Re: [diy_3d_printing_and_fabrication] Re: patents? You haven't seen anything yet...
- On 11/25/2012 2:27 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
Paolo Velcich wrote:
> Yes, 30% of an innovation (invention) patent has no meaning. That
> "31%" rule might [eventually] apply to a design/ornamental patent.
> I'm not sure that it will necessarily take one year to clear the suit,
> this last one seems to be quite weak, or more an intimidating action
> than a strong one.
Yes, if formlabs/kickstarter can get the judge to throw out the whole
suit due to
3DS' claims being frivolous, it might end quickly. But, I think most
hesitant to take such a decision lightly. there certainly are some
suits that are
just plain frivolous on their face, and do get tossed like that. But,
non familiar with the topic at hand needs to get educated on the
what is being claimed and whether the defendant is making anything that
actually infringes. I don't see a judge throwing this suit out quickly, but
I guess it depends a lot on the briefs their lawyers submit. If 3DS has
mediocre lawyers, the judge might find a lot of waffling in their briefs
and be steered right to where they are trying to bamboozle her. We can
> However, it appears that 3DS try to keep the market frozen by
> saturating it with patents.
Time-honored ploy, dates back to Edison and before. Edison vs. Westinghouse
sure did a bunch of this, and it was a real WAR!
- 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.)