Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: patents? You haven't seen anything yet...

Expand Messages
  • pzamov
    @group I believe there is an exception: building a patented item only for proving the patent claim. ;-) Not even universities are allowed, although it is very
    Message 1 of 41 , Nov 24, 2012
      @group
      I believe there is an exception: building a patented item only for proving the patent claim. ;-) Not even universities are allowed, although it is very common there. In the jewelry biz there is a thing called 10% - make it at least 10% different and it is a new design.
      You can say you were inspired by...so and so.

      Peter

      --- In diy_3d_printing_and_fabrication@yahoogroups.com, steven Mitchell <smitchel@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > >I am just wondering how patent can affect DIY ? If it is patented,
      > then we can't copy it?
      > >Or is it ok as long as we do not make commercial of it? What is the
      > boundary here?
      > >
      > >
      > >Can someone shed a light?
      > >
      > >
      > >Thanks
      > >
      > >
      > >Fortino
      >
      > <mailto:internetgiest@...?subject=Re%3A%20patents%3F%20You%20haven%27t%20seen%20anything%20yet%2E%2E%2E>
      >
      > There is no exclusion for personal use in the patent laws,
      > even though that is commonly believed.
      >
      > There is an exclusion for (I'm not sure exact wording here) development and
      > research, but that really is a stretch for DIY use. In many cases you
      > would be
      > liable for infringement anyway--just my opinion.
      >
      >
      > <mailto:internetgiest@...?subject=Re%3A%20patents%3F%20You%20haven%27t%20seen%20anything%20yet%2E%2E%2E>
      >
    • Jon Elson
      ... The specific patent they refer to by number deals with some kind of partial hardening of the resin to support overhangs. I m not sure if that partially
      Message 41 of 41 , Nov 25, 2012
        Kenneth Lerman wrote:
        >
        > One thing I noticed in the complaint was a section saying that there
        > was no non-infringing use of the allegedly infringing device. Since
        > the patent under discussion seems to relate to exposure for supports,
        > it is clear that making objects that don't require support would be a
        > non-infringing use.
        The specific patent they refer to by number deals with some kind of
        partial hardening
        of the resin to support overhangs. I'm not sure if that partially
        hardened stuff is later
        dissolved, scraped away, or hardens completely later. But, it seems to
        deal with
        a very specific concept that I doubt formlabs is using. So, at least to
        my reading,
        it is not dealing with ordinary support structures, but something more
        specialized
        to support overhangs WITHOUT dedicated support structure from the bottom
        up. This directing the court to a SPECIFIC patent, while only mentioning
        that there are others, might be enough to scotch the whole suit. (I
        hope so,
        but I'm NOT a lawyer.)

        Jon
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.