4 ms·

But would the innovation that led to the creation of 3D printers have taken place if patent law didn't exist? And since the open source movement is based entire

by Cyph0n 10y ago

But would the innovation that led to the creation of 3D printers have taken place if patent law didn't exist? And since the open source movement is based entirely on those patents (as I understand), would cheap 3D printers exist if the 1980s tech was never developed? I think these are the questions you should be thinking about when arguing against IP protection laws. Edit: One thing you failed to mention is that the technology available after the patents expired was orders of magnitude more advanced than what was available in the 1980s. For this reason, it's simply a no-brainer that the cost went from $30k down to $1k. Then there's the whole "maker" movement that happened to coincide with the development of 3D printers which meant that 3D printers had a decently sized potential market. Go back 5-10 years and people didn't even know what the hell a 3D printer was! So it's only natural that the original inventors didn't invest more in optimizing the design and making it cheaper.

csydas 10y ago
Well you don't even need to look just at commercially available products - just look at the FOSS landscape for what gets produced when there is no financial incentive or IP law to protect the material - certainly we would be in a much different place technology wise if we didn't have FOSS as the backbone for a grand majority of technology that exist on the market today, and all of that FOSS was created without the financial incentive or the IP law to protect it. The existing IP structure can be a useful tool and motivator for people, but it also adds in an extra requirement to all software it touches, whether the designers and coders are conscious of it or not - suddenly, there is a requirement that it make profit on top of what it actually is supposed to do. There's nothing wrong with making money - I'm not here to make a Stallmanistic rant about F/OSS. But this type of structure isn't necessary for great leaps in technology. In the past it was useful because that's how access to the development funds were locked up - you had to play under someone else's banner and their rules to bring you idea to the forefront. Software was different because you didn't need a factory to produce it, and while you still need the factory, you don't need any one particular factory anymore to do the production. Innovation can and does happen just fine without patent laws or financial incentive.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  It's a great point. I'll add that even big companies and government that push for patents use tons of FOSS software because it's better for them. Says a lot, eh? ;)
  - Scea91 10y ago
    As long as they are not violating the licenses I see no problem with that.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      It depends on your moral system. Lets say it's Mirosoft pushing a server OS, Windows, saying it's better than UNIX's in every way. Definately worth the money. Then we find their Hotmail service runs on FreeBSD for better reliability & performance. I'd say what they tell customers about Windows Server was fraudulent in that situation and they need to get off FreeBSD if they really believe what they preach. Something along these lines for companies pushing proprietary software and patent suits as good for innovation/productivity while using non-patented FOSS for own innovative or productive projects. It's dishonest. Although, I recall the Hotmail incident actually happening and they had to switch over lol. Same when people found out Microsoft ran on one AS/400.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  I'm not talking about software specifically. In general, I support IP protection for industries where significant up-front investment is required for an innovation to come to fruition.
TaylorAlexander 10y ago
I am referring to commercial 3D printers which were $30k in 2010, compared to off the shelf printers sold today for $200. The cost of a microprocessor board of sufficient capability hasn't particularly changed between now and then.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
Definitely. Someone else here pointed out all the greatest innovations in CompSci came during 1960-1980's when patent suits were much lower. Mostly government or corporate R&D just pushing the envelope. There's ways to do good hardware-level security I can't touch because the patent creates too much leverage on me. And many vague patents by "Non-Practicing Entities" who didn't build crap cover the same area. I could be hit with who knows how many suits. And looking at them triples the damages so I don't. Only reason I know about those is I accidentally found them googling CompSci papers. You can bet companied and Universities will still invent stuff if there aren't patents. The companies will do it or acquire it for competitive advantage. The Universities for prestige, investments from companies, creating talented workforce, and so on. Im for software patents, esp on INFOSEC, to be banned entirely as I see no negative impact on high-impact projects.
zanny 10y ago
There are two research incentives. The incentive of potential profit, and the incentive of wanting an end product. People would have wanted, and invested in, the development of 3D printers for just the personal desire part. This is how the most valuable R&D works right now - the vast majority of cancer and major life debilitating disease research is being done not by big pharma (who are instead just researching more dick enlargement pills and modified recipes of the same drugs on the market today they can re-patent for 20 years and bribe off doctors to prescribe exclusively by name because they are the most reliable payoffs for their investments) but by university and state level research institution and non-profits dedicated to their research. The unsettling truth is that truly revolutionary research does not often come out of profit driven R&D labs. Those organizations are arranged to minimize the risk of research, which also dramatically cuts its potential yields by only targeting predictable results that can quickly be turned into government-granted monopoly profits. Its exploitation of a flawed system that takes talent that could be going towards truly innovative R&D that would almost certainly offset at least what would be lost in cutting these (predominantly) leeches out of the industry.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  Believe it or not, the ideal you are talking about doesn't really exist anymore unfortunately. Even university research nowadays is primarily funded by external sources (government and industry). The more affluent universities have internal funding setup which is typically quite competitive and needs some sort of deliverable anyways. Case in point: the most desirable skill in a university professor is figuring out how to convince others to fund your work, while also giving them something in return. The exception of course is government. NSF and similar government programs are the only funding sources for pure basic research as far as I know.
makomk 10y ago
The current wave of 3D printers are not based entirely on those patents. They use the same basic principle of extruding plastic filament in layers, but as I understand it the details of how to do this effectively were re-engineered by the RepRap project through years of careful experiments. One of the major tricks used to save material cost and printing time - adjustable density infill - is, as far as I know, entirely unique to the RepRap project and the wave of printers building on its work. I think the use of PLA for 3D printing might be solely their doing too.

