Patent problem on 3D printer tool changer
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 เม.ย. 2023
- Just learned about these two patents owned by Stratasys, dealing with tool changer systems in 3D printing.
I wonder how E3D toolchanger and Prusa XL navigate the second one especially.
Not sure how to navigate this one, to be frank.
Patent on electrically powered 3D printer tools: patents.google.com/patent/US8...
Patent on 3D printer tool systems (see second half, starting at point 700) patents.google.com/patent/US2...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
mihaidesigns.com
Patreon / mihaidesigns
Instagram: / mihaidesigns
Twitter: / mihaidesigns
Buy me a coffee mihaid.com/coffee
#mihaidesigns #shorts - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
References:
1. Patent on electrically powered 3D printer tools: patents.google.com/patent/US8926484B1/en
2. Patent on 3D printer tool systems (see second half, starting at point 700) patents.google.com/patent/US20150137402A1/en
reading that 2nd one you should just go ahead and build your printer first of all because this is not a commercial product and 2nd of all because their patent would never hold up in court with that wording.
basically every single paragraph say "any" instead of describing essentially anything at all.
Making it opensource to fight back
A tool changer/crib isn't patentable as a utility patent because it's prior art... it's been a thing since G-Code.
A hot end is made to heat filament.
It's a logical extension of the purpose of a hot end that a tool changer would pre heat the hot end.
Prior art and logical extensions of prior art don't tend to result in enforceable patents.
There is another consideration though.
Sometimes, a patent is filed to prevent someone else from filing one they intend to enforce.
I suggest you get professional consultation from a patent lawyer.
TH-cam Channel, Uncivil Law is a patent attorney.
Ask him for advice.
He's a pretty cool guy. If he can't help you himself he can probably point you in the right direction.
Like @Pixel said, the wording, and the patent is very generic, around a tool changer in 3D domain. If you take out the related info about 3D, and replace it drills, lasers, pen it doesn't change that much, and it's also non "non-obvious", since most of it is prior art, and the envisioned solution is the only obvious one that is simple/ easy.
Now it makes sense why BambuLab went with the AMS 😅
Still, isn't the principle of the mechanism, "tool crib" and "head tool changer", the exact same principle that you find in the old jukeboxes and vinyl discs changer, or the looms that weave with different colours in different patterns?
If the magnetic aspect of it is an impediment, can you use a cheap wireless charger to provide power, and NFCs to "control" it?
Get a community action to fight the patent for being an obvious solution. If artist have been using multiple brushes for paint, why is this tool change suddenly a non-obvious solution on a 3d printer? "What Is Non-Obvious? Non-obvious is a requirement for patent protection that literally means your invention is not obvious to someone who is in the same industry. A new invention needs to be unexpected or surprising and cannot be anticipated by looking at the existing technology or prior art."
Now give me example of non obvious but obvious invention. Great inventions are simple and abvious when you see them completely not obvious when you coming up with them
@@EpicTimeV7 Paperclip
@@EpicTimeV7 Lunchables PB&J
@Mr 7 Toolchangers have been common on CNC milling and routing machines for many years. There is a reason why we use the same terminology for toolchangers on 3D printers; it is applying an already well established concept - within the same industry - to a similar but slightly different type of CNC machine. I am not sure you can even claim that this application of an existing idea can be called an "invention", let alone a "non-obvious invention".
Yeah it's subjective and with so many creative and intelligent people in 3D printing it's kinda hard to define "obvious".
Patents really just protect return on investment but knowing that so many companies have tool changer systems it seems like that any hope of ROI is long gone so the companies use of this patent will likely be anti competitive if it's used at all.
It's up to the patent holder to enforce it's patents, you are not bound to enforce an interpretation for them. If other open source projects are doing something, it's likely not being enforced or it's prior art. Either way, if you are not selling anything but using other open source for a personal project I doubt you will need to comply. Worst comes to worse, a lawyer sends you a letter and you can alter the open source project to not be in violation.
You are right about the hpatent holder being responsible about the interpretation. Unfortunately patent holder is basically forced to enfore it by the patent system. I don't remember the exact terms but the gist is somey like this: if the patent holder does not enforce it and let's everybodybuse it without their involvement, they will lose the patent. That's the main reason some companies look like utter sheads when they go after every little guy using their solution publicly. They may or may not like it themselves but that's the patent system.
@@UselessProjects people- yes.
Large corporations- maybe. I have no idea.
