⚠About "SUPER THANKS": it is NOT a crowdfunding effort for legal action ⚠ ❤Wow! Your financial support has been amazing-I feel truly humbled and thankful ❤ This video took many weeks of work; my initial goal was simply to raise awareness around the 2020 patent. Fortunately, I also discovered weaknesses and problems within the patent, and the more we share, the more encouraged slicer developers can feel to develop "Brick Layers" without fear. As for direct legal action, I won’t be taking that on myself. I want you to know that your support is helping me as a content creator. I’m not yet sure if a legal action is necessary or the best way to go. But this is a fascinating topic, and I’m reaching out to attorneys who can help us better understand this area in future videos. For producing topics like this, your help is invaluable.
the european patent office and specifically the examiner in charge of the patent application has already been notified since the video was uploaded by people filing third party observation on their website. You can check the european patent register website to follow the application as it has not been granted yet.
I've been involved in many patent oppositions as an expert witness, as well as having my own patents. Let me answer your comments. First, no, patent examiners don't do this research. There are far too many patents. They simply type some keywords into a database and send back a list of patent numbers requesting that you explain why the patent is valid with these in mind. They then look at your response briefly and if you seem to know what you're talking about they approve the patent. Nobody actually examines them any more. These days the responsibility is on industry to oppose patents that are invalid or have prior art attached. In a classic example (quoting New Scientist) "John Keogh was issued the innovation patent for a “circular transportation facilitation device” under a patent system introduced in May 2001.". In other words, he patented the wheel. This was a silly patent made to prove this point. The key is that is is much cheaper to get a patent than it is to challenge one. Thus, many big companies issue thousands of patents each a year. This database is then used to as a weapon against innovation by their competitors. The common term is "lawfare". As to the patent you think is false, you're probably right. So, you have a choice if you're Prusa. You ignore the patent, as you honestly believe it's rubbish, and take the risk that the patent owner will sue you and that you can afford to defend yourself, or you say "ahh, why bother, is it worth that much to me"? It a lot cheaper to file the lawsuit against you than it is to defend yourself. It's also very expensive for you to challenge a patent after it's approved. The trick is to challenge patents BEFORE they're approved. All patent offices have a process whereby patents are made public prior to being approved and you can object to the patent and provide detailed grounds for doing so. If you want a crowdsourced way to fight this lawfare, then reviewing patents prior to approval is the way to do it. I used to do this for a company as part of my engineering job.
@@skippyskippyxI was contacted by an Attorney yesterday showing me this too! For the European application, that’s quite interesting. About the US patent, the course of action might be very different. I was contacted yet by an Attorney / Patent law professor and we definitely need to make a follow up video explaining a lot of things. We had a conversation yesterday, it will surely be a fascinating video (so many things I didn’t know about the patent system). Stay tuned! ❤
@@luizfelipecastrocoelho9314 The institution itself is the problem. In short, information use is not theft. This is the case because it doesn't deprive anyone from using their own invention. Instead, it prevents another individual from using their own mind... Absurdity. Quite philosophical, but the State makes this a tangible thing via monopoly of force.
*The answer is "go for it". Don't let the newer patent hold anyone back. As a patent holder myself, I know that a patent is only as strong as your ability to defend it in court. They have no defense in court. Their new patent is prior art.* Here is what would happen. They would see someone violating their patent and want to sue them. They would have to hire a patent attorney to sue them in court. This patent attorney is going to look at their patent and and probably send out a cease and desist order and notice of infringement to the offending party. The offending party would respond showing the prior art. Once the patent attorney is made aware of the prior art, they are going to inform their client that their patent is indefensible.
yeah I agree, so the slicer needs to add this feature before new problems in the future. if we have "strong" patent that already expired it can nullify "weak" 2020 patent
Then you would be able sue the regulatory body for the expenses (if there are any left) and damages - if their litigation is found unsubstantiated, no?
❤ THANKS! I contacted Christa - she watched the video and we already scheduled a quick call. Discussing this patent, on a video, together, looks like a good idea. Let's see if we can do it 👍
I had a similar issue back in 2014, another company managed to patent one of our products from 1973. Our attorney negotiated directly with their attorney. The offer was if they did not file an infringement claim, we would not get their patent invalidated. I think patents mostly make lots of money for lawyers.
Personally, I would of invalidated their patent. I would of went through hell to invalidate it. If you had a patent on a product from 73 and it expired like this, its fair game and no one should steal your work. If you didn't have a patent then that's your fault and I'm suprised the agreed to anything as legally they'd be in the right
I've been a patent lawyer for 29 years. Had a VERY quick look at what we call the "file history" of the patent in the USPTO. That is a record of all of the communications between the inventor (or their patent lawyer) and the USPTO. From the file history, the examiner in the USPTO apparently did NOT 'consider' (legal term) the 1995 Stratasus patent. In fact, the examiner explicitly said in the file history that the inventor SHOULD file an "Information Disclosure Statement" (IDS) listing all of the patents cited in the specification of the patent. It does not appear that the inventor heeded this recommendation from the examiner. That is, no IDS was ever filed in the application. Since the Stratasus patent was not listed in an IDS and was not cited by the examiner in any of the office actions in the file history, it was never 'considered', officially, by the USPTO. This is NOT any kind of an automatic invalidation of the 2022 patent. It does, however, raise some very important issues that could result in the patent being invalidated at some point in the future. I'll have a closer look at some things, including the currently pending divisional applications that are directly related to the 2022 patent. Interesting to see what might have happened in USPTO since 2022. @GeekDetour can contact me if you have any patent procedural questions. BTW, getting rid of patents would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Good luck with that.
Kristin, thank you so much for the time you’ve put into looking at this aspect - I looked at the file history too, but the amount of information there is overwhelming to anyone that doesn’t actually work with patents. I was curious if the examiner ever searched for the 1995 Stratasys patent - and he actually did (sort of): in the search history, if I recall correctly, it was the very first search! But it was a search with that incorrect patent number, not the actual Stratasys patent number 🤷♂️ By the way, I need to thank @ChristaLaser to help me knowing about the file history - she sent me the link for it, I didn’t even know of its existence when I made the video. I am learning so much more from contributions like yours - thank you so much! By the way, so far it looks to me that getting a patent granted costs very little - getting a patent invalidated (even if there is a grotesque problem) is extremely expensive. It probably isn’t the best course of action for the Open Source community - what’s your take on that? Thank you again!
@@GeekDetour Yes, the 'cheapest' and simplest route is to file an inter partes reexamination ("IPR") in the PTO. The filing fee is $19k and, if accepted, there is another fee of $22k. The attorney fees are additional to this. However, if you found an honest patent attorney to prepare the IPR papers, you could probably keep this below about $10k to about $15k. This was not always the case. These fees used to be a few thousand dollars. Although 98% of the anti-USPTO comments you see are from a place of ignorance, the theory that they jacked up the IPR fees under pressure from corporate patent owners to protect patents is about half true. The cost typically quoted for getting a 'simple' patent issued is about $20k to $30k. Most would not call that "very little" but maybe. If I had to guess, the 2022 patent we are talking about here cost at least $20k, probably a bit more. Did other patent attorney talk about submitting the Stratasys patent in the currently pending patent application file histories. The fee for that is about $180.
I'm a machine design engineer, and over the years I've notice many patents get granted for common sense things that have been widely used for MANY decades. No one in the past bothered to file a patent, because it was already common, and then someone comes along, re-"invents" it and files a patent, and it is granted. It seems the patent examiners have very little knowledge of common practices and don't really understand many of the supposed "innovations" they are approving.
Thhat assumes the patent examiners to have any opportunity to perform the titular task. Statistics on the US patent system (staff vs cases) indicate they blatantly cannot and could only operate by automatic ignorant acceptance.
@@monad_tcp Yes, that is the effect of removing the safeguards. Effectively the government is blindly granting more power to the most aggressive and affluent. The purpose of examining applications was to ensure they were of significant enough value to society to motivate the temporary monopoly reward.
The patent office is pretty liberal with granting patents. I think the thought process is that if the patent has prior art or shouldn't be granted, then someone will challenge the patent and it will be invalidated. I don't know if that's the most efficient way to do things for the public as a whole, but from the PTO's point of view, it's the most efficient for them..
Btw, they obviously knew of the old patent but either intentionally or unintentionally fudged the reference. If we can prove damages they may be liable. The best thing they can do is pull the patent to avoid any lawsuits.
It doesn't even need to go this far. Just one manufacturer has to put it in their software, and let the other guys sue over it. But the cheapest way would probably be to appeal the patent with the patent office, citing the earlier patent.
@@TSteffi But this is what Is my biggest peeve. Patent offices charge for re-examination and it's the complainer that pays. They are under no incentive to do a good job when granting a patent. Regardless of bad prior art review, or even not even checking claims, they win and get paid twice.
@@GeekDetourI have dealt with patent issues, as an engineer / entrepreneur, and that is no guarantee, but this is such a clear case that no one has anything to fear
@@TSteffiThe patent holder can sue any infringing party, as long as the patent is active. But in this case they stand no chance, as the patent is worthless.
The most common slicers should just implement it. If the patent troll want to go to court, they can just laugh them out by showing this video. Get the patent thrown out and continue on with innovation.
Yes. This appears to be a wrongly issued patent.... However there's no authority to appeal to get it thrown out. It's on the patent holder to try to enforce his patent. They can sue the slicers who implement it, but it doesn't look like they have a leg to stand on. IMO they would fail to even get a preliminary injunction against the slicers as the slicers lawyers would very likely ague they were implementing tech from the expired 1995 patent, not the probably invalid 2020 patent.
@THX..1138 while you're very right that it should get thrown out immediately, it's probably not worth the risk if they somehow drag out the court proceedings and run the slicer company to the bone. Remember this company is doing exactly that to bamboo labs and has done it before to the slicer magnum hotends.
@@madbull4666 that is how it works. wile this video cant be used as evidence the fact that this new patent is just a re-patent of a expired patent would be more than sufficient to get the case dismissed.
