- cross-posted to:
- 3dprinting@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- 3dprinting@lemmit.online
Stratasys is losing ground because their massively overpriced ecosystem is getting outclassed by literally everything else in the market. So why improve if you can just sue your competition out of the US market?
You must log in or register to comment.
I hope that one day the constant bullying of Stratasys backfires.
Overall the patent system is in dire need of improvement:
- protection for real invention that isn’t trivial: yes
- troll patents and trivial: no
Right now we are at a point where the trivial patents are so dominant that I believe the patent system does more harm than good. Stopping progress/innovation instead of encouraging it.
So why improve if you can just sue your competition out of the US market?
Stratasys: probably doesn’t feel BambuLab at all at the moment
Ultimaker: there is some pressure. Dozens of companies are using BambuLab but they still have a customer group that isn’t yet addressed by BambuLab
MakerBot: Hell yes. Why would anybody buy a MakerBot right now? Their entry-level printer is at the same price point as a BambuLab X1C and gets obliterated by BambuLab’s performance. I also see how education facilities (schools, universities) are choosing BambuLab offerings.
It’s not just actually innovative patents that are missing from the patent system (which they are). It has also become so expensive to both file and litigate a patent that only big businesses and patent trolls can afford it.
The median cost to litigate a patent is five fucking million dollars (in 2021). What this means is that if your patented solution isn’t worth at least 2x that amount it is quite simply not worth patenting.
The whole system should be scrapped. It was fundamentally flawed from the start and has demonstrated over and over again that it does not scale. It’s not even worth it to keep pharmaceutical patents (there’s other, better, cheaper ways to come up with new drugs than $100 billion dollar commercial entities ripping us all off and spending half their budgets on marketing).
Exactly, patents that is simply describing obvious stuff like “Method for sharing and searching playlists” (it actually exists) should be rejected or get just 3 years max
Stuff like this took more time/money in filing the patent application than the actual development
Obligatory I am not a patent lawyer, but quick glance at the description, how the heck did that pass the novelty requirement?
A method for making a playlist available to the public, in which the playlist comprises user-defined descriptor information. The user-defined descriptor information is entered as free form text or prose.
Strstasys is absolutely feeling Bambu, as well as all the other consumer printer companies. Their revenue has been flat for years. Every time I get into a thread on engineering printers the almost universal consensus is “unless you need really big build volumes like the Fortus series, there is no point to Stratasys for the cost”. And they’re right. The x1c and x1e’s can do effectively everything that an f170 can for like 1/20th the price.
Linking the patents listed, because I’m struggling to understand what technologies are spelled out in them (I’m taking my best guesses here, so feel free to correct me if I’m misreading something, because I probably am):
- 9421713- purge towers apparently
- 9592660- heated beds/ removable build plates
- 7555357- something to do slicing workflow/ path generation
- 9168698 / 10556381- detecting that force has been applied to the extruder
Given how broad these are, this case could have some less than pleasant ripple effects on the rest of the 3d printing community, like opening the doors to drag ultimaker/ prusa into court over random commonplace stuff.
The specific patent links seem to be broken. All return 403. Here are functional alternatives.
They’re basically trying to patent troll (by going after a brand new offshore company that will be easy to bully in US courts, and not an entrenched company like Prusa) because their company produces no more useful innovations.
I was more trying to armchair lawyer if they had a legitimate case here. Most of stuff they’re citing is used so broadly across the 3D printing community, I’m wondering if their patents are even enforceable anymore (as I understand IP law, if you don’t actively protect your IP you risk loosing it).
The whole thing almost reminds me of when Slice took Phaetus to court over the surgical pipe in the dragon hotend.
Patent law is not IP law. You don’t need to prove that you have defended your patent, the existence of the patent itself is “proof of ownership” and at any point during the patent’s life you can claim damages against an infringing company. The onus is then on the accused to prove that the claimed patent was invalid, not applicable, or filed incorrectly/in bad faith.
Yes, patent law is intentionally broken and very stupid.
It’s more that Bambulab has created an integrated 3D Printing Ecosystem with the mentioned patented features If you look at Prusa and other 3D Printer companies there are only very minor integrations that are not built in but more opt-in features
Thank you! Updated my comment with your links (The .gov site for the patent office is ironically difficult to permalink to, go figure)
Statasys owns MakerBot whom bought Ultimaker
Don’t forget, patents are the reason we got 3D priting in 2012 instead of the late 80’s.
We missed out on 3 decades of progress in the name of greed.
We missed out on 3 decades of progress in the name of greed.
The American Way!