@@Kregorius link to a source?
Worse comes to worst
The issue is that the courts have been leaning into a very fast and loose interpretation of profit. Basically that posting/sharing anything online in regards to a "patented/copyrighted/trademarked" entity; that video/post/forum blurb even has an ad revenue associated with it then you have violated the trademark/patent/copyright.
Stratasys are a bunch of butts
Weird thing is I once sought the advice of a patent attorney when I was considering hiring them to file a patent. One key piece of advice they gave me was to be careful never to go searching for existing patents that might be related to the thing that I was doing.
The reason is that in the US, you are liable for 3X damages if you willfully infringe a patent compared to if you "inadvertently" do it. If you search for patents (either our of curiosity or because you want to be "safe"), you establish a trail of evidence that you knew that you were potentially infringing and thus infringed willfully.
Thus what one should really do it steer clear of learning anything about existing patents and just be an engineer. If your idea doesn't take off commercially, no one is going to come after you to sue you for your nonexistent revenue. If your idea does take off, then you'll have the cash to hire lawyers to defend yourself at that point.
That's interesting! Not knowing about patents shouldn't make a difference. On the other hand, cases are judged subjectively and I see how this could be relevant there.
@@MihaiDesignsour legal system is pretty stupid, but worse is the system for patents and intellectual property rights. If you get a patent and then do nothing with it for a certain time frame I kinda feel like that patent should become public use property, like... you arent allowed to come up with an idea, then just stop ANYONE ELSE from having a similar idea and actually DOING something with it just because you had the idea earlier chronologically. Especially if they didn't read your patent and just copy it. If you can't make something, being a blocker for technological advancement just because you're a greedy ass is a real dick move. Theres thousands of designs people come up with that are just being "held" by corporations to keep OLD technology the dominant part of the market. Its absolute crap, and delays human advancement.
@@NeoIsrafilThere is a mechanism called maintenance fees. You do have to renew your patent periodically and the fees gets more expensive the older the patent gets, up until the expiration date. The idea being they have to weigh the value of the patent vs paying the fee to keep their exclusive right over it. If the patent is valuable and bring in lots of revenue then it make sense to maintain exlusive rights over it for as along as you can. Whereas if the patent is truly worthless then why would you have a problem with people paying fees and keeping them.
@@ntdnguyen85 ya but how much is it?
wise but also extremely depressing
Both patents are issued in the USA and USA only. If you live in the EU or Asia the patents do not apply, prusa and e3d is not based in the US so they are not affected by this patent. To sell to the Americas they might license or have permission to use the patent. If you do not live in the Americas you dont have to worry.
Yes what this guy says. Also like others are saying, they have to actually enforce their patent so.....
Correct
@@epic-buffalo Names are trademarked, not patented. FYI.
Well, I think I found a patent from Stratasys that also applies in China and other Countries. Not too experienced in this kind of stuff tho, so maybe this patent doesnt apply to this:
TW201236883A·2012-09-16
Just found out that this is kind of the international version of the mentioned patent. Also if you look at the legal events of the us Patent there it seems like the patent hasnt been given to stratasys. The last legal event was the non entry..
Hope this helps more than it confuses..
so Canada is in or out of thease?
The patent system is so broken by abuse.
The whole point was to protect independent creators, and give them time to bring ideas to fruition without them being stolen by large manufacturers with the power to come to market faster.
Instead, we have vague, wide-reaching patents that umbrella ban basic ideas, and inhibit progress in the name of greed.
@@UselessProjectswith no patents. Small businesses and one people companies aren’t benefiting from patens.
@@simonquvang6073 Not true at all. There are lots of small businesses and one person companies that benefit from patents.
The problem is that patents last far too long and that businesses can hold patents without using them.
If patents had a hard cut-off of 5 years and businesses were required to either use the patent or license the patent's use (at a reasonable rate, probably would be a percent maximum) to companies that asked that weren't using it in competition with them, almost all of the problems would go away.
One thing people overlook is that patents serve the purpose of reducing trade secrets so that after the initial development, and patent process, other people can use the patent. Without patents, businesses consistently go to trade secrets and don't share anything, often to the point that they will reduce the quality of their work if it makes it harder to replicate.
@@SirSpence99 that is some very good points I hasn’t thought about tbh. You are right, thank you for enlightening me.
Thinking about it now, I think you are right that the real problem is primarily the length of the patent protection. 25 years is a very long time. Imagine if Apple were the only ones with touchscreen phones because of a patent. We would be so far behind.
