementations already exists: http://hackaday.com/2013/04/26/cube-3d-printer-hack-lets-you...
Reading over these, they really look like a landgrab on ideas that have been floating around in the reprap forums for a while now.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0121813.html <- I've been filling with urethane glue for a while now, as a side note,
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20140120196.pdf <- http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:12320
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0117585.html <- everything from lexmark/HP/etc. Oh, and a workaround for existing implementations already exists: http://hackaday.com/2013/04/26/cube-3d-printer-hack-lets-you...
Reading over these, they really look like a landgrab on ideas that have been floating around in the reprap forums for a while now.
The thing is, this stuff has been hashed out in the open source community before Makerbot filed their provisional, hence it was already obvious to anyone acquainted with the art.
Here's this from 2008, for instance - http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?1,8028
Here's this from 2008, for instance - http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?1,8028
> somebody wants to treat 3D printing as a traditional business instead of altruistically open sourcing all the things.
Open sourcing needs have nothing to do with altruism, and it's certainly not mutually exclusive with running a business.
Open sourcing needs have nothing to do with altruism, and it's certainly not mutually exclusive with running a business.
Is it possible to include claims in the patent filing that weren't in the provisional? Just curious.
yes it is, but they get their own filing date.
Source: I have a few patents, and have done this.
Source: I have a few patents, and have done this.
Sure, the chance to straighten out the claims later is a big part of provisionals. In fact provisionals don't even need claims, but for certain international patents to get the filing date you need to include at least one claim to make it a "patent filing" for those countries. Provisional patents are a US specific thing.
The way to think of a provisional is that it's a way to get a description on file by a certain date. Then if you subsequently file a patent application within that time you can refer to the provisional to get the benefit of the earlier filing date. The claims in the actual patent are the ones that matter and they refer to the description in the actual patent. In fact I'm not sure the examiner really looks at the provisional at all, since the claims and description of the patent application itself are what matter in regards to granting the patent.
So what does the provisional do? Example: let's assume bicycle cranks didn't exist and I filed a provisional 1 Feb 2013 for a crank with an odd number of teeth. I just wrote it up in relatively casual style ("a wheel with an odd number of protrusions around its circumference sized such that links of a chain could fit between them, and pedals attached to radial posts").
Then on the 15th of January 2014 I file a patent application for a bicycle crank with odd and even numbers of teeth. My description now takes up several pages and includes drawings done in the crazy style required by the patent office. My provisional just included a hand drawing or two and a couple of sentences of description.
If I tried to sue you over this patent for making bike cranks with an even number of teeth, and you had begun in July 2013, I'd be out of luck. But if you used an odds number of teeth my protection for my granted patent would extend back to Feb 2013.
I could still lose because the casual description might be ambiguous enough that you could convince the jury that it didn't really describe the actual, patented invention. Because of this patent attorneys try to make provisionals as close to real patents as possible, and often urge you to simply skip the provisional step.
(BTW there are domains where patents make sense. Where most NH readers are, in software, I consider patents an abomination).
The way to think of a provisional is that it's a way to get a description on file by a certain date. Then if you subsequently file a patent application within that time you can refer to the provisional to get the benefit of the earlier filing date. The claims in the actual patent are the ones that matter and they refer to the description in the actual patent. In fact I'm not sure the examiner really looks at the provisional at all, since the claims and description of the patent application itself are what matter in regards to granting the patent.
So what does the provisional do? Example: let's assume bicycle cranks didn't exist and I filed a provisional 1 Feb 2013 for a crank with an odd number of teeth. I just wrote it up in relatively casual style ("a wheel with an odd number of protrusions around its circumference sized such that links of a chain could fit between them, and pedals attached to radial posts").
Then on the 15th of January 2014 I file a patent application for a bicycle crank with odd and even numbers of teeth. My description now takes up several pages and includes drawings done in the crazy style required by the patent office. My provisional just included a hand drawing or two and a couple of sentences of description.
If I tried to sue you over this patent for making bike cranks with an even number of teeth, and you had begun in July 2013, I'd be out of luck. But if you used an odds number of teeth my protection for my granted patent would extend back to Feb 2013.
