Re: [diy_3d_printing_and_fabrication] Re: patents? You haven't seen anything yet...
- Mike Polcyn wrote:
>Yes, I used the wrong word, utility is the one. Up until the comments
> Thanks Jon, My comments were regarding utility patents... which is
> what I thought we were discussing here...
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.
- Kenneth Lerman wrote:
>The specific patent they refer to by number deals with some kind of
> 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.
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
a very specific concept that I doubt formlabs is using. So, at least to
it is not dealing with ordinary support structures, but something more
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
but I'm NOT a lawyer.)