It easy to find a loophole, simply add a "layer infill displacement" variable in the slicer, that on default it is zero but you can set it freely (to 0.2 half of nozzle diameter). This way the slicer programmers are not responsible but only who prints, but no company's will legally bring you to court for slicing and printing your own parts at home using this method
Thanks! Junk patents seem to be over half of all new patents. Nobody is fighting them because you need very expensive lawyers and standing to even get in court with it.
This is the kind of thing that I'm going to hack on my machines and I'm not going to fell like I'm doing anything wrong, it's illegal. I don't care, I'm going to literally download a car.
That's why in French we have proper names for each instead : layer / couche, lawyer / avocat, liar / menteur. ☕ More seriously, this patent is a bad joke. Thank you for the video.
I think you are right. BUT it was keeping Slicer Developers very cautions about going after Hexagonal patterns. This was a blind-spot on all of us - we were NOT aware of the Hexagonal protection that expired in 2015-2016.
It would hold up if you know the US patent courts. Texas has the most corrupt courts in America, and the judges there will always give the decision to whomever bribes them the most. There's one of the judges who was doing this for bankruptcy, who is now in legal trouble, but with Republicans now taking control of the US legal system again, those cases will be dropped and the corruption will once again get worse. And this isn't something new, this has been going on in Texas for decades. Every company court shops and gets their cases to Texas, specifically East Texas, where these corrupt judges reign.
Subbed, you earned it with your investigation! @benclimo461 There is no need for slicer companies to sue to use this feature. They can implement any feature at any time. If someone believes that they hold a patent that protects a certain feature, the patent holder would have to sue. Then and only then money would have to be raised to show a judge this patent is not a novel invention and patent protection for it has expired. I really hope this video gains traction and emboldens the slicer teams to implement this feature. If they are sued, I for one would be willing to chip in on a crowd fund for legal expenses. But based on the evidence shared in this excellent video it would be over shortly and not go in favor of the holder of the 2020 patent.
Seems another workaround might be to build a "plugin" system into a Slicer and then someone could implement the feature and release it anonymously. At that point, the company holding the patent is going to have to play whack a mole with hosting services that host that plugin. The rest of us would benefit because we know where to find it and wouldn't be a target for violating if we don't run print farms (they'd need a large enough target to go after as they'd want to get samples of you using it in commerce). There have been other alternative ideas to FDM that never make it out of theory/prototype for the same reason.
@@KStovr patch, aka like a .patch file, that is applied with git, and not actually in the codebase basically just a text file that tells the program what to change from the source code
I’m also no lawyer but it seems like there are some good arguments against the 2020 patent. I would urge anybody with the muscles to fight this, maybe a kickstarter would be an option to fund such a venture?
We need actual Attorneys to evaluate it. Maybe there is nothing to be done (the patent could be weak enough no not stand any trial against copyright infringement). I really want to read opinions from the experts on this one. Here is where I could reach just on "common sense".
@@GeekDetour There's nothing to fight. It is on the patent holder to enforce his patent. The various slicers have to decide if they want to violate the patent. As in they have to take the issue to their attorneys for an opinion on if the 2020 patent is valid. Then they have decide whether or not to ignore the 2020 patent. If they chose to ignore it the 2020 patent holder has to take them to court. Given the 2020 patent was issued on wrong/false information chances are high the 2020 patent holder's attorneys will tell them they don't have a case.
"From the orca slicer team : last night we pushed a release with brick layers and have been sued for patent infringement. This is obviously BS, but we need help to actually fight it. If we win, literally every printer on the market can get 30% stronger parts for free with zero additional work from you." If sales from 3D printed parts being like 30% stronger increased by even 5%, a *_single_* company like bambu could already fire a benjamin minigun their direction and *_still_* get ROI. Add in Prusa, Creality, etc. to share the costs? Yeah, it's a no brainer.
It's going to take dedicated innovators like you to stop patent abuse. Thak you for making this video. Stratasys already looks greedy with the Bambu Lab nonsense, and this is just the icing on the cake. please keep pushing this as the community really needs to wake up and start pushing back against them at all levels. I.E. If they want to play the part of the bad guy, then they should be treated like the bad guy. I really enjoy your videos and am happy to support efforts such as this.
Thank you so much! But, isn't it funny that, in this case, "Stratasys Patent is setting us Free"? In general I don't like patents - but I need to say I was VERY impressed with all the technical details they developed, tested, have formulas for everything... Their 1995 Porosity Patent is something to study. Great reading even today. The patent from 2020, from a different applicant, is completely the opposite.
@@GeekDetour - The money was party to support this effort but partly to support you in general as a long-time subscriber. I don't do Patreon and you don't have a RUclips membership (I can't explain why, but RUclips memberships are "better" in my backwards brain). It does seem the Stratasys from the 90's was a different animal than the one we find today. Like they went from being a true innovator for some at the time cutting edge ideas to being a cash grabbing patent troll, but I'm not a patent lawyer either. 😁
@@Killy10000 they're probably too busy keyboard-warrioring about how a multi-billion dollar internet megacorp is actually a public service and therefore for _some reason_ shouldn't be kicking n*zis off their services
Since they referenced the older patent, they must have had some argument for why it didn’t apply. What would be really interesting would be if we could get the file history and see if there was any discussion about it. (OTOH, if it was cited incorrectly, the examiner wouldn’t have been aware of it, so there likely wasn’t any discussion around it. Still, it would be great if a patent attorney could retrieve the file history for us.)
For now, use 2:1 slopes when designing 3D models. On a 0.4mm nozzle with 0.2mm layers, you get the same effect. It’s also an amazing overhang ratio. I try to implement them as much as possible in my designs. I’ve even made pneumatic pressure chambers and heavy duty adapters that utilize the same slopes, and are still holding up.
I have successfully patented several inventions but am not a patent attorney so do not consider this legal advice. Remember that patents only restrict you from doing what is in the claims, not what is shown in a diagram. Having looked at the first 2 patents granted to the entity that filed the 2020 application, they do not claim the hexagonal configuration. Instead, one patent claims a method of making alternating beads where every other bead is half the height of the 'normal' bead, and the other claims a method where the end bead is half the width of the others. Both methods serve the purpose of filling 'gaps' in the hexagonal pattern on horizontal or vertical edges, making those edges flatter. So my interpretation is that one can print with a hexagonal configuration without infringing. However, some methods used to fill 'gaps' in the hexagonal pattern on horizontal or vertical edges may be restricted by these patents. As far as I can tell, the 1995 Stratasys patent does not discuss these gaps. There may be other prior art that might invalidate these patents, but I have not researched that issue. Happy printing!
If the patent clearly says that the "first layer of beads" have to be "half the height" I guess we could just use an extra layer where the alternating beads would be 1 - 1/4, then another layer that does 0 - 1/4 Same result, but all that we waste is an extra half layer haha
i have a patent-pending process in Europe and oen of the investigations is: is mentioned already somewhere? Because if the idea was already mentioned the Patent can't be released. As well as if the thing was already in Open Source. You can't patent it. I'm still in the process and they wil see. bt to me those are fundamental issues. Not clue if all the errors in the docs can be used to invalidate the patent itself. but certainly the idea was already exposed as Open Source so the Patent perhaps can be classified as "stolen idea" and consequently invalidated?
Thanks for bringing attention to this. Patents on a fundamental level is supposed to be a system that rewards innovation by giving certain rights to the inventors for a limited time, for the act of sharing the innovation publicly. Patents was supposed to be the OG open source platform with benefits for sharing, but it has to some extent turned in to a bureaucratic loophole/tool to ban progress and innovation by allowing ridiculous claims and scopes to be submitted. This needs to stop, just imagine how the world would have looked like today if Stratasys had managed to re-submit their FDM patents in 2012.. this one simple stupid corporate greed story held back 3d-printing for 20 years, and is still suing left and right for anyone trying to innovate. And the worst part is.. this is not companies fault, it’s the malicious incompetence by the patent offices that is supposed to manage this.
no surprise gvnmnt "incompetence" is the root cause here. YJK the people approving this sort of stuff are also making money on the side. Fingers crossed this sort of thing will get better soon.
@@dreamyrhodes I suspect that this is not a case of a "software patent" but rather a manufacturing patent, that if implemented in software could cause the hardware 3d printers to be infringing. I have not read the patents in question and I am not a patent lawyer, so I don't know if this type of thing is settled law in Europe or the USA or elsewhere. If you sell a machine for making regular foos (called the "Foo-Maker-1") to Alice, the owner of "Foos for Yous", and I have a patent on a special technique for making improved foos, if you make a new version of that machine ("Foo-Maker-2") that works using that technique, I don't think you are infringing on the patent, since you are not actually making any foos using the technique - but you still might be barred from selling it. Once you sell it to Alice and she starts making it, Alice is certainly in a bad position, and you both might be in trouble. For that reason you might never release the "Foo-Maker-2". If Bob instead sells Alice a kit to upgrade her Foo-Maker-1 into the equivalent of the Foo-Maker-2, Bob and Alice would be in a similar position to how you and Alice would be once Foo production resumes after the upgrade. In either case, Alice is the direct infringer while you or Bob could be contributory infringers. Patent holders (legitimate or trolls) would target the people who are more likely to make them the most money - that might be letting you and Bob sell your products without interference and seek licensing money from just Alice; or it might be seeking money from you and Bob and allowing your customers like Alice to get off without paying; or I might be able to get money from everyone.
@@dreamyrhodes But it's not the software that is patented it is the printing procedure ;) Nethertheless it is pretty much void if its common knowledge or has been a patent before. Just do it, let them sue you and just state in court that you are not using their patent but the patent from years ago.
Thank you so much! I agree! The 3D Printing community is the best. Specially Stefan from CNC Kitchen - he has been teaching us so many things... I was heartbroken when I found about the 2020 Patent... If it was a valid new idea, sure, it is up for the inventor to protect his work. But that was not the case.
I am currently in a process of filing a patent as a coinventor. It is wierd how much more research my tram did on possible competitors and coexisting already patented ideas than the patent lawyer.
Hi! I'm shure, interlayer adhesion problem is totally solvable. Just think about how two plastic part are connected together in other industries: 1. glue; 2. welding with heat; 3. ultrasonic welding and so on. In 3d FDM we already have premelted one "part", so we need to locally premelt the surface of the second "cold part" just before contact with melted filament. That can be done with LED laser or laser array (dirt cheap nowadays) mounted on printing head.
Thank you for making this excellent video about the patent issue you describe. Patents should not be used to hinder the evolution and adoption of technology.
I'm the owner of a company that heavily relies on 3D printing You can't imagine how this would change everything for us UPS won't be able to break our parts while shipping And we would be able to make some parts lighter and stronger
You need to thanks Stefan from CNC Kitchen, it all started with his tests. I also got thrilled, and later disappointed that nothing was happening by the reason it was.
I've worked for a parcel-sorting machine company. Parcels were dropped a couple meter on top of each others. Some parcels can be heavy and dense. And apparently, we were on the low-end of parcel-dropping heights. Robots pick parcels up with succion cups from one side and accelerate them at up to 10G. Pack well or expect things to break, or worse, open.
Thank you for doing this research! This video deserves more traction. This is the kind of thing that is going to make all of our lives better. It should not be held hostage by some small group of greedy or short-sighted individuals. I hope the right people see this and and the community can move beyond this impasse.
That is absolutely criminal. The patent examiners should acknowledge their mistake and remove the new patent that shouldn't exist. Patents are only as good as the money you have to defend them. Any legal action take by the new holder will not stand up in court. Prusa no holds barred. Time to make brick layers a printing option in PrusaSlicer. Slicer is still open source so brick layers can be added there.
I kindly agree. History should NOT repeat itself. Patents are a protection that should apply exactly once. Let's wake up everyone and keep the existence of old patents alive! They are no longer valid, but should NEVER be re-patented for any reason. I also think patent offices allow pretty much anything, with little validation done. Are they just old people with little know-how with tech that don't care about innovation?
What's amazing here is not that mistakes were made with the patent or that someone is trying to patent the same thing years later. The most incredible thing about this is why it takes so long to get someone to review and correct those issues. Amazing....
I think this situation might not be as bad as it appears? I attempted this as a part of my Masters thesis without knowing any of the patents (mainly because intuitively I knew it as staggered layers instead of brick layers) I used a different way to print those layers (multiple concentric models nested inside on another, each with a height range modifier to initiate the brick layers) I controlled the porosity by making those concentric models overlap slightly, essentially overextruding I only tested tensile strength, as that was what I was interested in I managed to get 35-36MPa from PLA samples with this approach, compared to 30MPa from PLA samples with standard layers and no overextrusion (100% cooling fan iirc for both samples) But then I tried turning off the height range modifier once, basically just printing an overextruded normal layer sample, and I got 35-36MPa as well Comparing the broken samples I found that both had pretty low porosity, but it was still broken between layers (now failure happens across multiple layers instead of just one, but still most of the fracture surface is between layers) I think that while reducing porosity (through layer structure or overextrusion) does help, it might only increase vertical strength by 15-20% The rest of the missing strength is likely in the thermal process (i.e. layer reheating), which a number of printers already do and they have claimed essentially perfect layer adhesion
What a great video, Thanks for highlighting, this, when I saw CNC Kitchens video on it, I didn't really think much of it, but now I do actually wonder why it isn't a thing in all slicers, and I can now see why. Hopefully we'll see this in the near future.
Ha ha ha, Stefan has a wooden machine, You have a 'Chain tester', Clough42 has a Vice... I am looking for my own thing - but It cannot be this one, a "Slingshot Tester" might break me a tooth.
That old patent should never have been permitted with those broad protections. Insanely restrictive. And this new patent needs to be lawyered to hell and canceled.
Even if the new patent won't hold in court, it would still be expensive to get that ruling, so the new patent can still be used to prevent free slicers from using the technique.
There is no ruling to get. The only way to challenge a patent is to ignore it. It is on the patent holder to enforce his patent. So the patent holder has to demand the slicers remove the feature after they implement it and sue them if they refuse.
@@THX..1138 It doesn't matter who initiates the lawsuit, it's still going to be expensive, way more money than a non-profit organization that depends on donated labor is going to have.
@@Waldohasaskit210 Actually the patent holder is the only one who can initiate a law suit. That's what a patent does it gives the holder legal standing to restrict others from using the tech described in the patent. So the only way to challenge a patent is to violate it. Though maybe not all Slicer groups can afford to got to court many like Prusa and Ultimaker have plenty of resources, more than the holder of the 2020 patent. In the case of this patent it's doubtful the holder can mount much of a defense anyhow. Stratasys already patented it in 95 and people openly talked about and published pictures on the net depicting alternating layers in 2019. Both events predated the 2020 patent. Either would be enough to invalidate the 2020 patent and get a suit dismissed on summery judgement. Next applying for the 2020 patent they gave wrong and or fake patent reference numbers in their description of how the tech works. That's a big no no in an utility patent. It also basically invalidates the patent as those references were part of the explanation for how the patent worked and why it was unique. IMO it's doubtful even if the patent holder wanted to waste their money on defending what's clearly a junk patent the suit wouldn't survive the first couple of hearings.
It always brightens my day to see wrongful patents get dissected. I still consider these people trolls and I hope they lost time and money on it because patenting things this way only holds back a lot of people. Patents can be great in the business sense, if they make sense. But there are so many patents that just exist to block progression. Man am I glad to see this!
Maybe there is nothing to correct. What happens in 99.5% of the printed part, using the Hexagonal Pattern, was already patented in the past. Just the bottom layer and the top layer wasn't covered in Stratasys 1995 patent - but it was on the PrusaSlicer Feature Request. We just need everyone to KNOW about these details.
@@GeekDetourso what actually is the goal by telling everyone, next steps, who owns the patent, who do we rally against? I have been thinking about this ever since Stefan posted that video and wondering what happened to it..
The latter patent doesn't really matter. As long as you're purely doing what is described and claimed in the earlier now expired patent, you can't really be stopped or sued successfully. At any rate the 3D printing community is filled with enough interested parties that surely lawyers could be hired to overturn this later patent if necessary.
Thank you very much for your research and the effort you put into it! Hopefully this is picked up by slicer developers soon. As an engineer/inventor, i find it very disappointing that patents were originally invented to protect inventors with valuable ideas, but unfortunately now are often misused by big companies.
Thank you a lot for the support! Yeah, when I watched CNC Kitchen’s video I was really excited to see Brick Layers implemented soon! But the patent kept everybody hesitant. Researching the patent was a good time investment after all - I am glad to find what I found.
Clarification: Patents were invented to get people to publish their discoveries instead of keeping them as trade secrets taken to the grave. The limited time exclusivity was meant to encourage that because now they didn't have to try to keep it secret in order to maintain that advantage. The problem is that patent law is still stuck in the 1900s when 20 years was a short period of time for innovation. By today's standards, 20 years is a lifetime - entire industries have come and gone in that time. The balance is now far too heavy in the claimant's favor and not in the public's favor, resulting in patents being used to stifle competition rather than to ensure proliferation of knowledge. Patents would be a good thing again if only they would drastically reduce the length of protections to only a few years.
Thank you so much-this is a large donation, and I really appreciate it. This video took many weeks of work, and I wanted to raise awareness around the 2020 patent. Luckily, I also found weaknesses and problems with the patent, and the more we share, the more encouraged slicer developers can feel to develop the feature. As for direct legal action, I won’t be taking that on myself, as I don’t yet know if there’s even a legal path forward. But this is a fascinating topic, and I’m reaching out to attorneys who can help us understand more about this area in future videos.
Yes! Haven't watched the full video yet, but based on the intro, this is something I've been wondering about for a while. Thanks for exploring it! Keen to see the results of the video
This is absolutely ridiculous why hold back on such an amazing technology I never comment on videos or like them but this definitely deserves the help.
6:28 nobody should, if someone can figure it out privately make a plugin and woread it absolutely everywhere under a proxy of wome sort if they cant nullify this bs claim the normal way.
WOW! I've never used a 3D printer, but I can clearly follow your thought process, and I agree with your conclusion. I especially love your closing thought. Old patents really can be treasures. I hope this will be resolved in my lifetime
I would love to see this in a slicer and would love it even more if this patent holder kicked up a storm about it and was highlighted as a fraudster, it is clearly meant to confuse a prior art search IMO and could possibly be a conspiracy between the new and old patent holder! we need a law to protect us from this sort of practice and a very large fine for anyone found practicing this, but for all I know there may well be one already, I am starting to wonder how many other expired patents have been re-patented over the years, I am suspecting this goes on more in the US as I understand they don't even search for prior art when granting patents, that is crazy if I understand this correctly.
Oh, there is no conspiracy. The original 1995 Stratasys is a wonderful document (actually, VERY interesting reading), with many different cases studied there, formulas for everything, they were really innovating - and they are a HUGE company today because of the machines they created. The "2020s" new patent is so different... If you like this type of technical reading, check the Patreon Post in the description. There are links for the patents there, you can compare. IMPORTANT: we should NOT bash the company or the inventor. I have strong opinions, but I am keeping them privately.
Attention. Even open source ideas are used by people for their own benefit and patent someone else's idea. When a patent is filed, there is a check, which unfortunately is not perfect. I have experienced this when filing a patent in Europe. And if someone starts using the patent themselves, nothing will happen anyway. The opposing party must prove everything and sue.
The patent system is broken in the US. Until it's fixed we need investigations like this to keep the system as honest as possible and innovation flowing.
I have past experience in invalidating patents. It is a LONG and EXPENSIVE process and requires a lot of work. I think this is how I lost most of my hair.
Hello there! Would you mind sharing more about your experience? A few attorneys were super kind contacting me, and a couple of them took some time to look a little bit closer into the patent and, yeah, what they say aligns with what you just commented. It is extremely expensive and there are other strategies that are more productive. Which industries you acted on?
