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

Re: [diy_3d_printing_and_fabrication] Re: patents? You haven't seen anything yet...

Expand Messages
  • Jon Elson
    ... Yes, I used the wrong word, utility is the one. Up until the comments about 30% difference came up, yes, that s what I thought, too. 30% of an idea has
    Message 1 of 41 , Nov 24, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Mike Polcyn wrote:
      >
      > Thanks Jon, My comments were regarding utility patents... which is
      > what I thought we were discussing here...
      >
      Yes, I used the wrong word, utility is the one. Up until the comments
      about 30% difference came up, yes, that's what I thought, too. 30% of
      an idea has no meaning, so that's when I thought to mention the difference
      between utility and design patents. But, clearly the suit over the 3DS /
      formlabs situation involves a utility patent, and 30% change of the
      basic concept of the 3D printing process doesn't, at least to me, have
      any definable meaning.

      Jon
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        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.