5 ms·

> patent law was incredibly counterproductive in the case of 3D printing. I don't work in the 3d printing industry so I don't have enough knowledge to know tha

> patent law was incredibly counterproductive in the case of 3D printing. I don't work in the 3d printing industry so I don't have enough knowledge to know that with any level of confidence. It sounds plausible but not sure if it is true. That's why, I am curious whether you do, ie: do you work in the 3d printing industry? How confident are you that the recent proliferation was due to an expiration of a counterproductive patent (which one?) rather than just technologies, volume, demand, industrial production finally coming together and becoming mass market? Has there been any actual detailed analysis or study proving this? The reason I ask is not because I am opposed to the claim, rather I often see unsubstantiated claims like this go unchallenged for a long time. In the case of E Ink, I even saw someone blog that statement and they cited an HN comment about E Ink patents that I had challenged and the poster never responded, and then someone cited that very blog post in another HN comments so it became a circle of references where all the dots on the circle are unsubstantiated.

monocasa 6y ago
The lynch pin FDM patent was 5,121,329 which expired in 2009; there were similar later patents in the space around SLA printing that expired in the five years following that. There's been plenty of analysis both from industry and academia that it was indeed holding back the proliferation of 3D printing technology. Being in a adjacent field of other robotic control that utilized 3d printing for our own prototyping before and after the proliferation I can also confirm the patent licensing being a major impediment to proliferation of the technology. We had high enough margins that we could spend $100k on a 3d printer before 2009. But the field has been revolutionized since then from the democratization and even our own processes changed heavily once we could have a bank of printers rather than just one. Sort of like the change of a a company sharing a mainframe with a guy dedicated to keeping it going versus ubiquitous microcomputers.
Miraste 6y ago
I'm not in the industry, just a hobbyist, but this is well established. There are dozens of companies making printers, filament, models, tutorials, software, and innovations that legally couldn't exist while this patent was active. Universities, makerspaces, and small to medium sized businesses (and hobbyists) didn't have access to the tech because of it. Here is the patent in question: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5121329A/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US5121329A/en And here's a short explanation of the impact: https://creax.com/insights/the-influence-of-patents-on-3d-printing-evolution/ https://creax.com/insights/the-influence-of-patents-on-3d-pr...
- robinsoh 5y ago
  > And here's a short explanation of the impact: https://creax.com/insights/the-influence-of-patents-on-3d-pr https://creax.com/insights/the-influence-of-patents-on-3d-pr... I read the article and came away unsatisfied. I was hoping to see a clear analysis like "here's an inventor who was blocked from producing his product by a patent infringement lawsuit" and here's a series of patent infringement lawsuits that blocked inventors from innovating. Instead I felt the main points were broken due to contradictory statements in the article. They started with: "Commercialising these kits was actually an infringement on Stratasys’ patent but Stratasys did not stop this from happening." Which contradicts: "Everything changed by the end of 2009, the expiration date of the famous Stratasys’ patent after 20 years." I see that Reprap was commercialized in 2006 prior to the patent expiring which clearly contradicts above as well. There's limited factual data in this article. Claims like "Everything changed" seem like strong claims that ought to be substantiated rather than defended using "feels right" kind of explanations.
  - Miraste 5y ago
