Can anybody explain https://www.google.com/patents/US8349239?dq=8349239&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dPmUUri7E6mqsATO54G4Cg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA to me?
I get that it puts the layer endpoints in the interior of the model, but how exactly does that conceal the seams???
Thanks!
Not very well. Mostly it just prevents blobs from starting/stopping extrusion from being visible on the surface. It makes the seam look cleaner, but doesn’t really hide it.
are those really his/their inventions or are those the culminations of the work of many others? and they just made very small modifications to it and they are trying to call a patent on it? by calling a patent, are they then trying to impose patent law on all other machine “makers” to cease making?
@3roomlab it’s a common sense application of an extremely common machining technique. People have been doing lead-in/lead-outs like this for decades on milling machines.
yes, i do not see anything very technically unique about the patent they are trying to describe, i bet any maker/prototyper with 2 years under their belt have come to that thought junction. it is like trying to patent how i write the letter A … but the left slant is 90degree straight and looks like an original style … but it is not.
Seems so obvious. Part of the criteria for a patent is that it should not be obvious to a practitioner of the arts… This should not have passed review. That said, this would impact slicing programs, not printers. Are any slicers using this?
From the patents I’ve read, it’s amazing how many common sense ones have actually been put through.
And I’m sure you know, but this patenet is more of a threat to the software than to the hardware…
so now if something in our community is filed as open sourced, can they “infringe” it? and file a patent on an open source?
@Clint_O_Connor I’ve heard that KISS uses it, and I believe it is one of the patents that Stratasys has accused Afinia of violating (using the proprietary toolchain from PP3DP).
@3roomlab my understanding is that if a technique is developed in opensource and then someone tries to patent it, they can’t claim a patent on it as there is (is the term?) ‘prior work’ and the patent could be revoked…
I might be wrong though…
+Daniel Porter correct but once it’s issued, someone has to challenge it and prove the technique was used before the date of filing, so 2009… The EFF might do it but they have their hands pretty full.
so the problem is nobody challenged it. DANG ! anyway … anybody have any proof pre 2009 to disprove their patent? LOL !
they way this open community is moving forward, i think we are better off without patents then with it.
The problem is that the open source community needs to fund a non-profit organization that documents developments that would otherwise be patentable and publish them and promote open source - one voice for visibility and influence - with Congress as well as the USPTO. The EFF is the closest organization I know of that is doing that. If we all gave to the EFF (I donate regularly) and they kept this focus as one of their pillars, we’d be doing well. Is there anyone else besides the EFF that might be doing similar work? http://3dprintingindustry.com/2013/03/26/eff-fight-for-open-3d-printing/
No the problem is that we have a broken patent system. Playing the rigged game as it if were fair and just is futile. The dinosaurs are the vulnerable ones. That is why they pay to rig/play the game.
As @Whosa_whatsis has already said, it helps to conceal the seams. Like the fine-print on “anti-wrinkle” creams - it improves the appearance of fine wrinkles, not eliminate them.
As for the patent - what may now be “obvious” to us, the practitioners and enthusiasts skilled in the art of 3D printing, may not have been at the time the invention was first reduced to practice. At least, that’s what they claimed and got the USPTO to agree. It may not stand, as the practice of lead-in/lead-out has been used for CNC for some time before.
BUT, they may argue the “marketplace” test - that they were first to use the technique when it was long possible for anyone else to use the method. If other parties then “me too”-ed the method, it could be argued that it was not obvious until they disclosed the method.
Of course nobody else in the market was using the method with extrusion-based 3d printers, because they were operating under a government-enforced monopoly on extrusion-based 3d printing at the time, so nobody else had the opportunity to put it on the market.
BTW, the way to help protect against “patent grab” of ideas, then, is to publish the ideas quickly and widely before it is even reduced to practice so that the method can be anticipated. It is not a guaranrtee - but it helps. (http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/10/nonobvious-yet.html)
Yes, but then they couldn’t use the “marketplace adoption” test for obviousness. My point is that the landscape is different today - and that anything they come up with now that may seem to be “obvious” can still be argued is not.
They will just argue that the prior art was not /properly/ published.
It is if enough people practiced in the art learns about it.