Kickstarter being sued over patent violation of one of it's promotions - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: notsob
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 09:32:46 am
content: From the BBCCrowd-funding website Kickstarter is being sued for its promotion of a new 3D printer.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20434031

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 09:47:20 am
content: Fark!Unless MIT come to the party on legal costs, Formlabs are screwed. Bye-Bye all the money people threw at the Kickstarter project.Kickstater have squillions, so no wonder they went after them, but it seems very tenuous.The interesting thing is that not one has been sold yet, so I can't see how 3D Systems can sue for commercial loss.I hate to say it, but unless someone backs Formlabs financially for any legal work to defend this, they will have to fold the project. That means returning all the Kickstarter money.Dave.

author: JuKu
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 10:05:17 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 22, 2012, 09:47:20 am"More than 2,000 users contributed over $2.9m (£1.8m) to help Massachusetts-based Formlabs build the device." I can see how 3D sees that this money would go to them without Fromlabs and Kickstarter.

author: 8086
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 10:10:56 am
content: On what planet and by what logic does it make sense to sue kickstarter? It's not like they're designing or making the thing.Also, if I've read correctly, this whoole thing is about the structures to hold thin parts of the print together...couldn't they redesign this part in some way to avoid infringing the patent?

author: M. András
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 10:15:48 am
content: just like the film and music industry if the money didnt go in their pockets its a loss and a huge loss nobody cares from their side their stuffs was never stolenif their technology so souperios why do they afraid of this? ohh right noone wants to pay few hundred thousands of dollar for a machine cheaper to get a 5axis cnc and make it from metal os any hard enough material for machining

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 10:20:39 am
content: Quote from: 8086 on November 22, 2012, 10:10:56 amQuoteDave.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 10:23:15 am
content: Quote from: JuKu on November 22, 2012, 10:05:17 amIt's a very unusual case, because of the way Kickstarter works, and no actual units have been shipped, or likely even manufactured yet?The unusualness of it will add another $10M to any patent lawsuitDave.

author: 8086
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 10:28:12 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 22, 2012, 10:20:39 amI hope that part at least is thrown out at the first opportunity. What a load of legal bullshit.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 10:36:07 am
content: Quote from: 8086 on November 22, 2012, 10:28:12 amYeah, it's a crock. But standard scare practice in these bullying cases.I doubt 3Dsystems are looking for money, they just want the Formlabs project shut down.Dave.

author: notsob
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 10:44:35 am
content: We'll one could probably shut the project, pay back what's left, and somewhere down the track, all the manufacturing info and code could anonymously appear somewhere.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 10:54:03 am
content: The bit of text at the end about Artistshare and Kickstarter being in a dispute sounds like just another "rounded corners" story!The Patent system just baffles me! so if you make something and not check the patents - you're screwed! , If you check the patents and say "well, I knew that" then make it - you're screwed!. The whole system needs to be reviewed and overhauled. In my book Patents come under the same heading as Religion! ;-)

author: M. András
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 11:27:48 am
content: its doesnt promote technological advancement thats for sure you cant use someone idea as basis to create a much better thing built on that cos the patents. and the monopoly to sell it makes it even harder to make the thing cheaper...

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 12:13:55 pm
content: I think without patents, manufacturers would not have a problem selling premium stuff.Thing is, 3D Systems' equipment is designed for OEMs and manufacturers and prototype houses ... they can afford ~£100k, but of course, they would like to buy something cheaper as it would save them investment. I would guess this might be why 3D Systems sees it as a threat.I hope the course gets thrown out. Markets evolve and competition appears -- deal with it.

author: Baliszoft
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 01:51:34 pm
content: Out of topic but:"Apple Patent Win: Good for Apple, Bad for Samsung, Lousy for Consumers""One of the claims Apple made, for example, was that Samsung had infringed on an Apple patent that covered a "rectangular" phone."All this american patent system is a joke. It should be demolished completely!

