As Shane alluded to in a recent article, the Internet exploded this weekend when Makers and 3D printer users from all over became outraged by patents recently filed by Stratasys-owned MakerBot. The patents detail improvements to MakerBot systems currently in the works, such as a “force detector” that might be attached to a 3D printer extruder “to detect deflection forces and the like acting on the tool that might indicate an operating error.” So, what’s making the 3D printing community so mad? A lot of small 3D printer manufacturers and independent Makers feel as though these improvements were developed by the open source world first. If true, MakerBot-Stratasys would be patenting ideas that were not their own.
I first came across the controversy from a friend who relayed a post at OpenBeam USA. OpenBeam, maker of delta-style 3D printers, has been hard at work developing an automatic bed levelling process for some time. The OpenBeam Kossel Pro machine uses a probe attached to the extruder head similar to that described in the MakerBot patent. As OpenBeam’s Terrence Tam explains his anger regarding this latest news:
As someone who had been working with auto-levelling on the Kossel Pro, this was a very rude surprise. In a nutshell – Auto Levelling is The Next Big Thing for repraps. It is what makes the OpenBeam Kossel family so easy to use, and last year we became the first open source hardware company to ship an evaluation unit to Make Magazine for their 3D printer shootout.
Tam acknowledges that OpenBeam is only one among many that have been developing such a Z-axis probe. In fact, such a concept dates as far back as 2008, according to the RepRap forums.
In addition to the force detector, whosawhatsis, from Deezmaker, called shenanigans on MakerBot’s filing for a patent related to a “quick-release extruder”. The patent application describes “[a] bearing that provides contact force to engage a filament with a drive gear has a movable axis that can be controllably moved toward and away from the drive gear in order to engage and disengage the filament.”
The quick-release extruder was previously added to the MakerBot Replicator 2, with some credit given to its designers, whosawhatsis and whpthomas. And, while this irked many, according to the Creative Commons license it was released under, manufacturers can sell these open designs, as long as proper attribution is given. The patent, however, is a different matter altogether, as reddit user (and moderator of the 3Dprinting subreddit) traversda explains on zir blog: “That means they can sue anyone who tries to use a similar design or method. Not just if they use that file, but any similar methods of feeding filament.”
As 3D printer users determine what to do about the situation, a few possible plans of action have arisen. One response, shouted about on Reddit (thanks, Scott!), has been to take .stl files down from Thingiverse altogether and replace them with images that say something along the lines of “Boycott MakerBot”. Reddit user matthewfive says, “Pull your files. They changed the site legalese a year or two ago claiming ownership of everything and then backtracked on that saying it’s normal and they’d never do something like they’re doing today. They’ve turned themselves into a hostile repository with this move.”
Another G+ user, Camerin hahn, thought that this would be counterproductive, saying, “Deleting your thingiverse account/Changing all of your models breaks the chain of proof required to prevent them from patenting your work in the future.” Instead, hahn urges others to keep their work on Thingiverse, but to redirect users to a different host as an act of rebellion. Since MakerBot originally changed their Thingiverse Terms of Service in 2013 in a way that reflected a less open attitude, users have been looking for new sites to host their 3D printable files. In fact, Repables is one model repository that was established for just such a reason.
Though boycotting MakerBot would be one way of calling attention to the cause of protecting open source designs, doing so may not achieve the legal ends that open source innovators desire. For that reason, OpenBeam’s Terrence Tam and others have suggested that innovators “file a 3rd party prior art submission to the USPTO with regards to pending patent applications.” Tam goes onto explain some useful tips for overcoming USPTO website glitches and ensuring a successful filing. Because these are only patent applications, there may still be a chance for the open source community to prevent MakerBot-Stratasys from claiming ownership of them.
As 3D printer manufacturers await, in fear, the outcome of the lawsuit filed by Stratasys against Afinia for use of fused filament fabrication, these recent patent applications only add salt to old wounds. What stings so much is that MakerBot, in particular, began as a symbol of the potential success of open source companies, but slowly grew more and more alienated from the community from which it sprang. In the eye of the open source community, MakerBot seems to be turning into the classic villain corrupted by the evil forces of a greedy master. I’m not a huge Star Wars buff, but, from what I remember and what Wikipedia tells me, here’s how things go for Darth Vader: “Once he becomes Darth Vader, each evil act he commits makes it harder for him to return to the light, but ultimately escapes the dark side and redeems himself before he dies by saving his son Luke Skywalker and killing Palpatine in Return of the Jedi.”