    I don't think the level of proof you're looking for exists. There weren't any lawsuits because nobody started companies because they knew they'd be sued out of existence. I can tell you that Stratasys was aware of and leaning on the (open-source, non-commercialized) RepRap project at the time: https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,13528 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,13528 and that they're more than willing to sue small companies, even after their main patents expired: https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/stratasys-lands-blow-in-afinia-3d-printing-lawsuit-50977/ https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/stratasys-lands-blow-in-... They eventually settled that suit because the patents involved were a bit weak, but I doubt they would've settled if the earlier ones were still in force. I don't know where you saw that RepRap was commercialized in 2006 but as far as I know that's not true. Here's a history of the project by its creators which puts the first RepRap-based company in 2009: https://all3dp.com/history-of-the-reprap-project/ https://all3dp.com/history-of-the-reprap-project/ You could probably buy pieces on forums before that but Stratasys wouldn't target individual forum posters with runs in the single digits. Makerbot, Prusa, Creality, FormLabs, and the other big names in small-scale 3d printing are all post-2009 companies. Here are some more recent examples of patents blocking 3d printing: https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/15/how-expiring-patents-are-ushering-in-the-next-generation-of-3d-printing/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/15/how-expiring-patents-are-u... The SLA (liquid) section is the most relevant; it mentions how FormLabs lost a lawsuit for building one early. Other companies didn't attempt to beat the patent, but Prusa, Creality, and Makerbot (ironically now owned by Stratasys) all began selling SLA printers shortly after the patent expired. I don't have statements from the executives that they waited because of patent issues, but barring that the situation seems clear.
fortran77 6y ago
Exactly. I have two low-cost (Prusa) 3d printers going in my office lab right now. It wasn't until recently that technology, software, and infrastructure for filament and SLA supplies lined up to allow the current "explosion". In the early days, Stratasys and others really did "invent" significant things in the classic sense of the word. We're not talking about "one click purchase" patents here. Allowing them exclusive use of their invention for a couple of decades didn't seem to hurt anyone.
- Miraste 6y ago
  Cheap SLA printers couldn't have happened until recently because of the screens, but there's nothing in FDM printers that wasn't available in the 90s. Sure it didn't "hurt anyone," people don't need 3D printers, but it stopped a whole subfield of engineering from existing for twenty years. Personally I call that detrimental. At least it's not as bad as the other IP protections. If the lawyers who brought us copyright law had gotten into patents, we'd be eagerly anticipating the launch of the consumer television.
  - fortran77 5y ago
    Nothing? What about the cheap and powerful single board controllers?
    - Miraste 5y ago
      You'd think so, and some printers like the Prusa Mini use newer 32-bit controllers, but a lot of the most popular models (other Prusas, most Creality models, etc.) use the ATmega 2560, which is an 8 bit controller that came out in 2006 and isn't much different from what was available in the late 90s. They didn't exist in 1989, but they weren't far off.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        Oh, we for sure had 8 bit microcontroller chips in 1989. A quick look back through old editions of Radio Electronics looks like you could buy an 8039[0] in 1989 for $1.95 qty 1. PICs were pretty nice back then too. [0] - An 8039 is a version of the 8048 that was in the original PC keyboard, but rigged up with an external EEPROM for program code instead of the normal mask ROM. They were probably secretly 8048s that were programmed with some other customer's code in the mask ROM, but then fused off for whatever reason.

