5 ms·

I think Phill Torrone hits the nail on the head: The problem isn't that the's copying a device, it's that he's relying on the trademark of the original develope

by Zuph 14y ago

I think Phill Torrone hits the nail on the head: The problem isn't that the's copying a device, it's that he's relying on the trademark of the original developer to sell his "new" version, without substantially describing how he's going to improve the device, while maintaining the high quality and solid support of MakerBot.

PeterisP 14y ago
If you drop $600 off the price, many customers would see that this is better for their situation even with worse quality and no support. The world is not really changed by innovative, excellent things - the world is changed only when these things are made cheaply and accessible to the masses.
- schraeds 14y ago
  A little depressing, but generally true.
replicatorblog 14y ago
My reply to Phil is that MakerBot says "It uses the same plastic as Legos" in all of their videos. This is true only in the most technical sense. Both use a type of plastic called ABS, but the formulations are very different and more importantly neither the strength of the parts or the surface finish are of equal quality. Still they leverage all the good will Lego has built.
- ptorrone 14y ago
  makerbot has never said "LEGO clone" or "LEGO knock-off". the tangibot did say "same quality as makerbot because it's a clone", "makerbot clone" and "makerbot knock-off". stating a fact like it's the same plastic is different than saying a complex machine is the same quality because it's a clone, the tangibot did not demonstrate that. keep in mind, this was before the tangibot creator updated the kickstarter and also was asked by kickstarter to make it clear it's not violating rule # of kickstarter: "A project is not open-ended. Starting a business, for example, does not qualify as a project." (they also say "No "fund my life" projects.). just to be clear, open-source hardware makers, at least every single one of them i know and work with don't have any issues with someone making their design and making it more low-cost. if kickstarter had viewable revision changes i think this conversation would not be about people saying open-source doesn't want to be open-source.
  - replicatorblog 14y ago
    I think we're just going to end up disagreeing on that one :) From the experiences I've had in TM lawsuits I think the MB/Lego examples is more misleading that TB/MB. My lawyer friends say the point of trademarks are to "Prevent confusion in the marketplace". "MakerBot Clone" is "arguably descriptive" and seems unlikely to cause confusion in the market because it's so descriptive. It's like generic pharma companies that say they use the same active ingredient that the name brands use. They even copy the packaging styles of the national brands and say "Compare to ________ brand". Big drug companies have had to deal with this for decades, but have still been able to thrive. Contrast that with MB. Even though MB has never said the words "Lego Clone" A person unfamiliar with the technology could be misled, thinking that this $2,000 machine can product parts on par with Lego's finest, which is not even close to true. That said, I'm a MakerBot owner and hope they continue to push the state of the art!
    - ptorrone 14y ago
      @replicatorblog - i don't think you're going to find a lawyer that will go on record saying "uses the same plastic as LEGO" is the same as "TangiBot is a MakerBot clone" "TangiBot is a MakerBot knock-off" "TangiBot is the same quality because it's a MakerBot clone"... if you had someone look at a LEGO and a makerbot, they're clearly different called different things, marketed different. LEGO is very good about their trademark, if there was any issue with makerbot saying "same plastic used for LEGOs" they would have been told not to ever say that. if you're really interested to know for sure, email me and we'll both email LEGO. if you could show makerbot's usage of LEGO with a specific link that would be helpful too. please keep in mind the company that the creator of the tangibot promoted as his previous job and current group of experts he's working with did sue people for using the name "Cricut".. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricut#Third_party_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricut#Third_party_software "Provo Craft has been active to resist the use of third-party software programs that could enable Cricut owners to cut out designs and to use the machine without depending on its proprietary cartridges.... Provo Craft also asserted that Craft Edge were violating its trademark in the word "Cricut" by saying that its software could work with Cricut machines. Provo Craft asserted that this was likely "to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source or origin of Defendant's goods or services, and [was] likely to falsely suggest a sponsorship, connection, license, or association of Defendant's goods and services with Provo Craft" if anyone saw the tangibot anywhere they'd assume it was a makerbot... and lastly, i don't think tangibot could even get their name trademarked for what they're doing, but a lawyer could weigh in on that perhaps. i'm not a makerbot owner, but i did back the tangibot.