I could still lose because the casual description might be ambiguous enough that you could convince the jury that it didn't really describe the actual, patented invention. Because of this patent attorneys try to make provisionals as close to real patents as possible, and often urge you to simply skip the provisional step.
(BTW there are domains where patents make sense. Where most NH readers are, in software, I consider patents an abomination).
This whole thing is stupid. Leveling is a problem, "autoing" it is not patent worthy. Lots of things have some solution applied to them to "auto". This is a case of patenting a problem, not the solution. And if the solution (sensors and actuators) have been applied elsewhere, then there isn't anything patentable here. Move on, solve harder problems.
The Stewart Platform [0] was invented back in the early 50s, I could apply an SP to any leveling problem. I shouldn't be able to patent leveling anything at this point. Leveling is a solved problem. Putting a computer in a feedback loop is a solved problem, one should not be able to patent feedback loops or computers or trivial applications of both.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_platform
The Stewart Platform [0] was invented back in the early 50s, I could apply an SP to any leveling problem. I shouldn't be able to patent leveling anything at this point. Leveling is a solved problem. Putting a computer in a feedback loop is a solved problem, one should not be able to patent feedback loops or computers or trivial applications of both.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_platform
I'm completely ignorant here, but when I read a "slew of patents" have been filed, two things come to mind:
1. A startup that is trying to raise some funding is filing the patents as a requisite of an investor (it sucks, but it's part of the startup/investor game)
2. A startup that was acquired by a larger company and the acquirer is trying to protect its shiny new purchase
I noticed Makerbot was acquired by Stratasys last year so point #2 seems likely. These filings are likely to be more on the behalf of Stratasys than Makerbot. Again, I'm not saying it's right, just saying it isn't surprising.
1. A startup that is trying to raise some funding is filing the patents as a requisite of an investor (it sucks, but it's part of the startup/investor game)
2. A startup that was acquired by a larger company and the acquirer is trying to protect its shiny new purchase
I noticed Makerbot was acquired by Stratasys last year so point #2 seems likely. These filings are likely to be more on the behalf of Stratasys than Makerbot. Again, I'm not saying it's right, just saying it isn't surprising.
> 1. A startup that is trying to raise some funding is filing the patents as a requisite of an investor (it sucks, but it's part of the startup/investor game)
> 2. A startup that was acquired by a larger company and the acquirer is trying to protect its shiny new purchase
In particular, it seems far too common for a patent troll to see a company that just got funded or acquired and figure they can extort some of the new funding. So it makes perfect sense for a newly acquired or invested-in company to spend some of the new funding they just got to set up a small stack of defensive patents or publications.
That said, for both of those cases it would potentially be cheaper and equally effective to file defensive publications rather than patents.
> 2. A startup that was acquired by a larger company and the acquirer is trying to protect its shiny new purchase
In particular, it seems far too common for a patent troll to see a company that just got funded or acquired and figure they can extort some of the new funding. So it makes perfect sense for a newly acquired or invested-in company to spend some of the new funding they just got to set up a small stack of defensive patents or publications.
That said, for both of those cases it would potentially be cheaper and equally effective to file defensive publications rather than patents.
patents won't help against patent trolls. These "non-practicing entities" have the distinct advantage of not doing anything that could have them infringe on a patent (in particular given that legal procedures aren't patentable).
Defensive patents are not effective against patent trolls, since the trolls do not produce any products. The publications do make sense, though.
Defensive patents are effective against patent trolls, because if you have your defensive patents covering the things you do, you can bring those to court as proof of the origin and creation date of your ideas, should the patent trolls come knocking.
Yes you can bring them to court along with your million dollars and 6-8 months of time and aggravation. You'll likely "win".
But if you want to defend against trolls and do not seek your own patent monopoly, patents don't make sense. Slow and expensive. Other means are vastly cheaper.
> That said, for both of those cases it would potentially be cheaper and equally effective to file defensive publications rather than patents.
