decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Ink vs Toner | 124 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Ink vs Toner
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 02:57 PM EST
Thanks for your linked previous post. That seemed to deal with what
Formlabs refer to as the "hobbyist" printers, building layer by layer
from a solid powder base material. The Patent in suit is for a different
style of "printing" which focuses the curing laser at points within a
vat of liquid polymer.

These seem to me to be two different processes, each worthy of a patent.
They are inventions of machines effecting a transformation of material.
I share your concern in your earlier post that these devices could
be used to replicate objects whose design and structure was
invented, patented, copyrighted, etc by a third party. And yes
that problem becomes recursive when the printer self replicates.
That is not the situation in the instant law suit. This is a simple
accusation of making and selling a patented machine.


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Nitpick - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 23 2012 @ 06:07 AM EST
    • Errmmm - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 23 2012 @ 01:07 PM EST
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )