3DPrinting
3DPrinting is a place where makers of all skill levels and walks of life can learn about and discuss 3D printing and development of 3D printed parts and devices.
The r/functionalprint community is now located at: !functionalprint@kbin.social or !functionalprint@fedia.io
There are CAD communities available at: !cad@lemmy.world or !freecad@lemmy.ml
Rules
-
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
-
Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
-
No porn (NSFW prints are acceptable but must be marked NSFW)
-
No Ads / Spamming / Guerrilla Marketing
-
Do not create links to reddit
-
If you see an issue please flag it
-
No guns
-
No injury gore posts
If you need an easy way to host pictures, https://catbox.moe/ may be an option. Be ethical about what you post and donate if you are able or use this a lot. It is just an individual hosting content, not a company. The image embedding syntax for Lemmy is 
Moderation policy: Light, mostly invisible
view the rest of the comments
Also, I mean "bad patent" according to the standards of patents themselves. I don't actually think patents are good for anything.
aren't patents supposed to be "non obvious"?
If you're saying this one is obvious, there is maths and research involved, not just "hey lay it down like this.
The basic concept is easy, the implementation details are not.
Coding a slicer to stagger layer lines is definitely tedious, and frustrating. But in that case, the patent doesn't patent brick-layering techniques. It patents a specific technique of achieving that.
But when they're supposed to judge "non-obviousness" it's a bit more than just "is it simple". the question is, would somebody else see it as obvious (if they had never looked at your work,). staggered layers are obvious. Anyone with any amount of experience in structural engineering would be like "Well, yeah".
Now this is where the non-obvious gets fun. If any one whose reasonably knowledgeable in the system would follow the same technique you used. there has to be something "special" about it. And since the patent itself is based on significant past work; the argument could be made that anyone following that past work would arrive at the same techniques should be okay. (Except they're patent trolls and patent law lobbyists for said trolls have fucked everything over.)
there's a second caveat here that's worth mentioning. you can lose your patents if you don't exploit them. as far as I know there's no slicer- paid or otherwise- using their patent.
„A specific technique on how to achieve it“, it usually a process patent. This can be circumvented and erases the protection. If the defined process is A>B>C>D and your process is A>E>C>D, then this does not touch the patent as it’s a different process.
The point being made in the video is that the second patent doesn't correctly reference the prior art - the numbers are wrong - and it is not substantially different. The patent office didn't do their due diligence.
As for the first, it's not just code or the staggered idea. There is quantitative research that determines a specific and non-obvious methodology. (Edit: that's my opinion, but it would be subject to interpretation whether something is obvious - I could easily be wrong)
The video critcises that patent for being overly broad, but there's no need to attack it because it's expired anyway. If you want to, here's the specific link: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5653925A/en
My broader critique of patents isn't that they fail to stand up to their own rules - although they frequently do - but that the law itself runs counter to innovation.
Also I second your comments that patents often block innovation if not used or licensed too expensive, imI would like to share a different perspective on this.
In pharmacy, the research, development and testing of new medication takes years and costs tons of money. If a drug is out of patent, generic drugs made in India for a fraction of the costs in developed countries. Typically the original producer stops the production as they can’t succeed the race down.
If there won’t be patents that protect inventions, there won’t be medical research in developed countries. Antibiotics is one example where the broken incentive for medical industry to invent already became obvious. There are no new antibiotics anymore. Since years.
Imho, it’s not this good/bad thing with patents. It’s rather a „how you use it“
Doesn't a lot of the money for the research come from tax payers? And a lot of effort put into tweaking formulas with no real impact just so they can extend the patents? And then they jack up the prices to insane levels so that those tax payers cannot even afford the results anyway... The system is broken and massively abused. It needs to be changed. We might need something to help foster innovation but the current system just stifles it far more then it helps.
More or less what I was going to say. The covid vaccine was developed by public and private researchers and paid for by the state, with a promise it would be made open source to allow anyone to manufacture it and hasten the end of the pandemic.
