Your opinion on Patents

[Generic Default]

Hi everyone,

I haven't seen any thread specifically about this yet, so I'm just asking for your opinion about patents. Reprap, 3d printers, and open source stuff in general are deeply tied to patents in one way or another, so I made a new questions and a poll.

1) What are examples of patent abuses related to 3d printing?
2) What are examples of necessary patents in 3d printing?
3) Would you rather buy a patented product or un-patented open source product?
4) Can open-source and patents coexist?


Feel free to say whatever here; let the world know what you think.

[Demolishun]

1) I actually have not yet seen any patent abuse for 3D printing. I thought there might be some overly broad ones, but after reading them and seeing how easy they are to defeat I am not all that concerned.
2) Off the top of my head the material these guys designed definitely needs a patent on it.
3) It depends upon the product. I would rather buy a product from a manufacturer that is NOT pushing to try and enforce copyright law on the firmware. I want the ability to change the product without being abused by stupid megalithic idiots.
4) Yes, open source (hardware and software) can coexist with patented objects.

I do not think the patent system is broken. I think software patents need to go. However, I do think certain algorithms should still be able to be protected with more than copyright law. But software the patent system is hurting innovation mostly due to patent trolls. However, any system no mater how good it is will fail if the people involved are morally bankrupt. I believe a large part of the world is now morally bankrupt and any system will fail given enough time.

I have patented things in the past mostly in the oil and gas industry. Many companies use patents to defend themselves against trolls, and to obtain a limited monopoly (as patents were intended to do). I think new innovations should be protected by a consortium in the 3D printing industry. We should also be vigilant and review all new patent submissions (the patent office just started doing this) to try and nix bad software/hardware patents. Not sure if they allow it for hardware patents. For my company I will continue to patent objects, electronics, algorithms, and software IF they are in a combination. However not software on its own. It is too easy to get around those patents anyway. Because much of the software I write is system specific it stays proprietary as a result. I do contribute to OSS projects when I can, but mostly as a hobby. I have also contributed OSS software of my own as part of other projects (game engines mostly).

So, I am mixed on the good/bad of patents, but until they go away completely they are a useful defense mechanism and way to gain a competitive edge for new products and services.

Edit:
Do patents hurt innovation? Yes, for the software industry mainly.
Do patents help innovation? Yes, for the hardware, process, and algorithms that are developed. Those classes of inventions can take significantly more effort to develop and perfect than software. It took the GeckoTek folks a year to come up with the proper chemistry for their build surface.

[JohnStack]

Hi everyone,

I haven't seen any thread specifically about this yet, so I'm just asking for your opinion about patents. Reprap, 3d printers, and open source stuff in general are deeply tied to patents in one way or another, so I made a new questions and a poll.

1) What are examples of patent abuses related to 3d printing?
2) What are examples of necessary patents in 3d printing?
3) Would you rather buy a patented product or un-patented open source product?
4) Can open-source and patents coexist?


Feel free to say whatever here; let the world know what you think.

I don't know about 1 - 3 but Open-Source and Patents can co-exist if the patent is oriented towards the community. In other words, protect the IP so that the community can build it or build around it. I think this is happening more often. Consider Tesla as an example.

Broad brush stokes regarding patents don't work. People have to invest in patents until the system changes. In other words, you can go "ugh, patents!" or you can patent and state that you're patenting to avoid the IP getting locked up.

#perspective

[Tinyhead]

...Open-Source and Patents can co-exist if the patent is oriented towards the community. In other words, protect the IP so that the community can build it or build around it.

+1

[Polygonhell]

I'm not a huge fan of the concept of "intellectual property", having said that I have a couple patents to my name, because it's the way big companies protect themselves.

The poster child for why patents exist is big pharma, the cost of bringing a drug to market through all the research and testing is enormous and by comparison the cost of copying and producing it is tiny. The argument goes that without the timed exclusive, companies wouldn't invest the research and testing dollars to create niche drugs.
And it's not a bad argument, they existing system however is clearly broken, and made worse by the existence of patent trolls, (companies who file patent claims, but have no exposure because they don't have any products).

