@@ivyr336most of these features are just market capture on stratasys part. None of the features mentioned should be considered IP. Like they're the only ones who could have thought up a heated bed plate or coating the surface. I hope they burn in, we would have had 3d printers 30 something years ago without these f**kers
Some of the patents are literally just technologies taken from other existing markets. Material tagging?!?!? That's literally the primary purpose of RFID tags, is to be able to distinguish different types items, there's nothing novel about having them inside a 3d printer. Same for heated chambers, remote management, remote monitoring, printer configurations, etc.
Applying existing technologies to different industries can make it novel for that industry and thus patentable. Normally this requires a new twist on the technology in some way but not necessarily. The problem becomes when they are super broad, which when it is the first time being done, it normally is just by the nature of how things develop and get fine tuned and more specific over time. Plus a well written patent covers the most variations possible. Not defending stratasys by any means. Their parents may or may not be valid. But they definitely survive through litigation to keep their crap alive
@@willofthemaker Not that I agree that people should be able to patent these types of things but an analogy our old patent lawyer used to use was patenting a house. You know the house isn't novel, so you then proceed to a part of the house, the door, that also doesn't work, so you move to the door knob, that didn't work, but you then decided that you could patent how you open the door knob which was novel. This tries to show that within obvious things there can be things that are novel. As you mention this can get even deeper if you look at specific markets. Something may not be novel in the automotive industry but when applied to the pharmaceutical industry it may be considered novel.
This isnt about Statasys vs. Bambu - This is about locking away of patents. Which not only effects corporate vs corporate, but open source and 'home game' consumers.
I think it's overgeneralized. It's just mostly connected to the fact you can easily cheat around patents if the owner has bad lawyers who filed the patent - an example in topic would be high flow CHT nozzle - in patent it's one piece while cheap copies utilize inserts. In this particular case I think Stratasys is just a patent troll looking for easy money. Especially in case of Purge Towers - it's more slicer side trick then printer-specific thing since there are already some open-source universal AMS alternatives.
It's cases like this that makes me question the utility of patents. They honestly just seem to be an anti-competitive measure that harms innovation and the consumer.
Problem is they are too long. You should have a limited time to develop a product based on your patent otherwise it becomes open to the public, say 2 years then once you do release a product you are protected for 2 years more not 17 years or whatever it is now.
@@Oznz-m5c You cannot file a patent on existing, published technology. This is why some companies will choose to publish information to a paper instead of going through the cost of creating a patent, in order to protect their right to use a new technology. Of course, the opensource RepRap community had many such designs.
I think what they are really trying to do is defend their overpriced Ultimaker machines. Why pay $7K when you can get the same or better performance for under $2K.
I was interested in buying an Ultimaker machine and had conversed a few times online with them regarding it, but then I heard nothing from them for ages, in the meantime I had bought an X1 Carbon combo, they did get back in touch with me eventually and gave me some old pony about BL printers being highly unreliable, at that point I had had it for about three months and had not one single issue that was not user error, and over 12 months later it is still the same story!
Suddenly it all makes sense, I had no clue Ultimaker was under Stratasys. My company paid 13k for an S7 with a material manager; for that price, I could get a print farm of six X1 carbons and massively increase our throughput, which for a small startup is HUGE. Ultimaker really just isn't feasible as a brand anymore, and I'd honestly rather go with a hacky self-made farm of Prusas rather than ever buy another Ultimaker.
Stratasys printers were absolutely amazing during the infancy of open source printers. We still have an early uPrint working at my current employer. If it wasn’t for the locked down slicer that only allows 3 slicing options, use of their proprietary ABS at $258USD for less than 1kg, single use build plates, and mandatory use of soluble support as a raft for every print ( also insanely expensive), I would be advocating the company to keep it. But for the price of 10 rolls of Stratasys filament, I can get a Bambu P1S, 10kg of whatever filament I want, absolute control over the printing parameters, and faster prints. If Stratasys was smart enough to think of building an affordable product line rather than lining the pockets of their shareholders, Bambu never would have existed. Or at the very least, offer reasonable licensing fees and work with small startups to assist in a consumer geared device. They probably could have made unreasonably larger sums than this lawsuit will bring.
Completely agree, if they had a low end machine with small build volume (and foot print), rock solid reliability, and a few novel features - I’d consider one. Just don’t see them ever doing that, they are stuck in an old incumbent leader rut
You can have a patent for a specific application. So a patent for material handling with RFID tech in general would be invalid but you can get a patent for handling 3d printing material with RFID if there is no previous record of someone else doing it and who ever evaluated the patent application thinking it is an actual new technology/approach for this application and not common sense. In some cases it does make sense, in this case it is plainly stupid.
US patent office does not actually check the patent for obviousness, prior art or even if it is physically possible. They get money per accepted filing and leave the rest of the legal issue to courts and the guys with the deeper pockets.
@@andyspoo2 No, as their RFID is for differentiating *material*. So if it was a mixed slaughterhouse with multiple types of animals, yes, that would infringe, lol.
I hate patent cases, but I love 3d printing as a hobby, so I apologize for this comment up front, since it's not the correct forum, but it just fires me up. I would argue like this on behalf of Bambu Lab and the open source community as a whole. Invalidity Due to Prior Art and Obviousness - I would argue that the patents in question are invalid due to prior art. The concepts of purge towers, heated build platforms, and extrusion-based layer deposition have been well-documented in the 3D printing community long before these patents were filed. I would present evidence from academic papers, prior patents, and even open-source projects that predate these patents, showing that the claimed inventions were already in the public domain. Specifically, I would focus on the widespread use of similar techniques in both industrial and hobbyist 3D printing long before the filing dates. - Even if the patents are not invalid due to prior art, I would argue that the claims are obvious to someone skilled in the art. For example, the idea of using a purge tower to clean nozzles is a natural and obvious solution to a common problem in multi-material 3D printing. The same applies to the heated build platform, which is an obvious requirement when working with high-temperature thermoplastics. I would call upon experts in the field to testify that these techniques are common sense and do not meet the threshold of inventiveness required for patent protection. Functional and Algorithmic Nature of the Claims - I would argue that the patents are overly broad and functionally claim abstract ideas rather than specific implementations. For example, the patent on purge towers may describe a general process without tying it to a specific, novel method of implementation. I would contend that these patents attempt to monopolize fundamental principles and methods that can be executed in numerous ways, thereby overreaching the intended scope of patent protection. - Specifically for the purge tower patent, I would emphasize that it describes a software process that can be implemented through various algorithms. Software patents are often scrutinized for their abstract nature, and I would argue that this patent is nothing more than a mathematical algorithm, which should not be eligible for patent protection under existing legal precedents (e.g., *Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International*). Non-Infringement Due to Design Differences - I would carefully analyze the design and operation of the Bambu Lab printers and demonstrate that they do not infringe on the specific claims of the patents. For instance, if the purge tower or heated build platform in the Bambu Lab printers operates differently from the methods described in the patents-either in terms of software implementation, hardware design, or operational parameters-I would argue that there is no infringement. I would emphasize that even small differences in the way the technology is implemented can constitute a significant enough departure to avoid infringement. Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion - I would explore the doctrine of patent exhaustion, which states that once a patented item is sold, the patent holder’s control over that specific item is exhausted. If any of the patented technologies or components were licensed or sold by Stratasys to third parties, and Bambu Lab obtained them legally through the market, I would argue that Stratasys cannot claim infringement on those grounds. Public Policy and the Importance of Open Source - I would make a compelling public policy argument that enforcing these patents in the manner Stratasys seeks would significantly stifle innovation in the 3D printing industry. I would argue that 3D printing has thrived due to the collaborative efforts of the open-source community, and granting Stratasys such broad enforcement of these patents could have a chilling effect on future development. - Highlighting the role of open-source innovation, I would argue that many of the advancements in 3D printing have come from shared knowledge and community-driven improvements. Patents that are too broad or vague can hinder this collaborative environment, slowing down technological progress and harming consumers and small businesses. Potential Antitrust Implications -If applicable, I would investigate whether Stratasys’s actions could be seen as anti-competitive. I would argue that Stratasys may be using its patent portfolio not to protect genuine innovation but to unfairly suppress competition from emerging players like Bambu Lab. I would explore potential antitrust claims, particularly if Stratasys holds a dominant position in the market and is using its patents to maintain that position by unfairly targeting competitors. In conclusion, I would vigorously defend against Stratasys’s claims by challenging the validity of the patents, arguing non-infringement, and highlighting the negative impact that enforcing these patents would have on the industry. By combining technical analysis with strong legal precedent and public policy arguments, I would aim to dismantle the basis of Stratasys’s lawsuit and protect the rights of Bambu Lab to innovate and compete in the 3D printing market.
FIY, Bambu Labs is also positioning themselves to be a Patent Troll. For example, Bambu Lab have patented: Triple lead screws on the Z-axis (Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co Ltd, 2021), Filament motion detecting sensors (Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co Ltd 2021), Automatically determined variable layer thickness, A patent to print multiple colors each up to a "threshold" height value above previously printed layers, Automatic splitting of multiple object STLs to identify faces that are outer surfaces, inner stitching surfaces and other and applying different print qualities to each, Automatic determination of print speed per layer based on angles/curvature (and perhaps other features) of the model for each slice, Multiple build plates in the slicer, Cutter in print head, Automatic determination of linear advance using 2 speed test print and LiDAR. . . Both Stratasys and Bambu Lab are highly capitalized tech companies that benefit from hundreds of millions of dollars in investment capital. They assemble huge portfolios of patents in order to stifle competition. Both companies are a threat to the continued viability of the RepRap/Open Source 3D printing community.
