Welcome to the SeeMeCNC Community

http://www.tctmagazine.com/blogs/jwblog ... sc.twitter

It's a perilous time for our community. We need to keep it open source!!! Any suggestions for a website to replace thingiverse?

Jimustanguitar wrote:http://www.tctmagazine.com/blogs/jwblog ... sc.twitter

It's a perilous time for our community. We need to keep it open source!!! Any suggestions for a website to replace thingiverse?

Thanks for posting. I started thinking about this at about 4 AM today...

Inevitably rollups occur in rapidly advancing markets. I was sorry to see them get purchased but knowing some of the folks who invested in them (for example, Brad Feld), an exit had to happen.

I think this creates an incredible opportunity for smaller makers (@SeeMeCNC) to do solid products - and for a series of rollups to occur - even with individuals who make specific single components. Admittedly, I'm in this space to capitalize on opportunities - and I might be too late to the party.

There is a significant amount of room as the result of this transaction - but remember, there will only be three, max five category killers (3D Systems, Stratasys, and I'm going to guess Dassault or someone like them will start making plays.) We'll see additional category killers emerge in printer control systems (ala Octoprint) and 3D Scanning (No one emerges as a winner yet).

RE: OpenSource

There are waves of expansion and contraction with OpenSource. I don't think there will be a threat here yet - two or three years down the road, I believe the same thing will happen that has happened with mobile and databases. For example, there was no JSON handler in iOS but two or three predominate Open Source solutions. After two or three years, Apple embedded it in their product.

The real concern I have for OpenSource is IP. Category killers tend to be very agressive when it comes to IP - claiming patents for the sake of their shareholders. The great part is home makers can ignore patents for the sake of their own production and smaller kit builders can rely on outside parts to complete their packages. What it restricts is someone crossing the chasm to offering whole assemblies - which have parts that are protected by IP.

RE: Thingiverse

Not impressed - except in the fact that it is the defacto source for drawings.

I'm surprised that Make Magazine doesn't put up a site. We're not talking rocket science - a content management system and stl viewer, etc.

I've viewed Thingiverse as Makerbot's stepchild. Something they did for the ecosystem but with limited investment in what's needed. Search is horrible and the curation is third rate.

Anyway, that's my dollar or two's worth...

JohnStack wrote:The real concern I have for OpenSource is IP. Category killers tend to be very agressive when it comes to IP - claiming patents for the sake of their shareholders.

Nailed it. I hope that content protection, IP, DRM, and all of those types of legal considerations can stay out of the 3D printing world for a while. You're right though, as long as it's my own machine in my own home (and I'm not making money that someone else wants) I can do whatever I like.

I was at the Stratasys booth at the Atlantic Design and Manufacturing show yesterday, and noted the heated print chamber on a printer they were showing. The guy in the booth was quick to point out they have a patent on that.

I also noticed that they use about 1-2 mm of Z lift when traveling, and it seemed quicker than I expected for using a leadscrew, although the screw did have an aggressive lead angle. I wonder if they have a patent on Z lift.

- dan

I know there's patents for putting your print in a container and heat it up with a little acetone so it vaporizes the acetone and give you a glossy print.

I don't know why patents are even handed out for anything that is less significant than the secret to time travel.

lordbinky wrote:I know there's patents for putting your print in a container and heat it up with a little acetone so it vaporizes the acetone and give you a glossy print.

I don't know why patents are even handed out for anything that is less significant than the secret to time travel.

I filed for a patent earlier this year (definitely a bucket list item since I want to be an inventor when I grow up), and the main thing a patent protects, if you want to bluntly overgeneralize it, is the "right to operate". You're protecting your ownership of an idea and your related right to run a business, manufacture a product, or sell something based on that idea. You also hold the right to license that technology to other people. If you're doing it yourself (privately) and not running a business or selling it, I don't think there's anything to worry about.

This brings up an interesting point though... Can an open source 'thing' infringe on a patent? If company XYZ patents a widget that you print or make for yourself by some other means, there's nothing illegal about it unless you try to sell it, right? Would an open source Roomba infringe on iRobot? Nobody is selling it, it's just a design and maker community creating it for themselves. hmmmmm I'm not sure.

Having been through this a number of times...

The applicant must prove that it is not in the public domain before filing and then for some time after; however, the USPTO does not do a rigorous investigation of this.

Taking the opposite - if it is public domain, it is generally not patentable.

If someone puts something out as public domain (like a Thingiverse post), as long as they are not benefitting from something financially, there's nothing wrong with it. Most likely Makerbot Thingiverse has been challenged by lawyers on this - everyone who puts up a site like this generally gets threatened (Stackoverflow, Github, etc)

Anyone can challenge a patent - for example prove that something was out in the public domain before it was patented or prove they were using it commercially before it was approved - and should.

and for the don't get me started part:

USPTO is woefully understaffed and unable to properly keep up (properly being the operative term) with demand - primarily due to larger companies with leagues of lawyers procecuting (applying for) patents.

It used to be that non-obvious was a patent standard. Now, in most cases, it is not. Non-obvious appears to be a judgment call. Best example I can think of? Rounded corners on iPhones. Huh? Anything to do with touch screens and gestures. Huh?

I don't recommend getting them anymore. Get to market and let market forces determine your company/product worth.

And then there is the world of design patents - or rif's on existing patents. Even greyer.....

Jimustanguitar wrote:

lordbinky wrote:This brings up an interesting point though... Can an open source 'thing' infringe on a patent? If company XYZ patents a widget that you print or make for yourself by some other means, there's nothing illegal about it unless you try to sell it, right? Would an open source Roomba infringe on iRobot? Nobody is selling it, it's just a design and maker community creating it for themselves. hmmmmm I'm not sure.

