

Cloning the MakerBot Is Legal, But Does That Make It Right? - replicatorblog
http://www.wired.com/design/2012/08/tangibot-makerbot-clone/

======
jlgreco
_"The decision to manufacture in China has also raised eyebrows. Will
TangiBots be produced in a Foxconn-like factory..."_

My impression is that Foxconn is a much nicer place to work in China than most
other places, so... for the sake of the employees I hope so?

Anyway, if Makerbot feels threatened by this they should probably take a good
look at how Redhat operates. A piece of hardware should not be their only
product. The fact that these new guys are catching flak from the community at
all suggests Makerbot already has at least part of this figured out though.

~~~
ori_b
More to the point, anything that can be trivially and legally copied should
not be their only product, be it hardware or software. Open source is great --
I love it, write it, and have contributed -- but on it's own, it's not a
viable business model in the long term.

------
ef4
> “I’m disappointed that you’ve chose to knock off/copy a respected industry
> leader, and undercutting them, therefore starting a race to the bottom.”

I sincerely hope we do get a "race to the bottom" on 3d printer prices, the
same way we've had one for microprocessors and bandwidth.

We all benefit immensely from that kind of competition.

~~~
cube13
Only if that type of competition results in better products. If it's just
cheaper products, there's no real gain.

And that's where I have a problem with this. Sure, it's completely legal. But
it doesn't seem ethical to just take someone else's work wholesale and profit
from it.

~~~
replicatorblog
Good points, but the MakerBot is completely open source - so it is ethical, as
long as he releases any improvements.

Also, isn't equal quality for a lower price, better?

~~~
ptorrone
the makerbot name is not open-source and kickstarter is not allowed to be used
to fund a business, see their rule #1 - tangibot changed the entire
kickstarter, and kickstart had them make it clear that tangibot was the
deliverable -- not a business to make tangibots.

it's not fair to say a tangibot is equal quality (yet).

lower prices are good, everyone agrees with that though!

~~~
samroesch
According to the license, "You must attribute The MakerBot Replicator to
makerbot (with link)."

So it's ok (and actually required) for him to mention MakerBot at least once,
"(but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the
work.)"

I don't think Matt suggested that MakerBot endorsed it in anyway, he just
attributed the design ALOT!

------
mchusma
Of course it is both legal and right. Don't make things open source then
expect them to not be cloned. The benefits of open source are that it is not
only makerbot that is contributing to the design it is the community. The
downside? The community owns it.

~~~
PeterisP
It is legal and right to clone it, manufacture it and sell it. However, I do
see a moral issue in asking MakerBot community to donate a lot of money for
this.

~~~
crazypyro
Why? He is offering the same product for 500 dollars less, making it more
affordable and accessible to a larger audience.

------
drone
An unspoken issue here, and one often facing the industry I'm in presently
(I'm not going to mention what it is, as I don't want to attract any flak down
the road, given I run an OSHW company at the moment) - is that it's easy to
take a design that's been proven, and sell it for less.

It's easy to attract a large segment of the market over to your, near clone,
of that product for less. You don't even have to make it in China - you're one
guy with some outsourcers that'll do everything for you - you can just lower
your margins. The problem now becomes that you need to sustain that business.
You're not making enough margin to hire a handful of additional engineers to
design the next generation products while you sell today's. You're making a
comfortable living for you - while driving the innovator you just copied to
lower their margins and lay off staff. (Or, exit the market entirely.)

Copycats of OSHW at cheaper prices who don't innovate new capabilities harm
the market in the long run, but make today's customer happy. It drives OSHW
vendors out of the market, and forces new players to make a choice between
open-sourcing and facing massive margin pressure, or come out closed-source
and ensure they have enough breathing room. Of course, it's a false dichotomy:
we've been copied several times, but focus on extreme customer service, and
way out of our way warranties to differentiate ourselves, while also
continuing to invest in new products. But, we're also in a much smaller niche.

That being said: I haven't followed Makerbot in a while - how much new R&D do
they do? That is, have they been coming out with systems with newer
capabilities and competing aggressively, or have they largely been resting on
their laurels?

~~~
MBCook
They've been doing quite a bit. In the year and a half since I purchased my
Thing-o-Matic, they've come out with three new hot ends, the Replicator, and
dual-strusion. The Replicator is supposed to be easier to calibrate and easier
to use. It also uses accelerated printing by default, which is a nice
improvement.

From what I've seen, they are definitely continuing to work hard. They
probably could have kept the Thing-o-Matic as their top machine, or just done
a much more minor upgrade, and been safe for an additional 6-12 months. It's
only now, 6+ months after the Replicator came out, that I'm starting to see
posts about other commercial 3D printers (i.e. not DIY kit like a RepRap or
Printbot).

