Will we see copy cats?

[oninoshiko]

Yes of course.
They are not just copy cats,
they use the same technology to print highly sophisticated materials which is the central part of their work.

The z-fluid idea is almost certainly gaped from Ryan. The idea is now out there, which (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this, it's the impression I get from the peachy ethics page) is the point. No one can now patent floating resin on a slowly rising liquid. Ryan did it, choose not to patent it (despite the novelty of it) and so now it's obvious to anyone versed in the state of the art.

DLP units have been used in 3d printing before, I don't expect them to be able to get that less expensive then the peachy's setup.

I, for one, will demand the real McCoy. More adaptable, more versatile, and probably less expensive. We are at the price point where you no longer have to ask "Why do I need a 3d printer?" but "Why wouldn't I want a 3D printer." That's just amazing.

Here's the other thing they say in that article: they mention that guy doing different resins. While I'll favor official resins, have more with different properties certainly appeals.

Personally, I think Ryan will do just fine: just like Arduino, Teensy and Flora products all do fine (Teensy and Flora are Ardunio derivatives and even being listed on the Arduino web-site as examples of good community members who contribute code, bug reports, and raise the level of discourse for that ecosystem). There are those who don't contribute back, and those that are flat-out bad-faith players. I'm sure Ryan has trademarked his brand, so enforce the trademark, and go after the counterfeiters misusing the brand. Is that situation perfect? No (ask any of the soulless corporate suits and they have that same counterfeiter problem). Will it be enough to sustain Rinnovated Design, and allow Ryan to invent his next thing? Absolutely!

[curious aardvark]

No one can now patent floating resin on a slowly rising liquid.

As long as it hasn't been patented - then yes someone could patent it and apply for back revenues for anyone who's used it.

[Anuvin]

As long as it hasn't been patented - then yes someone could patent it and apply for back revenues for anyone who's used it.

Wrong. Film counts as proof, the person who applied for the patent would have to prove that they started research before public filming of the process in 2013.