
How 3D printing threatens our patent system - nkurz
https://theconversation.com/how-3d-printing-threatens-our-patent-system-52665
======
Htsthbjig
That is the idea of a patent.

A patent is a document that makes it possible for someone else to replicate
your idea. You exchange this knowledge for a monopoly as the only seller of
this product in a given country.

But if other sources can't replicate your idea, your patent should be invalid.

Everybody can manufacture their own products, even if they are patented. What
they can't do is sell them on the market.

What lawyers want is to receive a monopoly while giving nothing in return.
They try to obfuscate the patent using strange verbs so examiners could not
find prior art, try to extend the patent as generic as they can and even
introduce invalid information so competitors could not replicate the thing,
even after the patent expire.

Valid 3D computer files should be a requirement for a patent. The only reason
they are not is because the patent office is obsolete.

~~~
goodcanadian
_Everybody can manufacture their own products, even if they are patented. What
they can 't do is sell them on the market._

Actually, I believe this is false. It is my understanding that it is illegal
to copy a patented invention even for your own non-commercial use.

~~~
prof_hobart
If I'm reading it correctly, the World Intellectual Property Organisation
(WIPO) disagrees [1]

> Most of the Member States provide the private and/or non-commercial use
> exception under their statutes. Only the response from Australia informed
> that the exception was not included in its statutes, but provided by common
> law as a “non-commercial use defense”

...

> Most of the Member States, however, provide a broad definition of the scope
> of the patent rights which encompasses all kinds of activities, and
> explicitly stipulate that private use for non-commercial purposes or private
> and non-commercial use is an exception to the exclusive patent rights. In
> formulating the exception, provisions of many national laws stipulate that
> the it applies to acts carried out in the private sphere and for non-
> commercial purposes or to use of a patented invention for personal needs
> with no purpose to make profits. The response from the United Kingdom stated
> that the exclusion is provided for acts done “privately and for the purposes
> which are not commercial”.

[1]
[http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/patent_policy/en/scp_20/scp_...](http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/patent_policy/en/scp_20/scp_20_3.pdf)

~~~
elbigbad
Admittedly my answer was U.S.-centric, but to be clear: The United States
provides no such exception, while about 60 countries do seem to.

~~~
microcolonel
I don't think it would hold up in court.

~~~
OopsCriticality
It has been held up in court, repeatedly, even against Duke University who
argued in favor of an academic research exemption.

------
panzagl
The author is ignorant of both 3D printing and traditional manufacturing
methods, and as far as I can tell, how intellectual property works. Nothing he
describes couldn't be done by someone with $20 and a 40% off coupon at
Michaels. Patents don't work because of difficulty of manufacture.

~~~
JupiterMoon
I don't think the authors of this piece are ignorant. I suspect they have a
motivation. This is the beginning of a lobby similar to the existing copyright
maximalist one.

~~~
jobu
Yeah, I think it's someone looking at the digital media endgame and deciding
that it's not long before even complex physical objects can be "digitized" and
replicated.

------
tomcam
Apart from the obvious clickbaity fearmongering, I'm doubtful this will ever
be a huge problem. If you've ever played with 3D printing, you come away with
a profound respect for the quality of finished manufactured goods these days.
A McDonald's toy is the result of hundreds of thousands of dollars in
injection mold costs, 3D designers, 2D designers, and a nontrivial logistics
chain.

Sure, you can 3D print rocket parts--with a printer that costs millions and
takes several people just to maintain, let alone things like the cost of
consumables.

~~~
Houshalter
Yeah but what if the technology improves?

~~~
Namrog84
It inevitability will. Not so much as if, but when.

~~~
tomcam
Manufacturing real goods involves a shitload of toxic substances, compliance
to arcane local, state, and federal guidelines, a ton of tools, and a vast set
of roles we don't normally think about. Painting details by hand, trimming off
the flash and so on just isn't going to happen within the next few decades.
(Definitely later, when robots are a few orders of magnitude smarter.) Sure, I
can 3D print a toy flute or a napkin holder, but real flute mechanisms are a
bitch. Any serious flute player will happily pay for it to work right every
time.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
Real mechanisms you say? How about a 3D printed remote control car that snaps
together, uses no screws, and costs $10 in plastic?

[http://makezine.com/projects/3d-print-badass-rc-race-
car/](http://makezine.com/projects/3d-print-badass-rc-race-car/)
[https://github.com/tlalexander/Flutter-
Scout](https://github.com/tlalexander/Flutter-Scout)

Note: I am the designer.

------
Ace17
Shouldn't the title rather be "How the patent system threatens 3D printing" ?

------
logfromblammo
The author may be biased as a _law professor_ from Emory.