Do you mean a Statutory Invention Registration[1]? That seems almost as troublesome as putting together a regular application, just without some of the followthrough. Or is there actually a solid way to establish prior art just by publishing your method? I've been wondering if there's some threshold of "publication legitimacy" that's required for this, or if posting the method up on pastebin would work. I found a piece on how to establish prior invention for business methods[2], but that only protects the folks that can document their own prior use.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutory_Invent... [2] http://www.fenwick.com/fenwickdocuments/new_defense.pdf
Do you mean a Statutory Invention Registration[1]? That seems almost as troublesome as putting together a regular application, just without some of the followthrough. Or is there actually a solid way to establish prior art just by publishing your method? I've been wondering if there's some threshold of "publication legitimacy" that's required for this, or if posting the method up on pastebin would work. I found a piece on how to establish prior invention for business methods[2], but that only protects the folks that can document their own prior use.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutory_Invent... [2] http://www.fenwick.com/fenwickdocuments/new_defense.pdf
> Or is there actually a solid way to establish prior art just by publishing your method?
There is a service [1] that does this, and is registered as a "mandatory to search" resource with the WIPO. It costs $120/page, which is steep, but surely cheaper than patent prosecution. There are other "mandatory search" archives [2] under the Patent Cooperation Treaty "Minimum Documentation" rules, many of which are academic journals. These are not the only means of "public disclosure" but my (very limited) understanding is that the patent office is guaranteed to look at the sources on that list.
[1] http://www.researchdisclosure.com/publishing-disclosures
[2] http://www.wipo.int/standards/en/part_04.html
There is a service [1] that does this, and is registered as a "mandatory to search" resource with the WIPO. It costs $120/page, which is steep, but surely cheaper than patent prosecution. There are other "mandatory search" archives [2] under the Patent Cooperation Treaty "Minimum Documentation" rules, many of which are academic journals. These are not the only means of "public disclosure" but my (very limited) understanding is that the patent office is guaranteed to look at the sources on that list.
[1] http://www.researchdisclosure.com/publishing-disclosures
[2] http://www.wipo.int/standards/en/part_04.html
Any public disclosure anywhere in the world forms part of the prior art. Dates are hard to establish for webpages and so they're not generally a good form of disclosure - "defensive publication" is the term if anyone wants to find more info.
>"the patent office is guaranteed to look at the sources on that list"
The PCT minimum documentation is what must be available. The examiner will have to balance time and costs (databases of journals can be costly to interrogate) against their considerations of what material it would be useful to search.
In the UK the examiners used to keep up with journals appropriate to their field - so publishing an article in a trade journal or maker magazine about 3D printing would be a reasonable place for disclosure in this case.
There's another option for those familiar with the patent system - pick a country with low fees and file an application, get an A-publication and abandon the application. In the UK that will cost £30 (~$50) on application plus £150 for the search (you can file both online and get £30 off). It doesn't matter how big your application is; you don't get charged more for a 1000 page application than you do for a single page. It won't get refused until after publication even if it's absolute nonsense. It can however take a couple of years but you can reduce that to about 5 months by getting an accelerated search.
Aside: Theoretically you could break the UKIPO by submitting an application that's millions of pages long. Under R48(1) the UK office has to provide copies to anyone on request for a fee of £5 (with a Form23). There doesn't appear to be a restriction on the address either, anywhere in the European Economic Area is fine. However there's also a rule that requires one to provide, or pay, for 3 paper copies of an application to be made IIRC.
>"the patent office is guaranteed to look at the sources on that list"
The PCT minimum documentation is what must be available. The examiner will have to balance time and costs (databases of journals can be costly to interrogate) against their considerations of what material it would be useful to search.
In the UK the examiners used to keep up with journals appropriate to their field - so publishing an article in a trade journal or maker magazine about 3D printing would be a reasonable place for disclosure in this case.
There's another option for those familiar with the patent system - pick a country with low fees and file an application, get an A-publication and abandon the application. In the UK that will cost £30 (~$50) on application plus £150 for the search (you can file both online and get £30 off). It doesn't matter how big your application is; you don't get charged more for a 1000 page application than you do for a single page. It won't get refused until after publication even if it's absolute nonsense. It can however take a couple of years but you can reduce that to about 5 months by getting an accelerated search.