5, maybe 7 years sounds like a better idea, still gives protection to get the product out and be first mover. And first mover often have a lot to say in the market.
@@simonquvang6073 Yes, 5-7 years. I lean towards the shorter end of that as a good patent system has two goals; promote innovation and to spread said innovations. 25 years means that someone who is talented could rather easily make two products and live off of that without fear of any competition. 5 years means 10 products or more.
Beyond that, 5 years is a long time to get a first mover advantage. Even that is longer than I would lean towards. Too long and the patent can actually be less useful because people will come up with alternative solutions which they might figure out in rather short order.
@@simonquvang6073 I'd also argue that far too much breadth is allowed; big companies with patent departments can effectively lock out competition by patenting wide ranging technologies and applications. We need shorter duration, more specific parents with a time-to-market enforcement.
Please don't stop just because there is a patent on it.
Are you paying to fight it?
Don't CNC milling machines and routers have automated tool changers since forever?
I think it might be different because you change the drill bit, not the entire tool head but I may be wrong. On 3D printers it would be more like changing the nozzle rather than the whole extruder
@@aszher The drills and mills(known as static tools) have their own holder so that would count as a tool head. There are also live tools which are independently powered tool heads.
@@aszher
It doesn't matter what you're changing.
Tool changing is prior art.
The idea of a machine tool automatically depositing a tool and then loading a different tool is the basis for a utility claim for tool changing.
That's been around since the 40s.
That is prior art and not patentable.
@@aszher changing the nozzle means high chances of molten filament getting stuck in threads and causing leaks. So we have to change the next big unit which is hotend assembly.
This. This is an obvious solution and thus the patents are, very likely, void and unenforceable
Patent protects market value.
Nothing prevents someone from building something for themselves.
Exactly. The patent owners would have to actually have evidence of damages they incurred. Otherwise, the worst they legally can do is send a sternly worded letter. Beyond that, they can sue for anything. The jurisdiction the suit would be in would dictate how difficult it would be to get lawyer fees.
Really, the question isn't "is this violating a patent" but "is it worth it to the patent owner to go after me?" Chances are, no. Especially for a one off project, and even more so for the bad press. "Big business sues youtuber for making a youtube video that has something they patented in it" wouldn't go down very well with investors or potential customers. Especially if they happen to have a target market that involves makers... They tend to not like that sort of thing.
Patent trolls only have the power they do because they are willing to lose money in some cases because that gets other people to stay in line. So it ends up being an investment for them.
I second this. As long as he doesn't use it commercially or just for research purposes he is totally fine.
@@SirSpence99 Do they even SELL any printers that use this, or are they just being blatant patent trolls?
@@ericlotze7724 Dunno. Not using the patent doesn't make you a patent troll.
Patent trolls are a very specific type of business where you buy/make patents solely to sue other companies/people. That is, the patent itself is the product. If a company makes actual products and gets a patent for something that they end up not using, even if they sue other companies for infringing on the patent, that doesn't make them a patent troll. (There are some patent troll companies that make "products" but they make those products solely with the intention to give legitimacy to their lawsuits.)
Someone should patent troll patent trolls. Like try to patent patent trolling and then sue all patent trolls. 😌
As long as your not selling it it’s very unlikely or not possible for them to stop you using the patent
Except he makes money from the videos they will be in.
@@rb30e doesn't count, the patent used has to be commercially sold or marketed, making a video about it wouldn't fall under the patent
@@mr_bear6362 They came after a youtuber thomas sanlader for a part a personal cnc machine and shut the whole project down.
@@mr_bear6362 If they wanted to, they can take action. Weather or not he is an individual or a company... Stratasys have some misc and generic patents on 3D printers and they really suck. They held a 'vacuum table' patend for 10 years...
I’ve served as an expert witness in patent cases, so know a fair bit about how patents work, how to read them to determine either whether prior art is being used or whether a given device is infringing the claims or not. Most people have a very poor understanding of what constitutes infringement, obviousness, etc, as shown in many of the comments here. (For one example, “obviousness” is considered to be a very weak defense against claims of infringement; attorneys avoid it unless it’s literally the only defense they can find.)
The one thing most of the people here do get right is that there’s no restriction on you building something for your personal use. If that’s all this project is, then no worries. OTOH, if you plan to develop it into a commercial product, then you very much have to be concerned about patents.