by Cyph0n 10y ago

csydas 10y ago

Well you don't even need to look just at commercially available products - just look at the FOSS landscape for what gets produced when there is no financial incentive or IP law to protect the material - certainly we would be in a much different place technology wise if we didn't have FOSS as the backbone for a grand majority of technology that exist on the market today, and all of that FOSS was created without the financial incentive or the IP law to protect it. The existing IP structure can be a useful tool and motivator for people, but it also adds in an extra requirement to all software it touches, whether the designers and coders are conscious of it or not - suddenly, there is a requirement that it make profit on top of what it actually is supposed to do. There's nothing wrong with making money - I'm not here to make a Stallmanistic rant about F/OSS. But this type of structure isn't necessary for great leaps in technology. In the past it was useful because that's how access to the development funds were locked up - you had to play under someone else's banner and their rules to bring you idea to the forefront. Software was different because you didn't need a factory to produce it, and while you still need the factory, you don't need any one particular factory anymore to do the production. Innovation can and does happen just fine without patent laws or financial incentive.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
It's a great point. I'll add that even big companies and government that push for patents use tons of FOSS software because it's better for them. Says a lot, eh? ;)
- Scea91 10y ago
  As long as they are not violating the licenses I see no problem with that.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    It depends on your moral system. Lets say it's Mirosoft pushing a server OS, Windows, saying it's better than UNIX's in every way. Definately worth the money. Then we find their Hotmail service runs on FreeBSD for better reliability & performance. I'd say what they tell customers about Windows Server was fraudulent in that situation and they need to get off FreeBSD if they really believe what they preach. Something along these lines for companies pushing proprietary software and patent suits as good for innovation/productivity while using non-patented FOSS for own innovative or productive projects. It's dishonest. Although, I recall the Hotmail incident actually happening and they had to switch over lol. Same when people found out Microsoft ran on one AS/400.
Cyph0n 10y ago
I'm not talking about software specifically. In general, I support IP protection for industries where significant up-front investment is required for an innovation to come to fruition.

TaylorAlexander 10y ago

I am referring to commercial 3D printers which were $30k in 2010, compared to off the shelf printers sold today for $200. The cost of a microprocessor board of sufficient capability hasn't particularly changed between now and then.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

Definitely. Someone else here pointed out all the greatest innovations in CompSci came during 1960-1980's when patent suits were much lower. Mostly government or corporate R&D just pushing the envelope. There's ways to do good hardware-level security I can't touch because the patent creates too much leverage on me. And many vague patents by "Non-Practicing Entities" who didn't build crap cover the same area. I could be hit with who knows how many suits. And looking at them triples the damages so I don't. Only reason I know about those is I accidentally found them googling CompSci papers. You can bet companied and Universities will still invent stuff if there aren't patents. The companies will do it or acquire it for competitive advantage. The Universities for prestige, investments from companies, creating talented workforce, and so on. Im for software patents, esp on INFOSEC, to be banned entirely as I see no negative impact on high-impact projects.

zanny 10y ago

There are two research incentives. The incentive of potential profit, and the incentive of wanting an end product. People would have wanted, and invested in, the development of 3D printers for just the personal desire part. This is how the most valuable R&D works right now - the vast majority of cancer and major life debilitating disease research is being done not by big pharma (who are instead just researching more dick enlargement pills and modified recipes of the same drugs on the market today they can re-patent for 20 years and bribe off doctors to prescribe exclusively by name because they are the most reliable payoffs for their investments) but by university and state level research institution and non-profits dedicated to their research. The unsettling truth is that truly revolutionary research does not often come out of profit driven R&D labs. Those organizations are arranged to minimize the risk of research, which also dramatically cuts its potential yields by only targeting predictable results that can quickly be turned into government-granted monopoly profits. Its exploitation of a flawed system that takes talent that could be going towards truly innovative R&D that would almost certainly offset at least what would be lost in cutting these (predominantly) leeches out of the industry.

Cyph0n 10y ago
Believe it or not, the ideal you are talking about doesn't really exist anymore unfortunately. Even university research nowadays is primarily funded by external sources (government and industry). The more affluent universities have internal funding setup which is typically quite competitive and needs some sort of deliverable anyways. Case in point: the most desirable skill in a university professor is figuring out how to convince others to fund your work, while also giving them something in return. The exception of course is government. NSF and similar government programs are the only funding sources for pure basic research as far as I know.

makomk 10y ago

The current wave of 3D printers are not based entirely on those patents. They use the same basic principle of extruding plastic filament in layers, but as I understand it the details of how to do this effectively were re-engineered by the RepRap project through years of careful experiments. One of the major tricks used to save material cost and printing time - adjustable density infill - is, as far as I know, entirely unique to the RepRap project and the wave of printers building on its work. I think the use of PLA for 3D printing might be solely their doing too.