3 ms·

There's a world of difference between saying "I'd use a laser to melt the metal" and actually perfecting the process to the extent that (a) the metal being depo

There's a world of difference between saying "I'd use a laser to melt the metal" and actually perfecting the process to the extent that (a) the metal being deposited is adequately fused, (b) the metal underneath is not disturbed every time a new layer is added, (c) the over-shoot of the laser beams doesn't randomly melt holes elsewhere in the piece, (d) it works at all angles, and (e) concerns I can't even think of yet. There are lots of scholarly articles about the laser process dating back to at least the 1990s. No patent would be granted today on the general idea. But if this research team invented a unique way to prevent any of the problems listed above (that nobody had thought of yet and solved a real problem --- maybe they flick the beams on and off in a particular pattern, or use different wavelengths in a novel way, or have a unique mounting system that swings the beams off the work more quickly, etc.) then it would be perfectly appropriate for them to obtain patent protection on that improvement. As somebody said on a different HN patent thread, it's the difference between trying to patent a Star Trek "warp drive" today versus patenting the individual inventions that add up to an actual working warp drive. You'll be laughed out of the PTO if you file on "Step 1: Build a warp drive. Step 2: Profit." But if you can invent the technology to actually make it happen, you can get a patent even though the idea of "warp drive" dates back to 1960s (or earlier) SciFi.

juiceandjuice 14y ago
>maybe they flick the beams on and off in a particular pattern, or use different wavelengths in a novel way, or have a unique mounting system that swings the beams off the work more quickly, etc.) then it would be perfectly appropriate for them to obtain patent protection on that improvement. If it turns out that they use one of those methods, don't you think that would be obvious? I think if the patent was specific down to the actual wavelength, pulse shape, and pulse size, well... maybe then that should be patentable, unless it turns out that those parameters are chosen according to a natural law (parameterized based on material density, melting point, etc...) I think certain things, especially in regards to manufacturing, are more than okay at being patented. But I do think it should be implementation specific, and if an implementation is dependent on a natural law with no alternatives, I'm not sure something like that should be patented, it would really depend on some things.
ajross 14y ago
It's also important to point out that this is a manufacturing process patent. Those don't work like software patents. Fundamentally this is an improvement in the ability to make metal stuff. It might be faster than CNC machining for low volume production, and as less material is wasted it's probably cheaper. Likewise it's almost certainly faster than making casting tooling for low volume. But fundamentally, it's just making stuff. We already have plenty of ways to make stuff from metal. So anyone who wants to make metal stuff isn't meaningfully impacted: at worst they might be priced out of the market for the new toy, but most likely they just have a new option to investigate. The patent inefficiency impacts only people who want to improve on this obscure technique. What won't happen is that the public will lose access to metal junk. Software isn't like that at all. Everything is built on everything else. If you get a patent on something like "pinch zoom" and refuse to license it, no other devices can use it. The public loses, because all of a sudden important features can't be combined with other important features.

juiceandjuice 14y ago

>maybe they flick the beams on and off in a particular pattern, or use different wavelengths in a novel way, or have a unique mounting system that swings the beams off the work more quickly, etc.) then it would be perfectly appropriate for them to obtain patent protection on that improvement. If it turns out that they use one of those methods, don't you think that would be obvious? I think if the patent was specific down to the actual wavelength, pulse shape, and pulse size, well... maybe then that should be patentable, unless it turns out that those parameters are chosen according to a natural law (parameterized based on material density, melting point, etc...) I think certain things, especially in regards to manufacturing, are more than okay at being patented. But I do think it should be implementation specific, and if an implementation is dependent on a natural law with no alternatives, I'm not sure something like that should be patented, it would really depend on some things.

ajross 14y ago

It's also important to point out that this is a manufacturing process patent. Those don't work like software patents. Fundamentally this is an improvement in the ability to make metal stuff. It might be faster than CNC machining for low volume production, and as less material is wasted it's probably cheaper. Likewise it's almost certainly faster than making casting tooling for low volume. But fundamentally, it's just making stuff. We already have plenty of ways to make stuff from metal. So anyone who wants to make metal stuff isn't meaningfully impacted: at worst they might be priced out of the market for the new toy, but most likely they just have a new option to investigate. The patent inefficiency impacts only people who want to improve on this obscure technique. What won't happen is that the public will lose access to metal junk. Software isn't like that at all. Everything is built on everything else. If you get a patent on something like "pinch zoom" and refuse to license it, no other devices can use it. The public loses, because all of a sudden important features can't be combined with other important features.