4 ms·

The author claims prior art based on things that were published in 2013, but Makerbot filed their provisional application on October 29, 2012. This also explain

by bryans 12y ago

The author claims prior art based on things that were published in 2013, but Makerbot filed their provisional application on October 29, 2012. This also explains why the patent was filed October 29 of 2013, as that would be the last date they can file. I don't really care if you hate the patent system, or hate that somebody wants to treat 3D printing as a traditional business instead of altruistically open sourcing all the things. To publicly lambaste a competitor through disinformation just because they don't share your personal values is about as classless as it gets. This is open-and-shut witch-hunt territory.

danvoell 12y ago
Is it possible to include claims in the patent filing that weren't in the provisional? Just curious.
- mixmax 12y ago
  yes it is, but they get their own filing date. Source: I have a few patents, and have done this.
- gumby 12y ago
  Sure, the chance to straighten out the claims later is a big part of provisionals. In fact provisionals don't even need claims, but for certain international patents to get the filing date you need to include at least one claim to make it a "patent filing" for those countries. Provisional patents are a US specific thing. The way to think of a provisional is that it's a way to get a description on file by a certain date. Then if you subsequently file a patent application within that time you can refer to the provisional to get the benefit of the earlier filing date. The claims in the actual patent are the ones that matter and they refer to the description in the actual patent. In fact I'm not sure the examiner really looks at the provisional at all, since the claims and description of the patent application itself are what matter in regards to granting the patent. So what does the provisional do? Example: let's assume bicycle cranks didn't exist and I filed a provisional 1 Feb 2013 for a crank with an odd number of teeth. I just wrote it up in relatively casual style ("a wheel with an odd number of protrusions around its circumference sized such that links of a chain could fit between them, and pedals attached to radial posts"). Then on the 15th of January 2014 I file a patent application for a bicycle crank with odd and even numbers of teeth. My description now takes up several pages and includes drawings done in the crazy style required by the patent office. My provisional just included a hand drawing or two and a couple of sentences of description. If I tried to sue you over this patent for making bike cranks with an even number of teeth, and you had begun in July 2013, I'd be out of luck. But if you used an odds number of teeth my protection for my granted patent would extend back to Feb 2013. I could still lose because the casual description might be ambiguous enough that you could convince the jury that it didn't really describe the actual, patented invention. Because of this patent attorneys try to make provisionals as close to real patents as possible, and often urge you to simply skip the provisional step. (BTW there are domains where patents make sense. Where most NH readers are, in software, I consider patents an abomination).
sutterbomb 12y ago
Where do you find the provisional application date? I read the post, and skimmed the linked patent application but never would have found that in the patent application while skimming the filing. I'm glad that you did find it - that is indeed very important information to take into account. One note though - your tone and suggestion of "an open-and-shut witch-hunt" is very aggressive and makes me instantly think that you have ulterior motives. No idea if you do, but I feel like you were jumping to conclusions about the intent of the author. Can you imagine a scenario where the author didn't know about the provisional application? That's not an excuse, but changes the scenario from disinformation to misinformation and witch-hunt to mistake.
- bryans 12y ago
  You need to view the actual application to see the provisional filing date. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20140117575.pdf http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20140117575.pdf As for my tone, it may sound aggressive, but I also feel that the aggressiveness is justified. This person is (successfully) attempting to leverage an already patent-weary community to force Stratasys into unnecessary legal drama based on nothing. It doesn't really matter if it's misinformation or intentional disinformation, because it is completely inexcusable to make such claims as absolute truth without doing any reasonable amount of research. Witch-hunt (noun): An intensive effort to discover and expose disloyalty, subversion, dishonesty, or the like, usually based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence. This situation is the definition of a witch-hunt. A mistake would be to just raise the question of patent illegitimacy based on misinformation. It becomes a witch-hunt when he encourages people to submit prior art to invalidate the patent, thereby wasting everyone's time and money.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    "It becomes a witch-hunt when he encourages people to submit prior art to invalidate the patent, thereby wasting everyone's time and money." If there is prior art that invalidates the patent (and on a cursory examination taking a few minutes, I have found prior art dating back to 2008 that covers the main claim), then it should be submitted and the patent invalidated. That isn't a witch-hunt, that is the system working, albeit belatedly.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
The thing is, this stuff has been hashed out in the open source community before Makerbot filed their provisional, hence it was already obvious to anyone acquainted with the art. Here's this from 2008, for instance - http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?1,8028 http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?1,8028
baddox 12y ago
> somebody wants to treat 3D printing as a traditional business instead of altruistically open sourcing all the things. Open sourcing needs have nothing to do with altruism, and it's certainly not mutually exclusive with running a business.
mr_luc 12y ago
First, from elsewhere in this thread, from April 23rd, 2012, there is this auto-leveling technique, which probes by applying a slight current to detect contact: http://hackaday.com/2012/04/23/automated-bed-leveling-with-our-3d-printer/ http://hackaday.com/2012/04/23/automated-bed-leveling-with-o... Second, I disagree with your priorities and/or point of view on this, and I think it might be anti-hacker. It must be at once obvious to everyone that desktop 3D printing is both vital to the future and currently a "cottage" industry. What matters more: the future, or our personal notions of what's classy? I feel that any action intended as a land-grab for enormous swathes of intellectual territory in an industry so driven by, and amenable to, individual invention and modification, rightly deserves the opprobrium of all hacker types. Trying to patent compensating for a non-level bed in 3D printers is a jerk move. You could provide a similar defensive moat by just publishing your work, without stifling any of your peers in this infant industry. Edit: when I said "priorities", I was talking about specifically about prioritizing being classy over protecting a nascent industry, and how that could be anti-garage-innovator. Re-reading my comment, though, I guess it sounds a bit more personal, which wasn't my intent!
- bryans 12y ago
  I don't think you have any idea what my priorities are, you seem to have misinterpreted my point of view, and I find it amusing to be called an anti-hacker for all sorts of reasons. The reality is that the patent system exists, in all it's horrible innovation-stifling glory. It's business, nothing more. It's not right and it's ruining the world, but you have to work within the system until the system changes. If there is other prior art, that's fine. So be it. But the author did not provide any of that art, and instead made false claims based on a knee-jerk reaction to something that he misread. I don't like having to defend the patent system at all, but the author is in the wrong. Simple as that.
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    It's not right and it's ruining the world, but you have to work within the system until the system changes. I disagree with anyone calling anyone here anti-hacker. But I just wanted to point out that the above sentence can be used to justify any legal horror in any time. Think of all the atrocities that once were legal. If you think something is ruining the world, that's a pretty good reason not to work with it.
Rantenki 12y ago
Numerous patents seem to reference that provisional: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?sort=relevance&srch=top&patents=on&query_txt=61%2F719%2C874&search=Search http://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?sort=relevance&... I am not sure how to get a look at the original provisional application, but it looks like these are extensions on top of the original provision patent application, which could be just about anything, since the other related patents include things like http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0121813.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0121813.html <- I've been filling with urethane glue for a while now, as a side note, http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20140120196.pdf http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20140120196.pdf <- http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:12320 http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:12320 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0117585.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0117585.html <- everything from lexmark/HP/etc. Oh, and a workaround for existing implementations already exists: http://hackaday.com/2013/04/26/cube-3d-printer-hack-lets-you-use-bulk-filament/ http://hackaday.com/2013/04/26/cube-3d-printer-hack-lets-you... Reading over these, they really look like a landgrab on ideas that have been floating around in the reprap forums for a while now.

by bryans 12y ago

danvoell 12y ago

Is it possible to include claims in the patent filing that weren't in the provisional? Just curious.

mixmax 12y ago
yes it is, but they get their own filing date. Source: I have a few patents, and have done this.
gumby 12y ago
Sure, the chance to straighten out the claims later is a big part of provisionals. In fact provisionals don't even need claims, but for certain international patents to get the filing date you need to include at least one claim to make it a "patent filing" for those countries. Provisional patents are a US specific thing. The way to think of a provisional is that it's a way to get a description on file by a certain date. Then if you subsequently file a patent application within that time you can refer to the provisional to get the benefit of the earlier filing date. The claims in the actual patent are the ones that matter and they refer to the description in the actual patent. In fact I'm not sure the examiner really looks at the provisional at all, since the claims and description of the patent application itself are what matter in regards to granting the patent. So what does the provisional do? Example: let's assume bicycle cranks didn't exist and I filed a provisional 1 Feb 2013 for a crank with an odd number of teeth. I just wrote it up in relatively casual style ("a wheel with an odd number of protrusions around its circumference sized such that links of a chain could fit between them, and pedals attached to radial posts"). Then on the 15th of January 2014 I file a patent application for a bicycle crank with odd and even numbers of teeth. My description now takes up several pages and includes drawings done in the crazy style required by the patent office. My provisional just included a hand drawing or two and a couple of sentences of description. If I tried to sue you over this patent for making bike cranks with an even number of teeth, and you had begun in July 2013, I'd be out of luck. But if you used an odds number of teeth my protection for my granted patent would extend back to Feb 2013. I could still lose because the casual description might be ambiguous enough that you could convince the jury that it didn't really describe the actual, patented invention. Because of this patent attorneys try to make provisionals as close to real patents as possible, and often urge you to simply skip the provisional step. (BTW there are domains where patents make sense. Where most NH readers are, in software, I consider patents an abomination).