Bill Gates was one of the fucking vampires who blocked the open sourcing efforts, so poor countries couldn't manufacture it, allowing the pandemic to run unchecked in those places and of course mutate and inevitably make its way back to wealthier countries for yet another outbreak that actually makes our news because it affects us. The patents killed people.
These companies were funded to do it. There's no way they wouldn't have worked on the vaccine. The pandemic showed us what governments can do when a crisis actually threatens the status quo and they're forced to do the bare minimum of solving a problem. We didn't need patents for it, just the will.
Fuck patents. All information should be free.
FOSS or die
Patents do provide some value. If there were no patents than companies would make their technological development a a secret and not share the work with the world.
The patent systems exchanges knowledge and technology development for a temporary monopoly on the technology. It means a company can publish the ingredients to medicines, methods of manufacturing etc. if they didn’t have the patent system they would keep these secret and if a business folded this knowledge would be lost.
Is this really a good faith argument you are making? If I could figure out how someone did something I am not allowed to do it for 30 years. They are not hiding this technology, it has been independently invented by multiple people. It is not unique enough to be able to 'hide' from society.
The second somebody makes a product available it can be reverse engineered. There are no secrets with mechanical objects or, in this case, an intuitice slicing method
Not all patents are good. But a patent system is good. It could be better but the general concept is not flawed like the person I was responding to suggests.
The physical object isn’t what is patented in this case. It is the method to create the object that has a patent. One that can’t be reversed engineered as it isn’t part of the final product. You could only reverse engineer it if the process was not novel or not obvious to anyone knowledgeable in the field. If both of these conditions are true then the patent should not have been granted.
Patents are not inherently bad. This is a bad patent. Patent laws don’t have to be changed, because this patent shouldn’t have been granted. The issue is ineffective patent reviews, not patents. Getting rid of patents is not a good idea. If you think it is you probably don’t have a good enough grasp on what a patent is.
You can make something if you figure out how they did it because it was obvious. In this case the patent isn’t valid. If you have to develop a solution then the patent is probably valid. The patent is a reward for developing and sharing the solution publically.
If you still don’t grasp why patents are useful. It may be helpful to think of it like open source software. The patent is the code base that is freely accessible to everyone. This preserves the knowledge and lets others build on it. However, to incentivise people to make their code open source you provide protections that stop others from selling the same code you developed.
The incentive mechanism is why far more businesses produce patents than produce open source code.
If you remove patents businesses stop funding internal r and d overnight. It increase the risk and reduces the reward.
You're just repeating the justification for patents with zero skepticism and apparently no awareness of how they actually get used.
Hell, I said the following to you a day before you made this comment, and you haven't replied. Are you happy to just ignore the counter arguments then?
Edit: the fact both this comment and the other one just got downvoted with no reply would indicate they are in fact not interested.
And we would be free to reverse engineer and lift their stuff without people defending their right restrict us because otherwise they wouldn't make it.
The vast majority of serious innovation - not just incremental improvements like this patent represents - is done on public resources, not private. The patent system allows corporations to swoop in, monopolise the patents and keep us from free access to knowledge.
The patent system explicitly provides free access to knowledge. The patent is the knowledge that would be kept secret otherwise.
You would still have monopolies, except things like the ingredients to medicines would be unknown.
I don't see it that way. The systems we have in place now are the alternative to just sharing. The secret-keeping monopolistic behaviour of capitalists is preserved by things like the patent system, because they lend the appearance of legitimacy to an illegitimate system.
If you want to see the horror of the patent system, you juat have to look at the millions it killed in the pandemic.
The covid vaccine was developed by public and private researchers and paid for by the state, with a promise it would be made open source to allow anyone to manufacture it and hasten the end of the pandemic.
Bill Gates was one of the fucking vampires who blocked the open sourcing efforts, so poor countries couldn't manufacture it, allowing the pandemic to run unchecked in those places and of course mutate and inevitably make its way back to wealthier countries for yet another outbreak that actually makes our news because it affects us. The patents killed people.
These companies were funded to do it. There's no way they wouldn't have worked on the vaccine otherwise. The pandemic showed us what governments can do when a crisis actually threatens the status quo and they're forced to do the bare minimum of solving a problem. We didn't need patents for it, just the will.