4 ms·

I wonder how this'll play out longer term. I'm betting the company who designed/manufactures the ones they're copying isn't super happy about the implications f

I wonder how this'll play out longer term. I'm betting the company who designed/manufactures the ones they're copying isn't super happy about the implications for this... I wonder if there ought to be a 3D printed copyright license scheme kind of like the one that exists for music (APRA here in .au) where you can pay for a blanket licence to print copyrighted designs, and the licensing organisation redistributes copyright payments based on usage, so you don't need to ask for specific permission for each use?

ISL 7y ago
I'm betting the company is really happy that their clients have been able to keep patients alive.
- bigiain 7y ago
  So it turns out... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200317/04381644114/volunteers-3d-print-unobtainable-11000-valve-1-to-keep-covid-19-patients-alive-original-manufacturer-threatens-to-sue.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200317/04381644114/volun... They sell them for $11,000 each, and threatened to sue the guy 3d printing them for a dollar a piece... :sigh:
squarefoot 7y ago
In an emergency situation like this one, the patent owner company wouldn't risk a huge PR loss by suing or even complaining, but when the crisis will be over they might decide to act. However, if those valves are reverse engineered, copied and given away without selling them, there would be no profit. That should fall into fair use.
- bigiain 7y ago
  > That should fall into fair use. I think there's something 100% valid in what you're suggesting, but it seems there's a fair bit of confusion here. "Fair use" is a copyright thing, not a patent thing. I don't actually know if a widget (whether patented, patent expired, or never-patented) is covered by copyright - and even if it is, at least from what I know about copyright in music/literature, "fair use" wouldn't allow for making 100% complete working copies. "not for profit" doesn't fly as a defence against either copyright or patent infringement in other areas, I suspect it wouldn't here either. I'm reasonably sure if the "owner" of these valves started making noises about overly onerous enforcement of any patent/copyright that applies, and sane government would step in and declare some emergency-use legal exception for cases like this. I wonder if the "owner" could make some obvious olive-branch offer along the lines of: "Hey, that's our widget you're printing, but we totally understand that for the duration we were unable to get our version into your hands for reasons outside both our and your control. Normally we earn $x per widget when you source them through the usual channels, we are happy to waive that for the duration of the supply chain disruption, but ask that once things are back to normal, you continue to support the research and development that goes into those and other life saving products we make, and start buying from the usual supply chain, or paying our regular royalty on locally printed versions. Thanks, WidgetCompany"
  - _-___________-_ 7y ago
    Wouldn't the owner have to show damages though? If they couldn't supply the widgets anyway, then what were the damages?
    - squarefoot 7y ago
      Ask this to record companies claiming losses for imaginary sales.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Fair use is not a legal concept in most jurisdictions.
- bigiain 7y ago
  > the patent owner company wouldn't risk a huge PR loss by suing or even complaining, Yeah. About that... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200317/04381644114/volunteers-3d-print-unobtainable-11000-valve-1-to-keep-covid-19-patients-alive-original-manufacturer-threatens-to-sue.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200317/04381644114/volun...
s0rce 7y ago
Is this actually a patent infringement if they aren't selling the patented design? If I get some parts, maybe for my car, 3D printed and give them away is that illegal?
- bigiain 7y ago
  I don't know the proper legal answer to that, but you'd lose that argument in front of a judge if you gave away a locally printed copy of someone's music or writing. I wonder more about copyright here than patent infringement. I suspect Elon would lawyer-slam you pretty hard if you were 3d printing and giving away essential Tesla repair parts, no matter whether you were making money from it or not.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    There is an enormous non-OEM (“aftermarket”) parts market for automobiles. It’s a little over $300 billion (with a B) per year in parts and service. Elon can pound sand if someone wants to make a Tesla-compatible aftermarket fender or brake pads.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- pvaldes 7y ago
  Would fit in anticounterfeiting laws so, probably illegal, specially if the pieces aren't clearly marked as different from the original brand, and much more specially if they are designed for replacing the originals in public health purposes.
  - 1996 7y ago
    I want to see which jury will convict them for counterfeiting!
    - pvaldes 7y ago
zozbot234 7y ago
IP restrictions have gotten seriously out of hand anyway; academia and the public sector should be working on making "open" versions and know-how about basic essentials like this widely available. There's no excuse for keeping these designs under wraps like that, when for many of them the "basic" version is old enough that any patent rights on the underlying idea have long since expired.
ClumsyPilot 7y ago
IP rights can be suspended in a crisis, additionally the law of necessity might apply - you can generally break a law - such a breaking and entering, in a matter of life a death, for example saving a child out of a burning house.
- bigiain 7y ago
  Oh sure. I'm not for a minute suggesting that printing these and saving people's lives isn;'t 100% the correct and obvious thing to do here. I do wonder what will happen down the track, when the manufacturers/copyright-owner/patent-owner or whatever starts asking about whether or how they should have been paid their cut on these.
kragen 7y ago
In general copyright doesn't cover designs for machine parts, except insofar as they have an expressive rather than functional character, in which case they can be copyrighted as sculptural works. But you can still make replacement parts that copy their functional aspects. If you want a monopoly on copying a machine part, you need to apply for a patent, not a copyright. Among other differences, the patent only lasts 20 years, and doesn't exist automatically but must be granted explicitly after a long litigation process — the vast majority of machine parts are not patented.
- bigiain 7y ago
  Thanks!