True, but Bambu also improved the designs and made them super reliable, affordable and available. I don't have a problem with patents that are super active like that. On the other hand, Stratasys patented and then did nothing for 20 years, but keep others from advancing the tech. Now that companies developed in 5 years, what Stratasys refused to do in 30 years, now they have a problem. They had a monopoly for 30 years. Give us a consumer sub 1000$ 3d printer then Stratasys? I'll take it, heck I'll take 50 of them. Bambu is a multi billion $ company now. Stratasys market cap is 0.5 billion. They could have 10X their makret value if they actually USED their patents and gave us a consumer 3d printer. F them and their patents.
@@replikagear3333oh get a clue already! Patenting the use of three lead screws for z axis? Are you kidding me? If Bambulab could have their way you'd only be using RFID tagged materials from their store, same as stratasys.
Patents are the way a company protects itself against other companies. IBM is famous for this approach. Sue IBM for patent infringement and they will likely counter sue using patents contained in their arsenal. Owning patents is not the issue. What a company does with them is.
@@free_spirit1 They released the fastest, most reliable CoreXY printer that cost HALF of what the most sold Prusa did with bed slinger design from 10 years ago. AND they never sued anybody in the process. How many CoreXY consumer 3d printers would we have today if they hadn't done that? They advanced the whole market by 10 years, made it half the price and did NOT sue anybody who copied them. And everybody copied them. Oh yeah, bad bad Bambu :)
@@free_spirit1You're assuming an awful lot. As others have said, having patents isn't an issue. It's what one does or doesn't do with those patents that matters. If Strata wins, Prusa will be next, and so on.
Stratasys seems to have a butthurt CEO and skill issue to actually compete in the 3DP market, so of course less people are going to run out and buy their printer and they instead buy a Bambu. Also, I’m not a legal expert, but shouldn’t legal courts not be biased towards patents? Shouldn’t they be like, neutral?
nope a legal intern who didn't do their research. Guarantee there is a patent that Bambulab has filed for that Stratasys is infringing on in their commercial printers
pretty sure this lawsuit will be settled out of court, i spoke to some patent lawyer frinds of mine and they all said, this will likely be thrown out of court since stratasys hasnt done anything for other companies using the same technologies. heres hoping
@@michawasiljew6620 So has Creality, Voron, Biqu, Artillery, Elegoo, Dremel, Makerbot, Flashforge, Snapmaker, etc. Bambu is creating their own take on an existing technology. Using ideas that already exist is called inspiration.
Right, this is what I've been thinking - in order to have merit in defending a patent, you have to defend it consistently. To wait this long while Prusa and other companies "steal" their patents (that should never have been awarded in the first place). They haven't consistently gone after companies for the heated bed, purge towers, features of octprint and Duet, etc, so I don't know if this would even fly in the Texas courts that favor patent holders. All Bambu's layers have to do is point to Prusa, Duet (or companies that use Duet in the end products), Creality, etc and say "These companies have been doing these things for years and you didn't file suits"
Great summary. It's also important to note that Stratasys is a public company with share holders, share holders want one thing, return on investment, and Stratasys is loosing value at a huge rate. Share holders are not interested in removing Bambu as that won't drastically increase profits for Stratasys, they will want a licence agreement, removing Bambu will cost a load in legal fees only to see Stratasys continue to loose money. They are after a licence agreement with firstly Bambu and later wider companies. Stratasys share holders want revenue, no to punish Bambu for being successful. If anything they want Bambu to grow and take a share of that growth.
It's funny how the patent system is supposed to protect small inventors, but the actual effect is pretty much the opposite. Any large incumbent can squash a small innovator with legal fees. It prevents precisely what it was conceived to promote. (BTW, that's an observation based on a lifetime of experience in technology patents, not just my reaction to this particular case. But this particular case seems, at first glance, like a good example. IMHO Bambu did very good, innovative work, and people they have out-performed are upset by it.)
Patents are becoming a problem when they are granted by ignorant patent offices that cannot be bothered to look for prior art or theb obviousness of solution.
changing parameters by rfd is not novel or new either. its been done for a long time. Heck my first 3d printer from 3d xyz did this back in 2014, it also had a heated bed and was enclosed. cnc machining has been using force feedback for a long time as well and a 3d printer really is just a cnc machine. I hope Stratasys loses on a lot of these patents so we can start to have innovation in the market. the reason we don't have heated chambers is because of Stratasys . and i don't think it was that innovated to add a oven to stabilize stress. we do that for glass since back in medieval times
They get so many patents at a time, there's no way they could be expected to be through enough. Still, it's a shame most of these patents were even granted.
Good old practice: formulate a parent as vaguely as possible and file it in a patent office where the clerks have no idea about what they looking at. Then when someone comes along "infringing" your patent, go to a court which is patent holder friendly... I giant but dying dinosaur fighting it's last fights. If Stratasys would be an innovative company, there would be no need for Bambu Lab. But they are just an old dinosaur (similar to Autodesk or Adobe in the software sector). Even if Stratasys wins, it's just the US. There is a big and growing market outside of the US so just ignore the Americans and concentrate on other markets.
Dinosaur is irrelevent. The real highlight is Israeli-American Company Btw Formlabs, the company that bought Micronics just to shut it down and basically stopped desktop SLS printing, also conviently has a jewish ceo. Sensing a pattern here.
I don't own a Bamboo labs printer. But my printer has a lot of the features that Stratasys thinks they can sue people over. I love seeing all the interest and enthusiasm that Bamboo users are experiencing. Very few of us hobbyist users could ever afford a Stratasys printer. So I hope as a community we tell Stratasys to buzz off. These kind of companies try to ruin everything. Just like the F.A.A. did to our wonderful drone hobby.
I work at a tier 1 auto company. Occasionally I'll design something and say "let me get this 3d printed to test before we machine it or make it". Then I use a different department's stratasys 3d printer that only charges our department "material". And I wind up with a part so expensive I could have bought an ender 3 and printed it myself for the price of the material on 1 print on those pieces of junk They're literally the same quality print as consumer grade Other departments went ahead and just bought consumer grade 3d printers that they use. The boomers in my department won't do it since we have that POS stratassys one
that approach is what got us hundreds of Ender 3 clones that only tried to undercut in price instead of investing in tech because you put in the cost of development and somebody else uses your tech and undercuts you in price, because you have to integrate the development cost in your product cost.
I think this ends with Stratasys having a few patents invalidated. The other thing that happens is that they spent many years not enforcing their claimed IP. When you don't enforce it, it is kind of an asumption that you don't care and the patents are not novel.
I think many are missing the fact that Stratasys own 46.5% of the recently merged Ultimaker and MakerBot. The Bambu printers are a direct threat to Ultimaker rather than the larger hyper expensive Stratasys industrial machines. The fact that 3D Systems are looking to buy Stratasys may also play a part in all of this. I think its clear that many FDM printer manufacturers use similar technologies so it would appear strange that they target Bambu. I guess it is a testiment to how good their printers are. I would say my X1C easily outperforms the Ultimaker I used at work a few years ago. Additional consideration. I understood the patent for FDM ran out in 2008 (after the standard 20 years) which enabled the boom of domestice machines. I didnt think it was possible to re-patent something after the 20 year timeout.
Stratasys by the way could care less about MakerBot hence why they unloaded it on Ultimaker. Becore Ultimaker took over, Thingiverse was allowed to rot.
Stratsys and 3DSystems think they should own the additive manufacturing world. Us DIYers were innovating long before they came on seen stealing open source tech and patenting it. Same old story different age. The majority of people think Edison was a genius inventor, but the truth is he was a great businessman who owned a sweat shop for genius inventors and claimed credit for all they produced. It is just history repeating the same old cycle Edison & Tesla, Jobs & Wozniak, ...etc. Just my opinion! Have a great day everyone!!!
As someone who works every day with running Stratasys printers I have mixed feelings. They do a lot of things right, they provide headache free solutions which need very little fiddling to produce great results. Cutting down on man-hours, cutting down on service and tweaking, maximizes profit in the end. The printers are expensive, absolutely, but their quality is also high. Even at cost the price of the printer would be high considering the amount of custom parts. However, the cost of their material is inexcusably high, and you're locked in to using only their material, not even able to respool material on their spools as they're locked with a chip which records material usage. They're also not really innovating much, they seem content in trying to defend their market share. So, we have bought a couple of Bambu Lab printers as well to use for anything which our Stratasys FDM simply cannot do, or do efficiently. I don't see one replacing the other, at least not on a corporate level where you're actually able to justify the cost, but they do complement each other very well. I really wish Stratasys would take the rise of companies like Prusa and Bambu Lab as a wakeup call, not to litigate but to actually innovate, and realize that the market is shouting for high quality and decently priced printers. Unfortunately I think their main fear is that this will devalue their professional grade, and often in the context justifiably expensive, solutions.
