Yet Allen believes that the Type A staff shouldn't live in fear of a lawsuit. "Product cycles last about six months in 3D printing," he says, explaining that at least two new types of print machine will hit the market each year. That's faster than smartphones, which are already far too fast for the courts to keep up with; Apple and Samsung are still squabbling over products that have long since gone off the market.

EFF attorney Julie Samuels is leading a fight against restrictive 3D print patents.
Juan Pardo
EFF attorney Julie Samuels is leading a fight against restrictive 3D print patents.
Andrew Rutter and R. Miloh Alexander of Type A Machines.
Mike Koozmin
Andrew Rutter and R. Miloh Alexander of Type A Machines.

It's just not that easy to forestall a high-tech revolution. Particularly one that can copy itself.

« Previous Page
 |
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
All
 
My Voice Nation Help
4 comments
sfreptile
sfreptile

This is really not the next big thing.  Building a clay model or prototype is still faster.  A milling machine can take a block of say aluminum and make an engine.  Try that with plastic.  This is a tinker toy.  And why shouldn't there be some patent protection if it is such a great idea? 

microcapfun
microcapfun

<<That mentality prevailed in the '80s, when people like S. Scott Crump — the co-founder of a large company called Stratasys — first developed 3D-print technology, but, for one reason or another, never brought it to the market. Instead, Crump and his colleagues designed big, gorgeous, prohibitively expensive industrial printers that they only sold to architecture firms and university engineering departments. The early 3D-print manufacturers owned and controlled a piece of mind-blowing machinery, but they kept it under wraps.>>


The author is very confused and very wrong about the history of 3d printing - and the article is ridiculously stilted against patenting inventions.


micro

kloro2006
kloro2006

@microcapfun  


property is not a god-given right. or, more concretely, society is not obliged to protect any individual's rights, unless reason itself demands that it do so for its welfare. i suspect this rains on yr parade, pal. sorry 'bout that. (and yes "its own welfare" can be a slippery slope, but one for which the notion of God-given rights and similar do not provide relief.)

please respond to this if you think it might further discussion of a very important topic.

 
©2014 SF Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.
Loading...