Good luck with your business. Makerbot's customer service has been excellent
the few times I've had a question. If you were to buy a Tangibot, I wonder how
much support they will offer directly vs. having to ask the community. Of
course in that case, you're really no worse off than if you sourced & built a
printer yourself like a RepRap.

~~~
drone
That's good to hear - there's always the risk that someone is going to come
along and say "Well, but they hadn't done anything in a while!" As long as
they keep investing and pushing the envelope, the copycats shouldn't drag them
down too far - 3D printing, especially, is a huge market right now.

Not in the market for one myself, still prefer subtractive machining, but I
imagine, like most new and small companies, support will be hard for Tangibot
at first. They'll either get it and move ahead, or struggle under the weight
of success (should they succeed). An interesting experiment will be to see
whether they meet their goal, now that they're making the news.

------
anigbrowl
Knocking the price from $1800 to $1200 looks pretty innovative to me. I would
like to buy a makerbot, but the price has been too steep for me to indulge my
curiosity - I'm not a whiz at 3d modeling and there are other things I like to
spend money on.

------
martey
_Torrone’s primary frustration was the over-reliance on the MakerBot trademark
— the one way open source projects can protect their brand — and the good will
that is associated with it. [Editor's note: Strong has since removed much of
the "MakerBot" language from the Kickstarter page.]_

I wish Kickstarter had an easy way to see the changes that project owners had
made after the project had begun. Looking at the project's comments, it seems
that Strong was opposed to removing the mentions of MakerBot (claiming that he
was simply "comparing" his product to it), but changed his mind earlier this
week.

~~~
samroesch
As I noted above:

 _According to the license, "You must attribute The MakerBot Replicator to
makerbot (with link)."

"So it's ok (and actually required) for him to mention MakerBot at least once,
"(but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the
work.)"

I don't think Matt suggested that MakerBot endorsed it in anyway, he just
attributed the design ALOT!_

------
sbierwagen
Ripping off Makerbot? Please. Makerbot uses plenty of Reprap-derived
technology, and how much money did Bri pay for that?

$0, since it was all open source.

------
Zuph
I think Phill Torrone hits the nail on the head: The problem isn't that the's
copying a device, it's that he's relying on the trademark of the original
developer to sell his "new" version, without substantially describing how he's
going to improve the device, while maintaining the high quality and solid
support of MakerBot.

~~~
replicatorblog
My reply to Phil is that MakerBot says "It uses the same plastic as Legos" in
all of their videos. This is true only in the most technical sense. Both use a
type of plastic called ABS, but the formulations are very different and more
importantly neither the strength of the parts or the surface finish are of
equal quality. Still they leverage all the good will Lego has built.

~~~
ptorrone
makerbot has never said "LEGO clone" or "LEGO knock-off". the tangibot _did_
say "same quality as makerbot because it's a clone", "makerbot clone" and
"makerbot knock-off". stating a fact like it's the same plastic is different
than saying a complex machine is the _same quality_ because it's a clone, the
tangibot did not demonstrate that.

keep in mind, this was before the tangibot creator updated the kickstarter and
also was asked by kickstarter to make it clear it's not violating rule # of
kickstarter:

"A project is not open-ended. Starting a business, for example, does not
qualify as a project." (they also say "No "fund my life" projects.).

just to be clear, open-source hardware makers, at least every single one of
them i know and work with don't have any issues with someone making their
design and making it more low-cost.

if kickstarter had viewable revision changes i think this conversation would
not be about people saying open-source doesn't want to be open-source.

~~~
replicatorblog
I think we're just going to end up disagreeing on that one :) From the
experiences I've had in TM lawsuits I think the MB/Lego examples is more
misleading that TB/MB. My lawyer friends say the point of trademarks are to
"Prevent confusion in the marketplace".

"MakerBot Clone" is "arguably descriptive" and seems unlikely to cause
confusion in the market _because_ it's so descriptive. It's like generic
pharma companies that say they use the same active ingredient that the name
brands use. They even copy the packaging styles of the national brands and say
"Compare to ________ brand". Big drug companies have had to deal with this for
decades, but have still been able to thrive.

Contrast that with MB. Even though MB has never said the words "Lego Clone" A
person unfamiliar with the technology could be misled, thinking that this
$2,000 machine can product parts on par with Lego's finest, which is not even
close to true.

That said, I'm a MakerBot owner and hope they continue to push the state of
the art!

