[Discuss] OSHW and patent trolls 99cyasr 99patents 99trolls

Jordan Miller jrdnmlr at gmail.com
Tue Oct 29 20:09:54 UTC 2013


Interesting. There are some 3d printable versions of the makerbot ABP already on thingiverse.

My point is that if a reduction to practice is described in sufficient detail in Ed Sells lab notebooks that would perhaps be prior art and invalidate the MakerBot ABP patent. It looks like it didn't make it into Sells' thesis, but typically a published thesis contains only a small fraction of what is actually done in the lab. Dunno if he had it signed and witnessed by a 3rd party though, even if he did put it into his notebooks.

The problems with the ABP stemmed from a polymer as the belt, which always warped from heat fatigue over time (also the motor was a bit underpowered). Others have had luck with paper belts covered in kapton. There were rumors MakerBot had experimented with titanium and other metal sheet loops as the ABP build plate. I guess it never really panned out because it has been expunged from their site.

jordan





On Oct 29, 2013, at 12:46 PM, alicia <amgibb at gmail.com> wrote:

> From Hackaday:
> http://hackaday.com/2013/10/23/3d-printering-a-call-for-an-open-source-automated-build-platform/
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:27 PM, matt <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:
> fundamentally an idea can't be patented. but an implementation method can.  pax's method ( the method makerbot patented ) is not reflected in any of the material sourced.  but anyone could manufacture a headed treadmill as long as they used a different implementation method than pax.
> 
> that's how patents are supposed to work.  the issue that is a bit of a grey area is that.... defending your rights is very expensive and changes the overall dynamic of the patent office ultimately negating its value in sum totality.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Jordan Miller <jrdnmlr at gmail.com> wrote:
> yes but reprap predates and inspired MakerBot. here Adrian Bowyer asserts Ed Sells (Mendel v1 developer) came up with the idea:
> http://blog.reprap.org/2010/07/continuous-belt-production.html
> 
> I wonder if it was written in his notebooks.
> 
> Adrian I believe also invested in MakerBot. But Ed Sells thesis was published in 2009, would be interesting to take a look. Most of the work detailed the reprap Darwin and goes back to 2007 or so:
> http://opus.bath.ac.uk/20452/2/UnivBath_PhD_2009_E_A_Sells.pdf
> 
> jordan
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 28, 2013, at 4:40 PM, Andrew Plumb <andrew at plumb.org> wrote:
> 
>> Yup, he's named in the patents themselves:
>> 
>> https://www.google.com/patents/US8226395
>> https://www.google.com/patents/US8287794
>> 
>> Andrew.
>> 
>> On 2013-10-28, at 3:07 PM, matt <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I remember pax working on that platform a long while back like early cupcake days.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Jordan Miller <jrdnmlr at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> you might consider looking at makerbot's patent on the automated build platform conveyor belt system for automatic serial (one after another) 3d printing, which I believe was predated by prior art descriptions of this technology/idea on the reprap forum a long time ago. dunno the priority date of the MakerBot patent.
>>> 
>>> jordan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Aug 22, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Alicia Gibb <pip at nycresistor.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Thanks for the article, it's helpful when this stuff is documented. Catarina, oshwa's research chair is writing a business survey, this would be a good question to enter, and really any IP issues would be good to hear about.
>>>> 
>>>> Alicia
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 20, 2013 7:29 PM, "Doug Leppard" <doug.leppard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Alicia thank you so much for your answer which went to the core of my question.  I had heard patent trolls went after startups even if there was no money and either killed the startup with their demands or got a piece of the action (percentage of the company) to force the startup to get rid of the threat.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Colleen Chien worked a white paper on “Startups and Patent Trolls”.  The paper has excellent recommendations on changing patent law.  See http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2146251
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> I am glad to hear it has not been an issue so far with the OSHW community but I know it has been with people on Kickstarter project and even Kickstarter itself.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Doug Leppard
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> From: discuss-bounces at lists.oshwa.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.oshwa.org] On Behalf Of Alicia Gibb
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:39 PM
>>>> To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
>>>> Cc: 999jy; Marketply
>>>> Subject: Re: [Discuss] OSHW and patent trolls 99cyasr 99patents 99trolls
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> I haven't yet heard of any patent trolls specifically going after open hardware. Considering that patent trolls make their money off IP, its possible that a product / project with no IP and therefore no money for them doesn't appeal to them. I'd also like to hear from the community if this has happened to anyone?
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> As for discussion, there is a lot of discussion currently in the US Congress about IP reform. Nathan Seidle testified a few weeks ago offering his changes to the current system to lawmakers: https://www.sparkfun.com/news/1229
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> If you've got ideas for patent reform, now is the time to send your congresspeople an email. 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> Alicia 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:04 PM, YES NOPE9 <yes at nope9.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> One way to deal with this is to set up a database of ideas released into the public domain ( prior art )
>>>> 
>>>> These ideas could be tagged so that Goggle could search for them .......
>>>> 
>>>> Tag could be #PublicDomainPatent
>>>> 
>>>>           99guspuppet
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 19, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Marketply wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Patents will get ever more competition from openly published, freed inventions, especially the day when there will be a reliable, open technology database available the patent system can easily access to review for prior art.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> I've been in discussion with a patent lawyer about this for two years, and I'm getting ready to submit a few guidelines for patent reform, with actual examples. Now the time is perfect.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> There's already hints of this entering public discussion.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> It would seem that the change to 'first to file' gives extraordinary advantages to open technology that hasn't yet been fully realized. I've been asking lawyers long before the change what this means for publishing (before anyone files a patent), and all replies look good for publishing 'open patents' before anyone can file the patent.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Speed is of the essence. And crowd-powered efforts on open projects have that as a natural advantage. 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> We only need a Quirky type of organization for publishing high quality open technology schematics at lightning speed, and a revolution in open technology is upon us.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> If anyone wants more info on the patent reform guidelines or even to collaborate we can open a new discussion.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Marino Hernandez
>>>> 
>>>> (just a founder of Marketply)
>>>> 
>>>> 203-429-420
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> On August 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM Doug Leppard <doug.leppard at gmail.com> wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>> What are some experiences with OSHW and patent issues especially patent trolls.  A friend of mine who is a patent attorney said that almost anything you do could be covered by a patent already.  Recent articles shows of trolls going after Kickstarter projects.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Any experiences here?  Anything to learn from?
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Doug Leppard
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> ClothBot Designs
>> info at clothbot.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> "The future is already here.  It's just not very evenly distributed" -- William Gibson
>> 
>> Me: http://clothbot.com/wiki/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss



More information about the discuss mailing list