4 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.