|
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
|
|
|
|