I was going nowhere for a few days. Forgot about it… and weeks later I was doing a different research about important old 3D Printing patents… and when I saw the image I almost screamed. OMG! Is this the patent??!
No idea if a patent exists for this idea, but your video spawned a thought. A happy medium might be to over-extrude every layer, but then iron afterward filling in and smoothing it out. This gets rid of the gaps problem and mitigates the uneven surface problem. You may not need to iron every layer in order to save time, but as a first test ironing every layer may be a good idea. The trick will be in finding out exactly how much to over-extrude,.
There maybe a loop hole in the Issue itself, how you get to the effect. Stefans video is a great example to pull from. It is how he got to the effect and not the effect it self that is the "ground breaking" advance. Use the original public domain as your source, use his method ( A now copyrighted documentation) as the process to get there. A selectable layer precesss using the X settings. It doesn't have to be specifically for the hexagonal interlocking layers, but a tool that allows for that and many other option through definable layer process that can be saved like a filament profile. we set temp, hight, speed and more with them. Why not one that can piggyback Process and Peramiter combinations ( using the CNC Kitchen video for reference vocabulary). Its not ground breaking, it's old tech. Most slicers can add optional or experimental plug ins, this one just allows for greater control of the filliment it self. Just like the ability to chose Colors with an Automatic Feed system. It selects new colors, setting for that filament, etc. Sorry, they wrote there paper poorly and with more holes than their layer lines have. I hope this makes sense after you and other get to read it. You can use old masonry or clay pottery methods as examples, I mean Knitting gets overlooked for Paterns of strength all the time. Use one of them. Here is to this getting to the right eyes and ears.
Patent for aligning layers, like a thing a kid could do? Invalid. Ignore it. Let them litigate. Alternatively companies should support a plug in model, where an open-source 3rd party can add those "patented" solutions. Patents are a disease.
Yeah! Brick Layers! And thanks to Stefan for bringing us this new 'forgotten' technique. Without his video, God knows when we would be aware of the opportunity we were missing!
Given the fact that the vast majority of slicers out there are forks from one another, most of them being open source, it suprises me that anyone have already implemented this in a minor fork or whatever.
Yes unfortunately patent examiners are usually just rubber stamps, and rarely examine prior art unless an objection to the patent is raised. Even then, the filer is given the benefit of the doubt and it will have to be litigated at a great cost in court. Thank you for making this video!
Thank you! ❤️ Patents are public documents - in the description there is a link to my Open post on Patreon, with all the details, dates and links to the patent documents. I am not into bashing. Let’s focus on sharing the knowledge, that’s the only thing that matters.
Cura already supports this .. although it only works for about 3 wall line counts (most people dont use more than this) if someone wants to know exactly how, i can take a look at my settings. but the settings are in the infill category, you add infill wall lines with a custom layer thickness. unless you're printing 5+ wall lines and require strength across layer lines, the strength you gain isn't worth fighting over. not to mention doubling the layer time. if your layer height is 0.2 mm, you'll be printing at 0.1 mm to fill the gaps. if you're smart and think you'l get around it by doubling it.. now your layer thickness is 0.3-0.4 mm and re-introducing gaps between filament layers
Bullshit patents get approved everyday, it's not the role of the examiner to ensure the patent is enforceable. They just check that the shape is good and the claims are properly written. The real examination of a patent will come when there is a dispute over infringement.
The PTO has been approving bullshit since the dawn of the PTO, literally nothing new. Remember, according to the US patent system, the pump on a water cooler being on top of the CPU is a patentable invention
Patents are highly technical and complex and some can be extremely long. USPTO does not have the resources to check every detail of every patent they get. If there's a dispute you have to go through patent courts. (yea i know it sucks)
What a joke. I'm also no lawyer but I'm pretty certain that the expired 1995 patent would protect people using their methodology regardless if the other patent. I think the new patent holder would have a very difficult time defender their patent when you csn just provide the 1995 patent to the judge 😂
Nobody can prove it... but the incorrect patent numbers probably confused the evaluation of the examiners. It is a mater of "just looking" at the pictures and you would raise an eyebrow and start reading things more carefully.
We should start patenting every single good idea we have in the 3D printing community and make the patents available to everyone. This would block patent trolls from getting patents on such ridiculous things as the nozzle trajectory of a 3D printer.
I got you, bro. I also shered this video via my playlists named "Etiquettes/Lessons for Internet/Enginnering/Gaming/etc", "Entertainment", and "The world should know this right now". Hope it helps
Thank you for bringing attention to this! Hobby 3D printing is built of community and open source, to have it held back by an invalid patent is frustrating. Really hoping this gets resolved!
5:58 go look at the prosecution history on patent center and look for an IDS filed, it will have all the referenced patent literature, and non-patent literature listed that the applicant included in the application and what they want to make sure is reviewed by the examiner.
There is a ton of patents that need to be revisited with today's technology. All those inventions ahead of their time years ago, well, here's the time. If not now, when? If not us, then who? If you're not going to eat that last piece of pie I'll have it, please.
I'm not an attorney but Ive worked on legal.cases. my understanding is that if there's existing prior art the patent can be invalidated. Even if not, with the recent ruling in May of 2024, it widens the scope for what would be considrred obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Which is why the patent filer mat not go after anyone doing this, as if they do it should be easy to invalidate the patent. Even without the prior patent, If Stephans video was shown to the public before the patent filing date then this too is considered prior art.
The patent system is so incredibly broken is ridiculous. Same with the copyright system. We're getting public domain songs from 100 years ago get copyrighted by some random company who can then go steal revenue from everyone who's ever used it. Happy birthday anyone? The patent system is severely outdated and seriously stifles technological advancement.
⚠About "SUPER THANKS": it is NOT a crowdfunding effort for legal action ⚠
❤Wow! Your financial support has been amazing-I feel truly humbled and thankful ❤
This video took many weeks of work; my initial goal was simply to raise awareness around the 2020 patent. Fortunately, I also discovered weaknesses and problems within the patent, and the more we share, the more encouraged slicer developers can feel to develop "Brick Layers" without fear.
As for direct legal action, I won’t be taking that on myself. I want you to know that your support is helping me as a content creator. I’m not yet sure if a legal action is necessary or the best way to go.
But this is a fascinating topic, and I’m reaching out to attorneys who can help us better understand this area in future videos. For producing topics like this, your help is invaluable.
the european patent office and specifically the examiner in charge of the patent application has already been notified since the video was uploaded by people filing third party observation on their website. You can check the european patent register website to follow the application as it has not been granted yet.
I've been involved in many patent oppositions as an expert witness, as well as having my own patents. Let me answer your comments. First, no, patent examiners don't do this research. There are far too many patents. They simply type some keywords into a database and send back a list of patent numbers requesting that you explain why the patent is valid with these in mind. They then look at your response briefly and if you seem to know what you're talking about they approve the patent. Nobody actually examines them any more. These days the responsibility is on industry to oppose patents that are invalid or have prior art attached. In a classic example (quoting New Scientist) "John Keogh was issued the innovation patent for a “circular transportation facilitation device” under a patent system introduced in May 2001.". In other words, he patented the wheel. This was a silly patent made to prove this point. The key is that is is much cheaper to get a patent than it is to challenge one. Thus, many big companies issue thousands of patents each a year. This database is then used to as a weapon against innovation by their competitors. The common term is "lawfare". As to the patent you think is false, you're probably right. So, you have a choice if you're Prusa. You ignore the patent, as you honestly believe it's rubbish, and take the risk that the patent owner will sue you and that you can afford to defend yourself, or you say "ahh, why bother, is it worth that much to me"? It a lot cheaper to file the lawsuit against you than it is to defend yourself. It's also very expensive for you to challenge a patent after it's approved. The trick is to challenge patents BEFORE they're approved. All patent offices have a process whereby patents are made public prior to being approved and you can object to the patent and provide detailed grounds for doing so. If you want a crowdsourced way to fight this lawfare, then reviewing patents prior to approval is the way to do it. I used to do this for a company as part of my engineering job.
@@skippyskippyxI was contacted by an Attorney yesterday showing me this too! For the European application, that’s quite interesting. About the US patent, the course of action might be very different. I was contacted yet by an Attorney / Patent law professor and we definitely need to make a follow up video explaining a lot of things. We had a conversation yesterday, it will surely be a fascinating video (so many things I didn’t know about the patent system). Stay tuned! ❤
Hi, I think I have a way to work around this thing - and actually improve the strength. Do you wan tto try it and make a video about it if it works?
you are awesome
Absolutely ridiculous that 3d printing is being held back by an incorrectly submitted patent
Isn’t it? I agree.
cough-cough...enclosures..cough-cough...
Someone should sue them 🌚
I suggest you search "stephan kinsella intellectual property" and see what's up - seriously, enough of this holding back EVERYTHING.
@@luizfelipecastrocoelho9314 The institution itself is the problem. In short, information use is not theft. This is the case because it doesn't deprive anyone from using their own invention. Instead, it prevents another individual from using their own mind... Absurdity. Quite philosophical, but the State makes this a tangible thing via monopoly of force.
*The answer is "go for it". Don't let the newer patent hold anyone back. As a patent holder myself, I know that a patent is only as strong as your ability to defend it in court. They have no defense in court. Their new patent is prior art.* Here is what would happen. They would see someone violating their patent and want to sue them. They would have to hire a patent attorney to sue them in court. This patent attorney is going to look at their patent and and probably send out a cease and desist order and notice of infringement to the offending party. The offending party would respond showing the prior art. Once the patent attorney is made aware of the prior art, they are going to inform their client that their patent is indefensible.
I thought this was the base assumption, but reading the comments this appears to be the voice of clarity. 🎉
Honestly, why are we so scared of an incorrect patent that can be thrown out of court in a minute?
any litigation costs money, no matter if you win or lose.
yeah I agree, so the slicer needs to add this feature before new problems in the future. if we have "strong" patent that already expired it can nullify "weak" 2020 patent
Then you would be able sue the regulatory body for the expenses (if there are any left) and damages - if their litigation is found unsubstantiated, no?
