Kickstarter being sued over patent violation of one of it's promotions

[notsob]

From the BBC

Crowd-funding website Kickstarter is being sued for its promotion of a new 3D printer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20434031

[EEVblog]

Fark! 
Unless MIT come to the party on legal costs, Formlabs are screwed. Bye-Bye all the money people threw at the Kickstarter project.
Kickstater have squillions, so no wonder they went after them, but it seems very tenuous.
The interesting thing is that not one has been sold yet, so I can't see how 3D Systems can sue for commercial loss.

I hate to say it, but unless someone backs Formlabs financially for any legal work to defend this, they will have to fold the project. That means returning all the Kickstarter money.

Dave.

[JuKu]

The interesting thing is that not one has been sold yet, so I can't see how 3D Systems can sue for commercial loss.

"More than 2,000 users contributed over $2.9m (£1.8m) to help Massachusetts-based Formlabs build the device." I can see how 3D sees that this money would go to them without Fromlabs and Kickstarter.

[8086]

On what planet and by what logic does it make sense to sue kickstarter? It's not like they're designing or making the thing.

Also, if I've read correctly, this whoole thing is about the structures to hold thin parts of the print together...couldn't they redesign this part in some way to avoid infringing the patent?

[M. András]

just like the film and music industry if the money didnt go in their pockets its a loss and a huge loss nobody cares from their side their stuffs was never stolen

if their technology so souperios why do they afraid of this? ohh right noone wants to pay few hundred thousands of dollar for a machine cheaper to get a 5axis cnc and make it from metal os any hard enough material for machining

[EEVblog]

On what planet and by what logic does it make sense to sue kickstarter? It's not like they're designing or making the thing.

The lawsuit says Kickstarter is also named as a defendant because the site took a 5% cut of the pledges made to Formlabs, and by promoting the Form 1 printer had caused "immediate and irreparable injury and damage to 3D Systems".

Dave.

[EEVblog]

"More than 2,000 users contributed over $2.9m (£1.8m) to help Massachusetts-based Formlabs build the device." I can see how 3D sees that this money would go to them without Fromlabs and Kickstarter.

It's a very unusual case, because of the way Kickstarter works, and no actual units have been shipped, or likely even manufactured yet?
The unusualness of it will add another $10M to any patent lawsuit 

Dave.

[8086]

On what planet and by what logic does it make sense to sue kickstarter? It's not like they're designing or making the thing.

The lawsuit says Kickstarter is also named as a defendant because the site took a 5% cut of the pledges made to Formlabs, and by promoting the Form 1 printer had caused "immediate and irreparable injury and damage to 3D Systems".

Dave.

I hope that part at least is thrown out at the first opportunity. What a load of legal bullshit.

[EEVblog]

The lawsuit says Kickstarter is also named as a defendant because the site took a 5% cut of the pledges made to Formlabs, and by promoting the Form 1 printer had caused "immediate and irreparable injury and damage to 3D Systems".

I hope that part at least is thrown out at the first opportunity. What a load of legal bullshit.

Yeah, it's a crock. But standard scare practice in these bullying cases.
I doubt 3Dsystems are looking for money, they just want the Formlabs project shut down.

Dave.

[notsob]

We'll one could probably shut the project, pay back what's left, and somewhere down the track, all the manufacturing info and code could anonymously appear somewhere.

[jucole]

The bit of text at the end about Artistshare and Kickstarter being in a dispute sounds like just another "rounded corners" story!

The Patent system just baffles me!  so if you make something and not check the patents - you're screwed! ,  If you check the patents and say "well, I knew that" then make it - you're screwed!.   The whole system needs to be reviewed and overhauled.     In my book Patents come under the same heading as Religion! ;-)

[M. András]

its doesnt promote technological advancement thats for sure you cant use someone idea as basis to create a much better thing built on that cos the patents. and the monopoly to sell it makes it even harder to make the thing cheaper...

[tom66]

I think without patents, manufacturers would not have a problem selling premium stuff.

Thing is, 3D Systems' equipment is designed for OEMs and manufacturers and prototype houses ... they can afford ~£100k, but of course, they would like to buy something cheaper as it would save them investment. I would guess this might be why 3D Systems sees it as a threat.

I hope the course gets thrown out. Markets evolve and competition appears -- deal with it.

[Baliszoft]

Out of topic but:

"Apple Patent Win: Good for Apple, Bad for Samsung, Lousy for Consumers"

"One of the claims Apple made, for example, was that Samsung had infringed on an Apple patent that covered a "rectangular" phone."

All this american patent system is a joke. It should be demolished completely!

[8086]

Probably the worst part is that those with patents are often sitting on their arse, watching the world go by, someone comes along who is actually going to improve it, when they never will (in this case, make it cheaper) and then get up in arms about it when the markets are not the same - i.e. the people who would buy the cheaper version would never buy the more expensive one.

Then of course there is the question of whether the company selling them at a high price should then innovate and come up with a better reason for consumers to buy theirs instead of the competition. But no, on their arses they sit...

[M. András]

why can they even make a patent for "shape or form factor"

[mikeselectricstuff]

When I first saw KS I thought patents could be a potential downfall.

