

The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing - Kliment
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol7-1/bradshaw.asp

======
forkandwait
Here is my prediction rant:

I think there are many more interesting implications of cheap-ass, automated,
and decentralized manufacturing in general than just in IP. (3-d printing,
downloadable and version controlled CNC instruction sets, parts supply chains
on the internet, etc.) There will be lots more custom/ private work, there
will be pseudo socialist challenges to the big guys who control manufacturing
(in the same way that open source software is a bid to take control of
software production), there will be revolutions in logistics, and we will see
lots of interesting designs created outside the for-profit + mass distribution
model.

There will be lots of lawyers, unfortunately.

I think we will also see the encoding of old designs first, just as Linux and
BSD and GNU started as fairly traditional designs (and personally, if I were
to download any car I could choose, it would be a 1977 Volvo 244).

And in 20 years, the best designs will be the open designs, just like the best
software today is rapidly being defined by OSS, for many of the same reasons
(i.e. no small minded MBA's getting involved in technical shit they will never
be able to understand).

Amish technology will be really important in the process of shifting to open
manufacturing (somewhat ironically) since their designs are complex but not
crazy, and they appeal to the same DIY hippies as OSS does (I count myself in
that bunch).

I also think an open source bicycle is the place to start, not a car, since it
is simple but still challenging.

I think about this way too much, actually.

~~~
pmccool
Interesting rant. I do not think that 3-D printing is going to play much of a
part, though. You mention an open-source bicycle; this is a good illustration
of the problem.

The bicycle I rode to work today has: \- a frame made of heat-treated steel
tubes brazed together \- wheels made of extruded aluminium and stainless-steel
wire \- rubber tyres

... not to mention all the other bits and pieces; machined hubs, ball-
bearings, etc etc.

I would be impressed at a 3-D printer that could produce any one of these
things at a reasonable price, let alone all three. Small scale manufacturing
of bicycle parts is confined to high-value niche areas.

I'm afraid I don't see much evidence of decentralised manufacturing here in
.au, apart from offshoring, which I doubt has much to do with the sort of open
manufacturing you seem to have in mind. I imagine things are the same in most
Western economies, although I freely admit this is no more than speculation.

~~~
roel_v
"The bicycle I rode to work today has:"

Well there's your problem. The point isn't to exactly recreate what we have
today. The bike as you own it now is like it is because that's the easiest way
to manufacture - rather than stamping it out of a block of steel, they take a
couple of tubes and weld them together. If it's easier to 3d-print by making
the whole thing in plastic, we'll have to engineer materials that allow this
and still maintain enough function to be used like today's bike.

Innovation doesn't have to be constrained by today's standards. The Wright
brothers didn't have to replicate the flapping wings of a bird, just building
something that would fly was ok.

------
olefoo
You wouldn't download a car!

Well, now you can. And so the same issues that have affected music and movies
are now going to start making themselves felt elsewhere in the economy. If
you're counting on design patents and incompatible shapes to raise the
switching costs for your customers (Steve Jobs I'm looking in the direction of
that stupid proprietary connector) you won't be able to count on maximising
profits by preventing copycats. The most draconian anti-counterfeiting laws
you can imagine will not be sufficient to keep people from building things
they want.

~~~
Qz
It's the beginning of The Diamond Age.

------
morganpyne
I think that we are heading for the democratisation of manufacturing, and it
will be an amazing time when it gets into full swing. The current
manufacturing powerhouses (e.g. China) will fade out and give way to on-demand
local production and this will have a truly revolutionary effect on society.
Exciting times; I hope I live to see it come to fruition.

I agree that Open Source will ultimately play a pivotal role in this
revolution and it will eat away at the status quo of 'things' much as it has
been doing with software for last 20 years. This will inevitably clash with
the old established businesses with the same predictable results, but this too
shall pass. As the saying goes, science makes progress one funeral at a time
and so does society. With any luck the next generations will look back on our
current attitudes to IP and regard them as archaic and curious.

~~~
kiba
And there will be oldies and IP abolitionists like me who get to say "I was
RIGHT!" since we are vindicated by the history.

------
praptak
_"Any lawyer familiar with copyright and trade mark law can see, however, that
printing one’s own birthday cards could, depending on the source and nature of
the images used, infringe a number of intellectual property (IP) rights."_

In many countries private use does not constitute copyright/trademark/patent
infringement.

~~~
roel_v
Printing your own birthday cards is not private use. 'Private use' in a legal
(copyright) context is not just 'I don't directly make money from it'.
Industrialized countries who have such legislation are bound by the TRIPs and
Berne agreements and 'private use exemptions' are bound by, amongst other, the
three-steps-test (not sure if that is the exact term in English).

Furthermore there is no such exemption for trademark or patent infringement in
any legal system that I'm familiar with, but I'm happy to be proven wrong on
that (it's not in my area of expertise either).

~~~
praptak
_"Furthermore there is no such exemption for trademark or patent infringement
in any legal system that I'm familiar with, but I'm happy to be proven wrong
on that"_

UK Patents Act 1977, Sec. 60 (5) (a): _"An act which, apart from this
subsection, would constitute an infringement of a patent for an invention
shall not do so if - (a) it is done privately and for purposes which are not
commercial;"_

As to trademark infringement I agree that there is no explicit exemption for
private use. But on the other hand I think it is not necessary - trademark
infringement is putting trademarked goods on the market so it's not private by
definition.

------
khafra
The best weapons in Mass Effect 2 are "protected against replication by
sophisticated Fabrication Rights Management (FRM) technology"

------
AngryParsley
The paper only goes into the IP implications, but I think those are relatively
minor compared to most implications of low-cost 3D printing.

3D prototyping makes it a lot easier for people to build and improve weapons.
You could, for example, print your own AR-15 lower receiver and buy the rest
of the parts. Or print your own full-auto sear. Or print your own sound
suppressor (silencer). Today, building those things requires specialized
knowledge and expensive tools. That will change as 3D printing goes down in
price and up in quality.

The advantages of this technology outweigh the downsides, but it's good to be
aware of the downsides.

------
CapitalistCartr
I work in the CNC programming and design field. I've often wondered how easy
it will be to build what we now consider sophisticated weapons in 20 years.
People currently build homemade cruise missiles. What will the future bring?

~~~
bobds
Better anti-weapon defenses for sure.

------
gte910h
I see a similar warning over and over.

3d printed parts are relatively lo-fidelity and do not have the material
strength due to their construction mechanism to do many things "normally"
fabricated things do.

------
spyder
The Future of 3D Printing: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lJ8vId4HF8>