Speak to Christa Laser - a patent attorney who has spoken on the Stratasys patents, so has 3D printing knowledge and also has her own channel here.
This. If a non-lawyer can spot this, a lawyer will have a field day with it. This new patent should not exist.
I have a friend at the USPTO. If we can connect I can feed the information to them.
@@Milkymalk Let's hope something can be done to keep it public domain forever
That is a most excellent name
❤ THANKS! I contacted Christa - she watched the video and we already scheduled a quick call. Discussing this patent, on a video, together, looks like a good idea. Let's see if we can do it 👍
I had a similar issue back in 2014, another company managed to patent one of our products from 1973. Our attorney negotiated directly with their attorney. The offer was if they did not file an infringement claim, we would not get their patent invalidated. I think patents mostly make lots of money for lawyers.
Interesting! Thanks for sharing your experience! I am curious about what was the product :)
Personally, I would of invalidated their patent. I would of went through hell to invalidate it. If you had a patent on a product from 73 and it expired like this, its fair game and no one should steal your work.
If you didn't have a patent then that's your fault and I'm suprised the agreed to anything as legally they'd be in the right
I've been a patent lawyer for 29 years.
Had a VERY quick look at what we call the "file history" of the patent in the USPTO. That is a record of all of the communications between the inventor (or their patent lawyer) and the USPTO.
From the file history, the examiner in the USPTO apparently did NOT 'consider' (legal term) the 1995 Stratasus patent. In fact, the examiner explicitly said in the file history that the inventor SHOULD file an "Information Disclosure Statement" (IDS) listing all of the patents cited in the specification of the patent. It does not appear that the inventor heeded this recommendation from the examiner. That is, no IDS was ever filed in the application. Since the Stratasus patent was not listed in an IDS and was not cited by the examiner in any of the office actions in the file history, it was never 'considered', officially, by the USPTO.
This is NOT any kind of an automatic invalidation of the 2022 patent. It does, however, raise some very important issues that could result in the patent being invalidated at some point in the future.
I'll have a closer look at some things, including the currently pending divisional applications that are directly related to the 2022 patent. Interesting to see what might have happened in USPTO since 2022.
@GeekDetour can contact me if you have any patent procedural questions.
BTW, getting rid of patents would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Good luck with that.
Kristin, thank you so much for the time you’ve put into looking at this aspect - I looked at the file history too, but the amount of information there is overwhelming to anyone that doesn’t actually work with patents. I was curious if the examiner ever searched for the 1995 Stratasys patent - and he actually did (sort of): in the search history, if I recall correctly, it was the very first search! But it was a search with that incorrect patent number, not the actual Stratasys patent number 🤷♂️
By the way, I need to thank @ChristaLaser to help me knowing about the file history - she sent me the link for it, I didn’t even know of its existence when I made the video.
I am learning so much more from contributions like yours - thank you so much!
By the way, so far it looks to me that getting a patent granted costs very little - getting a patent invalidated (even if there is a grotesque problem) is extremely expensive. It probably isn’t the best course of action for the Open Source community - what’s your take on that? Thank you again!
@@GeekDetour Yes, the 'cheapest' and simplest route is to file an inter partes reexamination ("IPR") in the PTO. The filing fee is $19k and, if accepted, there is another fee of $22k. The attorney fees are additional to this. However, if you found an honest patent attorney to prepare the IPR papers, you could probably keep this below about $10k to about $15k. This was not always the case. These fees used to be a few thousand dollars.
Although 98% of the anti-USPTO comments you see are from a place of ignorance, the theory that they jacked up the IPR fees under pressure from corporate patent owners to protect patents is about half true.
The cost typically quoted for getting a 'simple' patent issued is about $20k to $30k. Most would not call that "very little" but maybe. If I had to guess, the 2022 patent we are talking about here cost at least $20k, probably a bit more.
Did other patent attorney talk about submitting the Stratasys patent in the currently pending patent application file histories.
The fee for that is about $180.
I'm a machine design engineer, and over the years I've notice many patents get granted for common sense things that have been widely used for MANY decades. No one in the past bothered to file a patent, because it was already common, and then someone comes along, re-"invents" it and files a patent, and it is granted. It seems the patent examiners have very little knowledge of common practices and don't really understand many of the supposed "innovations" they are approving.
Thhat assumes the patent examiners to have any opportunity to perform the titular task. Statistics on the US patent system (staff vs cases) indicate they blatantly cannot and could only operate by automatic ignorant acceptance.
It's like with copyright laws and someone claimed the major scale in music the other day.
@@0LoneTech that makes the system useless to protect innovation as they claimed it was for. The system actually prevents innovation.
@@monad_tcp Yes, that is the effect of removing the safeguards. Effectively the government is blindly granting more power to the most aggressive and affluent. The purpose of examining applications was to ensure they were of significant enough value to society to motivate the temporary monopoly reward.
The patent office is pretty liberal with granting patents. I think the thought process is that if the patent has prior art or shouldn't be granted, then someone will challenge the patent and it will be invalidated. I don't know if that's the most efficient way to do things for the public as a whole, but from the PTO's point of view, it's the most efficient for them..
Btw, they obviously knew of the old patent but either intentionally or unintentionally fudged the reference.
If we can prove damages they may be liable. The best thing they can do is pull the patent to avoid any lawsuits.
I really want to see what Attorneys can tell us. It goes way beyond what I know as an 'enthusiast' 🤣
It doesn't even need to go this far.
Just one manufacturer has to put it in their software, and let the other guys sue over it.
But the cheapest way would probably be to appeal the patent with the patent office, citing the earlier patent.
@@TSteffi But this is what Is my biggest peeve. Patent offices charge for re-examination and it's the complainer that pays.
They are under no incentive to do a good job when granting a patent. Regardless of bad prior art review, or even not even checking claims, they win and get paid twice.
@@GeekDetourI have dealt with patent issues, as an engineer / entrepreneur, and that is no guarantee, but this is such a clear case that no one has anything to fear
@@TSteffiThe patent holder can sue any infringing party, as long as the patent is active. But in this case they stand no chance, as the patent is worthless.
The most common slicers should just implement it. If the patent troll want to go to court, they can just laugh them out by showing this video. Get the patent thrown out and continue on with innovation.
@@tylermfdurden yeah that's not how it works unfortunately
Yes. This appears to be a wrongly issued patent.... However there's no authority to appeal to get it thrown out. It's on the patent holder to try to enforce his patent. They can sue the slicers who implement it, but it doesn't look like they have a leg to stand on. IMO they would fail to even get a preliminary injunction against the slicers as the slicers lawyers would very likely ague they were implementing tech from the expired 1995 patent, not the probably invalid 2020 patent.
@THX..1138 while you're very right that it should get thrown out immediately, it's probably not worth the risk if they somehow drag out the court proceedings and run the slicer company to the bone.
Remember this company is doing exactly that to bamboo labs and has done it before to the slicer magnum hotends.
@@madbull4666 that is how it works. wile this video cant be used as evidence the fact that this new patent is just a re-patent of a expired patent would be more than sufficient to get the case dismissed.
@@Drbeattles And yet it will still cost likely several tens of thousands of dollars. Are you going to pay?
It easy to find a loophole, simply add a "layer infill displacement" variable in the slicer, that on default it is zero but you can set it freely (to 0.2 half of nozzle diameter). This way the slicer programmers are not responsible but only who prints, but no company's will legally bring you to court for slicing and printing your own parts at home using this method
„Simply“ 😂
Gigabrain
That’s called inducing infringement.
@@philistineau no, you don't tell the people about it, simply leave a free parameter
Thanks! Junk patents seem to be over half of all new patents. Nobody is fighting them because you need very expensive lawyers and standing to even get in court with it.
"All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again"
Prior art gold mine 👏👏
I am afraid you are totally right.
There is no invention, only innovation. Everything is built on that which came before. There should be no patents.
@@ScytheNoire No patents might be a bit harsh. But maybe limiting the patents duration could fix a lot of the problems with them.
This is the kind of thing that I'm going to hack on my machines and I'm not going to fell like I'm doing anything wrong, it's illegal.
I don't care, I'm going to literally download a car.
BSG reference?
Layers, lawyers, and liars they sound so similar. Whata coincidence, right?
Uh... Poetry. Lovely.
That's why in French we have proper names for each instead : layer / couche, lawyer / avocat, liar / menteur. ☕ More seriously, this patent is a bad joke. Thank you for the video.
I think that this new patent wouldn't hold in court anyways.
I think you are right. BUT it was keeping Slicer Developers very cautions about going after Hexagonal patterns. This was a blind-spot on all of us - we were NOT aware of the Hexagonal protection that expired in 2015-2016.
First of all you'd need enough money to go to court though which small 3d companies and slicers cannot afford.
@@madbull4666 so hopefully the larger ones will help🤞
It would hold up if you know the US patent courts. Texas has the most corrupt courts in America, and the judges there will always give the decision to whomever bribes them the most. There's one of the judges who was doing this for bankruptcy, who is now in legal trouble, but with Republicans now taking control of the US legal system again, those cases will be dropped and the corruption will once again get worse.
And this isn't something new, this has been going on in Texas for decades. Every company court shops and gets their cases to Texas, specifically East Texas, where these corrupt judges reign.
Subbed, you earned it with your investigation!
@benclimo461 There is no need for slicer companies to sue to use this feature. They can implement any feature at any time. If someone believes that they hold a patent that protects a certain feature, the patent holder would have to sue. Then and only then money would have to be raised to show a judge this patent is not a novel invention and patent protection for it has expired. I really hope this video gains traction and emboldens the slicer teams to implement this feature. If they are sued, I for one would be willing to chip in on a crowd fund for legal expenses. But based on the evidence shared in this excellent video it would be over shortly and not go in favor of the holder of the 2020 patent.
OH MY GOD YOUR GIANT 3D PRINTED EXAMPLE OF 3D PRINTING LAYERS IS SO FREAKING GOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!
I support any effort that defend the 3D printing community from patent trolls.
Seems another workaround might be to build a "plugin" system into a Slicer and then someone could implement the feature and release it anonymously. At that point, the company holding the patent is going to have to play whack a mole with hosting services that host that plugin.
