Interesting discussion

[Luis E. Rodriguez]

I think I told some of you about this but I had more interaction with the company that is on Thingiverse, PrintTo3d, over this object. http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4335 which has been recently updated. I have attached what I reacted to with what is represented now. I also posted the Google Cache snapshot to his post to show what I was reacting to. The only thing that isn't shown was the product shots from the Kickstarter page (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/danprovost/glif-iphone-4-tripod-mount-and-stand) that he posted with the thing. 

I think I may be a hypocritical douche but wondered what you all thought about some of the points made by the entire discussion. Minus my snarky comments brought on by the term "hobby" printers comment. I haven't taken the time to learn about any of the license types so I truly don't know. I do enjoy the feeling of being able to hack the world to make it better by printing what I need but my reaction was more of a "this feels wrong" vibe, no matter if it was legally ok etc...

In full disclosure I did print two while testing an UP! printer but that is another post. Ok go ahead and commence to flaming me.

Luis Rodriguez (Operator-B12-918)

CCCKC Hackerspace member

Makerbot Operator

[JohnA.]

This isn't the first (and won't be the last) time someone sees an
object (IRL or photos) and runs home, knocks one out in sketchup and
puts it on thingiverse. This is an especially interesting one
because for the most part nobody has seen or held one yet, production
hasn't begun, and because they're using a 'geek friendly' way of
funding their project.

I suspect not using the name of the object in question is probably a
good start -- and I'm certainly not the guy to speak to the legality
of it all. Now, when someone starts doing something like this and
selling their pieces and competing with the originals, then it's going
to get messy.

My $.02

JohnA.


On Oct 8, 4:53 pm, "Luis E. Rodriguez" <lrodriguezm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think I told some of you about this but I had more interaction with the

> company that is on Thingiverse, PrintTo3d, over this object.http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4335which has been recently updated. I

> have attached what I reacted to with what is represented now. I also posted
> the Google Cache snapshot to his post to show what I was reacting to. The
> only thing that isn't shown was the product shots from the Kickstarter page

> (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/danprovost/glif-iphone-4-tripod-m...)

> that he posted with the thing.
>
> I think I may be a hypocritical douche but wondered what you all thought
> about some of the points made by the entire discussion. Minus my snarky
> comments brought on by the term "hobby" printers comment. I haven't taken
> the time to learn about any of the license types so I truly don't know. I do
> enjoy the feeling of being able to hack the world to make it better by
> printing what I need but my reaction was more of a "this feels wrong" vibe,
> no matter if it was legally ok etc...
>
> In full disclosure I did print two while testing an UP! printer but that is
> another post. Ok go ahead and commence to flaming me.
>
> Luis Rodriguez (Operator-B12-918)
> CCCKC Hackerspace member
> Makerbot Operator
>

>  Glif_Clone.png
> 348KViewDownload

[Martin Bogomolni]

In business speak, we call it "barrier to entry" ... this kind of item
has a very low barrier to entry, and to protect it actually costs
quite a bit. (Patents ain't cheap)

It will be an interesting discussion to follow...

=M

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.
>
>

[M.Rule]

is it legal for me to build myself a machine that violates patents if
I don't sell it ?
is it legal for me to build myself the same machine if I use it to
produce ( non-patented ) items for sale ?

[Rob Giseburt]

As I recall, there’s provisions in the patent law for … one-offs. IOW, if you follow a patent to the letter and make a time machine in your garage, it’s legal as long at it’s for your own purposes and not for sale.

As for putting the plans to make one up in a public place, that’s different.

If the item hasn’t been patented, or copyrighted, it’s wide open, as I see it.

But, there’s the morality side too...

  -Rob

—

MakerBot Operator

Member of CCCKC Hackerspace

Member of KC Fabricators Google Group

[Martin Bogomolni]

Executive summary in answer to is it legal for me to build myself a

machine that violates patents if I don't sell it ?

No, it is not legal. You do not have to sell something to violate a
patent. It falls under "making, using"

-------------

From the US Patent Office (to save people from the need to Google):

-------------

What Is a Patent?

A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the
inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which
the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in
special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed,
subject to the payment of maintenance fees. U.S. patent grants are
effective only within the United States, U.S. territories, and U.S.
possessions. Under certain circumstances, patent term extensions or
adjustments may be available.

The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the
statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from
making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the
United States or “importing” the invention into the United States.
What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or
import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering
for sale, selling or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued,
the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO.

There are three types of patents:

1) Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers
any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof;

2) Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new,
original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture; and

3) Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and
asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant.

[Bryan Bishop]

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Martin Bogomolni wrote:

No, it is not legal.  You do not have to sell something to violate a
patent.   It falls under "making, using"

Martin, I 100% agree with you. That is my understanding of the U.S. patent system as well.

Do you know of any historical cases where someone who made-but-didn't-sell a patented invention was sued?

Maybe I should go ask a patent lawyer.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507

[Bryan Bishop]

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Zip Zap <zza...@yahoo.com> wrote:

If you paint "Nike" on a white T-shirt and wore it for yourself(end user), it's not illegal.  However, if you mass produce it for sale then it is.