So, I guess what I need to know from the overlapping fans of 3D printing and Star Wars is: can MakerBot do a Vader redeem itself? Either way, I wanna live with the Ewoks. Then again, life is a bit more complicated than 70s sci-fi. For that reason, I asked one of the more complex / analytical people I know what he thought about the topic. In response, Shane gave some advice that may be more useful than my terrible Star Wars reference/analogy.
Two approaches to business and invention are meeting, the old guard of guarded ideas and competition and the new generation of open source and sharing. Some large companies may take advantage of this new approach in a less destructive way, while others may be a bit more exploitative of the open source model. Shane seems to know this as he says the following:
We are about to see the defining era of where ideas meet iteration and digital meets physical. In 3D printing code becomes art. A gap is bridged.
At one end of the range of ways of protecting ideas is a traditional patent. It is black and white.
Other ways of protecting ideas have emerged in art and code. Art creatives have a tradition of signatures. Programmers have a tradition of open source given the practical complexities of citing the originators of lines of code.
Where a person is developing an open source 3D printable idea I believe that they should always express the desire to be attributed or make their work Creative Commons not for business use.
The onus is upon you to make a first notation publicly that this is your idea and you either have it patented, you want attribution, and / or it’s not for the use of others for business. If you don’t, and someone takes your idea to profit from it, you have already disclosed that idea publically.
Some companies will use open source platforms to observe innovation in progress and catalyse their own ideas, which they will then patent. Whether coding in a competition run by a company, painting at university, designing open source 3D printers, there is always prospectively someone looking at your work for ideas. Either elements of your work they can adapt to new ideas, or the whole thing.
3D printing uses some open source platforms. There is a new trend for crowd sourcing ideas in corporate culture. Put these two together and – theoretically – it’s not hard to see how open source platforms could be very easily abused by those seeking to monopolise markets or widen patent portfolios.
Big companies and individual open source enthusiasts can work well together. That part of how the world’s most valuable brand Google came into eminence.
But new home 3D printing enthusiasts need be urgently aware that although some 3D printing news sources talk of utopia, and some companies talk of free open platforms, the reality may be closer to that of Facebook: when a service is free, the product is you.
The answer is again like Facebook: Beware what you share.
Keep your development work to yourself unless you cite the desire for open source attribution, not for business use, or register a patent. Or be cool with others profiting from your shared unprotected idea. But think about it all carefully first. You can’t change your mind afterwards.
All words and concepts (CC) Attribution not for business Ri Taylor 2014.
So make of all of this what you will, I guess. Thanks, Shane!
Title Source: As sourcing things is becoming increasingly important to avoid gettin’ in trouble, I’ll note that I heard the phrase Takerbot from our friend Nils, but don’t know who originally came up with it.
MakerBots = TakerBots = FakerBots.com
Few questions on this post:
1) What exactly is MakerBot selling on thingiverse? Looks like everything is free to me.
2) Just branching off the above question; When I go on thingiverse, the people who created the file have their name attached to it, also just downloaded it for free without MakerBot asking for payment. Is there another thingiverse site that is charging people for other peoples work?
3) Why did the other companies not patent the technology first – looks like it was possible if MakerBot did it. Seems like everyone else is just mad they didn’t do it first.
I follow 3D printing a lot and this whole article just seems to be very confusing to me.
If you could answer my questions Michael, that would be great
Thanks !
1) they aren’t selling anything, but by patenting something you’ve invented and tons of people/companies use, they can take them to court, despite the fact that this work was supposed to be OPEN,
2) as above,
3) what technology? we’re taking about inventions, such as extruder, etc, that someone has published for free; because they wanted it to be free, and because they love to share. and then they [makerbot] take that work and turn it into theirs by patenting it. and we’re back to 1)…
1) MBI didn’t take other people’s inventions and patent them. They extended other people’s inventions, and patented their extensions. That’s how patents are supposed to work.