I think there has to be a system like it, but I don't think there is an easy fix, there are whole classes of things that should not be patentable IMO (software most notably), there ought to be accelerated public domain availability if the company owning the patents doesn't use them in a product. Perhaps they should be none transferable, so patent trolls can't buy them, and perhaps the exclusivity window should be shorter.

[Generic Default]

there ought to be accelerated public domain availability if the company owning the patents doesn't use them in a product. Perhaps they should be none transferable, so patent trolls can't buy them, and perhaps the exclusivity window should be shorter.

Yup.

The drug manufacturing thing kind of goes both ways in my opinion; maybe a monopoly on a life saving drug is an incentive to develop it, but once it's been developed, I care more about the people it's supposed to save than the shareholder's profits.

I was considering getting a patent on a novel invention two years ago, but the costs were too high at the time. I ended up putting the development on hold for money reasons.

Now I'm considering getting a few design patents on 3d printing products that I'm going to release soon. I've always had a slightly negative view on patents because I've seen a lot of overly broad patents, but I want to make sure that if I do choose to patent my stuff it doesn't interfere with other people's future innovations. I'm mostly concerned with patent trolls and larger companies (as well as cheap Chinese knockoffs) that exploit the overpriced legal system to monopolize the market. If that makes any sense...

[enggmaug]

there are whole classes of things that should not be patentable IMO (software most notably)

I am not sure why, in your opinion, should one be able to patent a chemical formula as in pharma, and not an algorithm as in software ?

To my point of view, there should not be any patent possible on medicines, as they are basic necessity, and I believe everyone should be able to get them when they need.
And medical research should not be based on a profit making point of view. It should be public founded.

Now, go ahead, call me a communist!

[geneb]

It boils down to the fact that medicine is real and software does not and can not take physical form. Thus the whole "Imaginary Property" monicker.

g.

[Eaglezsoar]

It boils down to the fact that medicine is real and software does not and can not take physical form. Thus the whole "Imaginary Property" monicker.

g.

I watched the movie Matrix, and now I am finding out that none of it was real? You sir have destroyed all of my beliefs in the Motion Picture Industry!

[geneb]

You're going to be really upset when you find out the truth about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and honest politicians.

g.

[enggmaug]

It boils down to the fact that medicine is real and software does not and can not take physical form. Thus the whole "Imaginary Property" monicker.

g.

I reply this will all my ignorance on the subject, but do they patent the formula, or the pill that they sell you ?
The pill is an application of the formula. It is the result of the patent being applied.

Software do produce something too. The fact that what comes out it is "just" information, does not make it in my opinion less valuable. This information can be used to create physical things in the end... such as the very same pill that implements the chemical formula that is also patented.

It is a tough question, though. I don't understand much of it, and I believe it is obscure for "they" make it so.

[Eaglezsoar]

You're going to be really upset when you find out the truth about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and honest politicians.

g.

One of your best answers!

[626Pilot]

I firmly support copyright. If I take a copy of your work against your will, am I not implicitly placing my opinion about how your work should be distributed above your own? Am I not establishing myself as the judge who decides how you should be treated, while you have no recourse to defend your position, let alone decide how I should be treated? I treat myself better than you in a decision that concerns you, and this is not equitable. It's no better than cheating off someone else's test. They still get the grade, but you profited by their work against their will. This is naturally offensive to humans. We have a simian social sense that tells us to protect our interests from moochers. We don't want to give someone a free ride while we do all the work. After all, why should someone who steals our answers be considered in the same light as us, when they really deserve to get kicked out of the class and called out for being parasites? "Gas, grass or *** - nobody rides free!"