~~~
ptorrone
@replicatorblog - i don't think you're going to find a lawyer that will go on
record saying "uses the same plastic as LEGO" is _the same_ as "TangiBot is a
MakerBot clone" "TangiBot is a MakerBot knock-off" "TangiBot is the same
quality because it's a MakerBot clone"... if you had someone look at a LEGO
and a makerbot, they're clearly different called different things, marketed
different.

LEGO is very good about their trademark, if there was any issue with makerbot
saying "same plastic used for LEGOs" they would have been told not to ever say
that. if you're really interested to know for sure, email me and we'll both
email LEGO.

if you could show makerbot's usage of LEGO with a specific link that would be
helpful too.

please keep in mind the company that the creator of the tangibot promoted as
his previous job and current group of experts he's working with _did_ sue
people for using the name "Cricut"..

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricut#Third_party_software> "Provo Craft has
been active to resist the use of third-party software programs that could
enable Cricut owners to cut out designs and to use the machine without
depending on its proprietary cartridges.... Provo Craft also asserted that
Craft Edge were violating its trademark in the word "Cricut" by saying that
its software could work with Cricut machines. Provo Craft asserted that this
was likely "to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source or
origin of Defendant's goods or services, and [was] likely to falsely suggest a
sponsorship, connection, license, or association of Defendant's goods and
services with Provo Craft"

if anyone saw the tangibot anywhere they'd assume it was a makerbot... and
lastly, i don't think tangibot could even get their name trademarked for what
they're doing, but a lawyer could weigh in on that perhaps.

i'm not a makerbot owner, but i did back the tangibot.

~~~
SiCarbide
"back the tangibot"? Pledging the minimum to a project that you hoped would
fail(and thus owe nothing) is the same kind of backing that the Senate gave
Caeser.

~~~
ptorrone
@SiCarbide - i made suggestions to make it better (not use makerbot's name /
go against kickstarters #1 rule, etc) the creator has not only updated the
kickstarter, tangibot specially said thanks for helping out, tangibot changed
the kickstarter as per kickstarter's request too. it's now getting more
backers than before.

------
ptorrone
hey folks - this really was not about open-source or open-source hardware, but
did start some great conversations. it was about a self described "clone" and
"knock-off" fund-my-business asking for $500k on kickstarter. there was some
open source hardware discussion shrapnel, it's good that it's being talked
about regardless.

everyone who does open-source knows a copy of your design/code is going to
happen, and it's encouraged.

1) the tangibot kickstarter __when launched __used the makerbot name dozens
and dozens of times and said specifically it was the same quality because it
was clone. you can say it's like-something, but not lean that hard on
someone's trademarked name and brand for a $500k kickstarter. open-source
hardware is great, copy it! just don't use someone's trademarked name as a way
to assure quality and support. at least ship or show something and prove
you're comparable.

2) the tangibot kickstarter at first said it was to fund a business, that's
against rule #1 of kickstarter: <http://www.kickstarter.com/help/guidelines>

rule #1 on kickstarter: "A project is not open-ended. Starting a business, for
example, does not qualify as a project." (they also say "No "fund my life"
projects.).

tangibot has since completely changed the kickstarter and it's $500k better
than it was when it was launched.

if kickstarter had viewable revision changes that would be helpful right about
now.

------
jerrya
$1200 is pretty sweet compared to $1800, but I am already concerned that
someone making copies is already behind the curve compared to the original
inventor in terms of the innovation I appreciate.

Cf. cheap PCs to the ones you specify in your business.

Consider which manufacturer is likely to come out with the next best model,
and will upgrades be easily available or supported for your model? I already
wonder if a MakerBot will destroy itself soon after I build it, they all look
a bit on the flimsy side.

I would probably be persuaded by better customer service, better support
forums, and the knowledge that one provides jobs in the US would all work to
overcome that price differential.

But it is a hell of a differential.

~~~
jlgreco
Additionally, the more Makerbots/Makerbot-clones consumers have, the larger
your potential market for future versions. Even if the Tangibots are equal to
the Makerbots in terms of build quality, the Makerbot people presumably have a
leg up when it comes to inventing the successor to both. If more people out
there are using these style 3d printers than before, then the number of people
who might buy the next should be larger.

~~~
jerrya
That's an excellent point. While it will definitely take some sales away from
the original Makerbot, it will also definitely increase the size of the entire
market, all of whom will now have Makerbot knowledge and be eager to see what
Makerbot's next product is.

In certain circumstances, if Makerbot is constrained by cash or production
volume, they might even see this as a good thing that lets them redirect their
flow into a newer, better product. (I hope!)

