• Bill

    What do you think of the makers strategy of publishing algorithms to generate defensive prior art on 3D printing — like this one for determining “obvious” 3D printing materials? http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:73427

  • http://twitter.com/drcabl3 Thomas Walpole

    So. You’re angry that invalid patent applications(A patent application is not valid if there is prior art) are being pointed out as being invalid?

    You’d prefer it if invalid patent applications continued to be treated as valid?

    • John Hornick

      Thanks for the spirited comments and for increasing my vocabulary. Although I may not be a particularly bright fellow, partly because I say things LIKE “For four years Michelangelo painstakingly applied layers of paint to the chapel ceiling until an image appeared, much as Athena sprung full-blown from the head of Zeus,” I agree with proboscidean (http://boingboing.net/2013/05/19/patent-lawyers-help-the-evil.html ). I also believe crowdsourcing prior art is a brilliant use of the internet. It is too soon to tell if defeating or narrowing 3DP patents will be good or bad for the industry, but I suspect that preissue submissions fueled by crowdsourced prior art will turn out to be a positive force. Regarding the Makers, I meant the capital M as a compliment, but there seems to be a split between people who favor the issuance of valid if not narrow patents and people who would do away with them altogether. I will be speaking on “3D Printing and the Future (or Demise) of Intellectual Property” in Chicago in July ( http://www.mediabistro.com/inside3dprinting/?c=i3dhonka ), where I will have more to say on this topic. Also, follow me on twitter @JHornick3D1Stop .

  • http://twitter.com/mrbillypete Billy Pete Janss

    Penultimate paragraph; I fail to see the irony. If an influx of prior art exposition yields ‘stronger but narrower’ narrow patents (More valid – one might say) this would entail precisely the increase in ‘efficiency and quality’ that preissuance intends. One is surprised an attorney of Mr. Hornick’s stature making such an inept argument. Presumably, patents which are less vague and overreaching provide less opportunity for profitable litigation, hence are of lower quality from the perspective of a barratrous parasite.

  • Phillip Reed

    “Additionally, the preissue submission of 3DP-related prior art could
    reduce the number and breadth of patents that issue in the 3DP space. ”

    The authors have failed to explain how this is a problem.

  • http://www.facebook.com/shane.selman Shane Selman

    There is no indication in the law or the summary that “Congress did not, however, intend the use of this mechanism to interfere with patent examination.”[1] Nor have you made it clear how submission of relevant prior art for review is, in any way, “interfering” with the patent review process. The purpose of patent review is to grant only patents on legitimately innovative or transformative inventions. While a large volume of spurious claims of prior art could be detrimental to review process, you yourself provide evidence that the parties involved are going to great lengths to validate any claims before submitting ( your citation [7] ).

    [1]Relevant Section of the Law – from your citation – [4] H.R. Rep. No. 110-314 at 37 (2007). I can find no other relevant section that the one below which explicitly describes the 3rd party submission process.

    (Sec. 9) Imposes time restrictions on the publication of certain pending patent applications.

    Allows any third person to submit for consideration and inclusion in the record of a patent application, any patent, published patent application, or other publication of potential relevance to the examination of a patent application. Requires such submission to be made in writing, with a concise description of its relevance, before the earlier of: (1) the mailing of a notice of allowance in the application for a patent; or (2) the date that is six months after publication of the application or that date of the first rejection of any claim in the application, whichever is later.

  • Dan_Someone

    Why would narrower but stronger patents be a problem for Makers?

  • http://twitter.com/kdvncm Keith Spiker

    Mr. Hornick states: “Makers would keep 3DP open and unhindered by the constraints of intellectual property.” This is incorrect. Two large 3DP projects (from Makers) have been the Thing-O-Matic project (from Makerbot Industries) and the RepRap project, both of which rely on intellectual property laws (particularly copyright laws) to enforce the licenses and terms under which the intellectual property can be used. I believe the Thing-O-Matic project uses the GNU GPLv3 license and the RepRap project uses the GNU General Public License. On his website, Mr. Hornick claims to have “[h]andled one of the first copyright cases involving the enforceability of the GNU General Public License.” Why does Mr. Hornick ignore the GNU GPL as a constraint of “intellectual property” here? Ignorance of the Makers, maybe? You should learn your subject before you publish.

    Also, maybe copyright lawyers (like Mr. Hornick) should stick to copyright and not patent law. Mr. Hornick does not make his case.

  • HowieFeltersnatch

    John Hornick doesn’t strike me as a particularly bright fellow. He’s mad because a way has been found to point out that BS patents are BS more easily? I know that lawyers are scum, but this scumbag really takes it to a new level. Hornick is little more than a whore for the patent trolls, who would try to trot out stale old tech and patent it.

  • http://twitter.com/kdvncm Keith Spiker

    We all know that the only legitimate way for large groups of people to collaborate is the corporation. This “crowd sourcing” – only made possible through new technology – is dangerous. These are the same people that crowdsourced opposition to SOPA. simply dangerous.

  • http://twitter.com/RichRap3D Richard H

    Words fail me – this is a cracking reply if you have not already see it –
    http://mostlysignssomeportents1.tumblr.com/post/50793852061/patent-lawyers-help-the-evil-makers-wont-let-us

  • John Hornick

    Thanks for the spirited comments and for increasing my
    vocabulary. Although I may not be a
    particularly bright fellow, partly because I say things LIKE “For four years Michelangelo
    painstakingly applied layers of paint to the chapel ceiling until an image
    appeared, much as Athena sprung full-blown from the head of Zeus,” I
    agree with proboscidean
    (http://boingboing.net/2013/05/19/patent-lawyers-help-the-evil.html ). I
    also believe crowdsourcing prior art is a brilliant use of the internet. It is too soon to tell if defeating or
    narrowing 3DP patents will be good or bad for the industry, but I suspect that
    preissue submissions fueled by crowdsourced prior art will turn out to be a
    positive force. Regarding the Makers, I meant
    the capital M as a compliment, but there seems to be a split between people who
    favor the issuance of valid if not narrow patents and people who would do away
    with them altogether. I will be speaking
    on “3D Printing and the Future (or Demise) of Intellectual Property” in Chicago
    in July (http://www.mediabistro.com/inside3dprinting/?c=i3dhonka ), where I will have more to say on this
    topic. Also, follow me on twitter @JHornick3D1Stop .

  • Eric Scoles

    I guess I’m not understanding the problem, here. If a patent isn’t novel, it shouldn’t be granted, right? And the primary means by which you judge whether the patent is novel is by examining prior art — right? So, this is actually HELPING TO DETERMINE whether the patents should be granted — right?

    So, again — what exactly is the problem?