monocasa 6y ago

The lynch pin FDM patent was 5,121,329 which expired in 2009; there were similar later patents in the space around SLA printing that expired in the five years following that. There's been plenty of analysis both from industry and academia that it was indeed holding back the proliferation of 3D printing technology. Being in a adjacent field of other robotic control that utilized 3d printing for our own prototyping before and after the proliferation I can also confirm the patent licensing being a major impediment to proliferation of the technology. We had high enough margins that we could spend $100k on a 3d printer before 2009. But the field has been revolutionized since then from the democratization and even our own processes changed heavily once we could have a bank of printers rather than just one. Sort of like the change of a a company sharing a mainframe with a guy dedicated to keeping it going versus ubiquitous microcomputers.

Miraste 6y ago

I'm not in the industry, just a hobbyist, but this is well established. There are dozens of companies making printers, filament, models, tutorials, software, and innovations that legally couldn't exist while this patent was active. Universities, makerspaces, and small to medium sized businesses (and hobbyists) didn't have access to the tech because of it. Here is the patent in question: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5121329A/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US5121329A/en And here's a short explanation of the impact: https://creax.com/insights/the-influence-of-patents-on-3d-printing-evolution/ https://creax.com/insights/the-influence-of-patents-on-3d-pr...

robinsoh 5y ago
> And here's a short explanation of the impact: https://creax.com/insights/the-influence-of-patents-on-3d-pr https://creax.com/insights/the-influence-of-patents-on-3d-pr... I read the article and came away unsatisfied. I was hoping to see a clear analysis like "here's an inventor who was blocked from producing his product by a patent infringement lawsuit" and here's a series of patent infringement lawsuits that blocked inventors from innovating. Instead I felt the main points were broken due to contradictory statements in the article. They started with: "Commercialising these kits was actually an infringement on Stratasys’ patent but Stratasys did not stop this from happening." Which contradicts: "Everything changed by the end of 2009, the expiration date of the famous Stratasys’ patent after 20 years." I see that Reprap was commercialized in 2006 prior to the patent expiring which clearly contradicts above as well. There's limited factual data in this article. Claims like "Everything changed" seem like strong claims that ought to be substantiated rather than defended using "feels right" kind of explanations.
- Miraste 5y ago
  I don't think the level of proof you're looking for exists. There weren't any lawsuits because nobody started companies because they knew they'd be sued out of existence. I can tell you that Stratasys was aware of and leaning on the (open-source, non-commercialized) RepRap project at the time: https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,13528 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,13528 and that they're more than willing to sue small companies, even after their main patents expired: https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/stratasys-lands-blow-in-afinia-3d-printing-lawsuit-50977/ https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/stratasys-lands-blow-in-... They eventually settled that suit because the patents involved were a bit weak, but I doubt they would've settled if the earlier ones were still in force. I don't know where you saw that RepRap was commercialized in 2006 but as far as I know that's not true. Here's a history of the project by its creators which puts the first RepRap-based company in 2009: https://all3dp.com/history-of-the-reprap-project/ https://all3dp.com/history-of-the-reprap-project/ You could probably buy pieces on forums before that but Stratasys wouldn't target individual forum posters with runs in the single digits. Makerbot, Prusa, Creality, FormLabs, and the other big names in small-scale 3d printing are all post-2009 companies. Here are some more recent examples of patents blocking 3d printing: https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/15/how-expiring-patents-are-ushering-in-the-next-generation-of-3d-printing/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/15/how-expiring-patents-are-u... The SLA (liquid) section is the most relevant; it mentions how FormLabs lost a lawsuit for building one early. Other companies didn't attempt to beat the patent, but Prusa, Creality, and Makerbot (ironically now owned by Stratasys) all began selling SLA printers shortly after the patent expired. I don't have statements from the executives that they waited because of patent issues, but barring that the situation seems clear.

fortran77 6y ago

Exactly. I have two low-cost (Prusa) 3d printers going in my office lab right now. It wasn't until recently that technology, software, and infrastructure for filament and SLA supplies lined up to allow the current "explosion". In the early days, Stratasys and others really did "invent" significant things in the classic sense of the word. We're not talking about "one click purchase" patents here. Allowing them exclusive use of their invention for a couple of decades didn't seem to hurt anyone.

Miraste 6y ago
Cheap SLA printers couldn't have happened until recently because of the screens, but there's nothing in FDM printers that wasn't available in the 90s. Sure it didn't "hurt anyone," people don't need 3D printers, but it stopped a whole subfield of engineering from existing for twenty years. Personally I call that detrimental. At least it's not as bad as the other IP protections. If the lawyers who brought us copyright law had gotten into patents, we'd be eagerly anticipating the launch of the consumer television.
- fortran77 5y ago
  Nothing? What about the cheap and powerful single board controllers?
  - Miraste 5y ago
    You'd think so, and some printers like the Prusa Mini use newer 32-bit controllers, but a lot of the most popular models (other Prusas, most Creality models, etc.) use the ATmega 2560, which is an 8 bit controller that came out in 2006 and isn't much different from what was available in the late 90s. They didn't exist in 1989, but they weren't far off.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      Oh, we for sure had 8 bit microcontroller chips in 1989. A quick look back through old editions of Radio Electronics looks like you could buy an 8039[0] in 1989 for $1.95 qty 1. PICs were pretty nice back then too. [0] - An 8039 is a version of the 8048 that was in the original PC keyboard, but rigged up with an external EEPROM for program code instead of the normal mask ROM. They were probably secretly 8048s that were programmed with some other customer's code in the mask ROM, but then fused off for whatever reason.