|
Authored by: Doghouse on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 07:24 AM EST |
I agree that parts of the patent shouldn't have been awarded, but not on the
grounds of being about software (which I don't think any part of the patent is
actually about, even if software would inevitably be involved in implementing its claims). On a quick scan the majority
of the claims are about physical things that a piece of apparatus does, and
don't seem overtly scandalous. However the first 11 (of 31) claims are all about
manipulating data, and, in my own opinion at least, therefore the equivalent of
trying to patent the mathematics of (say) double-entry bookkeeping - and I
heartily agree that they shouldn't have received a patent. I'd also suggest that
quite a few of them seem to fall at the hurdle of obviousness.
No, I'm
not a patent lawyer. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Davo.Sydney on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 09:08 AM EST |
A While back I predicted that there would be Patent issues with 3D Printing and
it is my hope, and has been for a while, that there is some ground work done now
to prevent 3D printing being tied up in Patents, Copyrights, [or will there be a
new "Locked up Ownership" system for these new technology's] (aka: we need a GPL
type license for 3D Printing/Replicating).
We may never get to the
Startrek Replicator level, but at the moment we are definately somewhere between
nothing and Gene Roddenberry's vision.
Here's the link to my previous
mention on 3D Printing. (In case anyone should want to refer it.)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Ink vs Toner - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 02:57 PM EST
- 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
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 02:39 PM EST |
US Patent 5,597,520 has a filing date April 25, 1994, and an issue
date January 28, 1997. I don't see any extensions, but IANAPA
and don't know how to read these things properly.
Those of you with trouble reading USPTO images can weep, there are
148 (one hundred forty eight) pages of drawings in this patent.
The thirty one claims are relatively straightforward for this technology.
There is no software involved, it seems to me to be a method or process
patent, whereby material is transformed, and when issued it IMO
probably deserved a patent. Formlab seemed sure when asking for
money that the patents they were using had expired. Maybe they
just overlooked this one?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|