author: 8086
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 01:57:16 pm
content: Probably the worst part is that those with patents are often sitting on their arse, watching the world go by, someone comes along who is actually going to improve it, when they never will (in this case, make it cheaper) and then get up in arms about it when the markets arenotthe same - i.e. the people who would buy the cheaper version would never buy the more expensive one.Then of course there is the question of whether the company selling them at a high price should then innovate and come up with a better reason for consumers to buy theirs instead of the competition. But no, on their arses they sit...

author: M. András
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 02:00:35 pm
content: why can they even make a patent for "shape or form factor"

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 02:10:05 pm
content: When I first saw KS I thought patents could be a potential downfall.KS is so new it probably falls between legal definitions of traditional seller/marketer etc. and it will take some legal cases to establish their responsibility - I'm sure they will already have done plenty oflegal work on risks like this as well as the more obvious ones like complicity in campaigns that turn out to be fraudulent.IMO they're basically no more than a payment processor.I think 3D going after KS could backfire on 3D - KS will clearly see it as a generic threat to their whole business model and likely to return fire with all lawyers blazing.One approach for Formlabs could be to keep the lawyers at bay long enough to mak & sell the KS units then open sourceeverything and fold the company. IANAl so don't know the potential repercusisons...

author: Leo Bodnar
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 02:46:16 pm
content: Quote from: M. András on November 22, 2012, 02:00:35 pmWithout this anybody can create 100% visual replica of your product (less logo) and just sell knock-off. And many do.Here is example of such a "shape" patent:http://www.google.com/patents/USD568409?printsec=description#v=onepage&q&f=false"CLAIM: The ornamental design for a portion of a steering wheel..."There is nothing there apart from the look. I thought it should have been covered by some other law, not patent law but here we go.Leo

author: M. András
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 03:31:41 pm
content: then microsoft could file a lawsuit for every car company cos they partly "steal" the idea of this controller.... the whole thing is nonsense there is enough uniqe chips in todays product which makes them very hard to copy and apart from that it looks like your product software and hardware wise it would be nowhere near

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 03:49:01 pm
content: Having read the article through I am not sure that 3D labs have a leg to stand on, MIT say that one reason they can make the machine cheaper is that a number of patents have EXPIRED, you cannot sue for the infringement of expired patents, this is most likely a fishing expedition by 3D's lawyers hoping that the other side either does not have the funds or the balls to go up against them. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 05:46:33 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on November 22, 2012, 03:49:01 pmNot MIT, the Formlabs guys say this. They are a spinoff, not MIT. There is a good chance they missed something when they did their patent research - if they did a systematic research at all. The BBC links to one patent. That one is a continuation patent of an earlier one. Maybe they missed the continuation patent.QuoteBut risking sanctions by asserting an expired patent? I doubt it. The typical thing in patent litigation is that you assert a valid patent, and one of the first things the defendant tries is to get it invalidated. Going in with an expired patent is inviting the defendant to shoot fish in a barrel.QuoteYou know what will be really interesting? How many people will argue for one site or the other without even having read the actual complaint. So as a test, I invite everyone to educate himself by reading3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 06:36:28 pm
content: Something else I've seen mentioned is that the fact 3D systems allowed the kickstarter to carry on may be to their detriment, but I suppose they canpretendclaim they were still researching...