ISL 7y ago

I'm betting the company is really happy that their clients have been able to keep patients alive.

bigiain 7y ago
So it turns out... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200317/04381644114/volunteers-3d-print-unobtainable-11000-valve-1-to-keep-covid-19-patients-alive-original-manufacturer-threatens-to-sue.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200317/04381644114/volun... They sell them for $11,000 each, and threatened to sue the guy 3d printing them for a dollar a piece... :sigh:

squarefoot 7y ago

In an emergency situation like this one, the patent owner company wouldn't risk a huge PR loss by suing or even complaining, but when the crisis will be over they might decide to act. However, if those valves are reverse engineered, copied and given away without selling them, there would be no profit. That should fall into fair use.

bigiain 7y ago
> That should fall into fair use. I think there's something 100% valid in what you're suggesting, but it seems there's a fair bit of confusion here. "Fair use" is a copyright thing, not a patent thing. I don't actually know if a widget (whether patented, patent expired, or never-patented) is covered by copyright - and even if it is, at least from what I know about copyright in music/literature, "fair use" wouldn't allow for making 100% complete working copies. "not for profit" doesn't fly as a defence against either copyright or patent infringement in other areas, I suspect it wouldn't here either. I'm reasonably sure if the "owner" of these valves started making noises about overly onerous enforcement of any patent/copyright that applies, and sane government would step in and declare some emergency-use legal exception for cases like this. I wonder if the "owner" could make some obvious olive-branch offer along the lines of: "Hey, that's our widget you're printing, but we totally understand that for the duration we were unable to get our version into your hands for reasons outside both our and your control. Normally we earn $x per widget when you source them through the usual channels, we are happy to waive that for the duration of the supply chain disruption, but ask that once things are back to normal, you continue to support the research and development that goes into those and other life saving products we make, and start buying from the usual supply chain, or paying our regular royalty on locally printed versions. Thanks, WidgetCompany"
- _-___________-_ 7y ago
  Wouldn't the owner have to show damages though? If they couldn't supply the widgets anyway, then what were the damages?
  - squarefoot 7y ago
    Ask this to record companies claiming losses for imaginary sales.
adrianN 7y ago
Fair use is not a legal concept in most jurisdictions.
bigiain 7y ago
> the patent owner company wouldn't risk a huge PR loss by suing or even complaining, Yeah. About that... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200317/04381644114/volunteers-3d-print-unobtainable-11000-valve-1-to-keep-covid-19-patients-alive-original-manufacturer-threatens-to-sue.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200317/04381644114/volun...

s0rce 7y ago

Is this actually a patent infringement if they aren't selling the patented design? If I get some parts, maybe for my car, 3D printed and give them away is that illegal?

bigiain 7y ago
I don't know the proper legal answer to that, but you'd lose that argument in front of a judge if you gave away a locally printed copy of someone's music or writing. I wonder more about copyright here than patent infringement. I suspect Elon would lawyer-slam you pretty hard if you were 3d printing and giving away essential Tesla repair parts, no matter whether you were making money from it or not.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  There is an enormous non-OEM (“aftermarket”) parts market for automobiles. It’s a little over $300 billion (with a B) per year in parts and service. Elon can pound sand if someone wants to make a Tesla-compatible aftermarket fender or brake pads.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
pvaldes 7y ago
Would fit in anticounterfeiting laws so, probably illegal, specially if the pieces aren't clearly marked as different from the original brand, and much more specially if they are designed for replacing the originals in public health purposes.
- 1996 7y ago
  I want to see which jury will convict them for counterfeiting!
  - pvaldes 7y ago

zozbot234 7y ago

IP restrictions have gotten seriously out of hand anyway; academia and the public sector should be working on making "open" versions and know-how about basic essentials like this widely available. There's no excuse for keeping these designs under wraps like that, when for many of them the "basic" version is old enough that any patent rights on the underlying idea have long since expired.

ClumsyPilot 7y ago

IP rights can be suspended in a crisis, additionally the law of necessity might apply - you can generally break a law - such a breaking and entering, in a matter of life a death, for example saving a child out of a burning house.

bigiain 7y ago
Oh sure. I'm not for a minute suggesting that printing these and saving people's lives isn;'t 100% the correct and obvious thing to do here. I do wonder what will happen down the track, when the manufacturers/copyright-owner/patent-owner or whatever starts asking about whether or how they should have been paid their cut on these.

kragen 7y ago

In general copyright doesn't cover designs for machine parts, except insofar as they have an expressive rather than functional character, in which case they can be copyrighted as sculptural works. But you can still make replacement parts that copy their functional aspects. If you want a monopoly on copying a machine part, you need to apply for a patent, not a copyright. Among other differences, the patent only lasts 20 years, and doesn't exist automatically but must be granted explicitly after a long litigation process — the vast majority of machine parts are not patented.

bigiain 7y ago
Thanks!