2) Nope, Thingiverse is free.
3) Makerbot didn’t patent anyone else’s inventions.
1) firstly — incorrect. they did take work that wasn’t theirs, and patented it. I know of a few. Secondly, saying ‘this is how patetens are supposed to work’ is just wrong. If it was this way, it would mean ‘stealing somebody else’s idea… legally’
2) it’s free to use, but by putting your work there, you let anyone do whatever they want, including owners of the site, who like to patent…
3) yes, they did.
You’re basically asserting that MBI patented other’s work, with no examples or proof. That’s not terribly constructive. Every example that I’ve seen claimed has come down to the accuser misreading the patent, and thinking that MBI was claiming as inventions the things listed as prior art.
For example: MBI patented the addition of a bi-stable lever to a spring tensioned extruder. That’s a feature of their new extruder, and isn’t done by previous commercial extruders. The claim was made that MBI was patenting spring-tensioned extruders, but reading the patent MBI didn’t claim to have invented them, and in fact listed them as prior art. So the attack isn’t supported.
Same with the claim that MBI patented print bed leveling. Reading the patent, what MBI patented was a technique for putting a sensor in the extruder that can detect when the extruder collides with something, such as the print bed or an object being printed. They didn’t try to patent print bed leveling, and in fact they documented print bed leveling as prior art, which their invention might be useful for.
So, I’ll stand by what I said. That is:
MBI didn’t patent anybody else’s inventions, they patented their own inventions, which built on previous inventor’s work. And that _is_ how patents are supposed to work.
So, for your three claims:
1) You’re incorrect. The patents don’t say what someone told you they said. Go read ask someone experienced in patents and 3d printing what MBI is claiming.
2) Publishing work on Thingiverse doesn’t give anyone the right to patent it, it does the opposite, because when you reveal an invention to the public, that makes it impossible for someone else to later patent it because your work is prior art, visible to the public and with time/date stamps. Beyond that, Thingiverse lets you set the license that applies to your published designs, which they display with your designs, which again makes clear that Thingiverse isn’t for “stealing somebody else’s ideas”, it’s for sharing your designs, with attribution and license.
3) If you’re going to contradict someone, at least _try_ to make a coherent argument or present some evidence.
Hi Jake,
Basically as Marcin has stated, it’s about open Source and Open Innovation design and ideas that are supposed to be free and for anyone to use (Usually for both commercial or personal use).
Almost everything on Thingiverse and in the Open Source community has a License, these are Legal terms on which the design is released. They also should also stop people from patenting them as the idea is not in the public domain (Just like the invention of the Wheel) Just as you can’t patent the Wheel you are not allowed to take open Innovation that’s been documented in the Public domain and say it is yours and patent it, that’s both against the license terms and the Patent System too.
No one is saying I wish I had patented that great Idea first, the whole point is that we don’t want things to be patented and locked away for 25 years to one company who can use it to stop innovation or litigate others if they use it.
So you can build a company selling Open Source designs (if the License allows), but you can’t then decide to Patent them and stop others from doing the same thing.
Thanks !
Right. And MBI didn’t do that.
Tam is right. This is only a patent application, not an issued patent.
Because the intellectual property they wish to claim is public domain
since it has been widely published and used, they cannot patent it, and
no prior art need be found to reject it through the 35 USC obviousness
rejection. I think what irks people is the “intention” to use and extend
open source innovations that are intended to be free to use.
If you read the patent, Makerbot didn’t claim to have invented what Tam thinks they are claiming. He’s reading the section listing “prior art” as if Makerbot were claiming it, when in fact what they’re doing is documenting the prior art because that’s *not* what they are claiming. They’re only claiming specific extensions of the prior art.
Your premise “Because the intellectual property they wish to claim is public domain” isn’t what Makerbot actually did, it’s confusion caused by misreading their patent application.
For example, Makerbot didn’t claim spring tensioned extruders, they documented that spring tensioned extruders already existed. What they filed a patent on is just the addition of a bi-stable lever to that.
