Stratasys is losing ground because their massively overpriced ecosystem is getting outclassed by literally everything else in the market. So why improve if you can just sue your competition out of the US market?

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
7 points
*

Linking the patents listed, because I’m struggling to understand what technologies are spelled out in them (I’m taking my best guesses here, so feel free to correct me if I’m misreading something, because I probably am):

  • 9421713- purge towers apparently
  • 9592660- heated beds/ removable build plates
  • 7555357- something to do slicing workflow/ path generation
  • 9168698 / 10556381- detecting that force has been applied to the extruder

Given how broad these are, this case could have some less than pleasant ripple effects on the rest of the 3d printing community, like opening the doors to drag ultimaker/ prusa into court over random commonplace stuff.

The specific patent links seem to be broken. All return 403. Here are functional alternatives.

permalink
report
reply
12 points
*

They’re basically trying to patent troll (by going after a brand new offshore company that will be easy to bully in US courts, and not an entrenched company like Prusa) because their company produces no more useful innovations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I was more trying to armchair lawyer if they had a legitimate case here. Most of stuff they’re citing is used so broadly across the 3D printing community, I’m wondering if their patents are even enforceable anymore (as I understand IP law, if you don’t actively protect your IP you risk loosing it).

The whole thing almost reminds me of when Slice took Phaetus to court over the surgical pipe in the dragon hotend.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Patent law is not IP law. You don’t need to prove that you have defended your patent, the existence of the patent itself is “proof of ownership” and at any point during the patent’s life you can claim damages against an infringing company. The onus is then on the accused to prove that the claimed patent was invalid, not applicable, or filed incorrectly/in bad faith.

Yes, patent law is intentionally broken and very stupid.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s more that Bambulab has created an integrated 3D Printing Ecosystem with the mentioned patented features If you look at Prusa and other 3D Printer companies there are only very minor integrations that are not built in but more opt-in features

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

The specific patent links seem to be broken. All return 403. Here are functional alternatives.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Thank you! Updated my comment with your links (The .gov site for the patent office is ironically difficult to permalink to, go figure)

permalink
report
parent
reply

3DPrinting

!3dprinting@lemmy.world

Create post

3DPrinting is a place where makers of all skill levels and walks of life can learn about and discuss 3D printing and development of 3D printed parts and devices.

The r/functionalprint community is now located at: !functionalprint@kbin.social or !functionalprint@fedia.io

There are CAD communities available at: !cad@lemmy.world or !freecad@lemmy.ml

Rules

  • No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.

  • Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.

  • No porn (NSFW prints are acceptable but must be marked NSFW)

  • No Ads / Spamming / Guerrilla Marketing

  • Do not create links to reddit

  • If you see an issue please flag it

  • No guns

  • No injury gore posts

If you need an easy way to host pictures, https://catbox.moe may be an option. Be ethical about what you post and donate if you are able or use this a lot. It is just an individual hosting content, not a company. The image embedding syntax for Lemmy is ![](URL)

Moderation policy: Light, mostly invisible

Community stats

  • 1.5K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.1K

    Posts

  • 15K

    Comments