Thanks for the follow-up article link. Although the article says people in the comments here are misunderstood it seems to me like everyone agrees that this is not the kind of thing that should be protected by DMCA.

I used the DMCA to get counterfit ebay listings removed that were intimating my products and claiming they were my brand. If I were to follow the same logic as stratasys then I would be able to go after products that did not even match, since they would be cutting into my profits. It's a laughable mis-interpretation, only able to exist because of the software on the chips. It's that clause about reverse-engineering a copy-written piece of code that allows this whole argument to exist.

But what I don't understand is that, how does the copyright cover the distribution of filaments? It only covers the hacking of the device, right? So technically everyone would be able to sell the filaments, it's just then they would be encouraging the hacking of the chips, and thus the lawbreaking, outlawish behavior of good-to-do printshops?


Quote Originally Posted by Brian_Krassenstein View Post
In the wake of discussion about Stratasys' IP protection rights, Michael Weinberg has contributed his voice to the conversation. As the author of the petition before the US Copyright Office, Weinberg brings a unique knowledge to the table. He states that Stratasys does not, in fact, have the right to protect the materials used in their machines, harking back to the example Lexmark provided in the 2D printing arena. Read his full opinion here: http://3dprint.com/77334/3d-printing-copyright-office/