The rest of us would benefit because we know where to find it and wouldn't be a target for violating if we don't run print farms (they'd need a large enough target to go after as they'd want to get samples of you using it in commerce).
There have been other alternative ideas to FDM that never make it out of theory/prototype for the same reason.
I would love that.
Aren't many of those slicers open source? That means it can simply be a patch.
@@MiTheMer The problem here is that the holder of the patent can then sue the slicer for infringement.
Cura already has a plugin feature
@@KStovr patch, aka like a .patch file, that is applied with git, and not actually in the codebase
basically just a text file that tells the program what to change from the source code
I’m also no lawyer but it seems like there are some good arguments against the 2020 patent. I would urge anybody with the muscles to fight this, maybe a kickstarter would be an option to fund such a venture?
We need actual Attorneys to evaluate it. Maybe there is nothing to be done (the patent could be weak enough no not stand any trial against copyright infringement). I really want to read opinions from the experts on this one. Here is where I could reach just on "common sense".
@@GeekDetour There's nothing to fight. It is on the patent holder to enforce his patent. The various slicers have to decide if they want to violate the patent. As in they have to take the issue to their attorneys for an opinion on if the 2020 patent is valid. Then they have decide whether or not to ignore the 2020 patent. If they chose to ignore it the 2020 patent holder has to take them to court. Given the 2020 patent was issued on wrong/false information chances are high the 2020 patent holder's attorneys will tell them they don't have a case.
"From the orca slicer team : last night we pushed a release with brick layers and have been sued for patent infringement. This is obviously BS, but we need help to actually fight it. If we win, literally every printer on the market can get 30% stronger parts for free with zero additional work from you."
If sales from 3D printed parts being like 30% stronger increased by even 5%, a *_single_* company like bambu could already fire a benjamin minigun their direction and *_still_* get ROI. Add in Prusa, Creality, etc. to share the costs? Yeah, it's a no brainer.
Submit a pr to a slicer. Forcing them to deal with it.
@@THX..1138 This! That's how fighting patents work.
It's going to take dedicated innovators like you to stop patent abuse. Thak you for making this video.
Stratasys already looks greedy with the Bambu Lab nonsense, and this is just the icing on the cake. please keep pushing this as the community really needs to wake up and start pushing back against them at all levels. I.E. If they want to play the part of the bad guy, then they should be treated like the bad guy.
I really enjoy your videos and am happy to support efforts such as this.
Thank you so much! But, isn't it funny that, in this case, "Stratasys Patent is setting us Free"? In general I don't like patents - but I need to say I was VERY impressed with all the technical details they developed, tested, have formulas for everything... Their 1995 Porosity Patent is something to study. Great reading even today. The patent from 2020, from a different applicant, is completely the opposite.
@@GeekDetour - The money was party to support this effort but partly to support you in general as a long-time subscriber. I don't do Patreon and you don't have a RUclips membership (I can't explain why, but RUclips memberships are "better" in my backwards brain).
It does seem the Stratasys from the 90's was a different animal than the one we find today. Like they went from being a true innovator for some at the time cutting edge ideas to being a cash grabbing patent troll, but I'm not a patent lawyer either. 😁
Have you thought of setting up a 3D Printer Legal Defense Fund for this kind of nonsense. Maybe coordinate with the EFF?
@@Killy10000 they're probably too busy keyboard-warrioring about how a multi-billion dollar internet megacorp is actually a public service and therefore for _some reason_ shouldn't be kicking n*zis off their services
Unfortunately it's going to take litigation to do this which is too expensive for most people/companies:/
Since they referenced the older patent, they must have had some argument for why it didn’t apply. What would be really interesting would be if we could get the file history and see if there was any discussion about it. (OTOH, if it was cited incorrectly, the examiner wouldn’t have been aware of it, so there likely wasn’t any discussion around it. Still, it would be great if a patent attorney could retrieve the file history for us.)
its called the file wrapper on patent center and all information regarding the examination and prosecution is on there
For now, use 2:1 slopes when designing 3D models. On a 0.4mm nozzle with 0.2mm layers, you get the same effect. It’s also an amazing overhang ratio. I try to implement them as much as possible in my designs. I’ve even made pneumatic pressure chambers and heavy duty adapters that utilize the same slopes, and are still holding up.
I have successfully patented several inventions but am not a patent attorney so do not consider this legal advice. Remember that patents only restrict you from doing what is in the claims, not what is shown in a diagram. Having looked at the first 2 patents granted to the entity that filed the 2020 application, they do not claim the hexagonal configuration. Instead, one patent claims a method of making alternating beads where every other bead is half the height of the 'normal' bead, and the other claims a method where the end bead is half the width of the others. Both methods serve the purpose of filling 'gaps' in the hexagonal pattern on horizontal or vertical edges, making those edges flatter. So my interpretation is that one can print with a hexagonal configuration without infringing. However, some methods used to fill 'gaps' in the hexagonal pattern on horizontal or vertical edges may be restricted by these patents. As far as I can tell, the 1995 Stratasys patent does not discuss these gaps. There may be other prior art that might invalidate these patents, but I have not researched that issue. Happy printing!
We need the professionals involved. Who knows… maybe my whole analysis is super wrong 😬🤷♂️
You are correct to the claims of the patent at issue, but incorrect to the use of prior art. Prior art is not limited by claims for what it teaches
@@The_original_RethExactly. Anything can be prior art if it’s been publicly disclosed.
If the patent clearly says that the "first layer of beads" have to be "half the height" I guess we could just use an extra layer where the alternating beads would be 1 - 1/4, then another layer that does 0 - 1/4
Same result, but all that we waste is an extra half layer haha
i have a patent-pending process in Europe and oen of the investigations is: is mentioned already somewhere? Because if the idea was already mentioned the Patent can't be released.
As well as if the thing was already in Open Source. You can't patent it. I'm still in the process and they wil see. bt to me those are fundamental issues.
Not clue if all the errors in the docs can be used to invalidate the patent itself. but certainly the idea was already exposed as Open Source so the Patent perhaps can be classified as "stolen idea" and consequently invalidated?
10/10 on the visual props btw...
Ha ha! Yeah! They look gorgeous don't they? 🤣Fusion 360!
No doubt... stellar work.
@@GeekDetour Yea I love those things. Ive seen a big printed nozzle with 'filament' coming out but I dont think ive seen the layers before. Very neat!
illustrations and models are awesome.. the generated filler images are useless though.
@@neohashi3396 cool cool cool...in future just leave it at the first 5 words!
Thanks for bringing attention to this. Patents on a fundamental level is supposed to be a system that rewards innovation by giving certain rights to the inventors for a limited time, for the act of sharing the innovation publicly. Patents was supposed to be the OG open source platform with benefits for sharing, but it has to some extent turned in to a bureaucratic loophole/tool to ban progress and innovation by allowing ridiculous claims and scopes to be submitted. This needs to stop, just imagine how the world would have looked like today if Stratasys had managed to re-submit their FDM patents in 2012.. this one simple stupid corporate greed story held back 3d-printing for 20 years, and is still suing left and right for anyone trying to innovate. And the worst part is.. this is not companies fault, it’s the malicious incompetence by the patent offices that is supposed to manage this.
no surprise gvnmnt "incompetence" is the root cause here. YJK the people approving this sort of stuff are also making money on the side. Fingers crossed this sort of thing will get better soon.
Even if the patent would've been valid, implementing the idea into a non-commercial(!) open source slicer wouldn't infringe upon it in Europe.
Interesting… I cannot confirm this yet. But I’ll check.
@GeekDetour Do note that using the ideas disclosed under the patent for commercial purposes is another story, but that's not what this issue is about.
@@GeekDetour Software can not be patented in Europe
@@dreamyrhodes I suspect that this is not a case of a "software patent" but rather a manufacturing patent, that if implemented in software could cause the hardware 3d printers to be infringing. I have not read the patents in question and I am not a patent lawyer, so I don't know if this type of thing is settled law in Europe or the USA or elsewhere. If you sell a machine for making regular foos (called the "Foo-Maker-1") to Alice, the owner of "Foos for Yous", and I have a patent on a special technique for making improved foos, if you make a new version of that machine ("Foo-Maker-2") that works using that technique, I don't think you are infringing on the patent, since you are not actually making any foos using the technique - but you still might be barred from selling it. Once you sell it to Alice and she starts making it, Alice is certainly in a bad position, and you both might be in trouble. For that reason you might never release the "Foo-Maker-2". If Bob instead sells Alice a kit to upgrade her Foo-Maker-1 into the equivalent of the Foo-Maker-2, Bob and Alice would be in a similar position to how you and Alice would be once Foo production resumes after the upgrade. In either case, Alice is the direct infringer while you or Bob could be contributory infringers. Patent holders (legitimate or trolls) would target the people who are more likely to make them the most money - that might be letting you and Bob sell your products without interference and seek licensing money from just Alice; or it might be seeking money from you and Bob and allowing your customers like Alice to get off without paying; or I might be able to get money from everyone.
@@dreamyrhodes But it's not the software that is patented it is the printing procedure ;) Nethertheless it is pretty much void if its common knowledge or has been a patent before. Just do it, let them sue you and just state in court that you are not using their patent but the patent from years ago.
Thanks! I enjoyed your episode and also believe old patents are treasures.
Fantastic research. This is what the 3D printing community is all about.
Thank you so much! I agree! The 3D Printing community is the best. Specially Stefan from CNC Kitchen - he has been teaching us so many things... I was heartbroken when I found about the 2020 Patent... If it was a valid new idea, sure, it is up for the inventor to protect his work. But that was not the case.
I am currently in a process of filing a patent as a coinventor. It is wierd how much more research my tram did on possible competitors and coexisting already patented ideas than the patent lawyer.
Wow, I didn't expect the video to go this way. This is very interesting, and a great research work! 👏
Hey, Javi! Thank you SO MUCH! I read more about Patents during recent months than I thought I would ever read in my life 😐🤣
Thank you for doing this extensive research! The video deserves much more views. We should not be held back by incorrect and repurposed patents.