The confusion is understandable. Patents are very hard to read, since they law requires that the be written a very specific way, using terms such as “dependent claims” and “independent claims” that are meaningless to most people, but which have specific legal meaning. But you’d think that before publishing a story about patents, reporters would check with a patent attorney, or at least someone familiar with reading patents, to make sure that they had their facts right before publishing stories making dramatic claims.
Thanks for that. What I meant to say is that anything that has already been published and is in use by the maker community cannot be patented because it is considered public domain. Makerbot is only attempting to patent its own improvements over something that is already known and in-use, so its doubtful they will be able to patent it at all, unless it is so significant an innovation that they can overcome the 35USC obviousness clause in the patent code. While I haven’t read their patent, I just went through a grueling patent process with the USPTO for a hydro power invention that was quite un-obvious, but they hammered me for 6 months nonetheless. The improvements they are wanting to patent must be significant and un-obvious “to someone skilled in the art” when comparing prior art, and the uspto can pull up the most ridiculous comparisons. Considering how difficult this is going to be for them, MB must believe there is significant profit in it, while leaving out of the equation the loss of good will in the community this is generating. Btw, I share your disappointment with “journalists.”
You may be right there.
This is a problem that will only get worse from MakerBot/Thingiverse over time. At pinshape.com, we aren’t tied to any specific hardware, don’t take ownership of your designs and welcome anyone fed up with Thingiverse to try us out and let us know what you think about our platform.
Hi Jake
It is not about Makerbot selling stuff on thingiverse, the problem is that they are taking open-source designs posted on thingiverse which are NOT inventions of makerbot but of contributors in the community, and patenting these as their own.
Everyone is mad because no one wanted these things to be patented in the first place, they were not invented by companies, they were invented by individuals that spent a lot of time researching the best solutions for the community.
Everything is possible to patent since the patent law uses the first-to-file model and not doing extensive background checks for prior art (and also the patent offices are very skeptical to any claimed prior art on the web), and leaves it up to a court to decide if the patent is valid or not. This also makes it really easy for companies like makerbot to steal individuals inventions since they can afford to have a staff of patent lawyers…
Hope that this clears things up for you! 🙂
Makerbot wants a big piece of the 3D printing pie, and the stakes are very high,
it looks like Makerbot is going the Samsung way, steal ideas make it your own,
then delay and settle in court for many years to come, while they flood the market with their “patented” designs.
MBI hasn’t patented other people’s work. They’ve patented their work, which extends other people’s work.
The problem is that people who don’t know how to read patents get confused. This is easy – patents are hard to read. But as far as I can tell, MBI is properly describing prior art as such, in order to then go on to claim their improvements, and people are misreading the patents and thinking that MBI is claiming ownership over the prior art.
That’s understandable. What’s less understandable is journalists perpetuating the confusion instead of clarifying.
Michael, Shane, Thanks for the article and for highlighting this highly alarming move by Makerbot.
We have no idea how deep these patent applications go, and how long Makerbot has been filing them. More will appear and all of them are time bombs for the Open Source and Open Innovation communities that helped build this current ‘new’ market for consumer home 3D printers.
One thing to note on Open Source, if you release anything with a NC (non commercial) License (CC BY-NC) for example, NC is not compatible with Open Source, companies that use an NC license and say they are Open Source are making the most of Open Source marketing and riding on the back of anyone that uses a true Open License – For examples of True Open Source companies see what – Josef Prusa and LulzBot are doing.
There is noting wrong with NC or ND, but if you release your design, ides or software with these types of license, then please don’t say they are Open Source.
I release all my designs as Open Source Creative Commons (CC BY-SA) – and I fully expect people to use them, both personally and for commercial use, modify them and make derivatives of them.
What’s not acceptable for me is if any derivatives of my work are licensed as anything more restrictive or are patented.
And what has caused this uproar in the community is that Makerbot seem to be trying to tie up open developments, designs and ideas into their own Patent portfolio. You only do that for one reason. To restrict and control both the market and the technology.
I and many others have no issue at all with anyone patenting their own work and innovations, that’s a choice and I hope it pays off for anyone that goes down that route.