On the anti-copyright front, there is the concept that no one creates in a vacuum. Whatever work is done will necessarily be influenced by work others have done in the past. This is all well and good, but it doesn't address the issue of what value is added by the producer taking risks and dealing with opportunity costs and so on. If Lenny Kravitz was influenced by The Beatles, shall we deny him his paycheck because he isn't in The Beatles? If we do that, we severely disincentivize musicians from making a career of music. Then, we get less music, and what music there is is of a lower quality on average. This problem is why we need copyright in the first place. However, the "nothing is created in a vacuum" idea still holds water, because the musician is recombining at least some patterns that he or she didn't invent. The novel synthesis from old patterns adds significant value and advances quality of life for everyone who enjoys it, but it also draws on others' preexisting work. So, I can see the case for limiting copyright to the artist's life plus ten years or something like that (so that they and their offspring can yield the benefits), although I think today in the USA it's something like life plus 80 years.

I also don't see that whether a product is tangible or not necessarily makes any ethical difference. Physical theft doesn't necessarily always cost more than IP theft. AND, even if it did ALWAYS cost more, the one that costs less still matters; less isn't the same as zero. AND, you're still installing yourself as judge and jury over someone else's time and resources, while giving them no say over YOUR time and resources.

Patents are a related but significantly different matter. Copyright recognizes the value of the resources that went into production, and the value of a person's expectation to have a say over how their work is distributed. Patents are about protecting the ideas behind the finished product, but not the product itself. If I take your idea, but implement a version of it from scratch, it's not quite the same as taking the complete finished thing because I'm sticking my neck out and adding value. I may not necessarily be right to do this, however. Maybe you emptied your retirement to fund the R&D on the idea I'm copying - I get to benefit from that without having to empty my own retirement, which you might rightfully object to. For this reason, I think patents are fair in some cases, but that they should have relatively short expirations. I don't think any of them need to last longer than ten years, unless there is a very convincing reason for it (e.g. "our firm spent ten billion dollars developing this, and it'll take longer than ten years to earn that back.")

Software patents are an unusual case because they often have to do with reverse engineering rather than copying ideas. For example, Andrew Tridgell of the Australian National University reverse engineered Microsoft's SMB protocol, allowing him to figure out how Windows machines share files with one another over a network. He used this to develop Samba, a suite of programs that allows Linux to share files with Windows over SMB. He did this for the sole purpose of interoperability, and the benefits to the public (as Samba is open source) have been immeasurable. This has come at the expense of Microsoft's ability to sell Windows licenses, and they are the ones who spent money to develop the protocol in the first place, so their interests have been harmed. We are therefore presented with a conflict between Microsoft's interests, and the interest of consumers in having their systems interoperable. In Tridgell's case, he didn't copy their code or specifications (which he had no access to in any event). Instead, he had to invent his own set of protocols that speak the same language as Microsoft's SMB. So, does Microsoft have a reasonable expectation that nobody will make a product that shares files with Windows without their permission? I don't think so. Their interests are harmed by Samba, but I don't think they have a right not to be in this specific case.

For patent abuses relating to 3D printing, it's said that Thingiverse's terms of use have changed in a way that abuses patents. I don't know all the details, but there is definitely some squabbling going on over that. The thing with a patent is that you have to defend it. If you patent something cool and people start doing knockoffs, and you let this go on for years without raising a finger, and a whole ecosystem forms around that, the courts (in the US at least) are likely to point the finger at you for letting things get out of hand so that you could take advantage of the situation. There may be some patents about 3D printing, but RepRap has been around since about 2006 and I don't see anyone going after Cartesian printers. I haven't heard of anyone going after delta printers either. If such patents exist, their holders have had adequate time to realize that they're being infringed and have done little or nothing to defend them. This will put them in a very weak position if they ever decide to troll over them.

Re: open source and patents, it would have to be case-by-case. There are so many ways for open source and patents to potentially interact.

Re: patents on medicine... our government is spending trillions on fighting wars that most of us don't care about and won't benefit from, at all, for people who need to learn to solve their own problems, just as we had to. They need to get good and sick of being lead around by the nose, and they need to produce a leader of their own, from within their ranks, who understands their peoples' struggle and has what it takes to make things better. (In other words, they need their own version of George Washington, because we can't just give that to them.) I say we ditch the constant wars and spend that money on things that actually benefit most Americans, like medical research and solar electric. If they're going to take this money from us by force, as they do through taxes, they ought to at least spend it on us.