sutterbomb 12y ago

Where do you find the provisional application date? I read the post, and skimmed the linked patent application but never would have found that in the patent application while skimming the filing. I'm glad that you did find it - that is indeed very important information to take into account. One note though - your tone and suggestion of "an open-and-shut witch-hunt" is very aggressive and makes me instantly think that you have ulterior motives. No idea if you do, but I feel like you were jumping to conclusions about the intent of the author. Can you imagine a scenario where the author didn't know about the provisional application? That's not an excuse, but changes the scenario from disinformation to misinformation and witch-hunt to mistake.

bryans 12y ago
You need to view the actual application to see the provisional filing date. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20140117575.pdf http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20140117575.pdf As for my tone, it may sound aggressive, but I also feel that the aggressiveness is justified. This person is (successfully) attempting to leverage an already patent-weary community to force Stratasys into unnecessary legal drama based on nothing. It doesn't really matter if it's misinformation or intentional disinformation, because it is completely inexcusable to make such claims as absolute truth without doing any reasonable amount of research. Witch-hunt (noun): An intensive effort to discover and expose disloyalty, subversion, dishonesty, or the like, usually based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence. This situation is the definition of a witch-hunt. A mistake would be to just raise the question of patent illegitimacy based on misinformation. It becomes a witch-hunt when he encourages people to submit prior art to invalidate the patent, thereby wasting everyone's time and money.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  "It becomes a witch-hunt when he encourages people to submit prior art to invalidate the patent, thereby wasting everyone's time and money." If there is prior art that invalidates the patent (and on a cursory examination taking a few minutes, I have found prior art dating back to 2008 that covers the main claim), then it should be submitted and the patent invalidated. That isn't a witch-hunt, that is the system working, albeit belatedly.

lotsofmangos 12y ago

The thing is, this stuff has been hashed out in the open source community before Makerbot filed their provisional, hence it was already obvious to anyone acquainted with the art. Here's this from 2008, for instance - http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?1,8028 http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?1,8028

baddox 12y ago

> somebody wants to treat 3D printing as a traditional business instead of altruistically open sourcing all the things. Open sourcing needs have nothing to do with altruism, and it's certainly not mutually exclusive with running a business.

mr_luc 12y ago

First, from elsewhere in this thread, from April 23rd, 2012, there is this auto-leveling technique, which probes by applying a slight current to detect contact: http://hackaday.com/2012/04/23/automated-bed-leveling-with-our-3d-printer/ http://hackaday.com/2012/04/23/automated-bed-leveling-with-o... Second, I disagree with your priorities and/or point of view on this, and I think it might be anti-hacker. It must be at once obvious to everyone that desktop 3D printing is both vital to the future and currently a "cottage" industry. What matters more: the future, or our personal notions of what's classy? I feel that any action intended as a land-grab for enormous swathes of intellectual territory in an industry so driven by, and amenable to, individual invention and modification, rightly deserves the opprobrium of all hacker types. Trying to patent compensating for a non-level bed in 3D printers is a jerk move. You could provide a similar defensive moat by just publishing your work, without stifling any of your peers in this infant industry. Edit: when I said "priorities", I was talking about specifically about prioritizing being classy over protecting a nascent industry, and how that could be anti-garage-innovator. Re-reading my comment, though, I guess it sounds a bit more personal, which wasn't my intent!

bryans 12y ago
I don't think you have any idea what my priorities are, you seem to have misinterpreted my point of view, and I find it amusing to be called an anti-hacker for all sorts of reasons. The reality is that the patent system exists, in all it's horrible innovation-stifling glory. It's business, nothing more. It's not right and it's ruining the world, but you have to work within the system until the system changes. If there is other prior art, that's fine. So be it. But the author did not provide any of that art, and instead made false claims based on a knee-jerk reaction to something that he misread. I don't like having to defend the patent system at all, but the author is in the wrong. Simple as that.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  It's not right and it's ruining the world, but you have to work within the system until the system changes. I disagree with anyone calling anyone here anti-hacker. But I just wanted to point out that the above sentence can be used to justify any legal horror in any time. Think of all the atrocities that once were legal. If you think something is ruining the world, that's a pretty good reason not to work with it.

Rantenki 12y ago

Numerous patents seem to reference that provisional: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?sort=relevance&srch=top&patents=on&query_txt=61%2F719%2C874&search=Search http://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?sort=relevance&... I am not sure how to get a look at the original provisional application, but it looks like these are extensions on top of the original provision patent application, which could be just about anything, since the other related patents include things like http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0121813.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0121813.html <- I've been filling with urethane glue for a while now, as a side note, http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20140120196.pdf http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20140120196.pdf <- http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:12320 http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:12320 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0117585.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0117585.html <- everything from lexmark/HP/etc. Oh, and a workaround for existing implementations already exists: http://hackaday.com/2013/04/26/cube-3d-printer-hack-lets-you-use-bulk-filament/ http://hackaday.com/2013/04/26/cube-3d-printer-hack-lets-you... Reading over these, they really look like a landgrab on ideas that have been floating around in the reprap forums for a while now.