Aside: Theoretically you could break the UKIPO by submitting an application that's millions of pages long. Under R48(1) the UK office has to provide copies to anyone on request for a fee of £5 (with a Form23). There doesn't appear to be a restriction on the address either, anywhere in the European Economic Area is fine. However there's also a rule that requires one to provide, or pay, for 3 paper copies of an application to be made IIRC.
Now that the USPTO is a first-to-file system, they may have felt pressure to file for defensive patents before someone else did so offensively and came after them.
Shameless plug:
Bld3r.com co-founder here.
I started working on bld3r, because i was unsatisfied with thingiverse (owned by makerbot/stratasys). I'd like to see the community put a stop to a potential facebook-like hold on 3D model sharing learning since we are learning makerbot is very rapidly changing their culture from open hardware cultural icons, to an anti-social corporate subsidiary.
I'll hit some fairly basic bullet points:
* We are a functional 3D printing repo and social network, and in the top 3 alternatives to thingiverse.
* We on github (AGPL), and i'd happily accept pull requests: https://github.com/bld3r/bld3r
* We are built on google's app engine, so you can take our site and use it as a base for building your own social network and launching it in a couple hours or a couple of days.
* One major feature is that you do not have to upload 3d models to us. You can if you want, but you don't have to. We'd actually prefer if people host files elsewhere (via dropbox, github, tpb, etc., even thingiverse). You can then submit a link to your object and it'll appear on our front page crowd-sourced with reddit-style voting.
* We do not sell 3d printers, so if you do, we'd love to give you some free advertising while we grow our site. We are currently working on a contest feature, so within a month, if you want to host a contest, you can design what you want on our site, and launch it to promote your printers (Lulzbot was the first of such manufactures to do so, and we are very grateful to them for the notable bump in traffic and name recognition).
There are many more things we do to prevent even ourselves from exploiting a network effect in 3D repos.
We are not without our warts right now (this is neither of our main occupations, it's just a labor of love to keep 3D printing open), but please give the site a visit if you're interested. I live in SF and my co-founder lives NYC. We'd both be happy to get a beer and talk about the site if anyone is interested in using it as a base for another open social network.
http://www.bld3r.com
Bld3r.com co-founder here.
I started working on bld3r, because i was unsatisfied with thingiverse (owned by makerbot/stratasys). I'd like to see the community put a stop to a potential facebook-like hold on 3D model sharing learning since we are learning makerbot is very rapidly changing their culture from open hardware cultural icons, to an anti-social corporate subsidiary.
I'll hit some fairly basic bullet points:
* We are a functional 3D printing repo and social network, and in the top 3 alternatives to thingiverse.
* We on github (AGPL), and i'd happily accept pull requests: https://github.com/bld3r/bld3r
* We are built on google's app engine, so you can take our site and use it as a base for building your own social network and launching it in a couple hours or a couple of days.
* One major feature is that you do not have to upload 3d models to us. You can if you want, but you don't have to. We'd actually prefer if people host files elsewhere (via dropbox, github, tpb, etc., even thingiverse). You can then submit a link to your object and it'll appear on our front page crowd-sourced with reddit-style voting.
* We do not sell 3d printers, so if you do, we'd love to give you some free advertising while we grow our site. We are currently working on a contest feature, so within a month, if you want to host a contest, you can design what you want on our site, and launch it to promote your printers (Lulzbot was the first of such manufactures to do so, and we are very grateful to them for the notable bump in traffic and name recognition).
There are many more things we do to prevent even ourselves from exploiting a network effect in 3D repos.
We are not without our warts right now (this is neither of our main occupations, it's just a labor of love to keep 3D printing open), but please give the site a visit if you're interested. I live in SF and my co-founder lives NYC. We'd both be happy to get a beer and talk about the site if anyone is interested in using it as a base for another open social network.
http://www.bld3r.com
Terence is doing something vitally important. 3D printing is likely to be a "next big thing" and we have a duty to ensure the technology stays as open as possible.
As a community, we're lucky that ideas like 'open source' and 'freedom to tinker' are highly valued. Each of us has benefited tremendously from that commitment. But it wasn't an accident. Hackers, scientists and engineers have been fighting mini-battles over those ideas since the days of the 60s counter-culture.
