
Stay Classy Makerbot - thealphanerd
http://www.openbeamusa.com/blog/2014/5/22/stay-classy-makerbot
======
noonespecial
Complaints about the author, methods, prior art etc aside... I've got a lathe
here from the late 80's that has CNC. It has tool depth sensing via electrical
contact and a bed leveling algorithm. Taking stuff that has existed for 30
years that anyone with community college level machine shop training knows
about, tacking "with the 3d printerz!1!!" on and running to the patent office
is a _giant dick move_ on the same level as all of the "on the intertubes"
patents we've been dealing with.

They may have great intentions. Who knows, but boy-howdy if it walks like a
troll...

~~~
fudged71
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.

------
bryans
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.

~~~
mr_luc
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...](http://hackaday.com/2012/04/23/automated-bed-leveling-with-
our-3d-printer/)

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!

~~~
bryans
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.

~~~
sillysaurus3
_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.

------
sitkack
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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_platform)

------
rubiquity
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.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> 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.

~~~
mnutt
Defensive patents are not effective against patent trolls, since the trolls do
not produce any products. The publications do make sense, though.

~~~
akerl_
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.

~~~
noonespecial
Yes you can bring them to court along with your million dollars and 6-8 months
of time and aggravation. You'll likely "win".

------
scoofy
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](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](http://www.bld3r.com)

------
e_modad
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.

------
klunger
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).

------
lotsofmangos
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/](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...](http://hackaday.com/2012/04/23/automated-bed-leveling-with-
our-3d-printer/)

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](http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?1,8028)

~~~
TaylorAlexander
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.

------
bernardom
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.

~~~
hyborg787
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.

~~~
nova
Funny how patents are supposed to encourage innovation and they're doing
exactly the opposite.

------
higherpurpose
Does prior art, even backed by concrete proof, still matter now that US also
has a "First to file" patent system?

~~~
travisp
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...](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/03/16/a-brave-new-patent-world-first-
to-file-becomes-law/id=37601/)

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.

------
jamesdullaghan
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.

~~~
nitrogen
There's
[http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/](http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/).
There used to be
[http://www.linuxdefenders.org/](http://www.linuxdefenders.org/) but it's not
resolving for me.

------
the_watcher
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.

~~~
kam
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.

~~~
the_watcher
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