It is clear to me, just from the history of the volume printing industry
itself, that patents are now hindering progress rather than promoting it.

Stratasys, the patent-holder for the fused deposition modeling (FDM) method of
volume printing, failed to produce a printer widely accessible to the hobbyist
market. As soon as the patent expired, we got an explosion of open, affordable
devices for that market, with varying levels of required customer expertise
and professional hand-holding services.

I think a similar explosion will occur again when robocasting and laser
sintering are fully liberated.

I think the major damage to patents will not occur because people will ignore
them, but because people will be producing and sharing prior art before the
patents can even be filed. So far, the open source community has been rather
more scrupulous than I would have expected regarding avoidance of patented
technologies.

It's almost as if they see patents as damage, and simply route around them.

------
loup-vaillant
> _One of the greatest innovations of our time may ultimately undermine a key_
> engine _of innovation, the patent system_.

Now, now, didn't the author mean _hindrance_?

In any case, I would _love_ to see patents undermined. Let's just hope we
don't fall into a police state just to enforce corporate monopoly. The world
is close enough to cyberpunk as it is.

~~~
kbob
> _One of the greatest innovations of our time may ultimately undermine a key
> engine of innovation, the patent system._

If the author had led with that sentence instead of closing with it, we could
have immediately identified the article as quackery and moved on.

------
dognotdog
It's odd that a CAD file is made to seem equivalent to the actual physical
object.

A CAD file should, under the current system, be copyrightable, which it is.
However, it is nothing more than a description of an object. A patent is also
a description of an object, with the only difference that the former is
interpreted by computers (or humans with the aid of computers) and the latter
is interpreted by lawyers.

As mentioned in another comment, patents should contain relevant CAD files to
better describe the invention, instead of obfuscated legalese prose that
nobody understands. Patents are supposed to create a legal monopoly for the
price of disclosing the invention. If the inventor does not wish to disclose
details, the invention can remain a trade secret instead, but granting both
secrecy and a monopoly does nothing for innovation.

Clearly, 3D printing makes it easier to replicate physical objects, but as the
patent system's stated objective is to further innovation, maybe it's time to
relax patent licensing instead, as 3D printing giving the ability to tinker
and create to "the masses", and will undoubtedly produce a lot more innovation
than locking down patent law.

~~~
JupiterMoon
> patents should contain relevant CAD files to better describe the invention

Interestingly this could actually provide stronger legal protection for the
patenting person. Under existing copyright law people are unwilling to work on
open source projects that interact with closed source products for which there
has been a source code leak because it is harder to prove that you've never
seen the closed source code.

Currently one can make new CAD file without infringing copyright (patent law
I'm not sure of) but if people published the CAD files with the patent the
patent owner could claim that any files that floated around on the internet
are copyright infringements (and hence crimes an an of themselves).

\--- I am not a lawyer. I'm definitely not your lawyer. If you need legal
advice pay someone that knows what they're talking about.

~~~
dognotdog
Interesting twist, as data itself is not under copyright, but a compilation
may be. Is a CAD file such a compilation, or just data formatting? I'm not
sure.

(However, I do blame The System for this uncertainty. I wish it'd err more
often favouring the copier, instead of the rights holder, if that would make
everything simpler.)

~~~
JupiterMoon
Surely a CAD file is the intellectual property of the person that made it (or
the company that hired them to do so)?

------
upofadown
If someone invents a drill, then you shouldn't be able to get a patent on a
hole of a certain depth. An invention can sometimes make what used to be
invention just a set of arbitrary parameters. Then it isn't an invention
anymore. At that point you shouldn't expect to get a patent. Instead you have
a creative work. We have something for that called copyright.

------
Avernar
"They’re awarded for inventions that are nontrivial advances in the state of
the art."

I stopped reading right there.

~~~
VikingCoder
Why? That's the actual intention of patents. You make it sound like the author
has a fundamental misunderstanding.

While I agree that our current patent office is doing a lousy job protecting
us from the trivial, that is actually the intention.

~~~
yarrel
Since the reality does not reflect the intention we cannot defend the reality
on the basis of the intention.

~~~
VikingCoder
We can debate the intention as one topic, and we can debate improving the
reality to make it closer to the intention as another topic.

An article which discusses the intention - and the implications of that - is
perfectly valid.

~~~
Avernar
Except that with the current reality people are commiting patent infringement
for replicating objects based on obvious and trivial patents. And unlike large
corporations with their war arsenals of patents, the little guy has little
hope of overturning these patents.

------
ideonexus
_Copyright provides a helpful contrast. Digital files themselves infringe.
They are copies of the work._

Is this true? I'm skeptical. I own hundreds of MP3s legitimately bought from
amazon.com without any DRM on them. The existence of these files on my
computer are in no way evidence of any infringement. Only if I were to share
these files online without first securing the right to do so do I infringe. It
is the act, not the file that is illegal.