When I stop and think about it, I feel a lot of gratitude and respect for our colleagues who set the precedent for an open Internet so early on. We have an obligation to pay that precedent forward so that technologies like 3D printing and DIY Bio can develop into vibrant ecosystems like the Internet.
As a community, we're lucky that ideas like 'open source' and 'freedom to tinker' are highly valued. Each of us has benefited tremendously from that commitment. But it wasn't an accident. Hackers, scientists and engineers have been fighting mini-battles over those ideas since the days of the 60s counter-culture.
When I stop and think about it, I feel a lot of gratitude and respect for our colleagues who set the precedent for an open Internet so early on. We have an obligation to pay that precedent forward so that technologies like 3D printing and DIY Bio can develop into vibrant ecosystems like the Internet.
OK, a few things.
1. Patents are very VERY specific. Someone can have a patent for Thing A and you can make Thing B that is quite similar to Thing A, with just a few minor adjustments, and it is not an infringement. This is why there are tons of patents out there that describe pretty much the same thing, with very minute differences.
The takeaway is: just because Makerbot / Stratasys is getting a patent on autoleveling does not mean no one else can do autoleveling. It just means they cannot do it the exact same way.
2. A patent troll is an entity that has a patent portfolio, but has no actual products related to anything in that portfolio. They make their money by suing people (or bullying little guys into settling out of court).
Makerbot / Stratasys makes 3D printers. It is not trolling for them to file patents related to 3D printing technology. You might think the patent system is broken or feel that patent filing is not in the spirit of open source hardware (valid points which I personally share), but it is not trolling.
So, let's not undermine the legitimacy of those criticisms by conflating one particular (arguably douchey) business strategy with patent trolling (another, unarguably douchey strategy).
1. Patents are very VERY specific. Someone can have a patent for Thing A and you can make Thing B that is quite similar to Thing A, with just a few minor adjustments, and it is not an infringement. This is why there are tons of patents out there that describe pretty much the same thing, with very minute differences.
The takeaway is: just because Makerbot / Stratasys is getting a patent on autoleveling does not mean no one else can do autoleveling. It just means they cannot do it the exact same way.
2. A patent troll is an entity that has a patent portfolio, but has no actual products related to anything in that portfolio. They make their money by suing people (or bullying little guys into settling out of court).
Makerbot / Stratasys makes 3D printers. It is not trolling for them to file patents related to 3D printing technology. You might think the patent system is broken or feel that patent filing is not in the spirit of open source hardware (valid points which I personally share), but it is not trolling.
So, let's not undermine the legitimacy of those criticisms by conflating one particular (arguably douchey) business strategy with patent trolling (another, unarguably douchey strategy).
The reprap ormerod is using an infra-red sensor for bed levelling, so no contact force. http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/3d-printers/7952333/
There was a nice bed levelling project I saw on hackaday a couple of years ago that was cool as well, I think their method isn't covered by this patent either - http://hackaday.com/2012/04/23/automated-bed-leveling-with-o...
Also, the idea of bed leveling using contact force and other methods was discussed in the reprap forums at least as far back as January 2008 - http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?1,8028
There was a nice bed levelling project I saw on hackaday a couple of years ago that was cool as well, I think their method isn't covered by this patent either - http://hackaday.com/2012/04/23/automated-bed-leveling-with-o...
Also, the idea of bed leveling using contact force and other methods was discussed in the reprap forums at least as far back as January 2008 - http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?1,8028
This is why patents like this are annoying. The idea of automated bed leveling wasn't novel by the time this patent had been filed, and doing it with force measurement is an obvious method to someone interested in automated bed leveling. There's nothing novel about doing bed leveling with force measurement.
Careful - Makerbot's parent company has a recent history of stretching 3D printing patents to sue over things that are obviously and fundamentally different from what was actually patented.
Business reality: patent trolls exist.
Rational strategy: patent things that you think you have no business patenting. Use for defensive purposes.
If Makerbot starts using such patents offensively, then anger is warranted. Not before.
Rational strategy: patent things that you think you have no business patenting. Use for defensive purposes.
If Makerbot starts using such patents offensively, then anger is warranted. Not before.
Makerbot is now owned by Stratasys. Stratasys is now attacking Makerbot alternatives such as Afinia.
http://3dprintingindustry.com/2013/11/26/stratasys-throws-cu...
http://3dprintingindustry.com/2013/11/26/stratasys-throws-cu...
