There have been countless advancements in the sciences when people have been forced to work around existing IP and have uncovered hidden benefits when working through the actual implementation.
It is a hidden benefit of the western system of IP that China et al. have not yet caught on to.
Having said all that "with a laser diode" is categorically different than "with a computer". In the latter case, you can do any general purpose computation you like. So if you have a machine driven by a computer, you should not be able to patent it if you would not ordinarily be able to patent the machine. In other words, the driving of the machine by a computer should not be patentable, IMHO. Of course it gets complicated as you add more and more machinery to the machine -- should "computer driving a car be patentable"? Probably it should as it is not just software, even though it requires software. I think it's tricky.
If a laser diode allows you to do things you wouldn't otherwise be able to do and that use of the diode is not obvious, then it probably should be patentable. However, generally if "machine with a laser" is not patentable, then "machine with a laser diode" should also not be patentable. There's got to be something special and non-obvious about the use of the laser diode.
Personally, I'd take the "have dirt-cheap home SLA printers ten years earlier" option, thank you.
Oh China has caught on. When they see some new IP they want, they acquire it or steal it. Why bother with all those silly rules the West thinks are so important.
More data is here https://cdn.hackaday.io/files/21933938381472/21measurements.... pixel 4.65 microns. You can use opencv to do the trick. I added a little script in this one.
It uses the phrase ”digital light processing/digital micromirror device”.
I don’t know how that slash should be interpreted. If it’s “aka”, the patent doesn’t cover using prisms.
I wouldn’t bet on that, though, noting that the patent is careful to avoid the term “light”, using the broader “electromagnetic radiation” instead.
1) X has not to pay anything to conceptualize his innovation.
2) X can make a nested patent.
3) a user of the innovation of x must pay a royaltie (why is that an issue?) to Y.
If X made a nested patent, the user must pay X and Y.
Is this right?
BTW who fixe the amount of royalties?
Nobody's going to buy the $100 item if it provides $15 amount of value, and nobody's going to make it for $15 if $9 of it is going to licensing.
That'd stop patent trolls and silly patent holdings dead. You don't use it, you can't charge others.
If someone starts using it, you would charge a percentage royalty.
The price of resin isn't directly comparable to the price of plastic used for FDM printing because one can print most models nearly hollow with FDM in an automated way (e.g. with honeybomb-like infill patterns), but I'm not aware of doing the same thing with resin with ease now, making the resin prints 10X the price of PLA ones.
Better software would disrupt that tech though.
That's indeed what I was talking about. It's a manual process to my knowledge.
And then you end up with a shell, which is not as strong.
To my knowledge, you can't really have this with resin:
Please correct me if I'm wrong :)
Does this mean the linked article is a TPS report?
Don't sweat it. I would guess that the name will amplify the amount of media attention it gets.
In addition, there are some potential disadvantages to prism scanning. Prism scanning can only do raster scans, we can't define the outline of a part in vector mode. Although I will admit that this may not be as much of a problem if we can control the brightness of our laser. In addition, in stereolithography it is advantageous to carry out raster scans perpendicular to each other, this is because the photopolymer contracts as it cures and scanning in both directions helps make this contraction uniform.
* * *
Inre #1–2, Is anyone selling custom parts produced on that Carbon3D printer? That is, someone that ingests a shapefile (or whatever) and mails back a part printed on one of these machines?
In the EU.. you destroy immediately.. there is no grace period.
You’ll likely want a lawyer, etc to make sure that it is properly protected, especially now that the US is “first to file” not “first to invent”. (I’m not a lawyer, you might be fine already...)
To get to the desired ~80x80cm PCB size and the accuracy needed, we had to achieve super high throughput and super low timing jitter on the UV-LEDs. Very interesting technology, unfortunately we took too long to get a smaller scale proto working and funding was cut right after we delivered that proto :-(. Calibrating the whole machine from scratch was clever too.
Learned a lot there.
In Dutch unfortunately.
Looking at OP's article, it could very well be that we had licensed some of the tech of the Rik Starmans mentioned int he article.
I know it's used quite a bit for custom tooling as well. Think special tools needed on an assembly line in automotive where pausing the assembly is very expensive or lead times for some custom tool to grab a wheel while working on it and whatnot are expensive.
I think one of the biggest success stories is cutsom made hearing aids. Return rate a lot lower, easier to iterate and produce the perfect fit etc.
Another example (maybe a bit more high end) is turning some item that is made out of many parts into a single item both for cost saving and other reasons. Iirc NASA uses ultrasonic welding (which is 3d printing of sorts) for this.
Neat use cases though, and certainly makes some sense. I guess I would've expected precision cnc to be faster/better for such cases though, unless you absolutely need the impossible to create voids
What possible recourse would the original "continuous printing" patent holder have now that this prismatic design has been open sourced, rather than used in a commercial application?