author: Mediarocker
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 07:04:35 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 22, 2012, 10:36:07 amIf you can't compete, sue.Apple is one of the most notable examples of this practice.However they aren't the only one.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 07:18:07 pm
content: The particular claims are 1 and 23:1. An improved method of stereolithographically forming a three-dimensional object by forming cross-sectional layers of said object from a material capable of physical transformation upon exposure to synergistic stimulation comprising the steps of receiving data descriptive of said cross-sectional layers, forming said cross-sectional layers by selectively exposing said material to said synergistic stimulation according to said data descriptive of said cross-sectional layers to build up the three-dimensional object layer-by-layer, the improvement comprising the steps of:- modifying data descriptive of at least a portion of at least one cross-sectional layer by copying said data from a first cross-section to a second cross-section; and- using said modified data in forming said three-dimensional object.23. An improved method of stereolithographically forming a three-dimensional object by forming cross-sectional layers of said object from a material capable of physical transformation upon exposure to synergistic stimulation comprising the steps of receiving data descriptive of said cross-sectional layers and forming said cross-sectional layers by selectively exposing said material to said synergistic stimulation according to said data descriptive of said cross-sectional layers to build up the three-dimensional object layer-by-layer, the improvement comprising the step of:- modifying data descriptive of at least a portion of at least one cross-sectional layer by shifting said data from a first cross-section to a second cross-section; and- using said modified data in forming said three-dimensional object.Am I missing something, or are these claims exactly the same, aside from the extra "and" in one of the claims, which doesn't appear to change the meaning...If so, it may be possible for them to work around this by, for example, instead of going from top to bottom, left to right? Or, maybe forming it in a spiral or unconventional shape?

author: tesla500
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 07:34:15 pm
content: From what I've read, what 3D systems has patented is a specific method of increasing resolution by partially curing one layer, moving the piece slightly, then starting a new layer. If Formlabs ships a product that does not use this method of enhancing resolution, they should be in the clear.Of course, this is just a software change, I'm sure all sorts of enhancements could be enabled with unofficial software.3D Systems is just scared of someone releasing a product an order of magnitude cheaper than theirs that's almost as good.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 10:18:09 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 22, 2012, 09:47:20 amThe project has funded so the money has transferred. none has been delivered yet ... but legally the item is sold , it is awaiting delivery.if 3d systems would wait to sue until delivery it would undermine their case in the sense that : you knew about it , why did you wait until delivery to sue ? 'Now on the patent system : there are two kinds of patents : Design patents and technical patents.The fight between samsung an Apple is about a DESIGN patent. i'm not going to comment on that, i'm not familiar with them , i don;t know.If someone invents a new shape and patents it then someone else can't use that. pretty clear. if someone comes up with a way to picture a virtual page turn .. fuzzy at least. virtual page turns have been around for a long time. maybe the way it is done is new. up till now it was done using a mouse or other pointeing representation. if it is now done using a real finger .. and the usage of a real finger wa snot mentioned in the original patent then yes, that is patentable... as a derived patent.As for technical patents. there is a lot of arguement especially by the freetards who want everything for zilch... Patents are good as they protect an original idea or system for a given amount of time. Patents o expire. After that : up for grabs. I find it logical that, if a company has done extensive research and spent oodles of money, it should be allowed the rewards of this research. If i were to invent a new propulsion system for a car that runs on water you bet i'm going to patent that. My idea, my work , you can use it but you need ot pay for it. After x years it becomes common and then you don't need to pay anymore.Nothing int he world is free. Everyone needs to eat , drink and clothe themselves. Everything costs money. One should be allow to reap the fruits of their labours. If i am a self employed inventor my only source of income is the sales of my patents.Of course there is a lot of bullying going on especially by patent trolls. Those guys did not invent the thing nor do they know how it works. they bought, cheap, it from the inventor and now try to either flog it , or extort money by threatening lawsuits. I agree that is a disgusting way of work.Maybe the patent system should be reformed such that only the original inventor can get the rewards. that would effectively eliminate the vultures. Patents should not be sellable , only licensable until they expire. sublicensing should be blocked. the deal should always be between the original inventor and a second party.Anyway, patents are not necessary evil. It is how they are used that can be seen as evil. I have several US and european patents and they make for a nice checque at the end of the year. So you bet i find them to be good.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 10:27:28 pm
content: And here is the interesting thing. If the product supports this feature, but does not implement it natively (say, it's a module that's not included, but readily available on the internet), and Formlabs does not specifically attempt to block it -- have they violated a patent?Patents are good and bad, but on the whole, as they are currently used, they are bad for the industry in my opinion (others may differ!) My opinion is that for the average individual inventor, it's too expensive to defend. Getting one is -relatively- cheap, but defending one costs millions. So free_electron, if you noticed a product was using your patent, without paying royalties, and in a very obvious way, what could you do about it? I would imagine you'd be pretty stuck if it was a large company with lawyers on payroll.Another problem I have is that sometimes great ideas are patented which could be used elsewhere in a product... but a company would rather use it to stifle competition or wait for more favourable market conditions... now I know that it is their right to do so... but I think it hurts consumers more if a company just sits on a fantastic idea. There perhaps could be some minimum term in which an idea must be implemented for the patent to be valid.A product like Formlabs 3D printer isn't going to harm 3D Systems much, if any. People who could buy a 3D Systems printer will not buy a $3,000 toy.