Yes absolutely it can, but it's unlikely anyone would bother filing a suit against you since the returns are based on damages.

The problem with patent law for the most part (other than the woefully poor standards required to file these days) is the cost of challenging a granted patent, it's almost never worth the cost of defense so most companies settle rather than fight. Even seemingly simple defenses like prior art are basically not economically feasible unless you are a multimillion dollar company.

This is just a teaser/quick heads up on a file sharing site ala stratabotiverse



http://repables.com



We are in no way owners of this site, however, we are simply covering the development costs, but more to come shortly about this!

I haven't posted anything on thingiverse since MB started its downward spiral. I have a bunch of film/video widgets I'd love to share (though they would probably have a very small audience). But, I have no interest in feeding MB's site. Can't wait to see what the community comes up with to replace it.

Can't find anything about the repables site - when is this due to launch?

Cheers,
Nathan

Patents should only be applied to the useful and innovative software, applying it to just any software will restrict others to make a better version of your software. The invention must be useful. Usefulness is not a hard test, but simply means that the invention does something desirable.

Jimustanguitar wrote:

lordbinky wrote:I know there's patents for putting your print in a container and heat it up with a little acetone so it vaporizes the acetone and give you a glossy print.

I don't know why patents are even handed out for anything that is less significant than the secret to time travel.

I filed for a patent earlier this year (definitely a bucket list item since I want to be an inventor when I grow up), and the main thing a patent protects, if you want to bluntly overgeneralize it, is the "right to operate". You're protecting your ownership of an idea and your related right to run a business, manufacture a product, or sell something based on that idea. You also hold the right to license that technology to other people. If you're doing it yourself (privately) and not running a business or selling it, I don't think there's anything to worry about.

This brings up an interesting point though... Can an open source 'thing' infringe on a patent? If company XYZ patents a widget that you print or make for yourself by some other means, there's nothing illegal about it unless you try to sell it, right? Would an open source Roomba infringe on iRobot? Nobody is selling it, it's just a design and maker community creating it for themselves. hmmmmm I'm not sure.

While the topic is open...

You can't own an idea. You can corner the methods around the execution of that idea using trade secrets (because in some ways, they have stronger protection than patents), but I would debate that that isn't owning, either. Period.

The term "intellectual property" doesn't make any sense. I didn't come up with this, but it goes something like this: You have a pen and I have a pen. We exchange pens. Now we each have one pen that wasn't the one we had before, and we can lose that pen or it can be stolen (i.e., physically removed) from us. In that case there would be fewer pens. Now consider that you have and idea and I have an idea. We exchange ideas. Now we both have TWO ideas. Nobody can take that second idea from me.

Maybe not quite on topic, but it should demonstrate the point of ownership of an idea.

Yes, you are correct that the original, codified, intent of patents was to offer limited-time protection over the total rights to an idea. The intent was to encourage innovation, stemming from the thought that if someone's idea wasn't protected by law they might be afraid to execute that idea and release it as a sellable product. Patents give protection in return for the release of the details of the invention. If you search through many early patents, you will see that the explanations are quite detailed and much more clear than the standards used today. You will also notice many derivative inventions that reference older patents. This was the point.

About your comments of private use. IANAL, but am the co-inventor on a few patents, have spent too much time with attorneys, and had one semester of, and here's that damn term again, IP law focused for engineers and technologists (so that makes me a lawyer on the internets, right!?). Private use is *technically* covered by the patent statute, just as Polygonhell describes. The open-source "thing" I think is a bit more difficult because those designs would also be covered by copyright, and copyright often has a lower bar for demonstrating infringement.

Jimustanguitar wrote:Nobody is selling it, it's just a design and maker community creating it for themselves. hmmmmm I'm not sure.

This is where you went just a bit too far. While if you design it for yourself, the chance of any company coming after you is infinitesimally small, once you involve a community, that company is going to take much more interest and be able to make a case much easier. Also the word "design" has copyright implications once again. They might not be able to get damages, but an injunction will end your fun real quick.

While I think it's great you want to be an inventor, do some more research on the larger effects of an improperly working patent system. Especially research the number of patents invalidated when they get to court (I can't recall the percentage, but it's staggeringly high). I also don't want to burst your bubble, but patents don't hold much high-esteem in the engineering world that I've experienced. I know many engineers that all have the same attitude of "...eh, yeah the company lawyers said we had to patent it." I don't even list mine on my resume. A good idea is going to warrant appreciation whether some government office "approves" it or not.

My recommendation is that if you want to be involved in patents, be a patent attorney. They're the only ones that can make money directly off of patents, and sometimes multiple times from the same one when it comes up for litigation.

My serious recommendation for being involved in patents, if your passionate enough about it, is to get involved in technology policy. Try to affect change in the sorely broken system that seems to hinder innovation rather than encourage it.

Otherwise, be an inventor, create cool stuff, and keep doing it. As long as you continue to innovate on your own ideas and not expect the checks to keep rolling in for 17 years, you'll be fine, that is until you realize that by putting a screw in the corner of that case you probably violated someone else's patent. Oh, and don't put any kind of computer in your device...EVER! Some ass-hat in China is going to copy your successful invention whether you have a patent, or not.

It seems that I just regurgitated some of JohnStack's points, but I think that they are important enough to show that he's not the only one that feels this way.

ralphwillie wrote:Patents should only be applied to the useful and innovative software, applying it to just any software will restrict others to make a better version of your software. The invention must be useful. Usefulness is not a hard test, but simply means that the invention does something desirable.

Let's just leave the software side of this out, can we?

Sure, just as long as you agree that patenting software is abhorrent. Despite what lawyers think, you can't patent math.

g.

The implication was, well, implicit. I just didn't want to get THAT topic going...KILL ME if it does.

hehehehehhehe