Hi guys, so I've heard about 3D systems going after Formlabs awhile back but many patents ran out in 2014, here we have DLP printers now and i see many of them on the market, are they too going to face the patent hammer coming upon them for DLP ??
Printable View
Hi guys, so I've heard about 3D systems going after Formlabs awhile back but many patents ran out in 2014, here we have DLP printers now and i see many of them on the market, are they too going to face the patent hammer coming upon them for DLP ??
I think any damages proved before the patent expiry are still valid. Any products produced after the expiry are fair game IMO. 20 Years in the US right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ServiceXp
A U.S. utility patent, explained above, is generally granted for 20 years from the date the patent application is filed; however, periodic fees are required to maintain the enforceability of the patent.
A design patent is generally granted protection for 14 years measured from the date the design patent is granted.
A U.S. trademark generally lasts as long as the trademark is used in commerce and defended against infringement.
Copyright protection is for a limited term. For works created after January 1, 1978, copyrights last for 70 years after the death of the author. For works "made for hire" (covering the usual type of work owned by a small business), the copyright lasts for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For more detailed explanation of copyright terms, visit the Copyright Office webpage or consult this guide onDuration of Copyright(link is external) provided by the Copyright Office.
A trade secret can be protected indefinitely as long as the secret is commercially valuable, its value derives from the fact that it is secret, and the owner take reasonable precautions to maintain its secrecy.
I met this guy who made and RC airplane that was 50" in wing span, i asked him why he didn't make it bigger, like 80", i would buy it and so would allot of people.....his answer " why, so the Chinese can buy it and reproduce it for cheaper ?, nah i don't want to do that"
I just hope that DLP printing doesn't hinder creativity as did the guy with the capability to increase the wingspan.
IIRC, and I mat be wrong, but I did do a bit of research into some ideas I had (ended up not be cost effective to patent or produce at the time, especially as I would have had to get FDA approval) That utility patents are for 9 years initially, but with the fees mentioned can be extended a few times to a total of 20 years.
I would think with the nature of 3d printing, of all types, that a company would be better off to license their IP, taking a cut of every one produced regardless of who made it, and going after companies that are infringing.
FYI, Design patents are cosmetic only. IE, the Iphone home button I believe has a design patent on it. While other companies can make a phone with a single button on the bottom, it's can't be round with a square in it. A lot of desktop icons (like the infamous circular rainbow) are also design patented. They don't regulate function, just form.
Of course, Patent laws differ from country to country, and while they are somewhat internationally regulated and reciprocated, One country's patent usually doesn't cover another. So if you have a product that is international, you have to file patents in many countries to get protection, and places like China often won't award patents to foreign companies, holding out for a domestic company to file something similar so they can produce it.
Are you planning to patent 300 more apparatus within the 3D printing sector? There are tons of patent that you need to explain how they work properly, such as your turbine, valve and earthquake machine!
Also, you have to finish explaining your dynamic theory of gravity!
Well i want to start a project, a DLP printer and sell them to schools in my area only for the exact cost i make them for, kinda of a way of giving back but i just don't want a patent attorney coming up and saying we have a patent on this method.
Consulting a patent lawyer to do the necessary background work may be necessary here. Or at least use the google patent search (it's hard to find these days, but it's there). At the very least that will give you a starting point to compare your system vs previously awarded patents.
Just want to make sure if the pricing for patenting is still in the 15/20k$+ minimum? My boss recently applied a patent with renewal for a fee of 100k in aerospace application. Does different field application requires less to register?
Last I knew, the bare minimum to apply for a patent was about $1000. But that was if you did all the work yourself. Lawyers and patent draftsmen (Patent drawings are a of certain style) run the price up. There may be different fees for certain technologies to help limit patent trolls. But I may wrong on this.
Yeah, $1000 is the cost for "relatively simple" type of invention. It goes high as $3000 for software related or complex patents. But a more important question is: How will institutions regulate 3d printing in general? Because there are some serious intellectual property issues. I found an interesting article that covers these things, but what do you think? From a legal point of view, DIY 3d printing seems too good to be true. You can't just take some design or copyrighted material and print it yourself - even for your own use, can you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marm
The costs of the patenting process go on and on - there's not only the cost of the lawyers, and the filing fees, but fees have to be paid to keep the thing in effect. Multiply them by every country you want to protect your invention in.
I found that "interesting article" annoyingly superficial and ill-informed. It's not really possible to "easily" create a CAD file that will print a faithful copy of anything with ones smart phone, as the author seems to think. At best, you'd get a rough representation of it. It could also use some proof-reading - it's hard to worry very much about "a serious treat" for manufacturers.
More seriously, it treats the issue of replicated hard goods the same as that of replicated digital files, although there's a lot more work involved in duplicating and distributing a physical part than in copying and sharing a MP3 file. It dismisses the idea that the responsibility for toys, for example, is something to be concerned with (even though there are very strict laws about that) while it worries unduly about the responsibility for illegally printed body parts, which are still in the realm of science fiction. In defining intellectual property rights, it mistakenly gives the impression that copyrights must be registered to be in effect - this isn't true. In fact, works of expression are automatically copyrighted at the moment they are created, according the the current law. But if the person who created the work of expression shares it online with the understanding it will be copied by anyone with a printer, then they can't prevail in an action against someone who does that.
Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com