Regulatory Frameworks for 3d Printing Online CAD File Development & Sharing

(a) a clear statement of the objective(s) of the paper; My paper is titled “Regulatory Frameworks for 3D Printing Online CAD File Development & Sharing” and asks: Can open design and intellectual property (IP) incentive mechanisms co-exist for 3D printing technology development and mass adoption? To give context, there is an increasing amount of digital information exchange and collaboration among the online 3D printing community comprised of industrial, “prosumer,” and consumer segments. With the growth and evolution of designing, sharing, and modifying 3D printing CAD files, my research seeks to address 3D printing policy questions, including: • Can there be a synergistic regulatory system based on the IP-regime together with open design principles? • How should a median between the traditional IP rights/incentive model and a pure open design model be structured? Can there be a mixed IP-regime between the opposite ends of the ideological spectrums of profit maximization and open innovation? • Would a new IP-free negative space facilitate the online sharing and modification of 3D printing CAD files thereby promoting 3D printing personal fabrication development? • How should a regulatory framework be structured to maximize benefits of distributed digital manufacturing while still retaining contract-based private legal ordering, open source, shared design platforms, and creative commons licenses? (b) when appropriate to the topic, a description of the methods used to develop the paper’s thesis or test its hypotheses; I am utilizing empirical research and existing data sets on 3D printing behavior from other legal scholars and also existing case studies from other business scholars. I am providing new insights, developing new frameworks, and proposing a regulatory framework that implements default IP laws while still enabling open design based on data drawn from 3D printing survey data, empirical research, and case studies. (c) a short explanation as to why the research is novel; and To my knowledge, I have not seen any research that investigates the tension between open design and IP in the specific realm of the 3D printing. The novelty is my research is the investigation of whether an open design framework or IP incentives would better promote the growth of a disruptive technology such as 3D printing. Whereas some legal scholars have only investigated the application of the patent statute to 3D printing, there is a lack of research on regulatory frameworks for 3D printing and a policy solution that enables open design incentives with the current IP regime in 3D printing. (d) a description of the data assembled to support these insights or perform these tests, where relevant. I am utilizing existing data on 3D printing behavior by Moilanen/Vaden and empirical data from Mendis/Secchi as a basis for my analysis. I am also reviewing the empirical research developed by Moilanen/Daly/Lobato/Allen. (e) if the paper is substantially complete, the abstract should also summarize its results. I expect to have a complete paper in advance of the TPRC44 conference date. Also, while I am utilizing existing data on 3D printing behavior, I plan to begin collecting my own data.