It takes an expert 3-4 hours to read and thoroughly understand the “average” patent, because the specific language used to describe the ideas and the very specific ways in which they’re combined are all critically important. Just glancing at a patent doesn’t get you very far.
One other thing to keep in mind about patents is just how incredibly expensive they are to litigate, for both parties. In a moderately complex case involving only a single patent, the fees for just one expert witness could easily hit $100k. The lawyers themselves will be billing anywhere from $500 - $2,000/hour for their time. (Although most of the work will be done at the $500/hour end of the spectrum). All that to say that if a big company sues you for infringement, it could be ruinously expensive to try to defend yourself legally.
I’m not a lawyer myself, but I’d be willing to talk with you and into the details some for you if you’re looking for possible ways around the patents you named. My time is always short, but I’d me interested in seeing how you might circumvent this IP. (The machine you’re building looks amazing, BTW)
@@HydrationAppreciator AFAIK, there’s no restrictions in the US for personal use of patented tech, it’s only an issue if you’re using it for commercial gain or distributing it publicly. (If you’re handing it out for free, the patent holder would have a case for economic loss from lost sales.)
But dont you can ignore these patents since u dont sell the the printer commercialy and build it for u self?
This is what I was thinking as well, but then it does raise the question whether making money off of the videos about this design counts as infringement, and if he ever wants to sell the design he'd have trouble there too
I'm pretty sure Mihai also wants to release the design for the printer at some stage as well. Even if that's for free, it can still be considered Patent Infringement.
@@Mikowmer depends on country i guess. If u make a patented product, by reading the patent, a patent basically describes in detail how to build a device and best way to do it. Industrial drawings/designs/ cad files etc. Are not patentable. Many countries u can build devices for personal non-commercial usage, and for research and development.
If the people who use the design and build it but dont use dor commercial purpose then it should be fine i guess.
@@BM-yy8db I would think not. Supposedly in USA we still have constitutional right to free speech, so he can talk about it "For entertainment only"
Stratasys is fighting a hostile takeover from Nano Dimension. I'm sure their lawyers are too busy with that to sue a TH-camr:) On the hotend you showed how does the heatbreak/heatsink get cooled?
can I ask how did you find out about patent issue?
I told him on his previous video in the comments.
@@gnydick honestly inventors hate being told about patents, because it becomes very difficult for them to protect themselves from the argument that they used the patented ideas.
@@meateaw it doesn't work like that. It doesn't matter if you know about the patent or not. You don't have to copy it directly to infringe. If it's completely coincidental, you still can't do it.
All your ideas are awesome
I might be wrong, but if you can find an example of someone else who was doing this before the patent was issued then I believe the patent is invalid.
Even if it's invalid, that's still something that's determined in a court case.
At most you can use that prior art to push them to let you continue, but the patent will not be automatically invalid
I'm not a doctor but I don't think that's how patents work.
@@TheAndero patents do work like that. To own a patent, you have to make a non-obvious improvement or change, and you have to do it first. If someone else created the exact tool as described by your patent application, it’s invalid.
My daddy always said, just because somebody else is doing it first doesn't make it right. That definitely applies here.
I am not a patent lawyer, but I did look over the patents in question, and I don't think your system infringes on their patents. First, their patent describes a system that loads from above the extruder, and makes no reference to a robotic arm. Second, when it come to powering the "tool heads" are not inuse as long as you have it connected to a backplane you should be fine. The key word here is backplane. Their patent does not include the word anywhere therefore it would be a new design. Third, the patent makes references to magnets mounted to the housing, I have an Idea that has magnets mounted to the frame of the tool head by means of a flange. The term housing refers to an external cover over the tool head not a flang connected to the internal support of the tool head. Finally the patent mentions a separate controller that is responsible for controling the tool change. If you were to find a way to have the main system processor control the tool change as well as operate the printer then that also wouldn't violate the patent.
I came up with some more loopholes, like having a rotary tool change system. The patent only decribes a linear layout.
I hope this helps. If there is anyone with experience with patent law I would be happy to hear you thoughts.
Thank you for the patent analysis. You provide perspectives I haven't considered yet. Cheers!
Patents don't prevent you from modifying your own equipment for your own purposes. You can't SELL those modifications, but you can do what you want with the stuff you own.