How do you avoid the chilling effects of patents existing then without getting into patent pools or cross-licensing arrangements? People will be hesitant to put any time into R&D if they don't have assurances their work won't be quashed by lawyers.
If Makerbot starts using such patents offensively, then anger is warranted. Not before.
The problem with that is that you don't know whether they'll use the patent offensively or defensively until after it's granted.
The problem with that is that you don't know whether they'll use the patent offensively or defensively until after it's granted.
Right, one cannot start a competing company assuming that Makerbot won't sue.
Great points. But isn't this the dictionary definition of "don't hate the player, hate the game?"
They need to arm themselves to survive an attack... which makes it so everyone else has to arm themselves in case they attack... arms race!
They need to arm themselves to survive an attack... which makes it so everyone else has to arm themselves in case they attack... arms race!
Does prior art, even backed by concrete proof, still matter now that US also has a "First to file" patent system?
Yes. Prior art still invalidates patents under first to file.
Actually, the system is harder now in some ways (and easier in others) because it's closer to "first to publish" than other "first to file" systems:
> an applicant could file a U.S. patent application covering an invention that was the subject of a publication provided the publication was dated less than 1 year earlier. This was true even if the publication was by another individual or entity that independently arrived at the invention on his or her own. Effective Saturday, March 16, 2013, if another individual or entity independently arrived at the invention and published an article before the first inventor filed the first inventor who filed will be unable to obtain a patent.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/03/16/a-brave-new-patent-worl...
A lot of the people calling "end of world" around "first to file" don't really know what the new system means (not their fault, it's complicated!). What first to file does is mean that if you keep your invention secret, you can't then claim it as prior art for someone else down the road or claim that you actually deserve the patent because you invented it first. At least in this way, it makes uncertainties around patents a lot fewer.
Actually, the system is harder now in some ways (and easier in others) because it's closer to "first to publish" than other "first to file" systems:
> an applicant could file a U.S. patent application covering an invention that was the subject of a publication provided the publication was dated less than 1 year earlier. This was true even if the publication was by another individual or entity that independently arrived at the invention on his or her own. Effective Saturday, March 16, 2013, if another individual or entity independently arrived at the invention and published an article before the first inventor filed the first inventor who filed will be unable to obtain a patent.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/03/16/a-brave-new-patent-worl...
A lot of the people calling "end of world" around "first to file" don't really know what the new system means (not their fault, it's complicated!). What first to file does is mean that if you keep your invention secret, you can't then claim it as prior art for someone else down the road or claim that you actually deserve the patent because you invented it first. At least in this way, it makes uncertainties around patents a lot fewer.
That is a common misunderstanding around these parts, one that I addressed just a few days ago. See this subthread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7738749
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7738749
Does anyone care to explain to me why there is no patent service that takes care of this process for open projects for protection of said projects? A patent would be granted under an open entity, but never used, unless a company used the patent for closed source. It seems that this could be a great way to fund open source projects. Reverse patent trolling.
There's http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/. There used to be http://www.linuxdefenders.org/ but it's not resolving for me.
Has MakerBot acted on any of these patents? If they are acquiring them defensively (a good move if they plan on working on them, lest a patent troll file the patent), I don't have a big problem with this. Of course, assuming altruistic motives is naive, I just wonder what their motives are.
As I posted above, Makerbot was bought by Stratasys. Now Stratasys is attacking Makerbot alternatives such as Afinia.
http://3dprintingindustry.com/2013/11/26/stratasys-throws-cu...
http://3dprintingindustry.com/2013/11/26/stratasys-throws-cu...
It doesn't matter. Without a legally-binding pledge limiting the patents to be used only defensively, there is a chilling effect on innovators in the space. The threat of a lawsuit discourages development and investment.
That's true, although even a non-legally binding pledge (do pledges like that exist? IANAL, but from my time in law school, seems like the best solution would be to set up a foundation with a goal of using patents defensively and filing it under its name or something) is better than a troll filing the patent, in my opinion
They may have great intentions. Who knows, but boy-howdy if it walks like a troll...