by Zuph 14y ago

PeterisP 14y ago

If you drop $600 off the price, many customers would see that this is better for their situation even with worse quality and no support. The world is not really changed by innovative, excellent things - the world is changed only when these things are made cheaply and accessible to the masses.

schraeds 14y ago
A little depressing, but generally true.

replicatorblog 14y ago

My reply to Phil is that MakerBot says "It uses the same plastic as Legos" in all of their videos. This is true only in the most technical sense. Both use a type of plastic called ABS, but the formulations are very different and more importantly neither the strength of the parts or the surface finish are of equal quality. Still they leverage all the good will Lego has built.

ptorrone 14y ago
makerbot has never said "LEGO clone" or "LEGO knock-off". the tangibot did say "same quality as makerbot because it's a clone", "makerbot clone" and "makerbot knock-off". stating a fact like it's the same plastic is different than saying a complex machine is the same quality because it's a clone, the tangibot did not demonstrate that. keep in mind, this was before the tangibot creator updated the kickstarter and also was asked by kickstarter to make it clear it's not violating rule # of kickstarter: "A project is not open-ended. Starting a business, for example, does not qualify as a project." (they also say "No "fund my life" projects.). just to be clear, open-source hardware makers, at least every single one of them i know and work with don't have any issues with someone making their design and making it more low-cost. if kickstarter had viewable revision changes i think this conversation would not be about people saying open-source doesn't want to be open-source.
- replicatorblog 14y ago
  I think we're just going to end up disagreeing on that one :) From the experiences I've had in TM lawsuits I think the MB/Lego examples is more misleading that TB/MB. My lawyer friends say the point of trademarks are to "Prevent confusion in the marketplace". "MakerBot Clone" is "arguably descriptive" and seems unlikely to cause confusion in the market because it's so descriptive. It's like generic pharma companies that say they use the same active ingredient that the name brands use. They even copy the packaging styles of the national brands and say "Compare to ________ brand". Big drug companies have had to deal with this for decades, but have still been able to thrive. Contrast that with MB. Even though MB has never said the words "Lego Clone" A person unfamiliar with the technology could be misled, thinking that this $2,000 machine can product parts on par with Lego's finest, which is not even close to true. That said, I'm a MakerBot owner and hope they continue to push the state of the art!
  - ptorrone 14y ago
    @replicatorblog - i don't think you're going to find a lawyer that will go on record saying "uses the same plastic as LEGO" is the same as "TangiBot is a MakerBot clone" "TangiBot is a MakerBot knock-off" "TangiBot is the same quality because it's a MakerBot clone"... if you had someone look at a LEGO and a makerbot, they're clearly different called different things, marketed different. LEGO is very good about their trademark, if there was any issue with makerbot saying "same plastic used for LEGOs" they would have been told not to ever say that. if you're really interested to know for sure, email me and we'll both email LEGO. if you could show makerbot's usage of LEGO with a specific link that would be helpful too. please keep in mind the company that the creator of the tangibot promoted as his previous job and current group of experts he's working with did sue people for using the name "Cricut".. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricut#Third_party_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricut#Third_party_software "Provo Craft has been active to resist the use of third-party software programs that could enable Cricut owners to cut out designs and to use the machine without depending on its proprietary cartridges.... Provo Craft also asserted that Craft Edge were violating its trademark in the word "Cricut" by saying that its software could work with Cricut machines. Provo Craft asserted that this was likely "to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source or origin of Defendant's goods or services, and [was] likely to falsely suggest a sponsorship, connection, license, or association of Defendant's goods and services with Provo Craft" if anyone saw the tangibot anywhere they'd assume it was a makerbot... and lastly, i don't think tangibot could even get their name trademarked for what they're doing, but a lawyer could weigh in on that perhaps. i'm not a makerbot owner, but i did back the tangibot.