Hi! I'm shure, interlayer adhesion problem is totally solvable. Just think about how two plastic part are connected together in other industries: 1. glue; 2. welding with heat; 3. ultrasonic welding and so on. In 3d FDM we already have premelted one "part", so we need to locally premelt the surface of the second "cold part" just before contact with melted filament. That can be done with LED laser or laser array (dirt cheap nowadays) mounted on printing head.
Thank you for making this excellent video about the patent issue you describe. Patents should not be used to hinder the evolution and adoption of technology.
Specially if what is being patenting is borderline 'exactly' what was already protected decades ago!
I'm the owner of a company that heavily relies on 3D printing
You can't imagine how this would change everything for us
UPS won't be able to break our parts while shipping
And we would be able to make some parts lighter and stronger
You need to thanks Stefan from CNC Kitchen, it all started with his tests. I also got thrilled, and later disappointed that nothing was happening by the reason it was.
UPS will still find a way.
Same
I've worked for a parcel-sorting machine company. Parcels were dropped a couple meter on top of each others. Some parcels can be heavy and dense. And apparently, we were on the low-end of parcel-dropping heights. Robots pick parcels up with succion cups from one side and accelerate them at up to 10G. Pack well or expect things to break, or worse, open.
Thank you for doing this research! This video deserves more traction. This is the kind of thing that is going to make all of our lives better. It should not be held hostage by some small group of greedy or short-sighted individuals.
I hope the right people see this and and the community can move beyond this impasse.
That is absolutely criminal. The patent examiners should acknowledge their mistake and remove the new patent that shouldn't exist. Patents are only as good as the money you have to defend them. Any legal action take by the new holder will not stand up in court. Prusa no holds barred. Time to make brick layers a printing option in PrusaSlicer. Slicer is still open source so brick layers can be added there.
The patent would be invalidated by prior art. End of. Unfortunately, it would have to go to court, if it went to court.
I kindly agree. History should NOT repeat itself. Patents are a protection that should apply exactly once. Let's wake up everyone and keep the existence of old patents alive! They are no longer valid, but should NEVER be re-patented for any reason. I also think patent offices allow pretty much anything, with little validation done. Are they just old people with little know-how with tech that don't care about innovation?
Wow, it really helps - thank you so much!
What's amazing here is not that mistakes were made with the patent or that someone is trying to patent the same thing years later. The most incredible thing about this is why it takes so long to get someone to review and correct those issues. Amazing....
almost like the people who fail to do their jobs and let stuff like this slide should face consequences. except they dont, and wont.
I think this situation might not be as bad as it appears?
I attempted this as a part of my Masters thesis without knowing any of the patents (mainly because intuitively I knew it as staggered layers instead of brick layers)
I used a different way to print those layers (multiple concentric models nested inside on another, each with a height range modifier to initiate the brick layers)
I controlled the porosity by making those concentric models overlap slightly, essentially overextruding
I only tested tensile strength, as that was what I was interested in
I managed to get 35-36MPa from PLA samples with this approach, compared to 30MPa from PLA samples with standard layers and no overextrusion (100% cooling fan iirc for both samples)
But then I tried turning off the height range modifier once, basically just printing an overextruded normal layer sample, and I got 35-36MPa as well
Comparing the broken samples I found that both had pretty low porosity, but it was still broken between layers (now failure happens across multiple layers instead of just one, but still most of the fracture surface is between layers)
I think that while reducing porosity (through layer structure or overextrusion) does help, it might only increase vertical strength by 15-20%
The rest of the missing strength is likely in the thermal process (i.e. layer reheating), which a number of printers already do and they have claimed essentially perfect layer adhesion
You are officially invited to make a video about it on RUclips ❤
@@GeekDetour Just don't quite have the time. Have since moved on to another research topic
What a great video, Thanks for highlighting, this, when I saw CNC Kitchens video on it, I didn't really think much of it, but now I do actually wonder why it isn't a thing in all slicers, and I can now see why. Hopefully we'll see this in the near future.
This is a scanned document. If it was an Kyocera scanner, then it could reference the OCR incidents/issues/fails that are very common
Wow, that mechanical testing looks dangerous! And this is a great research work. Thank you!
Ha ha ha, Stefan has a wooden machine, You have a 'Chain tester', Clough42 has a Vice... I am looking for my own thing - but It cannot be this one, a "Slingshot Tester" might break me a tooth.
You two collaborate well together, I hope you do more soon!
Loved watching you guys test those samples, can’t wait to do that with my little girl when she gets bigger
@@GeekDetour You could set a suit of medieval armour for your testing and that could be your thing.
Ha ha ha, living in Spain, I know it wouldn't be difficult to get one ❤️
That old patent should never have been permitted with those broad protections. Insanely restrictive. And this new patent needs to be lawyered to hell and canceled.
no need. Just disregard it, and if they sue they lose
Even if the new patent won't hold in court, it would still be expensive to get that ruling, so the new patent can still be used to prevent free slicers from using the technique.
I don’t have any knowledge on that - not a lawyer. I hope to see Attorneys involved in the discussion here, to educate us ❤️
There is no ruling to get. The only way to challenge a patent is to ignore it. It is on the patent holder to enforce his patent. So the patent holder has to demand the slicers remove the feature after they implement it and sue them if they refuse.
Waldo unfortunately you're wrong. It is exactly as said by THX
@@THX..1138 It doesn't matter who initiates the lawsuit, it's still going to be expensive, way more money than a non-profit organization that depends on donated labor is going to have.
@@Waldohasaskit210 Actually the patent holder is the only one who can initiate a law suit. That's what a patent does it gives the holder legal standing to restrict others from using the tech described in the patent. So the only way to challenge a patent is to violate it.
Though maybe not all Slicer groups can afford to got to court many like Prusa and Ultimaker have plenty of resources, more than the holder of the 2020 patent.
In the case of this patent it's doubtful the holder can mount much of a defense anyhow. Stratasys already patented it in 95 and people openly talked about and published pictures on the net depicting alternating layers in 2019. Both events predated the 2020 patent. Either would be enough to invalidate the 2020 patent and get a suit dismissed on summery judgement.
Next applying for the 2020 patent they gave wrong and or fake patent reference numbers in their description of how the tech works. That's a big no no in an utility patent. It also basically invalidates the patent as those references were part of the explanation for how the patent worked and why it was unique.
IMO it's doubtful even if the patent holder wanted to waste their money on defending what's clearly a junk patent the suit wouldn't survive the first couple of hearings.
It always brightens my day to see wrongful patents get dissected. I still consider these people trolls and I hope they lost time and money on it because patenting things this way only holds back a lot of people. Patents can be great in the business sense, if they make sense. But there are so many patents that just exist to block progression. Man am I glad to see this!
Together we can make them correct the mistake and have brick layer printing 🙏💪
Maybe there is nothing to correct. What happens in 99.5% of the printed part, using the Hexagonal Pattern, was already patented in the past. Just the bottom layer and the top layer wasn't covered in Stratasys 1995 patent - but it was on the PrusaSlicer Feature Request. We just need everyone to KNOW about these details.
@@GeekDetourso what actually is the goal by telling everyone, next steps, who owns the patent, who do we rally against? I have been thinking about this ever since Stefan posted that video and wondering what happened to it..
@@Crappy.Consumer.Reports the goal by telling everyone, is so that we all *together* can figure out the next steps to get this resolved!
This could also be a gamechanger for companies printing houses.
Dude, amazing research! Really imressing, well done! Don't let them re-patent a great technology that is alreary a public domain
The latter patent doesn't really matter. As long as you're purely doing what is described and claimed in the earlier now expired patent, you can't really be stopped or sued successfully. At any rate the 3D printing community is filled with enough interested parties that surely lawyers could be hired to overturn this later patent if necessary.
Thanks , never bought a thanks before, but seeing as you asked so nicely, I really enjoyed this video and you definitely did your research .
Thank you very much for your research and the effort you put into it! Hopefully this is picked up by slicer developers soon. As an engineer/inventor, i find it very disappointing that patents were originally invented to protect inventors with valuable ideas, but unfortunately now are often misused by big companies.
Thank you a lot for the support! Yeah, when I watched CNC Kitchen’s video I was really excited to see Brick Layers implemented soon! But the patent kept everybody hesitant. Researching the patent was a good time investment after all - I am glad to find what I found.
Clarification: Patents were invented to get people to publish their discoveries instead of keeping them as trade secrets taken to the grave. The limited time exclusivity was meant to encourage that because now they didn't have to try to keep it secret in order to maintain that advantage. The problem is that patent law is still stuck in the 1900s when 20 years was a short period of time for innovation. By today's standards, 20 years is a lifetime - entire industries have come and gone in that time. The balance is now far too heavy in the claimant's favor and not in the public's favor, resulting in patents being used to stifle competition rather than to ensure proliferation of knowledge. Patents would be a good thing again if only they would drastically reduce the length of protections to only a few years.
Thanks! Repeal the patent act!
Thank you so much-this is a large donation, and I really appreciate it. This video took many weeks of work, and I wanted to raise awareness around the 2020 patent. Luckily, I also found weaknesses and problems with the patent, and the more we share, the more encouraged slicer developers can feel to develop the feature. As for direct legal action, I won’t be taking that on myself, as I don’t yet know if there’s even a legal path forward. But this is a fascinating topic, and I’m reaching out to attorneys who can help us understand more about this area in future videos.
Such a great time spent on researching and making this video to reach users have to be encouraged. Thanks a lot!
So good to see you here, always ❤️
Yes! Haven't watched the full video yet, but based on the intro, this is something I've been wondering about for a while. Thanks for exploring it! Keen to see the results of the video
This is absolutely ridiculous why hold back on such an amazing technology I never comment on videos or like them but this definitely deserves the help.
You're doing us all a great service with this investigation and video, thank you ❤
Thank you so very much!
Thank you for the invested time and effort.
Thanks! I really appreciate it!
