New MakerBot owner, Stratasys, sues Afinia

Based on the article wouldn't the term of the patents be close to, or have already expired?

Stratasys has had these patents since the late 1990s, but until it purchased Makerbot had taken no steps to try and enter the desktop market. Assuming their patents cover printers like the Afinia, they could have rolled out a low cost desktop model a decade ago. But, for whatever combination of reasons, they declined to do so.

Source: http://makezine.com/2013/11/27/stratasys-sues-afinia-ramifications-for-the-desktop-3d-printing-industry/

Looking at the wikipedia article for 'term of patent in the USA' it says:

In the United States, under current patent law, the term of patent, provided that maintenance fees are paid on time, are:

• For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995,^[1] the patent term is 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. application to which priority is claimed (excluding provisional applications).^[2]
• For applications filed before June 8, 1995 and for patents that were still in force on June 8, 1995, the patent term is either 17 years from the issue date or 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. or international (PCT) application to which priority is claimed (excluding provisional applications), the longer term applying.^[3][4]

Source: Term of patent in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have no idea what these companies are like, but going by the business practices of other technologies companies this all seems like standard practice. Based on the vague description of the infringed patents it seems that there would be an easy work around for the components mentioned, if there is even a case that follows through, or in the worst case scenario there may be a few years delay within the industry whilst waiting for the patents to expire, and Stratasys seek market dominance - outside of China.

Stuart Clarke wrote:

 

Based on the vague description of the infringed patents it seems that there would be an easy work around for the components mentioned

Unfortunately, accuracy or vagueness have never troubled lawyers, a profession trained in undermining of logic and bypassing of justice through verbal machination.  Fortunately they don't all use their skill in this way (some are very highly ethical), but those without any sense of ethics make a habit of screwing people just because they can (and of course for a fee).

Alas the ongoing patent and copyright wars demonstrate horribly that there is no shortage of bad eggs, both the legal hitmen and the CEOs who employ litigation as a business plan.  It creates a horrible chilling effect, and as 3D printing gets sexier and more capable with each passing year, the attacks on it will get worse and worse.

I'd love to be optimistic in this area, but while I'm wildly optimistic about the technology, I've been around long enough to know that bad people will attempt to bring it down.  Also, note that, as often said, 3D printing puts the means of production into the hands of the people.  This is utter anathema to business in the manufacturing sector, so you can expect those who equate progress with profit to be lined up in unanimous hatred when it becomes more than just a technical toy.  (The toy industry hates even this.)  And those vested interests will dictate to government what laws to pass.

So there are problem times ahead for 3D printing.  I don't plan to give up too easily.

Morgaine.

Given the rapid progress in 3D printing technology and the uptake in interest that 3D printing has seen over the past year or so, I remain optimistic that there is a very bright future for 3D printing and I have no doubt that it is a paradigm shifting technology. There is huge interest in this technology and I doubt that governments or industry will let anything hamper their progress, as too much has already been vested and the technology offers huge benefits.

Exciting times nevertheless!

Stuart Clarke wrote:

 

I doubt that governments or industry will let anything hamper their progress

If by "their progress" you meant "the progress of 3D printing technologies" (mentioned in your preceding sentences), then I agree, and it is my hope too.

Unfortunately, in the real world "their" almost without exception means governments and industry, and refers to their progress.  Our progress is irrelevant to them, indeed it hampers them and must be eradicated --- our role is to work hard and pass our money up the pyramid that accumulates Mankind's resources.

3D printing appeared out of nowhere and bucks the master plan.  As you say, exciting times.

Morgaine.

Stuart Clarke wrote:

 

Given the rapid progress in 3D printing technology and the uptake in interest that 3D printing has seen over the past year or so, I remain optimistic that there is a very bright future for 3D printing and I have no doubt that it is a paradigm shifting technology. There is huge interest in this technology and I doubt that governments or industry will let anything hamper their progress, as too much has already been vested and the technology offers huge benefits.

Yes, a very bright future, but not in the USA.  Another exciting technology from 1903 was tied up in a patent war between the Wright Brothers and Glenn Curtiss.  This was good news for the French aircraft maker SPAD, who sold fighter planes to the USA during WWI because you couldn't get them from the patent warriors.

California benefited from Thomas Edison's patent aggression over motion picture patents.  I've read that the movie industry moved to Hollywood and other locations in California (such as Niles, now part of Fremont) to be as far away from Edison as possible.  Unfortunately, you can't play that game any more in the USA, where "all roads lead to Marshall, Texas".

JMO/YMMV

Stuart Clarke wrote:

 

Given the rapid progress in 3D printing technology and the uptake in interest that 3D printing has seen over the past year or so, I remain optimistic that there is a very bright future for 3D printing and I have no doubt that it is a paradigm shifting technology. There is huge interest in this technology and I doubt that governments or industry will let anything hamper their progress, as too much has already been vested and the technology offers huge benefits.

Yes, a very bright future, but not in the USA.  Another exciting technology from 1903 was tied up in a patent war between the Wright Brothers and Glenn Curtiss.  This was good news for the French aircraft maker SPAD, who sold fighter planes to the USA during WWI because you couldn't get them from the patent warriors.

California benefited from Thomas Edison's patent aggression over motion picture patents.  I've read that the movie industry moved to Hollywood and other locations in California (such as Niles, now part of Fremont) to be as far away from Edison as possible.  Unfortunately, you can't play that game any more in the USA, where "all roads lead to Marshall, Texas".

JMO/YMMV

John Beetem wrote:

 

Yes, a very bright future, but not in the USA.

Perhaps it's time for a second Boston Tea Party.  You all did the right thing in 1773 to reject a foreign power imposing taxes back then (worth noting that I'm a Brit, but I know that you were right).  The foreign power that is shackling you now is hiding in your midst, and you cannot vote it out.  But you can throw out its tea.

Morgaine.