Patenting is just not a good system. It is anti-competitive and harms innovation and the consumer. It flies completely in the face of free market capitalist ideals. Companies should compete not by monopolizing a product through patents and suing others, but by making the best version of that product in the face of rigorous competition.
I dont see how the patents were granted in the first place. The 'technology' being patented just seems too simple. Using RFID to identify the spool? Using Wifi?
The US patent office has not checked actual patents filed for a while now. They leave that to subsequent courts. The office gets money per filing and they wanted to ramp up income, as line must go up there too. You don't even have to prove it's physically possible even.
Isn't a patent filing date considered, and not patent granted date? It is legal to use "Patent pending" on your products if you really have a patent in the system, waiting to be granted. And if the patent is granted, it is valid from filing date? So if Stratasys filed the Heated Bed patent in 2013, and prusa released their heated bed in 2016, it is NOT considered prior art?
but if development of Prusa's heated bed started prior to the patent filing then it IS prior art, it's a tricky one, and honestly, the entire 3D Printing community and industry can not afford to loose heated beds to some patent. basically every printer on the market would go away overnight and we wouldn't see anything with a heated bed until at least 2033, it would set 3D printing back 20 years overnight
@@LWJCarroll you cant print PETG, ABS ect without a heated bed no matter how much blue tape and glue stick you put on. Also blue tape? seriously? I think we advanced past that point. This was a band aid 8 years ago when i started 3d printing.
I started building my printer with a heated bed back in 2012 based on the open source community. 2013 vs 2016 makes no difference. Stratasys started filing after the real innovators (not me) in the open source community came up with the idea.
I am curious how much of the lawsuits' existence is due to bambu selling a ready to use printer, like stratasys. They're not suing companies that run off the open source model where the information is publicly generated. I am not a lawyer, but that sounds like stratasys can't touch open IP.
Okay, but Bambu's printers aren't so amazing and fantastic that Stratasys only feels threatened by them and not by Prusa. The real reason probably has more to do with the demographics of Texas and the likelihood of rhetorically winning a case against a Chinese company infringing on an American company's patents. You say the same thing about an European company and a lot of Texans will probably think twice.
No.... certain parts of Texas are where you go to file patent cases due to a few judges/legal districts...it has nothing to do with "Texans" the people (which are about a 50/50 split on politics, believe it or not). Same reason, before reform, the UK was where you sued someone for defamation. It's venue shopping to where you think you can win cases. Google "How two small Texas towns became the patent-law centre of America" for more.
@rickgreer7203 yeah, I love Texas I was born and raised here but I remember seeing a news story a few years back about how patent trolls use Texas as a way to sue people/companies with bs patent claims. There was one in particular where a guy got sued for putting his app on the app store because someone had patented the method in which to place an app on the app store. It made my blood boil
ima be honest prusa fanboys are lowkey retarded. Yea their printers are good, but an ugpraded ender 3 can only go so far bruh. $1k for that is just inexcusable. Their only good printer so far is their XL, and even then its litterally $3k. I REALLY wish I got an XL instead of a bambulab x1c, but the price is just beyond ridiculous
I don't think of their claims are going to hold up in court. Right on the USPTO site it says that ideas must be [“Not obvious,” as related to a change to something already invented]. For example, heated beds and enclosures are the obvious answer to parts warping while cooling. Controlling cooling rate is a normal part of any industrial process that uses heat. Patents are not for being first, they are for being first with something that is not obvious.
This is just Like happened in the early auto industries. Just gotta name the parts different. And come up with a slightly different operation even if it holds the same functionality
I have a receipt from 2012 for my RAMPS board which supports a bed heater. I also bought a PCB bed heater at that time. Now, where did I get that idea?
Keep in mind that a lawsuit is the result of a failed negotiation that we did not see. For all we know Stratasys has license agreements with many manufacturers, including possibly cross-licensing. Chinese patents are such that cross-licensing with Bambu would have been very nice.
I mean using a NETWORK for communicating with other device to transfer files, watch temperatures and watch a videostream? Are they insane? I feel like this is as insane to patent as making sandwitches!
Finally someone does a really good breakdown that is very detailed and very unbiased. Got so tired of seeing very bias pro bamboo videos on this case. I would love to see a lawyer take on it still. One thing I want to add is a can potentially affect bamboo outside of the US as well due to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (I'm not a lawyer)
One of the questions will be why Stratasys never took legal actions against other manufacturers who used the same patents. It is nearly 20 years ago the first printer kit (reprap clones) came to the market. For some patents it is even questionable if the are legal them selve, as they are (almost) copies of earlier patents.
8:16 this is not how prior art works. In patent law, you only look at previous patents. Someone else can have invented something first, but if its not already filed as a patent, it doesnt count as prior art. Instead, this would be an argument against novelty, as if heated beds were already a public and commonly known technology to rhose skilled in the art when the patent was filed, it would not satisfy the novelty clause.
Bambu needs to get aggressive. I worked for a large high tech company that was often sued by patent trolls most often in east Texas courts. Often my companies strategy was to go after the patent portfolio of the troll company by filing one patent invalidation petition with the USPTO per week. The troll company would watch their portfolio disappearing for a few weeks and decide to withdraw from litigation with the company I worked for. The best defence is a good offence.
remember the debacle with the taking offline of thingiverse by a lot of artists of their work due to stratasys not following the contribute to the designer. They took a design of thingiverse, voronoi it was, and put it as a marketing stunt to show what their printers where able to print. That was without giving the name nor link to the creator witch it was mentioned on thingiverse under the license model. They already should have a model for hobby users or they should be quiet. Patents are what withhold the evolution. Don't respect them in any way! we are to many on this globe with many people getting a similar idea. One will develop the idea into reality and get it over for everyone another will just write it down and ask money for natural laws to be used in products. Lawyers/advocates/etc are the worst animals on this globe if they even want's to defend a guilty person and get them free. they do more wrong than good unless we stand firm. We The People ;-) Haven't heard any mention of Ultimaker in this story as they were the first big in the hobby market developed in a Dutch fablab and brought to the comunity🤔.
The patent about the heated bed stuff isn't about a heated bed, it's about the steel polymer coated build surface that's removable. Specifically a removable, polymer coated steel sheet. It has nothing to do with heated beds.
Actually the heated bed is also part of the infringement not just the coated polymers removable or fixed, I have read through the patents very carefully as I design and build RepRap printers in an open source policy, The heated bed was first introduced to the community of open source public in early 2010 might have been even earlier than this date but I built my first printer in 2011 with a heated bed from a silicon based mat using RTV silicon sealant running off a 24v 6amps battery and 6v relay after reading about someone in the UK who made one and I copied their design process, for the most part it was great but very unreliable and took ages to heat up the 3mm plate I was using and only manged to get to go as high as 38.7 degrees until the wire caught fire due to my limited electrical experience, by then realised I had to look at alternatives and back then silicon heaters were expensive as so stayed with PCB based heaters like the MK1 and then the MK4s that date back well before this patent existed, There are many other patents that they have filed since but nearly all pertain to include open source technologies that existed prior to their own existence as a company, open source does not grant IP rights nor do they garnish Patent rights as in the words and meanings of Open Source means that it is given to the public in a manner that does not require patents or rights of IP, S, In hindsight how can a company claim ownership of IP when these technologies though through open source already existed.
Those lawsuits are absolutely frivolous. They haven't defended those patents against hundreds of other companies that supposedly "infringed" on them in the last 25 years and it is highly questionable if those patents should have been granted in the first place. "Using RFID tags" for instance is an industry standard today in every single automated system and so is using remote monitoring and lidar/laser scanning. They can't selectively enforce their patents. Either they have to sue everyone or no one
OK I'm not a patent lawyer, but i have worked for a patent heavy company and have some relevant experience. As I understand, the other thing about patents is that you have to defend them against all infringement. If other companies have been infringing them uncontested for an extended period of time, it will severely undercut your defence. The fact Prusa et al have been using heated beds etc without contest, may play against them. Maybe they didn't contest Prusa due to prior art, but that is even worse.
Great commentary on what is going on. Some of Stratasys patents seem so obvious it is hard to believe they were not being used prior to the patent date. It also could be that there approach is to see if they can get a favorable ruling against these two companies and that will set a president for them to go after everybody. If Stratasys wins, it will be a serious setback for anybody in the us market. I think Stratasys needs to man-up and compete on price and quality just like the rest of the players.
Hopefully, the court will respond with what is fair. Are all patents granted the same number of years of protection? If yes, should all patents be granted the same number of years protection? Does how the patent's design & functionality make a difference?
If i remember right part of owning and maintaining a patent is defending it when its infringed otherwise you can loose it. For many of the patents in question here it could be argued that stratasys knowingly allowed others to openly infringe on their patents possibly giving the court grounds to remove the patents.
About patents: I someone else can think the feature up without serious effort (e.g. network printer, remote control) you should not be allowed to patent it. Some of these complaints are features that are just expected today.