Luckily, they seem to get this distinction in the following statements:

 _We argue that if someone sells a CAD file that prints a patented item, that
should be considered infringing... But what if someone is not selling the CAD
file? Instead, they just possess it. Should that be infringement, too? We
think not. The patent system encourages others to design around existing
patents, which is often done in a virtual space. If the CAD file itself would
be viewed as infringement, then the system could lose such beneficial
improvement efforts._

First a quibble: very few 3D-printing enthusiasts use CAD, they use STL files
or GCode (the actual code instructions for the printer). The fact that the
author makes no mention of this tells me they haven't really taken the time to
understand the technology they are critiquing.

Secondly, they are painting an incomplete picture here. You are either selling
patented 3D files, which should be illegal, or you are working with them
personally, which should remain legal in the spirit of promoting innovation.
But what about collaboration, which requires sharing these files? 3D Printing
Designers often share their designs in order to solicit feedback. What happens
if I send my design to a someone on 3DHubs to have them print it for me?

Thirdly, how the heck are designers supposed to know what is patented and what
isn't? Have you ever tried to find prior-work on the US Patent Office web
site? Good luck getting the keywords right or sifting through the PDF drawings
to see if someone else had your idea. This isn't at all like copyright
infringement, where you are copying something someone else created. In a world
of obvious ideas, inventing the same thing as someone else is very easy.

I agree with the other comments that predict this is the beginning of a very
ugly lobbying effort, and the only ones who are going to get rich off it are
the lawyers.

~~~
rhino369
>Is this true? I'm skeptical. I own hundreds of MP3s legitimately bought from
amazon.com without any DRM on them. The existence of these files on my
computer are in no way evidence of any infringement. Only if I were to share
these files online without first securing the right to do so do I infringe. It
is the act, not the file that is illegal.

What they mean is that digital files __can __be infringing under the right
circumstance (it 's an unlicensed copy). In contrast to patents, where the
actual product has to exist or the method has to be practiced. A blueprint for
product is not itself infringing. I wouldn't say that a digital file can never
be infringing (because I think it could under limited circumstances when the
claims are claiming a digital file), but if you have a patent on a widget, the
CAD file for that widget isn't infringing.

>Secondly, they are painting an incomplete picture here. You are either
selling patented 3D files, which should be illegal, or you are working with
them personally, which should remain legal in the spirit of promoting
innovation. But what about collaboration, which requires sharing these files?
3D Printing Designers often share their designs in order to solicit feedback.
What happens if I send my design to a someone on 3DHubs to have them print it
for me?

I'm pretty pro-IP, but I think there are good reasons not to call patented 3D
infringing articles. The big reason is reverse engineering.

I think we can handle this issue with the induced and indirect infringement
law already on the books. The article points out that the alleged inducer has
to know about the patent to be found liable. But that is a good thing. The
last thing we need is for patent trolls to go around extorting people. It
would protect people from say, molding specific products (that are marketed
with a valid patent number) because that puts you on notice that there is a
patent covering the product. And if someone is innocently distributing a file
that infringes, then you can send them a letter informing them of the patent
and they'll be forced to stop or risk damages.

------
ScottBurson
Surprised that no one has pointed out that this is nothing new. Software
patents have had exactly this problem from the beginning. All that's changing
is that 3D printing is making physical objects almost as easy to reproduce as
source code.

------
ctdonath
A dramatic example of this concern is (albeit not in the patent space) as 3D
printing et al regards gun control: where guns of certain kinds may be
prohibited, possession of files & equipment which turn raw materials into
copies of such guns are being legally targeted for prohibition. Even now, the
US government aggressively shuts down any website providing such files on
grounds of arms export controls.

Of note: the Solid Concepts M1911
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_Concepts_1911_DMLS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_Concepts_1911_DMLS)
project produced a completely 3D printed metal handgun (barrel included!),
which has of last report held up to firing 5000 rounds. The printer is at this
time hideously expensive, but obviously it's just a matter of time before it
reaches "affordable" to the point that the combination of printer & CAD files
becomes considered a threat in jurisdictions criminalizing
manufacture/sale/possession of such items.

Ergo, the issue extends well beyond just patent infringements.

------
asift
"3D printing threatens our patent system"

Good.

------
shmerl
That dental braces example is bad. If two people came up with the same
invention independent of each other, there shouldn't be any problem with one
sharing it with the rest of the world for free. It's an indication that it's
not unique enough.

The whole article sounds like the usual FUD of IP maximalists who freak out
with every new technology emerging.

------
Floegipoky
I don't understand how people can view such a profound advancement of the
human species as a 'threat'

~~~
delecti
I don't think anyone's arguing that they're a threat to humans, or humanity,
or our health, or anything like that, but here's a good case to be made for 3d
printing having complicated and likely negative effects on the patent system.
Whether you think that's a bad thing is a separate discussion.

~~~
CaptSpify
IMO: It's not a threat to humanity, but it _is_ scary. It's scary because our
entire economic model is based on supply and demand (I'm simplifying, I know
that's not completely true). With things like 3d printers, that model no
longer makes sense because the supply = infinity.

We're entering a post-scarcity society, and I'm super-excited. I hope it comes
sooner rather than later, but there are going to be some significant growing
pains as we re-adjust.