I posted on my blog some further details and info www . richrap . blogspot . com
For further reading on specifically Creative Commons Licenses, take a look at – http://www.oshwa.org/2014/05/21/cc-oshw/
I was under the impression you could NOT patent something that was already in the market. But it all depends on when the patent was filed. And the USPTO does not play by their own rules. It is just like everything else, a money game. Yeah I can see why folks are upset at Makerbot in the open source community but this is the downside to putting your “ideas” out there. If you do then do not be upset about it when someone takes it.
I could not agree any more
The issue is that the USPTO gets several thousand submitions a day, they cannot and do not check out all of the claims. We do not want to discourage patenting, what we do want to discourage is someone patenting opensource technology, then suing the creators. If the original creators got some lawyers and challenged the case they would probably win, but it just takes money out of the R&D departments.
This is wrong. It is an abuse of the system that they lobbied for.
To be clear i work for a closed source company, I have been through the patent process. I am not against closed source or patents. I am against plagiarism and theft, and that is exactly what this is.
So then change the concept that when you file for an application you can actually “own” it until they deny it.
I’m assuming that these patents have been filed in the US? If the patent office there worked/works the way it should then it’s simply a matter of those who claim they already have similar solutions and that the ideas are not actually new to raise objections, whereupon the patent application should be refused. If the idea has even been mentioned to somebody and discussed, let alone been made known to the public, it can no longer be patented.
We constantly hear of big US concerns filing patents for ideas that already exist. In the UK/EU this simply isn’t possible. No idea why it seems to be possible in the US?
USPTO is swamped with applications every day, they just don’t have the time to assess every piece of prior art, not to mention that there are hundreds of thousands of places to look for prior art. It can be retroactively taken away after it was granted. Prior art is hugely complex. But the short story, if you are good at covering your tracks you can patent just about anything, but the question is will it hold up in court.
Whoever can afford the most (best?) lawyers almost always win. Individuals don’t stand a chance against objet/stratasys/makerbot
In a moral sense you’re all right, they should not have done that, and if this were kindergarden, they should get a timeout, but thats it.
But here is a key lesson for everyone here – This is the business world, morals do not exist here. If a designer wants to make an apple on autoCAD and keep it for himself, than he can do that. If an inventor wants to create a great extruder design, than he should be smart enough to patent it himself. Bottom line.
You come up with a great idea, put it out in the world, let it sit there, and then cry when someone is smart enough to take it, redesign it, and make it better. What kind of grade school BS is that, is this your way of telling the teacher on MakerBot?
Its the sore losers of the world that look and trash the winners. A MakerBot is a great 3D printer, embrace it, because in the grand scheme of things, no one gives a shit about mine or your opinion.
As for the Thingiverse files. I mean if you’re that emotionally attached to your apple or cup holder design, keep it for yourself. Or redesign it so it is better. If its that huge of a deal, and you think you should be making money off of your design – heres your solution – dont put it on thingiverse.
I understand, what you’re saying for sure, but its not like MakerBot is selling these things. Your name is still attached to the file on thingiverse and everyone knows you made it. Relax.
In a moral sense, you’re all right, 100% no question.
In a business, real world sense, you do not put something of value out in the world without a patent. Yea blah blah why cant people just do it because its the “right thing to do” – well because they cant – we live in a world where your opinion is pointless (mine is as well) and money rules. People are hungry out there, but there are others who are hungrier.
Survival of the fittest. You do not become successful by giving everything away for free.
As for your thingiverse files – move on – it happened, period. You can still go ahead and design your next big cup holder design, just maybe this time, leave it off thingiverse if it is that meaningful to you.
Happy printing all
Chances are the big money has already purchased Congress and laws will be passed that protect and benefit the corporations to the detriment of the individual.
Individuals need an association to provide representation to prevent laws that will put the smaller companies out of business.
Personally i really don’t like the takerbot campaign. It reminds me of really bad political adds. Negative adds may seem like a good idea, but they really don’t work. we should be focused on peaceful, polite, and honest protest.
I agree that the owner of the opensource IP should not complain if someone else uses it. THAT IS NOT what this article is about. It is about makerbot positioning its self to take market space it didn’t earn. This would allow MBI to sue the inventors.