From the point of view of the open source community there are no good guys in this dispute between Stratasys v. Bambu Lab. Stratasys has been holding back the movement from the beginning and Bambu has been recently ramping up its practice of patenting technologies that were developed by others in the open source community. They are both behaving the same but Bambu is only ramping-up whereas Stratasys has been at it for decades. It seems that as Bambu as continues to capture open source prior art, consumers will be forced to build Vorons and other esoteric designs to escape the chilling affects of litigation. Designs like Voron are beyond the abilities of most makers and the community would suffer significantly. Bambu already took open source code from Cura and Prusa Slicer and the put that code into there own closed proprietary software. Bambu Lab only reversed course when they were threatened by legal action. Bambu emulates companies such as DJI and Apple which lean towards closed APIs and proprietary designs. Even Prusa Research is feeling the pressure to patent their designs. This is all rather depressing because the lifespan of patents is far far out of touch with the actual time scale of development within the 3D printing industry. Here is a research paper on "patent parasitism", the practice of companies using patent law to capture existing technologies developed by the open source community: www.mdpi.com/2411-5134/8/6/141
Keep in mind though, the US is first to file, not first to invent. This changed (I believe) in the early 2000s. So even if Prusa came out with a heated bed prior to Stratasys it wouldn't matter since Stratasys filed first. Plus, its based on file date, not granted date. So the patent would have been filed before Prusa came out with their heated bed. Be that as it may, I hope Bambu is able to get those patents invalidated since the designs are so critical to the industry. Plus, I can't imagine these ideas are unique.
I have a reprap with a heated bed sitting on a shelf in the library here, that I build little over 10 years ago. Barely ever got a decent print of of it, but heated beds were definitely a thing way before 2016 ... :P Gotta love these companies that abuse the patenting system.
The ongoing lawsuit appears to involve Prusa Research and Stratasys, with Bambu Lab at the center of the issue. Bambu Lab has adopted certain patents and technologies from the 3D printing industry, benefiting from years of research and development without reciprocating or contributing back to the community. While there is merit to the concerns raised by Prusa and Stratasys, the confrontational approach may ultimately harm the broader industry. If companies engage in ongoing disputes rather than fostering collaboration, consumers are likely to suffer, as prices may rise and innovation could stagnate.
Why is it that if we develop new tech for the open source community, companies change something small, then patent it and charge a fortune for it, but yet give NOTHING back to the community?
Most patents I have seen weaponised in this way are the very definition of the term ‘patently obvious’. I wish the patent systems actually required copying (ie; looking at the product or patent, to derive a copy) to be guilty of infringement.
A couple more important details: 1) Most of these patents are transferred from their buyout of makerbot. They are not Stratasys patents (except for one). 2) Bambu is mostly proprietary with locked down firmware and hardware, giving little benefit to the opensource community or Stratasys. This case could be potentially beneficial to the community if it forces bambu to open their hardware.
The fault here lies with the people who allowed the original patents. Being able to patent the application of an existing technology to a specific task should not be allowed - just because someone thought of putting a house on wheels doesn't mean nobody else is allowed to make a caravan. the wheel existed beforehand as did the house - putting the two things together is an "idea", nothing more. If you want to protect your "idea", then just make sure that your version is better than everyone else's.
stratisys is attempting to use invalid and trivial patents to exclude any competition. By all rights, most of their patents should be invalidated since they are filed and granted despite plenty of prior art, because of the abhorrent rubberstamping at the patent office . The patent office and examiners should be investigated fror corruption and gross negligence. And stratisys should be investigated for antitrust violations.
I think one of the biggest defense points may be the fact that a massive amount of the allegations are saying they are infringing by using technologies that either are or would soon be industry standard. Also they have very vague and dumb patents. It’s like if Tesla came out and patented the general use of sensors for self driving vehicles. It makes no sense. If Tesla made specialized sensors then the specific specialized sensors could be protected, but generic systems that anyone coulda easily thought of and that aren’t overly ridiculous to implement shoulda be patented and that looks to be a good amount of this case
It would be interesting to see how the court would look at the patent infringements of Bambu, and why they didn't stop others companies before Bambu from using the same infringed patents tech before (in Prusa, Creality, Lulzbot, DaVinci, Anycubic, Monoprice, etc). If these companies sold millions of infringing units and Stratasys never came after them to protect their patents back then, it seems like a weak argument to only do it now to Bambu, after millions of units from other companies had already been sold.
I was literally just about to buy a bambu a1 this monday when i saw this, now im concerned, if stratasys wins, will i potentially lose features that i payed for, software ect... should i hold off incase i end up getting less than i initially wanted or should i just go for it?
Which specific features are you worried about? You'd keep LAN no matter what, for example, and afaik they can't force issue printer recalls but if you wait to long you may become unable to by the printer at all.
@HK-oc3pn probably all the motor silencing, heated bed, leveling, filament calibrations, i really dont care much for multicolour printing, i like the idea of wifi printing, and speeds faster than a typical ender 3 r great too
Being able to patent an idea and not the implementation is just wrong. I understand stealing someone’s implementation which happens all the time in China since they can make it cheaper, but idea in general… From what I hear Bambulab isn’t any better, but if they loose it gives precedence for Stratasys to shutdown everyone.
we have been using heated beds for such a long time now across basically the entire 3D printing world, the fact they can sue about that is not acceptable...
Patents are anti-innovation and hurt the consumer. Prusa, as well as many other companies that dont patent their designs show that you dont need to monopolize IP to be successful. In a world without IP, what matters most is being the first to market and providing the best version of your product and amazing customer support (like Prusa does).
Patents allow companies to be able to invest into innovation. Without patents you develop a new technology and bring it to market, somebody else steals it and can undercut you in price because they do not have to integrate the development cost into the product price. The approach of no patents leads to no innovation aswell, that's what got us hundreds of Ender 3 clones with the only difference being each of being cheaper than the one before.
Stratasys is just afraid of their customers finding out that the machines don't actually cost 70k
*worth 70K xD
Wait til you find out what medicine costs to produce vs price. Development is the real cost, stealing IP bypasses that cost.
@@ivyr336most of these features are just market capture on stratasys part. None of the features mentioned should be considered IP. Like they're the only ones who could have thought up a heated bed plate or coating the surface. I hope they burn in, we would have had 3d printers 30 something years ago without these f**kers
hhhhhh,yes
or $250,000. or $500,000 (+ >$25,000/ year recurring fees)
Some of the patents are literally just technologies taken from other existing markets. Material tagging?!?!? That's literally the primary purpose of RFID tags, is to be able to distinguish different types items, there's nothing novel about having them inside a 3d printer. Same for heated chambers, remote management, remote monitoring, printer configurations, etc.
It's patent trolling definitely. Their patents are so vague.
Are but they got the patent applied for this application, application patents are a joke, sucks but probably right.
Applying existing technologies to different industries can make it novel for that industry and thus patentable. Normally this requires a new twist on the technology in some way but not necessarily. The problem becomes when they are super broad, which when it is the first time being done, it normally is just by the nature of how things develop and get fine tuned and more specific over time. Plus a well written patent covers the most variations possible.
Not defending stratasys by any means. Their parents may or may not be valid. But they definitely survive through litigation to keep their crap alive
tell me you don’t know the definition of business without telling me you don’t know anything about business
@@willofthemaker Not that I agree that people should be able to patent these types of things but an analogy our old patent lawyer used to use was patenting a house. You know the house isn't novel, so you then proceed to a part of the house, the door, that also doesn't work, so you move to the door knob, that didn't work, but you then decided that you could patent how you open the door knob which was novel. This tries to show that within obvious things there can be things that are novel. As you mention this can get even deeper if you look at specific markets. Something may not be novel in the automotive industry but when applied to the pharmaceutical industry it may be considered novel.
This isnt about Statasys vs. Bambu - This is about locking away of patents.
Which not only effects corporate vs corporate, but open source and 'home game' consumers.
I think it's overgeneralized. It's just mostly connected to the fact you can easily cheat around patents if the owner has bad lawyers who filed the patent - an example in topic would be high flow CHT nozzle - in patent it's one piece while cheap copies utilize inserts.
In this particular case I think Stratasys is just a patent troll looking for easy money. Especially in case of Purge Towers - it's more slicer side trick then printer-specific thing since there are already some open-source universal AMS alternatives.
It's cases like this that makes me question the utility of patents. They honestly just seem to be an anti-competitive measure that harms innovation and the consumer.
Problem is they are too long. You should have a limited time to develop a product based on your patent otherwise it becomes open to the public, say 2 years then once you do release a product you are protected for 2 years more not 17 years or whatever it is now.
For me it's about Stratasys vs Freedom. If Stratasys wins they will have the power to go after every 3D printer sold in the US.
This is about Chinese companies producing high end products.
First Prusa heated bed came in 2010 so it's 3 years before the patent was filed and OctoPrint is from 2012
Yeah but they didn't file a patent first...Stratasys did and they are out to screw anyone they can. US patent law sucks....
@@Oznz-m5c I think this is supporting prior art to invalidate the patent in the first place.
@@Oznz-m5c key wording here is "prior art"...you should not be able to patent something that was discovered/invented before
@@Oznz-m5c A patent is invalid if use of the same technology is documented. The Stratasys patent was filed falsly, making it invalid.
@@Oznz-m5c You cannot file a patent on existing, published technology. This is why some companies will choose to publish information to a paper instead of going through the cost of creating a patent, in order to protect their right to use a new technology. Of course, the opensource RepRap community had many such designs.
I think what they are really trying to do is defend their overpriced Ultimaker machines. Why pay $7K when you can get the same or better performance for under $2K.
Sorry, just seen you comment after I posted about people missing the Ultimaker situation. Glad others have looked a bit deeper.
