PDFs, here and here. The patents relate to methods and systems used in 3D printing, such as the management of build platforms, material deposition, and the detection of contact forces during the printing process.
What’s a solution? And not just for this, but really any 3D patent trolling… a structured prior art database is probably the easier first step, because then anyone who is targeted by one of these could use it to go after the patent. There have been other efforts to do similar things, and the relatively focused scope of 3D printers could make it effective. An organization like the Open Source Hardware association could help lead this effort, coordinating the community for a fund that could be used to preemptively invalidate 3D printing patents and build a giant structured corpus of prior art to use in shared defenses.
Could also be a “donate” button on a Prusa order on check out “donate to the invalidate 3D printing patents fund” which would be the prior art database.
Adafruit publishes a wide range of writing and video content, including interviews and reporting on the maker market and the wider technology world. Our standards page is intended as a guide to best practices that Adafruit uses, as well as an outline of the ethical standards Adafruit aspires to. While Adafruit is not an independent journalistic institution, Adafruit strives to be a fair, informative, and positive voice within the community – check it out here: adafruit.com/editorialstandards
Stop breadboarding and soldering – start making immediately! Adafruit’s Circuit Playground is jam-packed with LEDs, sensors, buttons, alligator clip pads and more. Build projects with Circuit Playground in a few minutes with the drag-and-drop MakeCode programming site, learn computer science using the CS Discoveries class on code.org, jump into CircuitPython to learn Python and hardware together, TinyGO, or even use the Arduino IDE. Circuit Playground Express is the newest and best Circuit Playground board, with support for CircuitPython, MakeCode, and Arduino. It has a powerful processor, 10 NeoPixels, mini speaker, InfraRed receive and transmit, two buttons, a switch, 14 alligator clip pads, and lots of sensors: capacitive touch, IR proximity, temperature, light, motion and sound. A whole wide world of electronics and coding is waiting for you, and it fits in the palm of your hand.
Have an amazing project to share? The Electronics Show and Tell is every Wednesday at 7:30pm ET! To join, head over to YouTube and check out the show’s live chat and our Discord!
Python for Microcontrollers – Adafruit Daily — Python on Microcontrollers Newsletter: Diving into the Raspberry Pi RP2350, Python Survey Results and more! #CircuitPython #Python #micropython @ThePSF @Raspberry_Pi
EYE on NPI – Adafruit Daily — EYE on NPI Maxim’s Himalaya uSLIC Step-Down Power Module #EyeOnNPI @maximintegrated @digikey
Stratasys can be held accountable for stifling innovation in 3D printing from 1989 to 2009 by aggressively enforcing their patents. This suppression hindered advancements across numerous fields that have since made tremendous strides, improving countless lives. For instance, 3D-printed prosthetics have become more accessible and customizable, offering affordable and tailored solutions for amputees around the world. In healthcare, 3D-printed implants and surgical tools have revolutionized patient care, allowing for more precise and less invasive procedures. In education, 3D printing has empowered students to turn their ideas into physical reality, fostering creativity and hands-on learning.
Now, as the 3D printing community flourishes with open innovation, Stratasys is trying to profit from the very progress they once obstructed. Instead of continuing to impose restrictions, Stratasys should embrace and support the current wave of innovation in 3D printing. By doing so, they could contribute to the ongoing advancements in prosthetics, healthcare, education, and beyond—areas where 3D printing is making a real difference in people’s lives.
It’s important to keep in mind what kind of things Bambu tried to patent in China too. Like, using triple Z. It’s not a "US giant vs small China company", it’s "old patent troll vs heavily funded patent troll". No one is in the right.
What people are failing to realize is that things like prior art and prior use has not been a thing since 2012 when reform was signed into law making it First to file like the rest of the world instead of First to Invent like it used to be.
The only hope we really have is that they should not have been granted a patent on items that have already been patented. Aka the FFD/FDM claim should not be legally valid but it is included in their 2009 patent. That should, by law as far as I understand it, invalidate the entire patent that contains that claim
Stratasys can be held accountable for stifling innovation in 3D printing from 1989 to 2009 by aggressively enforcing their patents. This suppression hindered advancements across numerous fields that have since made tremendous strides, improving countless lives. For instance, 3D-printed prosthetics have become more accessible and customizable, offering affordable and tailored solutions for amputees around the world. In healthcare, 3D-printed implants and surgical tools have revolutionized patient care, allowing for more precise and less invasive procedures. In education, 3D printing has empowered students to turn their ideas into physical reality, fostering creativity and hands-on learning.
Now, as the 3D printing community flourishes with open innovation, Stratasys is trying to profit from the very progress they once obstructed. Instead of continuing to impose restrictions, Stratasys should embrace and support the current wave of innovation in 3D printing. By doing so, they could contribute to the ongoing advancements in prosthetics, healthcare, education, and beyond—areas where 3D printing is making a real difference in people’s lives.
It’s important to keep in mind what kind of things Bambu tried to patent in China too. Like, using triple Z. It’s not a "US giant vs small China company", it’s "old patent troll vs heavily funded patent troll". No one is in the right.
Yes they are and have been for many years.
The industry has lacked innovation because of their Patent Troll behavior.
What people are failing to realize is that things like prior art and prior use has not been a thing since 2012 when reform was signed into law making it First to file like the rest of the world instead of First to Invent like it used to be.
The only hope we really have is that they should not have been granted a patent on items that have already been patented. Aka the FFD/FDM claim should not be legally valid but it is included in their 2009 patent. That should, by law as far as I understand it, invalidate the entire patent that contains that claim