author: kaindub
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 10:40:32 pm
content: The patenet system was originally set up to protect the investment companies and people made in designing a new product or process. We all know that once a new technoique is uncovered, it becomes so obvious (why didn't I think of that) and often its easy to implement once the technique is know.Foir that purrpose I think patents have a place.However in this modern world where the bean counters are at the helm (ahhh) the patent is seen as another source of income, to be chased and milked for all ist worth.Recall the recent purchase of Motorola by Google. Google wasn't after the Razr. Google bought Motorla for all the patents Motorola owned. Clearly Google is banking on making money out of the patenst (by suing others?) by licencing the technology covered in the patentsJust a sideline.People in other parts of the world (outside of the US) are confused that American patents cover the look and feel of prducts , as well as covering new innovations.Outside of the US, many counties split this IP up into things called Registered Designs, or something similar. This makes more sense intelectually than the catch all patent that the Americans use.

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 11:10:49 pm
content: That's why they're calleddesignpatents.It doesn't matter how obvious or trivial the design. If I make a design unique I cannot profit from it unless I retain exclusive right to that design. Some may seem too trivial, so let the court decide.It costs a lot of money to bring a product to market. Very small products are a lot more marketable for small businesses than they used to be, but the market for one-off toys is still limited pretty much to hipsters with plenty of disposable income. What if I want to market a toy to Millions? I cannot sell a million thingamabobs - or even a thousand - one-offing them through pokono.Yes, musicans can make money without record labels. And yes, inventors can make money without corporations. But IP ispropertyand that means it can be bought and sold. So if I want to sell my future to a record label, or sell my invention to a corporation, then the system has done its job: I've profited and the person paying me can profit. If they want to profit by selling my entire catalog to another label, or by selling what used to be my patent to another, that is their right as well. How this income chain cannot be obvious to any competent adult escapes me.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 22, 2012, 11:30:56 pm
content: Quote from: tesla500 on November 22, 2012, 07:34:15 pmYes, but the problem has nothing to do with whether or not you are right and "in the clear". The problem still remains that you are being sued for patent infringement by a $2BN company.So, even if Formlabs are "in the clear", there are still only three options:1) Go public with the info and response and hope that 3D systems then back down. (the lowest cost option, probably just some initial patent lawyer advice)2) Engage patent lawyers to try and either invalidate their patent, or prove to them they don't have a leg to stand on. (might still be lengthy and fair expensive)3) Engage patent lawyers and actually go through with the whole case and win. This will cost millions, at a minimum, and depends on how many $ 3Dsystem throws at it.Dave.