Ultimaker fell apart supporting the hobbyist in the last few years. Stratasys merger likely hastened that situation.
Based on people I've talked to at UltiMaker, Stratasys has no interest in them whatsoever. I'm guessing that's not even on their radar.
I was interested in buying an Ultimaker machine and had conversed a few times online with them regarding it, but then I heard nothing from them for ages, in the meantime I had bought an X1 Carbon combo, they did get back in touch with me eventually and gave me some old pony about BL printers being highly unreliable, at that point I had had it for about three months and had not one single issue that was not user error, and over 12 months later it is still the same story!
Suddenly it all makes sense, I had no clue Ultimaker was under Stratasys. My company paid 13k for an S7 with a material manager; for that price, I could get a print farm of six X1 carbons and massively increase our throughput, which for a small startup is HUGE. Ultimaker really just isn't feasible as a brand anymore, and I'd honestly rather go with a hacky self-made farm of Prusas rather than ever buy another Ultimaker.
Stratasys printers were absolutely amazing during the infancy of open source printers. We still have an early uPrint working at my current employer. If it wasn’t for the locked down slicer that only allows 3 slicing options, use of their proprietary ABS at $258USD for less than 1kg, single use build plates, and mandatory use of soluble support as a raft for every print ( also insanely expensive), I would be advocating the company to keep it. But for the price of 10 rolls of Stratasys filament, I can get a Bambu P1S, 10kg of whatever filament I want, absolute control over the printing parameters, and faster prints. If Stratasys was smart enough to think of building an affordable product line rather than lining the pockets of their shareholders, Bambu never would have existed. Or at the very least, offer reasonable licensing fees and work with small startups to assist in a consumer geared device. They probably could have made unreasonably larger sums than this lawsuit will bring.
Completely agree, if they had a low end machine with small build volume (and foot print), rock solid reliability, and a few novel features - I’d consider one. Just don’t see them ever doing that, they are stuck in an old incumbent leader rut
Crazy the camera , rfid and network connection is even able to be patented.
That's like a standard for everything electronic lmao
This is so dumb...
Are they going to try to sue every dog owner who has their pet RFID chipped next??
You can have a patent for a specific application. So a patent for material handling with RFID tech in general would be invalid but you can get a patent for handling 3d printing material with RFID if there is no previous record of someone else doing it and who ever evaluated the patent application thinking it is an actual new technology/approach for this application and not common sense. In some cases it does make sense, in this case it is plainly stupid.
US patent office does not actually check the patent for obviousness, prior art or even if it is physically possible. They get money per accepted filing and leave the rest of the legal issue to courts and the guys with the deeper pockets.
@@andyspoo2 No, as their RFID is for differentiating *material*. So if it was a mixed slaughterhouse with multiple types of animals, yes, that would infringe, lol.
I hate patent cases, but I love 3d printing as a hobby, so I apologize for this comment up front, since it's not the correct forum, but it just fires me up.
I would argue like this on behalf of Bambu Lab and the open source community as a whole.
Invalidity Due to Prior Art and Obviousness
- I would argue that the patents in question are invalid due to prior art. The concepts of purge towers, heated build platforms, and extrusion-based layer deposition have been well-documented in the 3D printing community long before these patents were filed. I would present evidence from academic papers, prior patents, and even open-source projects that predate these patents, showing that the claimed inventions were already in the public domain. Specifically, I would focus on the widespread use of similar techniques in both industrial and hobbyist 3D printing long before the filing dates.
- Even if the patents are not invalid due to prior art, I would argue that the claims are obvious to someone skilled in the art. For example, the idea of using a purge tower to clean nozzles is a natural and obvious solution to a common problem in multi-material 3D printing. The same applies to the heated build platform, which is an obvious requirement when working with high-temperature thermoplastics. I would call upon experts in the field to testify that these techniques are common sense and do not meet the threshold of inventiveness required for patent protection.
Functional and Algorithmic Nature of the Claims
- I would argue that the patents are overly broad and functionally claim abstract ideas rather than specific implementations. For example, the patent on purge towers may describe a general process without tying it to a specific, novel method of implementation. I would contend that these patents attempt to monopolize fundamental principles and methods that can be executed in numerous ways, thereby overreaching the intended scope of patent protection.
- Specifically for the purge tower patent, I would emphasize that it describes a software process that can be implemented through various algorithms. Software patents are often scrutinized for their abstract nature, and I would argue that this patent is nothing more than a mathematical algorithm, which should not be eligible for patent protection under existing legal precedents (e.g., *Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International*).
Non-Infringement Due to Design Differences
- I would carefully analyze the design and operation of the Bambu Lab printers and demonstrate that they do not infringe on the specific claims of the patents. For instance, if the purge tower or heated build platform in the Bambu Lab printers operates differently from the methods described in the patents-either in terms of software implementation, hardware design, or operational parameters-I would argue that there is no infringement. I would emphasize that even small differences in the way the technology is implemented can constitute a significant enough departure to avoid infringement.
Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion
- I would explore the doctrine of patent exhaustion, which states that once a patented item is sold, the patent holder’s control over that specific item is exhausted. If any of the patented technologies or components were licensed or sold by Stratasys to third parties, and Bambu Lab obtained them legally through the market, I would argue that Stratasys cannot claim infringement on those grounds.
Public Policy and the Importance of Open Source
- I would make a compelling public policy argument that enforcing these patents in the manner Stratasys seeks would significantly stifle innovation in the 3D printing industry. I would argue that 3D printing has thrived due to the collaborative efforts of the open-source community, and granting Stratasys such broad enforcement of these patents could have a chilling effect on future development.
- Highlighting the role of open-source innovation, I would argue that many of the advancements in 3D printing have come from shared knowledge and community-driven improvements. Patents that are too broad or vague can hinder this collaborative environment, slowing down technological progress and harming consumers and small businesses.
Potential Antitrust Implications
-If applicable, I would investigate whether Stratasys’s actions could be seen as anti-competitive. I would argue that Stratasys may be using its patent portfolio not to protect genuine innovation but to unfairly suppress competition from emerging players like Bambu Lab. I would explore potential antitrust claims, particularly if Stratasys holds a dominant position in the market and is using its patents to maintain that position by unfairly targeting competitors.
In conclusion, I would vigorously defend against Stratasys’s claims by challenging the validity of the patents, arguing non-infringement, and highlighting the negative impact that enforcing these patents would have on the industry. By combining technical analysis with strong legal precedent and public policy arguments, I would aim to dismantle the basis of Stratasys’s lawsuit and protect the rights of Bambu Lab to innovate and compete in the 3D printing market.
FIY, Bambu Labs is also positioning themselves to be a Patent Troll. For example, Bambu Lab have patented: Triple lead screws on the Z-axis (Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co Ltd, 2021), Filament motion detecting sensors (Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co Ltd 2021), Automatically determined variable layer thickness, A patent to print multiple colors each up to a "threshold" height value above previously printed layers, Automatic splitting of multiple object STLs to identify faces that are outer surfaces, inner stitching surfaces and other and applying different print qualities to each, Automatic determination of print speed per layer based on angles/curvature (and perhaps other features) of the model for each slice, Multiple build plates in the slicer, Cutter in print head, Automatic determination of linear advance using 2 speed test print and LiDAR. . .
Both Stratasys and Bambu Lab are highly capitalized tech companies that benefit from hundreds of millions of dollars in investment capital. They assemble huge portfolios of patents in order to stifle competition. Both companies are a threat to the continued viability of the RepRap/Open Source 3D printing community.
True, but Bambu also improved the designs and made them super reliable, affordable and available. I don't have a problem with patents that are super active like that.
On the other hand, Stratasys patented and then did nothing for 20 years, but keep others from advancing the tech.
Now that companies developed in 5 years, what Stratasys refused to do in 30 years, now they have a problem. They had a monopoly for 30 years. Give us a consumer sub 1000$ 3d printer then Stratasys? I'll take it, heck I'll take 50 of them. Bambu is a multi billion $ company now. Stratasys market cap is 0.5 billion. They could have 10X their makret value if they actually USED their patents and gave us a consumer 3d printer.
F them and their patents.
@@replikagear3333oh get a clue already! Patenting the use of three lead screws for z axis? Are you kidding me? If Bambulab could have their way you'd only be using RFID tagged materials from their store, same as stratasys.
Patents are the way a company protects itself against other companies. IBM is famous for this approach. Sue IBM for patent infringement and they will likely counter sue using patents contained in their arsenal. Owning patents is not the issue. What a company does with them is.
@@free_spirit1 They released the fastest, most reliable CoreXY printer that cost HALF of what the most sold Prusa did with bed slinger design from 10 years ago.
AND they never sued anybody in the process.
How many CoreXY consumer 3d printers would we have today if they hadn't done that?
They advanced the whole market by 10 years, made it half the price and did NOT sue anybody who copied them. And everybody copied them.
Oh yeah, bad bad Bambu :)
@@free_spirit1You're assuming an awful lot. As others have said, having patents isn't an issue. It's what one does or doesn't do with those patents that matters. If Strata wins, Prusa will be next, and so on.
Stratasys seems to have a butthurt CEO and skill issue to actually compete in the 3DP market, so of course less people are going to run out and buy their printer and they instead buy a Bambu. Also, I’m not a legal expert, but shouldn’t legal courts not be biased towards patents? Shouldn’t they be like, neutral?