Nike is a trademark, and the logo is copyrighted. That's nothing about patent law.

[Zip Zap]

If you paint "Nike" on a white T-shirt and wore it for yourself(end user), it's not illegal.  However, if you mass produce it for sale then it is.

---

From: Bryan Bishop <kan...@gmail.com>
To: make...@googlegroups.com; Bryan Bishop <kan...@gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, October 8, 2010 3:56:14 PM
Subject: Re: [MakerBot] Re: Interesting discussion

[Zip Zap]

Look at the Replica Kit Car world, i.e "Factory Five".  Carroll Shelby sued them for allegedly mentioning his name on a few emails regarding Factory Five's replica kit of the Shelby Cobra.  It didn't stand in court.  As long as they don't put Shelby's name on there replica kits or advertised as such then it's not illegal to copy any car's body.  The same with a particular Lamborghini replica company on the internet.  In that case, they were actually using the Lamborghini name and putting it on there replicas and Lamborghini sued and won on that very point.

---

From: JohnA. <john....@gmail.com>
To: MakerBot Operators <make...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, October 8, 2010 2:43:15 PM
Subject: [MakerBot] Re: Interesting discussion

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.
To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Stan Seibert]

I'm surprised no one has brought up this paper (which includes Adrian
Bowyer of RepRap fame in the author list) that addresses this exact
question in the context of the UK legal system:

http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol7-1/bradshaw.asp

I do not know if anyone has done a similar study for the US legal
system.

On Oct 8, 4:53 pm, "Luis E. Rodriguez" <lrodriguezm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think I told some of you about this but I had more interaction with the

> company that is on Thingiverse, PrintTo3d, over this object.http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4335which has been recently updated. I

> have attached what I reacted to with what is represented now. I also posted
> the Google Cache snapshot to his post to show what I was reacting to. The
> only thing that isn't shown was the product shots from the Kickstarter page

> (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/danprovost/glif-iphone-4-tripod-m...)

> that he posted with the thing.
>
> I think I may be a hypocritical douche but wondered what you all thought
> about some of the points made by the entire discussion. Minus my snarky
> comments brought on by the term "hobby" printers comment. I haven't taken
> the time to learn about any of the license types so I truly don't know. I do
> enjoy the feeling of being able to hack the world to make it better by
> printing what I need but my reaction was more of a "this feels wrong" vibe,
> no matter if it was legally ok etc...
>
> In full disclosure I did print two while testing an UP! printer but that is
> another post. Ok go ahead and commence to flaming me.
>
> Luis Rodriguez (Operator-B12-918)
> CCCKC Hackerspace member
> Makerbot Operator
>

>  Glif_Clone.png
> 348KViewDownload

[TeamTeamUSA]

This was discussed briefly a while ago: http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot/msg/3658f8acea84aa97

AFAIK, there hasn't been a similar paper for the US.

Go!

=ml=

On Oct 8, 5:18 pm, Stan Seibert <s...@mtrr.org> wrote:
> I'm surprised no one has brought up this paper (which includes Adrian
> Bowyer of RepRap fame in the author list) that addresses this exact
> question in the context of the UK legal system:
>
> http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol7-1/bradshaw.asp
>
> I do not know if anyone has done a similar study for the US legal
> system.
>
> On Oct 8, 4:53 pm, "Luis E. Rodriguez" <lrodriguezm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I think I told some of you about this but I had more interaction with the

> > company that is on Thingiverse, PrintTo3d, over this object.http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4335whichhas been recently updated. I

[tmo]

what about things like the replacement quick release plates that i
made? people would clearly have to purchase an original tripod head
from the manufacturer or the quick release plate would be of no use

the plates that i have are better in so many ways from the originals.
i have no intention of selling them (i give them to people if they ask
me for them) and i think i made the license so nobody can sell them.
would it be illegal to carve it out of wood and sell it?

should replacement parts and improved parts be shunned from being
produced? how is it really different than copying a product that you
dont have?

On Oct 8, 10:47 pm, TeamTeamUSA <miles...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This was discussed briefly a while ago:http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot/msg/3658f8acea84aa97
>
> AFAIK, there hasn't been a similar paper for the US.
>
> Go!
>
> =ml=
>
> On Oct 8, 5:18 pm, Stan Seibert <s...@mtrr.org> wrote:
>
> > I'm surprised no one has brought up this paper (which includes Adrian
> > Bowyer of RepRap fame in the author list) that addresses this exact
> > question in the context of the UK legal system:
>
> >http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol7-1/bradshaw.asp
>
> > I do not know if anyone has done a similar study for the US legal
> > system.
>
> > On Oct 8, 4:53 pm, "Luis E. Rodriguez" <lrodriguezm...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I think I told some of you about this but I had more interaction with the

> > > company that is on Thingiverse, PrintTo3d, over this object.http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4335whichhasbeen recently updated. I