For those who don't know what 3D printing is, it is an understatement for  
me to say that you have probably missed out on hearing about this decade's  
(dare I say century's?) biggest innovation and invention.

There are printers that print images 3D to the eye. But this is not what  
people normally refer to as 3D Printers. Put very simply, 3D Printers take  
images and virtual designs made using computer software and then produce  
physical 3D objects based on these images. Sounds amazing? It is. (You can  
see demos of how this is done on YouTube.)

With growing development and use of 3D printers and materials that can be  
used for the products, its convergence with the legal world is increasingly  
acrimonious.

Analyzing a hypothetical

Take a situation where your child wants a toy, say a Barbie. All parents  
will attest that children's toys are now ridiculously expensive. Instead of  
going out and buying one, you use an image of a Barbie doll and make a  
replica relatively simply using designing software on a computer and get  
the 3D printer to make the product for you. You save money, the cost of  
travel, taxes, and you also have the satisfaction of making the toy  
yourself, and knowing you can make several others.

As a lawyer what immediately strikes you as odd about the hypothetical  
described above?

- Assuming that the Barbie doll is protected by copyright, there is clear  
cut copyright infringement. In any situation where the product is being  
made as a replica of what already exists in the physical world, it is the  
copying of an expression rather than an idea. If so, will the makers of the  
3D Printer be held liable for contributory infringement? (A similar  
argument can be made for patent and design infringement and use of  
trademarks on products).

- Further, if the product is a children's toy such as a doll, are the  
materials used safe for children? In other words, what are the product  
liability issues involved? And who is help liable? The person designing the  
product? The company supplying the materials for the 3D Printer? Will the  
makers of the 3D Printer be held liable for contributing to the making of  
the product?

Supporters and Opposition

All over the world now, and especially in the US, there have been  
increasing discussions on what sort of policy ought to be framed for use of  
the 3D printer. The momentum has increased because of several reasons, but  
the competing themes are largely supporting free innovation and fear.

(1) A fear that intellectual property laws will be infringed more than ever  
before. The situation is reminiscent of the Betamax, Napster, Grokster and  
Torrent cases where there is a definite use of this article of commerce  
for "substantially non-infringing uses", but is impossible that the makers  
of 3D Printers will have no knowledge that their product could be used to  
create infringing items.

(2) A fear that sky is the limit when it comes to 3D printing. While this  
may seem out of place as a negative aspect, there is a very real  
possibility that 3D printers could be used for purposes far more dangerous  
than first envisioned. There already there are organizations that are  
aiming to produce weapons such as low cost guns using 3D printing. Will  
they need gun licenses? How can any government keep track of such  
manufacture?

However for the same reason that sky is the limit, makers of 3D printers  
believe that this invention will revolutionize the manufacture of products  
- leaving it in the hands of a common man without a college degree or  
specialist knowledge in design or engineering. Several makers of 3D  
printers also believe that this will spur innovation beyond anyone's  
imagination, and would like it to be open source.

The main concern I believe will be because private non-commercial use of  
products even if infringing are usually ignored by right holders. If 3D  
printing is used in every home for nearly every need, as I believe it will  
be one day, this private use will wipe out market transactions and  
drastically affect the economy forcing right-holders, legislators and  
courts to re-consider their position on private on-commercial uses.

Construction of products using 3D design has already begun and several uses  
(and patent applications) have been started in different areas including  
bone augmentation and structure or, if you're Google, 3D printed pasta!

Reconciling differences

Intellectual Property Ventures has already filed a patent application for a  
software that detects whether the product being produced infringes any  
known intellectual property rights. There are arguments that this sort of  
software can be hacked easily, but at least it is a start.

For those who believe that there ought not to be any copyright infringement  
at all in cases where the creator is not the company owning the copyright,  
rightly or wrongly - this is not the position of the law today. Where works  
are created independently of the copyright owner but with the knowledge  
that a similar or same article exists, there is usually no defence to  
copyright infringement. (Similar arguments apply to trademark and design  
infringement. In case of patent infringement, independent creation is no  
defence anyway).

Perhaps just like the DMCA and Chapters 12 and 13 of the Information  
Technology Act in India, there needs to be exceptions carved out  
statutorily determining who can be held liable with infringing uses of 3D  
printers.

So, just as the internet, 3D Printing will cause problems, but will  
undoubtedly solve numerous more. Even if you are currently sitting in  
opposition, think quick; there is no escaping the truth.

3D printing is tomorrow's reality.

And India needs to get a headstart and bracing itself for tomorrow.

(For those interested in seeing more policy discussions, read this and  
watch this and this).

--
Posted By Kruttika Vijay to SPICY IP at 11/10/2012 02:47:00 AM