KS is so new it probably falls between legal definitions of traditional seller/marketer etc. and it will take some legal cases to establish their responsibility - I'm sure they will already have done plenty oflegal work on risks like this as well as the more obvious ones like complicity in campaigns that turn out to be fraudulent.

IMO they're basically no more than a payment processor.
I think 3D going after KS could backfire on 3D - KS will clearly see it as a generic threat to their whole business model and likely to return fire with all lawyers blazing.

One approach for Formlabs could be to keep the lawyers at bay long enough to mak & sell the KS units then open sourceeverything and fold the company. IANAl so don't know the potential repercusisons...


 

[Leo Bodnar]

why can they even make a patent for "shape or form factor"

Without this anybody can create 100% visual replica of your product (less logo) and just sell knock-off.  And many do.

Here is example of such a "shape" patent:  http://www.google.com/patents/USD568409?printsec=description#v=onepage&q&f=false

"CLAIM: The ornamental design for a portion of a steering wheel..."

There is nothing there apart from the look.  I thought it should have been covered by some other law, not patent law but here we go.

Leo

[M. András]

then microsoft could file a lawsuit for every car company cos they partly "steal" the idea of this controller.... the whole thing is nonsense there is enough uniqe chips in todays product which makes them very hard to copy and apart from that it looks like your product software and hardware wise it would be nowhere near

[G7PSK]

Having read the article through I am not sure that 3D labs have a leg to stand on, MIT say that one reason they can make the machine cheaper is that a number of patents have EXPIRED, you cannot sue for the infringement of expired patents, this is most likely a fishing expedition by 3D's lawyers hoping that the other side either does not have the funds or the balls to go up against them. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

[Bored@Work]

Having read the article through I am not sure that 3D labs have a leg to stand on, MIT say that one reason they can make the machine cheaper is that a number of patents have EXPIRED, you cannot sue for the infringement of expired patents,

Not MIT, the Formlabs guys say this. They are a spinoff, not MIT. There is a good chance they missed something when they did their patent research - if they did a systematic research at all. The BBC links to one patent. That one is a continuation patent of an earlier one. Maybe they missed the continuation patent.

this is most likely a fishing expedition by 3D's lawyers hoping that the other side either does not have the funds or the balls to go up against them.

But risking sanctions by asserting an expired patent? I doubt it. The typical thing in patent litigation is that you assert a valid patent, and one of the first things the defendant tries is to get it invalidated. Going in with an expired patent is inviting the defendant to shoot fish in a barrel.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

You know what will be really interesting? How many people will argue for one site or the other without even having read the actual complaint. So as a test, I invite everyone to educate himself by reading

3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Something else I've seen mentioned is that the fact 3D systems allowed the kickstarter to carry on may be to their detriment, but I suppose they can pretend claim they were still researching...

[Mediarocker]

The lawsuit says Kickstarter is also named as a defendant because the site took a 5% cut of the pledges made to Formlabs, and by promoting the Form 1 printer had caused "immediate and irreparable injury and damage to 3D Systems".

I hope that part at least is thrown out at the first opportunity. What a load of legal bullshit.

Yeah, it's a crock. But standard scare practice in these bullying cases.
I doubt 3Dsystems are looking for money, they just want the Formlabs project shut down.

Dave.

If you can't compete, sue.

Apple is one of the most notable examples of this practice.

However they aren't the only one.

[tom66]

The particular claims are 1 and 23:

1. An improved method of stereolithographically forming a three-dimensional object by forming cross-sectional layers of said object from a material capable of physical transformation upon exposure to synergistic stimulation comprising the steps of receiving data descriptive of said cross-sectional layers, forming said cross-sectional layers by selectively exposing said material to said synergistic stimulation according to said data descriptive of said cross-sectional layers to build up the three-dimensional object layer-by-layer, the improvement comprising the steps of:
- modifying data descriptive of at least a portion of at least one cross-sectional layer by copying said data from a first cross-section to a second cross-section; and
- using said modified data in forming said three-dimensional object.

23. An improved method of stereolithographically forming a three-dimensional object by forming cross-sectional layers of said object from a material capable of physical transformation upon exposure to synergistic stimulation comprising the steps of receiving data descriptive of said cross-sectional layers and forming said cross-sectional layers by selectively exposing said material to said synergistic stimulation according to said data descriptive of said cross-sectional layers to build up the three-dimensional object layer-by-layer, the improvement comprising the step of:
- modifying data descriptive of at least a portion of at least one cross-sectional layer by shifting said data from a first cross-section to a second cross-section; and
- using said modified data in forming said three-dimensional object.

Am I missing something, or are these claims exactly the same, aside from the extra "and" in one of the claims, which doesn't appear to change the meaning...

If so, it may be possible for them to work around this by, for example, instead of going from top to bottom, left to right? Or, maybe forming it in a spiral or unconventional shape?

[tesla500]

From what I've read, what 3D systems has patented is a specific method of increasing resolution by partially curing one layer, moving the piece slightly, then starting a new layer. If Formlabs ships a product that does not use this method of enhancing resolution, they should be in the clear.

Of course, this is just a software change, I'm sure all sorts of enhancements could be enabled with unofficial software.

3D Systems is just scared of someone releasing a product an order of magnitude cheaper than theirs that's almost as good.