6:28 nobody should, if someone can figure it out privately make a plugin and woread it absolutely everywhere under a proxy of wome sort if they cant nullify this bs claim the normal way.
Do the thing and take them to court if they sue
WOW! I've never used a 3D printer, but I can clearly follow your thought process, and I agree with your conclusion. I especially love your closing thought. Old patents really can be treasures. I hope this will be resolved in my lifetime
Well, anyway. If someone restrict using 50% shift layer, why not to use 30% or even adjustable value?
49% offset is definetely legal.
I would love to see this in a slicer and would love it even more if this patent holder kicked up a storm about it and was highlighted as a fraudster, it is clearly meant to confuse a prior art search IMO and could possibly be a conspiracy between the new and old patent holder! we need a law to protect us from this sort of practice and a very large fine for anyone found practicing this, but for all I know there may well be one already, I am starting to wonder how many other expired patents have been re-patented over the years, I am suspecting this goes on more in the US as I understand they don't even search for prior art when granting patents, that is crazy if I understand this correctly.
Oh, there is no conspiracy. The original 1995 Stratasys is a wonderful document (actually, VERY interesting reading), with many different cases studied there, formulas for everything, they were really innovating - and they are a HUGE company today because of the machines they created. The "2020s" new patent is so different... If you like this type of technical reading, check the Patreon Post in the description. There are links for the patents there, you can compare.
IMPORTANT: we should NOT bash the company or the inventor. I have strong opinions, but I am keeping them privately.
Attention. Even open source ideas are used by people for their own benefit and patent someone else's idea. When a patent is filed, there is a check, which unfortunately is not perfect. I have experienced this when filing a patent in Europe. And if someone starts using the patent themselves, nothing will happen anyway. The opposing party must prove everything and sue.
they're supposed to here, but it's not criminal, unlike in the EU, to falsely apply for one
I am not surprised by this. The US patent office is filled with patents that should never have been allowed.
Absolutely true.
The patent system is broken in the US. Until it's fixed we need investigations like this to keep the system as honest as possible and innovation flowing.
I have past experience in invalidating patents. It is a LONG and EXPENSIVE process and requires a lot of work. I think this is how I lost most of my hair.
Hello there! Would you mind sharing more about your experience? A few attorneys were super kind contacting me, and a couple of them took some time to look a little bit closer into the patent and, yeah, what they say aligns with what you just commented. It is extremely expensive and there are other strategies that are more productive. Which industries you acted on?
Thanks, a great amount of effort was put into this video, I can't imagine how annoying it was trying to find that original Stratasys pattent.
I was going nowhere for a few days. Forgot about it… and weeks later I was doing a different research about important old 3D Printing patents… and when I saw the image I almost screamed. OMG! Is this the patent??!
Great work my brother!!!!
Wow! That was really special, thank you so much ❤
This is great! Thank you for your excellent investigation!
Thanks! I appreciate! Let's see if Slicers launch Brick Layers soon!
Thanks for all your efforts!
Wow! I really appreciate it. Thanks a lot!
No idea if a patent exists for this idea, but your video spawned a thought.
A happy medium might be to over-extrude every layer, but then iron afterward filling in and smoothing it out. This gets rid of the gaps problem and mitigates the uneven surface problem. You may not need to iron every layer in order to save time, but as a first test ironing every layer may be a good idea. The trick will be in finding out exactly how much to over-extrude,.
There maybe a loop hole in the Issue itself, how you get to the effect. Stefans video is a great example to pull from. It is how he got to the effect and not the effect it self that is the "ground breaking" advance. Use the original public domain as your source, use his method ( A now copyrighted documentation) as the process to get there.
A selectable layer precesss using the X settings. It doesn't have to be specifically for the hexagonal interlocking layers, but a tool that allows for that and many other option through definable layer process that can be saved like a filament profile. we set temp, hight, speed and more with them. Why not one that can piggyback Process and Peramiter combinations ( using the CNC Kitchen video for reference vocabulary). Its not ground breaking, it's old tech. Most slicers can add optional or experimental plug ins, this one just allows for greater control of the filliment it self.
Just like the ability to chose Colors with an Automatic Feed system. It selects new colors, setting for that filament, etc. Sorry, they wrote there paper poorly and with more holes than their layer lines have. I hope this makes sense after you and other get to read it. You can use old masonry or clay pottery methods as examples, I mean Knitting gets overlooked for Paterns of strength all the time. Use one of them. Here is to this getting to the right eyes and ears.
Patent for aligning layers, like a thing a kid could do? Invalid. Ignore it. Let them litigate.
Alternatively companies should support a plug in model, where an open-source 3rd party can add those "patented" solutions.
Patents are a disease.
Thank you. I appreciate your efforts.
My pleasure! ❤️
Yes please 🧱 layer's!
Yeah! Brick Layers! And thanks to Stefan for bringing us this new 'forgotten' technique. Without his video, God knows when we would be aware of the opportunity we were missing!
This is a very important video to get out there. Glad to see the research being done to give the public domain back good inventions.
Given the fact that the vast majority of slicers out there are forks from one another, most of them being open source, it suprises me that anyone have already implemented this in a minor fork or whatever.
Yes unfortunately patent examiners are usually just rubber stamps, and rarely examine prior art unless an objection to the patent is raised. Even then, the filer is given the benefit of the doubt and it will have to be litigated at a great cost in court. Thank you for making this video!
What's the model you're showing at 0:12? It's so cool!
Thanks! I modeled it in Fusion 360 initially just to make the Thumbnail of the video - but it got really nice ❤️
Wait, who is the owner of this patent? (Idky it isn’t showing but I got you a $5 super thanks). This is an important video.
Thank you! ❤️ Patents are public documents - in the description there is a link to my Open post on Patreon, with all the details, dates and links to the patent documents.
I am not into bashing. Let’s focus on sharing the knowledge, that’s the only thing that matters.
Thanks for bringing attention to this issue. Keep up the good work.
I want to be kept in the loop about the progress made with this.
Cura already supports this .. although it only works for about 3 wall line counts (most people dont use more than this)
if someone wants to know exactly how, i can take a look at my settings. but the settings are in the infill category, you add infill wall lines with a custom layer thickness.
unless you're printing 5+ wall lines and require strength across layer lines, the strength you gain isn't worth fighting over. not to mention doubling the layer time. if your layer height is 0.2 mm, you'll be printing at 0.1 mm to fill the gaps. if you're smart and think you'l get around it by doubling it.. now your layer thickness is 0.3-0.4 mm and re-introducing gaps between filament layers
Someone in the U.S. should consider starting a GoFundMe campaign to support efforts in challenging and potentially invalidating this patent.
It was probably approved while the examiner was "working from home"
Or just “approving from home”? Ha ha. Who knows, right?!
Bullshit patents get approved everyday, it's not the role of the examiner to ensure the patent is enforceable. They just check that the shape is good and the claims are properly written.
The real examination of a patent will come when there is a dispute over infringement.
The PTO has been approving bullshit since the dawn of the PTO, literally nothing new.
Remember, according to the US patent system, the pump on a water cooler being on top of the CPU is a patentable invention
Patents are highly technical and complex and some can be extremely long. USPTO does not have the resources to check every detail of every patent they get. If there's a dispute you have to go through patent courts. (yea i know it sucks)
Thank you for doing the important work for the community!
The problem is examiners get paid to not do their jobs.
By making someone else pay for re-examination later to invalidate the patent they make money.
What a joke.
I'm also no lawyer but I'm pretty certain that the expired 1995 patent would protect people using their methodology regardless if the other patent.
I think the new patent holder would have a very difficult time defender their patent when you csn just provide the 1995 patent to the judge 😂
Nobody can prove it... but the incorrect patent numbers probably confused the evaluation of the examiners. It is a mater of "just looking" at the pictures and you would raise an eyebrow and start reading things more carefully.
I wonder how many slicer programmers and researchers have been fooled by this fraudulant patent? and then given up on its implemtation.
We should start patenting every single good idea we have in the 3D printing community and make the patents available to everyone. This would block patent trolls from getting patents on such ridiculous things as the nozzle trajectory of a 3D printer.
Sounds great. Will you be funding all the patent applications?
@@veryStupidInternet Well, let's just keep getting screwed over then. Have a good one.
I got you, bro. I also shered this video via my playlists named "Etiquettes/Lessons for Internet/Enginnering/Gaming/etc", "Entertainment", and "The world should know this right now". Hope it helps
Thank you for bringing attention to this! Hobby 3D printing is built of community and open source, to have it held back by an invalid patent is frustrating.
Really hoping this gets resolved!
I subscribed and gave it some commentary so I could help with the process of getting the video seen and such this is actually very important to me.
5:58 go look at the prosecution history on patent center and look for an IDS filed, it will have all the referenced patent literature, and non-patent literature listed that the applicant included in the application and what they want to make sure is reviewed by the examiner.
There is a ton of patents that need to be revisited with today's technology. All those inventions ahead of their time years ago, well, here's the time. If not now, when? If not us, then who? If you're not going to eat that last piece of pie I'll have it, please.
Thanks for looking into this, publicity does help with this stuff occasionally
I'm not an attorney but Ive worked on legal.cases. my understanding is that if there's existing prior art the patent can be invalidated. Even if not, with the recent ruling in May of 2024, it widens the scope for what would be considrred obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Which is why the patent filer mat not go after anyone doing this, as if they do it should be easy to invalidate the patent. Even without the prior patent, If Stephans video was shown to the public before the patent filing date then this too is considered prior art.
The patent system is so incredibly broken is ridiculous. Same with the copyright system. We're getting public domain songs from 100 years ago get copyrighted by some random company who can then go steal revenue from everyone who's ever used it. Happy birthday anyone?
The patent system is severely outdated and seriously stifles technological advancement.
I wish this would be public. This is very important! keep up the good fight!
Thanks for raising awareness of both the method and the patent. Definitely need to get this looked at by a community friendly patent lawyer.
half the idea of patents IS to disclaim working methods and good practices (the other half is to incentive inventors)
Thank you GeekDetour for your investigative reporting. Great Work!