------
polemic
How is this different from cloning (for example) open source licensed
software?

There is plenty of OS philosophy that says that even people who clone and
close-source the technology bring ancillary benefits to the project - for
example by driving market adoption of a similar platform (and thereby
attracting users looking for the similar-but-free option).

Presumably MakerBot chose their license with eyes wide open. That the project
has been successful enough to spawn TangiBot is purely a sign of MarkerBot's
success, not of dirty dealings on Matt Strong's part.

------
brador
I'm all for driving the price down on 3d printing hardware and getting it into
more hands but the way he keeps saying trust is ringing my scam alarm.

$500k is enough to retire on for some.

------
MBCook
I'm pretty annoyed with it, even though it's fully within their rights.

I have a Makerbot Thing-o-Matic. I would love a Replicator, but it is very
expensive. There are cheaper printers out there (especially as a kit), but
Makerbot makes a good quality product.

The thing that annoys me more than anything else is the laziness. Makerbot's
stuff is open source, but do you have to build a perfect clone? All they did
was replace the two laser etched Makerbot logos with their own. They didn't
change the dimensions, they didn't go with a different extruder, they didn't
round off corners, they didn't use a different color of plywood.

It just seems so lazy to me, like they're not even trying. It's neat they
offer an acrylic case, but that's not the one they're showing. They're showing
the perfect clone.

I completely agree with the quote in the article that says they're over
reliant on the Makerbot name. The announcements I saw didn't say it was a new
3D printer based on a Makerbot, they said it was a Makerbot made by a 3rd
party.

Just one obvious enhancement would have made me so much more comfortable with
the idea. The Kickstarter page lists a few simple ones (FCC certification,
replacing a few plywood bits with plastic bits), but you can't tell that from
looking at it.

------
mxfh
I was quite surprised the Makerbot is that expensive these days, until Is saw
it was the price for the heavily upgraded ready-to-print machine.

Together with some friends I built a 1st generation CupCake Makerbot about 3
years ago, the cost was less than $1000[1], only $750 for the most basic kit
[2]. It took a while to assemble, but it was worth actually building it with
your own hands and seeing for the first time to finally print something. Yet
there were setbacks in the process, but the makerbot staff was always helpful
in finishing the project. I assume the just can't provide that level of
support for kits at the scale they are now.

If makerbot would offer an unassembled kit again they could beat that symbolic
price again any time and show what the extra work is actually worth.

[1] <http://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2010-06/making-makerbot>

[2]
[http://web.archive.org/web/20100110133658/http://store.maker...](http://web.archive.org/web/20100110133658/http://store.makerbot.com/cupcake-
cnc.html)

~~~
MBCook
They stopped offering kits when they stopped making the Thing-o-Matic. Tons of
people complained, but on the Google group they explained the real reason:
price.

At this point, they can build the machines much faster, and that makes them
cheaper. Instead of having to measure out that each kit get 4 of these
bearings, 2 belts, 78 screws, 107 nuts, etc, they can just keep them all
around the shop and save all the time from that portioning.

I learned quite a bit assembling my ToM. If you consider that the Replicator
has a larger build envelope, a better extruder, improved ease-of-use, and the
LCD interface... the $1750 price isn't too bad. The dual extruders is pretty
good at $2000.

That said, it's not cheap. If I was starting out again today, I'd probably try
making some sort of RepRap Mendel. I still love Makerbot, but the ability to
save around $750-$1000 would be too compelling for me.

They've moved up in the market some. They seem to be targeting professionals
that could use a basic 3D printer more than they used to, and DIY hobbyists
less.

~~~
drone
Don't forget the cost of supporting people when they make a mistake putting it
together, or having to send out another package to someone half way across the
world because you left one bolt out, etc.

------
tzs
> The decision to manufacture in China has also raised eyebrows

I bet that pretty much everyone who has done so publicly has done so via a
computer or other electronic device that is substantially or completely
manufactured in China or at least is full of parts that were so manufactured.

~~~
DrStalker
I'm always amazed by the way people think of things manufactured in China,
especially people who still consider it to mean cheap and inferior. It's true
China makes a lot of poor quality crap cheap, but they also make really high
quality products if you're willing to pay for it instead of going to the
cheapest bid.

------
DrStalker
If you buy a Makerbot what do you get other than the device itself? There
needs to be some sort of value-add when you sell opensource products otherwise
anyone with a better production infrastructure can undercut you.

------
soup10
Wait, so open-source isn't all sunshine and rainbows and intellectual property
laws have a purpose? That's crazy talk, lets go back to discussing how
corporations are evil and selling things for more than they cost to make is
greedy.