~~~
Fjolsvith
I'd call it the Star Trek society.

------
Animats
I've seen a very similar article before, and it's utter bullshit. Few
mechanical parts are covered by patents. You can't copyright a working part;
the auto industry tried to get that enacted into law and failed. You can make
all the clone auto parts you want, and you'll find many of them for sale at
your local auto parts store.

There's one area in which this is a problem, for small values of "problem" \-
people turning out movie fan merchandise on 3D printers.[1] 3D printers are
good enough to make that stuff, although at a far higher price point than
injection molding.

[1] [http://www.wsj.com/articles/hollywoods-other-piracy-
problem-...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/hollywoods-other-piracy-
problem-3-d-printers-1437420799)

------
avmich
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/01/13/copyright...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/01/13/copyright_law_shouldn_t_keep_me_from_fixing_a_tractor.html)

"I’m a repairman. I recognize broken things when I see them. I got into this
fight because I wanted to help people repair their broken stuff. Turns out,
copyright law is the thing that was broken all along."

The problem is, as perceived by me and some others, that the patent system
isn't functioning as intended.

It needs to get fixed. Part of that could probably be reducing the
restrictions on individual manufacturing, even though, taken as a mass event,
that defeats the forbidding power of patents. Other parts could be decreasing
the time period for patent enforcement, adding requirements for patent holders
- to, e.g., diminish problems with "patent trolls". Yet another could be
admitting that patents in different areas work differently - a software patent
(which today doesn't really justify its existence) is a very different thing
than a pharmaceutical patent.

------
CodeCube
omg ... I thought for sure I was reading a piece of parody that applies the
tragedy of the copyright wars/file sharing to patents/3d printing.

------
gene-h
Of course, the author seems to be ignoring the fact that 3d printers can't
make everything and will not for the foreseeable future. Not to mention, the
issue with some of the 3d printing processes themselves being patented.

------
bradfa
Their description of how people could use 3d printers talks a lot about
"sharing" of CAD files but their enforcement conclusion talks about "selling"
of CAD files. Sharing and selling are very different, selling is very easy to
track while sharing (as shown by things like enforcement of bittorrent
copyright infringement enforcement) is a bit harder.

I could easily see that selling a CAD file which infringes on a patent could
be enforceable. In theory, also sharing of a CAD file which infringes could be
enforceable but it would be much harder to do so as there's much less of a
paper trail.

------
mizzao
Having tried a few 3D scanners, they typically give very noisy digital
reproductions of a particular object, usually one side is missing. Moreover,
3D printers are very limited in terms of the strength and material of objects.

Given that most objects of interest to duplication aren't just one solid chunk
of a weak material, but usually consist of many parts created during the
manufacturing process, this seems like a pretty trivial risk at the moment.

------
FussyZeus
If the question is: How can patents protect things when things are now digital
files, wouldn't the answer be that things would then fall under the laws
governing intellectual property? Instead of patenting your invention you'd
register the CAD files or whatever the same as musicians do when they create
music.

------
dawnbreez
Is this what was said about the tools we use now to machine metal for use in
thousands of products?

~~~
JupiterMoon
It was certainly said about the printing press.

------
scotty79
> We argue that if someone sells a CAD file that prints a patented item, that
> should be considered infringing.

Wait, what? Are patents copyrighted too?

~~~
Floegipoky
That's an interesting point. If you think about it, the CAD file in question
would really just be the patent itself translated to a standardized form,
since all patents are supposed to contain _cough_ clear steps to reproduce the
invention.

------
mrfusion
When are mass market 3D printers coming anyway? I feel like we've been
promised them for the years now.

~~~
tedd4u
Check out the MOD-t from New Matter. $399 US. Prints PLA at good resolution,
web-based UI, online object store.

[https://www.newmatter.com/#!/our-product](https://www.newmatter.com/#!/our-
product)

~~~
mrfusion
That's pretty cool. What's the cost of operation? Are there any good reviews?

------
xcasex
tldr; Good.

------
nihilnegativum
Good.