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2012, 12:21:55 am
content: There are plenty of other optionsArrange an agreement to pay damages and royaltiesArrange an agreement to pay damages and not use the technology, in which case the open source community will just hack the product anyway and the company will still benefit from those employing the hacks on their machineTell them to piss off, shutter the company and start all over with a better marketing strategy including letting the world know this is essentially the same company but without the offending technology which means they still egt hackedShutter the company and go on with your day jobGo to court, don't spend a fortune, lose the case, file for bankruptcy and sell the assets. The new company will be able to pick up without the offending technology, which means we're right back at the open source community hacking the technologyBasically, no matter the outcome, if this technology has value then those putting forth the suit still lose because the open source community will incorporate it into any applicable technology.Piracy: the great economic equalizer.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2012, 12:28:11 am
content: AIUI they haven't shipped anything yet, and until they do haven't infringed. If what they ship doesn't infringe there is probably no case to answer.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2012, 12:34:17 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on November 22, 2012, 10:27:28 pmNo. it's not included so they don't violate. But they better have some legalese in the software EULA that they are not responsable for third party mods to their software ...QuoteHas happened. I simply contact my companies lawyers... they do the rest. These are inventions made while i am employed so they go to my employer , but i do get an incentive bonus and a royalty payout. If you are an individual ... good luck fighting some 'big boy'..Quoteoh, it goes beyond that ... AGFA was notorious for patenting stuff that didn't work or was not mass producable. The base invention would work but was essentially useless. They did this to throw off their competition. The real working invention wasn't patented. Patents are a double edged sword. You need to disclose enough information so someone skilled in the field can reproduce your invention .... they can't sell it but they can reproduce it to study it and to try to find ways around it.... or maybe it will give them an 'aha' moment and invent something that is even better than yours...QuoteThat's why patents expire after a while. You can't keep 'blocking'.

author: Baliszoft
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2012, 09:07:26 am
content: Electron, you seem to be defending the us patent system. Or is it only me again?!

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2012, 02:41:15 pm
content: I am indeed defending a patent system, not necessarily the us one.The reason is simple : if i invent an original system i want to be able to reap the benefits of that system , for a predefined amount of time.I spent time and money creating something new so i want to be able to have some cashflow returned to me while blocking others from selling cheap knock-offs. After a number of years it can be released. If i am any good i will have something new by then. Nobody works for free. Everybody needs money to live. It's that easy. After all fair is fair. I spent time and money making something. I should be able to get a return on that investment.That is the only premise i am defending.Other thing like patent trolls i am not defending. The gainback should be for the original inventor. If he wants to licencse it to someone else and has no interest in further pursuing it, that is fine by me as well. But there should be no sublicensing of the patent.In my work contract there is a clause that states anything i invent becomes the property of my employer and that proper attribution , reward and incentive will be given. The numbers are specified ( i'm not going to disclose what they are ). Point is : i invent something while at work: it is my employers property as i was paid to do the invention. But the employer will throw in an incentive payout , have my name on the patent (attribution) and there will be a percentage of the profit of sold items containing the invention. Fair enough with me.Patents should be technical in nature. Design patents should not be called patents, they should be registered designs, more like trademarks.

author: amd
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2012, 08:23:39 pm
content: Damit, I pledged for this project!I have a Makerbot Replicator and was so happy when I saw this project...a real 3d printer. With high resolution. And repeatability. Not this pile of wood.Yet another dream gone. And all the money.

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2012, 06:15:52 am
content: QuoteEven in the US, "Design Patents" (design, look and feel, etc) are quite separate from "utility patents" (inventions.) You just can't find many people in the press who know that...It's thorny territory. There OUGHT to be some protection against "I decided to build a product that looks and acts exactly like my competitor's, because everyone likes their product." But patenting a rectangle is going too far. (Probably. There's a lot of technology and effort that goes into making a phone shaped like a (nearly 2d) rectangle actually work.)(However, IMO, none of the Intellectual Property protection mechanisms currently in existence adequately covers software.)This particular case of alleged infringement seems to be based pretty firmly on the technical side of things, though. It'll be interesting to see how things work out. Just because key patents run out, doesn't mean that ALL the patents associated with an invention have run out. A savvy company or inventor will continue to get additional patents on their latest improvements. (I have vivid memories of the time when the Polaroid patents on "instant" photography ran out, and Kodak pretty much immediately started selling an equivalent to Polaroids LATEST stuff. They got slapped down pretty hard, and I'm pretty sure that they deserved it!)

author: ivan747
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2012, 10:53:22 am
content: Quote from: Leo Bodnar on November 22, 2012, 02:46:16 pmIt would be covered by copyright laws. Crocs aren't patented, but they are suing companies that copy their style and brands. Could you imagine Crocs patenting their shoes and then suing everyone who makes rubber shoes?