To me, it doesn't seem like they're fighting for their IP as much as they're fighting for the revenue stream coming from their consumables. If people are allowed to "jailbreak" their printers and use any consumables they want, then Stratasys would be out a lot of downstream money. Although 2D and 3D printers use a considerably different process, one can make an analogy between them in this case. 2D printers, coming from a traditional industrial company, have used the Gilette model of monetization: sell the razor cheaply, but make the only blades that fit it, and keep the profit margins high on them. 2D ink-jet printers sell for very little, often under $100, but it's been estimated that the ink for them sells for more than fine Caspian Beluga caviar, ounce-by-ounce.

Naturally, this is an attractive business model for any company interested in making money. But many of the current wave of inexpensive 3D printers have their roots in a "Makers" movement, coming from a vision of self-replicating DIY machines that are cheap to make and use in any way the makers see fit. Most of them are capable of using any filament that fits in their extruders, and despite the potential advantages of proprietary filaments that can be quality controlled tightly, loaded into cartridges and fitted with chips that automatically set the printers' parameters, they like the economy of using inexpensive bulk materials. Hence the push-back that is exemplified in this drive to open up these closed proprietary platforms. Yes, there's doubtless some IP involved in the creation of these chips and cartridges, and the firmware that controls their use, but the main issue is whether the creator of a machine or its end user should be able to decide how it's used.

Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com