Nothing is legal battles is ever neutral. Our system is so broken.
nope a legal intern who didn't do their research. Guarantee there is a patent that Bambulab has filed for that Stratasys is infringing on in their commercial printers
The problem is that bambu labs is punching above their weight and stratasys is losing customers in their 100k+ market segment to bambu labs.
@@middleagebrotips3454 Punching above....?
You mean they offer better product at a lower price for normal consumers?
Or am I missing something?
A quick check on Stratasys stock numbers and you'll begin to understand why they're in panic mode since 2022.
I hear they are laying off 15% of their workers by 2025. Tough times.
pretty sure this lawsuit will be settled out of court, i spoke to some patent lawyer frinds of mine and they all said, this will likely be thrown out of court since stratasys hasnt done anything for other companies using the same technologies.
heres hoping
bambu hasnt done anything either but taking technologies from other companies
@@michawasiljew6620Right, but none of those companies have a patent on any of that technology.
@@michawasiljew6620 So has Creality, Voron, Biqu, Artillery, Elegoo, Dremel, Makerbot, Flashforge, Snapmaker, etc. Bambu is creating their own take on an existing technology. Using ideas that already exist is called inspiration.
Right, this is what I've been thinking - in order to have merit in defending a patent, you have to defend it consistently. To wait this long while Prusa and other companies "steal" their patents (that should never have been awarded in the first place). They haven't consistently gone after companies for the heated bed, purge towers, features of octprint and Duet, etc, so I don't know if this would even fly in the Texas courts that favor patent holders. All Bambu's layers have to do is point to Prusa, Duet (or companies that use Duet in the end products), Creality, etc and say "These companies have been doing these things for years and you didn't file suits"
@@michawasiljew6620 Yeah, but I also haven't seen Bambu going around suing other companies.
Great summary. It's also important to note that Stratasys is a public company with share holders, share holders want one thing, return on investment, and Stratasys is loosing value at a huge rate. Share holders are not interested in removing Bambu as that won't drastically increase profits for Stratasys, they will want a licence agreement, removing Bambu will cost a load in legal fees only to see Stratasys continue to loose money. They are after a licence agreement with firstly Bambu and later wider companies. Stratasys share holders want revenue, no to punish Bambu for being successful. If anything they want Bambu to grow and take a share of that growth.
When you hide behind patents to maintain a monopoly
I am surprised no one has mentioned the Sherman Antitrust act :-)
It's funny how the patent system is supposed to protect small inventors, but the actual effect is pretty much the opposite. Any large incumbent can squash a small innovator with legal fees. It prevents precisely what it was conceived to promote.
(BTW, that's an observation based on a lifetime of experience in technology patents, not just my reaction to this particular case. But this particular case seems, at first glance, like a good example. IMHO Bambu did very good, innovative work, and people they have out-performed are upset by it.)
Patents are becoming a problem when they are granted by ignorant patent offices that cannot be bothered to look for prior art or theb obviousness of solution.
changing parameters by rfd is not novel or new either. its been done for a long time. Heck my first 3d printer from 3d xyz did this back in 2014, it also had a heated bed and was enclosed. cnc machining has been using force feedback for a long time as well and a 3d printer really is just a cnc machine. I hope Stratasys loses on a lot of these patents so we can start to have innovation in the market. the reason we don't have heated chambers is because of Stratasys . and i don't think it was that innovated to add a oven to stabilize stress. we do that for glass since back in medieval times
It took 4 yrs to grant the patent... That's either alot of research or alot of inventing going on at the same time.
@@phasesecuritytechnology6573 or a lot of steak dinners
They get so many patents at a time, there's no way they could be expected to be through enough. Still, it's a shame most of these patents were even granted.
@@ml.2770 Luckily, beeing granted a patent doesn't mean it's valid.
Good old practice: formulate a parent as vaguely as possible and file it in a patent office where the clerks have no idea about what they looking at. Then when someone comes along "infringing" your patent, go to a court which is patent holder friendly...
I giant but dying dinosaur fighting it's last fights.
If Stratasys would be an innovative company, there would be no need for Bambu Lab. But they are just an old dinosaur (similar to Autodesk or Adobe in the software sector).
Even if Stratasys wins, it's just the US. There is a big and growing market outside of the US so just ignore the Americans and concentrate on other markets.
Dinosaur is irrelevent. The real highlight is Israeli-American Company
Btw Formlabs, the company that bought Micronics just to shut it down and basically stopped desktop SLS printing, also conviently has a jewish ceo.
Sensing a pattern here.
I don't own a Bamboo labs printer. But my printer has a lot of the features that Stratasys thinks they can sue people over. I love seeing all the interest and enthusiasm that Bamboo users are experiencing. Very few of us hobbyist users could ever afford a Stratasys printer. So I hope as a community we tell Stratasys to buzz off. These kind of companies try to ruin everything. Just like the F.A.A. did to our wonderful drone hobby.
I work at a tier 1 auto company. Occasionally I'll design something and say "let me get this 3d printed to test before we machine it or make it".
Then I use a different department's stratasys 3d printer that only charges our department "material". And I wind up with a part so expensive I could have bought an ender 3 and printed it myself for the price of the material on 1 print on those pieces of junk
They're literally the same quality print as consumer grade
Other departments went ahead and just bought consumer grade 3d printers that they use. The boomers in my department won't do it since we have that POS stratassys one
Imagine no patents and having to actually build a better product to compete
No patents then there will be no improvements only competition in pricing and brand names.
that approach is what got us hundreds of Ender 3 clones that only tried to undercut in price instead of investing in tech because you put in the cost of development and somebody else uses your tech and undercuts you in price, because you have to integrate the development cost in your product cost.
Without patent Stratasys likely wouldn't have developed FDM printing in the first place.
Imagine having slaves make your products so you can undercut those who invented the product you stole...
Hey there Thomas Edison
I think this ends with Stratasys having a few patents invalidated. The other thing that happens is that they spent many years not enforcing their claimed IP. When you don't enforce it, it is kind of an asumption that you don't care and the patents are not novel.
I think many are missing the fact that Stratasys own 46.5% of the recently merged Ultimaker and MakerBot. The Bambu printers are a direct threat to Ultimaker rather than the larger hyper expensive Stratasys industrial machines. The fact that 3D Systems are looking to buy Stratasys may also play a part in all of this.
I think its clear that many FDM printer manufacturers use similar technologies so it would appear strange that they target Bambu. I guess it is a testiment to how good their printers are. I would say my X1C easily outperforms the Ultimaker I used at work a few years ago.
Additional consideration. I understood the patent for FDM ran out in 2008 (after the standard 20 years) which enabled the boom of domestice machines. I didnt think it was possible to re-patent something after the 20 year timeout.
I agree. The 3DXTech and Essentium machines are more direct competitors to the stratasys industrial machines.
Stratasys by the way could care less about MakerBot hence why they unloaded it on Ultimaker. Becore Ultimaker took over, Thingiverse was allowed to rot.
Stratsys and 3DSystems think they should own the additive manufacturing world. Us DIYers were innovating long before they came on seen stealing open source tech and patenting it. Same old story different age. The majority of people think Edison was a genius inventor, but the truth is he was a great businessman who owned a sweat shop for genius inventors and claimed credit for all they produced. It is just history repeating the same old cycle Edison & Tesla, Jobs & Wozniak, ...etc. Just my opinion! Have a great day everyone!!!
Stratasys lawyers trying to convince people that market impingement is the same as patent infringement
As someone who works every day with running Stratasys printers I have mixed feelings. They do a lot of things right, they provide headache free solutions which need very little fiddling to produce great results. Cutting down on man-hours, cutting down on service and tweaking, maximizes profit in the end. The printers are expensive, absolutely, but their quality is also high. Even at cost the price of the printer would be high considering the amount of custom parts. However, the cost of their material is inexcusably high, and you're locked in to using only their material, not even able to respool material on their spools as they're locked with a chip which records material usage. They're also not really innovating much, they seem content in trying to defend their market share.
So, we have bought a couple of Bambu Lab printers as well to use for anything which our Stratasys FDM simply cannot do, or do efficiently. I don't see one replacing the other, at least not on a corporate level where you're actually able to justify the cost, but they do complement each other very well. I really wish Stratasys would take the rise of companies like Prusa and Bambu Lab as a wakeup call, not to litigate but to actually innovate, and realize that the market is shouting for high quality and decently priced printers. Unfortunately I think their main fear is that this will devalue their professional grade, and often in the context justifiably expensive, solutions.
All this shows is how bad the US (and other) patent system is.
The US expects everyone to suck up to US patents... try suing a US company in the US for patent infringement...good luck.
Patenting is just not a good system. It is anti-competitive and harms innovation and the consumer. It flies completely in the face of free market capitalist ideals.
Companies should compete not by monopolizing a product through patents and suing others, but by making the best version of that product in the face of rigorous competition.
@@trinodot8112 Researxch takes a long time, 'inspiration' takes little
@@trinodot8112, so you invent something and are supposed to share it with the whole world?
@@robertharper3754 Yes, that is what Open Source is, and what the entire home 3d printing market is based on
7:20 -they could also challenge the patents by arguing that they were obvious changes to existing technologies, even if they were technically novel.
