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?

  • @AliasVortex
    link
    English
    7
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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.

      • @AliasVortex
        link
        English
        41 month ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]OP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          330 days ago

          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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        229 days ago

        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

      • @AliasVortex
        link
        English
        31 month ago

        Thank you! Updated my comment with your links (The .gov site for the patent office is ironically difficult to permalink to, go figure)