This is about the patents on technologies like auto bed leveling, quick release filament drive system. Not apple cups, or other things. These are non trivial investments to the opensource community.
The actions that they took are not technically illegal, but the patents should not be granted.
MBI didn’t claim a patent on auto bed leveling, or quick release filament drives. This enhancements came from the community, and MBI’s patents documented them as prior art, as they should have. What MBI patented was a technique of using a particular sensor to detect collisions between the print head and the print bed or printed object. One thing that their sensor could be used for is bed leveling, but they’re not claiming ownership of all bed leveling. Similarly, they didn’t patent spring-tensioned extruders, they patented the use of a bi-stable lever in controlling the spring tensioned extruder.
Before you accuse MBI of patenting other people’s inventions, read the patents more carefully. They’re confusing, I know, but they don’t say what you think they say.
Makerbot ripped off my IP under NDA, and it seems they have zero ethics in ripping of anyone, and worse off. They lead you on as if they will do business with you, as they just copy and rip off your products and ideas. At no point do they offer to support 3D party devices that where built for their system, and they decided to insource all their development — and block out the entire open source community. IT IS A FACT MAKERBOT does not create anything new. They just steal, and brand it as their own. It’s time for a serious law suit against these guys. Total scum bags. They fill Fck you in your face. I agree a total BAN on Makerbots is in order, and if anyone else has been ripped off by them, especially under NDA — Contact me.
Please read my above comment – you’re being ridiculous
That’s a pretty dramatic claim for someone posting anonymously and presenting no evidence. Want to try again?
I think you may be misreading the patents. That’s easy to do – patents are very weird documents that are hard to follow. In the patent, as I read it, the part talking about the extruder designs on Thingiverse is documenting the prior art, which is as it should be – those designs are prior art. The only thing that MBI is claiming as a novel invention is using a bi-stable lever on the tensioner. So they’re not patenting Whosa watsis’ design, they’re documenting that his design exists, then patenting an improvement extending his design. That’s the sort of minor patent that engineering companies file routinely so that they can build up a patent portfolio to use to defend themselves from copy-cats and patent vultures.
So you might not like them patenting things at all, and there’s clearly a clash between the “share everything” world and the “patent everything” world, but as far as I can tell they’re only patenting their inventions, not anybody else’s work, so what they’re doing is legal and routine in the engineering world. And keeping in mind that patents take months to write up and file, and costs $thousands in filing fees, plus lawyers, etc., attempting to patent someone else’s work is a complete waste of time and money because you’d lose in court, and piss people off. So it’s unlikely that they intentionally copied someone else’s idea.
What I think is more likely is that people are misreading the patents, and thinking that they’re making more claims than they actually are.
The problem here, and in general, is the chilling effects from the fear of involuntary infringement when a patent is very close to implementations in use. Patents have become more of an arms race than anything else.
I am wondering about the uproar. It is a very common thing that companies try to patent “inventions”. It is also common to limit the claims by submitting prior art info to the patent office. I strongly believe in the USPTO that the rules which qualifies a true invention are applied:
novelty, non-trivial, technicality. If it is true that the claims in respective Makerbot patent were EARLIER published, just follow the advise to file a prior art submission to the USPTO, proof your claim or name the open source, and the patent claim will not be granted. By the way, publishing new ideas in forums and in public is the best way you can ensure that it cannot be claimed by anyone in a patent. Therefore if you want to fight for open source – don’t hide your ideas!
I can only suggest designers and maker to upload their designs and sell it through real experts in managing digital file repositories. I launched kazzata.com (marketplace for 3D printing design files) after almost 20 years experience in managing repositories of stock photography. With repositories of CAD files the business is the same and we are doing a pure file distribution without any bias from a hardware business.
Actually, public disclosure (magazine, blog, conference…) means that there is no inventiveness, hence, no patentability. Unless of course, they are actually coming up with a novel technical solution building on top of what was publicly available. Then, they are not ripping anyone off (which, seems to be the case). In any case, don’t delete anything that can be used as proof that something was publicly disclosed before the filing!