It's insane how these patents are in other 3d printer companies. RFID spools goes way back to XYZ's DaVinci pro.
This was the perfect video to watch about the legal issues. Thanks!
I dont see how the patents were granted in the first place. The 'technology' being patented just seems too simple. Using RFID to identify the spool? Using Wifi?
The US patent office has not checked actual patents filed for a while now. They leave that to subsequent courts. The office gets money per filing and they wanted to ramp up income, as line must go up there too. You don't even have to prove it's physically possible even.
@@nagi603 We also switched to a first-to-file system which is the dumbest way to do fair IP grants, but they did it to ram higher throughput
Isn't a patent filing date considered, and not patent granted date? It is legal to use "Patent pending" on your products if you really have a patent in the system, waiting to be granted. And if the patent is granted, it is valid from filing date?
So if Stratasys filed the Heated Bed patent in 2013, and prusa released their heated bed in 2016, it is NOT considered prior art?
but if development of Prusa's heated bed started prior to the patent filing then it IS prior art, it's a tricky one, and honestly, the entire 3D Printing community and industry can not afford to loose heated beds to some patent. basically every printer on the market would go away overnight and we wouldn't see anything with a heated bed until at least 2033, it would set 3D printing back 20 years overnight
@@PAPO1990 nope, blue tape, glue stick, hairspray or some other open source innovation imo. This will effectively drive innovation. Laurie. NZ.
@@LWJCarroll you cant print PETG, ABS ect without a heated bed no matter how much blue tape and glue stick you put on.
Also blue tape? seriously? I think we advanced past that point. This was a band aid 8 years ago when i started 3d printing.
@@LWJCarroll Those only go so far, and I was an avid blue tape user before PEI, it sucks. Heated PEI beds are so much nicer and easier.
I started building my printer with a heated bed back in 2012 based on the open source community. 2013 vs 2016 makes no difference. Stratasys started filing after the real innovators (not me) in the open source community came up with the idea.
What a great summary. So clearly explained. Thanks for taking the time to put this together! -Courtney
@@FilamentStories thanks Courtney! Means even more coming from a fellow creator 🙏
I am curious how much of the lawsuits' existence is due to bambu selling a ready to use printer, like stratasys. They're not suing companies that run off the open source model where the information is publicly generated. I am not a lawyer, but that sounds like stratasys can't touch open IP.
if we can pirate adobe, we can infringe stratasys
I need to quickly buy the a1 and the multiple colors thingy in case something happens
I'm stocking up on accessories and spare parts soon just in case
That’s what i thought 😅
My first velleman k8200 anno 2009 had a heated bed already. And a geared extruder.
Okay, but Bambu's printers aren't so amazing and fantastic that Stratasys only feels threatened by them and not by Prusa.
The real reason probably has more to do with the demographics of Texas and the likelihood of rhetorically winning a case against a Chinese company infringing on an American company's patents. You say the same thing about an European company and a lot of Texans will probably think twice.
PrWho? Bambu is the best selling company right now.
@@flat_stickproductions209 Jfc that's not the point.
No.... certain parts of Texas are where you go to file patent cases due to a few judges/legal districts...it has nothing to do with "Texans" the people (which are about a 50/50 split on politics, believe it or not). Same reason, before reform, the UK was where you sued someone for defamation. It's venue shopping to where you think you can win cases. Google "How two small Texas towns became the patent-law centre of America" for more.
@rickgreer7203 yeah, I love Texas I was born and raised here but I remember seeing a news story a few years back about how patent trolls use Texas as a way to sue people/companies with bs patent claims. There was one in particular where a guy got sued for putting his app on the app store because someone had patented the method in which to place an app on the app store. It made my blood boil
ima be honest prusa fanboys are lowkey retarded.
Yea their printers are good, but an ugpraded ender 3 can only go so far bruh. $1k for that is just inexcusable.
Their only good printer so far is their XL, and even then its litterally $3k. I REALLY wish I got an XL instead of a bambulab x1c, but the price is just beyond ridiculous
What’s next? I am going to have to buy a Bambu Labs X1 Carbon with AMS much sooner than I wanted too.
I don't think of their claims are going to hold up in court. Right on the USPTO site it says that ideas must be [“Not obvious,” as related to a change to something already invented]. For example, heated beds and enclosures are the obvious answer to parts warping while cooling. Controlling cooling rate is a normal part of any industrial process that uses heat. Patents are not for being first, they are for being first with something that is not obvious.
But it is the USPTO that granted the patents after their examiners reviewed the claims
This is just Like happened in the early auto industries. Just gotta name the parts different. And come up with a slightly different operation even if it holds the same functionality
I have a receipt from 2012 for my RAMPS board which supports a bed heater. I also bought a PCB bed heater at that time. Now, where did I get that idea?
You time-travelled to 2017 and stole it from Stratasys's ultra secure IP vault.
Great video, man. Succinct summary without any internal opinions swaying the info. Excited to binge the rest of your vids
Thank you!
Keep in mind that a lawsuit is the result of a failed negotiation that we did not see. For all we know Stratasys has license agreements with many manufacturers, including possibly cross-licensing. Chinese patents are such that cross-licensing with Bambu would have been very nice.
I mean using a NETWORK for communicating with other device to transfer files, watch temperatures and watch a videostream? Are they insane? I feel like this is as insane to patent as making sandwitches!
Finally someone does a really good breakdown that is very detailed and very unbiased. Got so tired of seeing very bias pro bamboo videos on this case. I would love to see a lawyer take on it still. One thing I want to add is a can potentially affect bamboo outside of the US as well due to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (I'm not a lawyer)
Thank you for this video!
Can you share where you took the information about the Stratasys suing BambuLab
One of the questions will be why Stratasys never took legal actions against other manufacturers who used the same patents. It is nearly 20 years ago the first printer kit (reprap clones) came to the market. For some patents it is even questionable if the are legal them selve, as they are (almost) copies of earlier patents.
Where can I find the original document of the 2 lawsuits, that Stratasys filed against Bambu Lab ?
@@mahmoudkotb2233 they’re available online. Don’t have the link offhand but if you google it they should come up.
8:16 this is not how prior art works. In patent law, you only look at previous patents. Someone else can have invented something first, but if its not already filed as a patent, it doesnt count as prior art.
Instead, this would be an argument against novelty, as if heated beds were already a public and commonly known technology to rhose skilled in the art when the patent was filed, it would not satisfy the novelty clause.
Jeez, how do you get a patent on SCADA and RFID tagging? They're just hoping to lawyer them out of money or business.
Bambu needs to get aggressive. I worked for a large high tech company that was often sued by patent trolls most often in east Texas courts. Often my companies strategy was to go after the patent portfolio of the troll company by filing one patent invalidation petition with the USPTO per week. The troll company would watch their portfolio disappearing for a few weeks and decide to withdraw from litigation with the company I worked for. The best defence is a good offence.
It's not about the heated build plate. It's about the removable flexible plate, that has a polyamide covering for durability.
didn't Stratasys also sued Formlabs back in the day? After explicitly (the CEO) saying they wont ?
Bambulab is not the harmless diy company. They're the same evil kraken that DJI is. If they could, they'd do the same in reverse.
remember the debacle with the taking offline of thingiverse by a lot of artists of their work due to stratasys not following the contribute to the designer. They took a design of thingiverse, voronoi it was, and put it as a marketing stunt to show what their printers where able to print. That was without giving the name nor link to the creator witch it was mentioned on thingiverse under the license model. They already should have a model for hobby users or they should be quiet. Patents are what withhold the evolution. Don't respect them in any way! we are to many on this globe with many people getting a similar idea. One will develop the idea into reality and get it over for everyone another will just write it down and ask money for natural laws to be used in products. Lawyers/advocates/etc are the worst animals on this globe if they even want's to defend a guilty person and get them free. they do more wrong than good unless we stand firm. We The People ;-) Haven't heard any mention of Ultimaker in this story as they were the first big in the hobby market developed in a Dutch fablab and brought to the comunity🤔.
The patent about the heated bed stuff isn't about a heated bed, it's about the steel polymer coated build surface that's removable. Specifically a removable, polymer coated steel sheet. It has nothing to do with heated beds.
Actually the heated bed is also part of the infringement not just the coated polymers removable or fixed, I have read through the patents very carefully as I design and build RepRap printers in an open source policy, The heated bed was first introduced to the community of open source public in early 2010 might have been even earlier than this date but I built my first printer in 2011 with a heated bed from a silicon based mat using RTV silicon sealant running off a 24v 6amps battery and 6v relay after reading about someone in the UK who made one and I copied their design process, for the most part it was great but very unreliable and took ages to heat up the 3mm plate I was using and only manged to get to go as high as 38.7 degrees until the wire caught fire due to my limited electrical experience, by then realised I had to look at alternatives and back then silicon heaters were expensive as so stayed with PCB based heaters like the MK1 and then the MK4s that date back well before this patent existed, There are many other patents that they have filed since but nearly all pertain to include open source technologies that existed prior to their own existence as a company, open source does not grant IP rights nor do they garnish Patent rights as in the words and meanings of Open Source means that it is given to the public in a manner that does not require patents or rights of IP, S, In hindsight how can a company claim ownership of IP when these technologies though through open source already existed.
Those lawsuits are absolutely frivolous. They haven't defended those patents against hundreds of other companies that supposedly "infringed" on them in the last 25 years and it is highly questionable if those patents should have been granted in the first place. "Using RFID tags" for instance is an industry standard today in every single automated system and so is using remote monitoring and lidar/laser scanning.
They can't selectively enforce their patents. Either they have to sue everyone or no one
We should make an effort to crowdsource all examples of prior art.
Great synopsis of the issues. Thanks.
Stratasys sure knows how to make sure the industry despises them.
Great coverage. Less repetition on the stock footage will make future vids even better.
OK I'm not a patent lawyer, but i have worked for a patent heavy company and have some relevant experience. As I understand, the other thing about patents is that you have to defend them against all infringement. If other companies have been infringing them uncontested for an extended period of time, it will severely undercut your defence. The fact Prusa et al have been using heated beds etc without contest, may play against them.
Maybe they didn't contest Prusa due to prior art, but that is even worse.
"So we own 3d printing as a whole your honor"
This is about setting a legal precedent. I hope we don’t lose out because of copyright bs.
Love having Bambulab TH-cam ads in this video 😂
Failure to enforce a patent over a extended period can also make it hard to enforce also. How long have they not enforced the "heated bed" claim?
Great commentary on what is going on. Some of Stratasys patents seem so obvious it is hard to believe they were not being used prior to the patent date. It also could be that there approach is to see if they can get a favorable ruling against these two companies and that will set a president for them to go after everybody. If Stratasys wins, it will be a serious setback for anybody in the us market. I think Stratasys needs to man-up and compete on price and quality just like the rest of the players.
@LegalEagle any thoughts on this one?
Hopefully, the court will respond with what is fair. Are all patents granted the same number of years of protection? If yes, should all patents be granted the same number of years protection? Does how the patent's design & functionality make a difference?
Does this means that I'm soon to have a expensive bambu paperweight at home?
If i remember right part of owning and maintaining a patent is defending it when its infringed otherwise you can loose it. For many of the patents in question here it could be argued that stratasys knowingly allowed others to openly infringe on their patents possibly giving the court grounds to remove the patents.
If Stratasys has valid patents on all the core FDM technologies then they should give free licenses to anyone that asks
They have a minority stake in a company that produces one of the two big open source slicers.
About patents: I someone else can think the feature up without serious effort (e.g. network printer, remote control) you should not be allowed to patent it. Some of these complaints are features that are just expected today.
From the point of view of the open source community there are no good guys in this dispute between Stratasys v. Bambu Lab.
Stratasys has been holding back the movement from the beginning and Bambu has been recently ramping up its practice of patenting technologies that were developed by others in the open source community. They are both behaving the same but Bambu is only ramping-up whereas Stratasys has been at it for decades.
It seems that as Bambu as continues to capture open source prior art, consumers will be forced to build Vorons and other esoteric designs to escape the chilling affects of litigation. Designs like Voron are beyond the abilities of most makers and the community would suffer significantly.
Bambu already took open source code from Cura and Prusa Slicer and the put that code into there own closed proprietary software. Bambu Lab only reversed course when they were threatened by legal action.
Bambu emulates companies such as DJI and Apple which lean towards closed APIs and proprietary designs. Even Prusa Research is feeling the pressure to patent their designs. This is all rather depressing because the lifespan of patents is far far out of touch with the actual time scale of development within the 3D printing industry.
Here is a research paper on "patent parasitism", the practice of companies using patent law to capture existing technologies developed by the open source community: www.mdpi.com/2411-5134/8/6/141
Keep in mind though, the US is first to file, not first to invent. This changed (I believe) in the early 2000s. So even if Prusa came out with a heated bed prior to Stratasys it wouldn't matter since Stratasys filed first. Plus, its based on file date, not granted date. So the patent would have been filed before Prusa came out with their heated bed. Be that as it may, I hope Bambu is able to get those patents invalidated since the designs are so critical to the industry. Plus, I can't imagine these ideas are unique.
I had a printrbot JR v1 with a heated bed in 06/28/2013 so I don't understand how the patent was granted.
And, what about Markforged?
I have a reprap with a heated bed sitting on a shelf in the library here, that I build little over 10 years ago. Barely ever got a decent print of of it, but heated beds were definitely a thing way before 2016 ... :P Gotta love these companies that abuse the patenting system.
The ongoing lawsuit appears to involve Prusa Research and Stratasys, with Bambu Lab at the center of the issue. Bambu Lab has adopted certain patents and technologies from the 3D printing industry, benefiting from years of research and development without reciprocating or contributing back to the community. While there is merit to the concerns raised by Prusa and Stratasys, the confrontational approach may ultimately harm the broader industry. If companies engage in ongoing disputes rather than fostering collaboration, consumers are likely to suffer, as prices may rise and innovation could stagnate.
Why is it that if we develop new tech for the open source community, companies change something small, then patent it and charge a fortune for it, but yet give NOTHING back to the community?
I was using a heated bed on my printrbot in 2015, IDK what statasys is on.
Most patents I have seen weaponised in this way are the very definition of the term ‘patently obvious’. I wish the patent systems actually required copying (ie; looking at the product or patent, to derive a copy) to be guilty of infringement.
A couple more important details: 1) Most of these patents are transferred from their buyout of makerbot. They are not Stratasys patents (except for one). 2) Bambu is mostly proprietary with locked down firmware and hardware, giving little benefit to the opensource community or Stratasys. This case could be potentially beneficial to the community if it forces bambu to open their hardware.
The fault here lies with the people who allowed the original patents. Being able to patent the application of an existing technology to a specific task should not be allowed - just because someone thought of putting a house on wheels doesn't mean nobody else is allowed to make a caravan. the wheel existed beforehand as did the house - putting the two things together is an "idea", nothing more. If you want to protect your "idea", then just make sure that your version is better than everyone else's.
Thanks for the breakdown on this.
Stratasys must be dissolved. This company is a pain in the ass.
Lol
Misspelled stratashit
another way for big corporations to put their foot on the throat of small people to keep them down
stratisys is attempting to use invalid and trivial patents to exclude any competition. By all rights, most of their patents should be invalidated since they are filed and granted despite plenty of prior art, because of the abhorrent rubberstamping at the patent office . The patent office and examiners should be investigated fror corruption and gross negligence. And stratisys should be investigated for antitrust violations.
Stratasys doesnt know it yet, but this is going to be a big mistake. Lets make it open source and take Stratasys out of the market.
Good stuff, man. Thank you for the info. Sad situation though...
I think one of the biggest defense points may be the fact that a massive amount of the allegations are saying they are infringing by using technologies that either are or would soon be industry standard. Also they have very vague and dumb patents. It’s like if Tesla came out and patented the general use of sensors for self driving vehicles. It makes no sense. If Tesla made specialized sensors then the specific specialized sensors could be protected, but generic systems that anyone coulda easily thought of and that aren’t overly ridiculous to implement shoulda be patented and that looks to be a good amount of this case
Good review of the lawsuit. Very informative!
It would be interesting to see how the court would look at the patent infringements of Bambu, and why they didn't stop others companies before Bambu from using the same infringed patents tech before (in Prusa, Creality, Lulzbot, DaVinci, Anycubic, Monoprice, etc). If these companies sold millions of infringing units and Stratasys never came after them to protect their patents back then, it seems like a weak argument to only do it now to Bambu, after millions of units from other companies had already been sold.
I was literally just about to buy a bambu a1 this monday when i saw this, now im concerned, if stratasys wins, will i potentially lose features that i payed for, software ect... should i hold off incase i end up getting less than i initially wanted or should i just go for it?
Which specific features are you worried about? You'd keep LAN no matter what, for example, and afaik they can't force issue printer recalls but if you wait to long you may become unable to by the printer at all.
Just buy a prusa.
@HK-oc3pn probably all the motor silencing, heated bed, leveling, filament calibrations, i really dont care much for multicolour printing, i like the idea of wifi printing, and speeds faster than a typical ender 3 r great too
@HK-oc3pn i dont really wanna sped any more $500 aud tho in a printer tho, incase that changes things
can't you use that machine offline? if you can't ... I wouldn't buy it.
How did Statasys get into the eastern district of Texas? The Supreme Court basically shut that down with the Heartland case.
Being able to patent an idea and not the implementation is just wrong. I understand stealing someone’s implementation which happens all the time in China since they can make it cheaper, but idea in general… From what I hear Bambulab isn’t any better, but if they loose it gives precedence for Stratasys to shutdown everyone.
I hate monopolies and exclusivity. Therefore, I hate patents.
Well, reality, Prusa printers and even Mark Forge as well as movie maker free extended auto maker five and all these big machinery this is ridiculous
we have been using heated beds for such a long time now across basically the entire 3D printing world, the fact they can sue about that is not acceptable...
Patents are anti-innovation and hurt the consumer. Prusa, as well as many other companies that dont patent their designs show that you dont need to monopolize IP to be successful. In a world without IP, what matters most is being the first to market and providing the best version of your product and amazing customer support (like Prusa does).
Patents allow companies to be able to invest into innovation. Without patents you develop a new technology and bring it to market, somebody else steals it and can undercut you in price because they do not have to integrate the development cost into the product price. The approach of no patents leads to no innovation aswell, that's what got us hundreds of Ender 3 clones with the only difference being each of being cheaper than the one before.
Fantastic and interesting video!