Quick tip about patrnt 2: All claims refer back to claim 1, so if you dont infringe claim 1 you are good. You infringe claim 1 only if you have all conditions in claim 1 together. You could just leave out „cleaning the tool whithin the tool crib“ and you are good 👍 😂
How did they patent that
Money
You can always make a single "research" prototype that includes patented material. You just would need to license the relevant patents if you're manufacturing these units for sale to avoid being sued. If there are no damages to the patent holder (in terms of lost revenue), there is no case to file a suit.
lmao welcome to dealing with Stratasys, good luck!
It’s about time somebody brought this up. I often laugh at how many people have TH-cam channels showing all these great things they make, and sell on Etsy that are complete patent infringement. Some of the funniest ones are for woodworking tools like oh I designed it myself so it somehow it doesn’t impinge on the patent. I guess people don’t realize the patent is for the functionality not for the appearance.
I observed the first patent and saw that they have a different system than what you are using, the parts the hold the individual print heads is the part that loads to the printer and unloads from it, while you have a rack that uses one arm to select, load and unload. Wouldn’t this make the mechanisms different systems with a similar intent thus nullifying the patent anyway?
It's the claims that matter, not the description - that's basically there to make it possible for other people to carry out the invention
Next thing they are gonna patent electricity. I find this bs so frustrating.
my Hot Swap toolhead design uses DSub connectors, works flawlessly and i have 15 connections at my disposal. been swapping 0.3, 0.4, 0.8 hotends with lasers, penplotters, vinyl plotters etc
This is an automatic swap system. How would you swap Dsub automatically?
@@polycrystallinecandy i have a spring loaded latch as the positive stop, the latch is squeezed to release the whole assembly
Quick make it open source and non commercial
@@AvengerSho I don't get it - how would you plug/unplug a Dsub connector automatically? What he's doing is have a single set of cables to the carriage and then the hotends just get powered by the pogo pins once they're in the carriage.
@@polycrystallinecandy which is what I have, male dsub connector carriage, female dsub on all the swappable toolheads, the carriage aligns with the tools, moves in place, gets locked with the spring loaded latch
Well, the patents only restrain you from selling the patented mechanism or exclusive part in the countries that the patents are registered or endorsed so, I see no problem there as far this proyect is considered a hobby DIY rather than a selling product.
CEL Robox RBX01 (UK) used pogo pins to connect their printheads to their X carriage. They didn't make a tool changer, but did have ideas for swapping their printhead for laser head and a motorised spindle for milling to create a multifunctional machine. ZMorph did this
Honestly, everyone will eventually think of this, it's up to the inventor to design it better and more efficient, that's the way of a engineer.
I understand that they can only patent specifics, not a general idea. For instance, you can change arbitrary details like the size and shape of certain features. Being that there's four connectors, I imagine that is a CAN connection? Swap your CAN high and your CAN low and then swap your positive and negative, also change every circle to a square and every square to a circle. The patent holder will piss and moan, but that should be enough to get around it.
I'm amazed you can patent a incredibly common form of power transferring form factors
Small brain : break patent
Huge brain : add a battery to the hotend
Galaxy brain : transfer power wirelessly to the hotend via ir laser
Universe brain : mount a nuclear reactor to the hotend
Infinity brain : if the pattent prevents transferring power FROM the printer TO the hotend... make a stationary hotend recieving power and transfering it to the printer, and make the whole printer move around the hotend
Ive been hearing about these stratasys patents since college. the 3D printing community really deserves to have access to some kind of licensing or something from stratasys. The one that gets me the most is a patent on heated build chambers with external motors. Also I have yet to see a stratasys printer have a significant effect on the consumer market, open source community or research. Im not saying they don't do anything but people with nothing collectively have done much more.
You make getting a Stratasys machine sound like a great solution.
Wow this video was super helpful, I've been looking for a good magnetic connector, and low and behold pogo connectors! Thanks for introducing me to this connector!
When can we expect the full project video? At least it sounds like that’s what was planned. I’m really excited to see the finished project and I would love to maybe build my own in the future.
Make it a drop in cartridge with a locking tab on the top. The contact can be mounted on the locking tab.
No one has designed one that I can think of.
Tool changing systems including ones that provide power to the tool pre chnge have been around a long time.
Go ahead with your project, I don't think you will have problems for a prototype, while you will study something different in case of production and sale...
You are great!!!
Once someone told me that most of the times, patents are a way of protection against future violations against basic techniques like this.
This is how Gru be teaching his minions how to build
The same company holds patent for heated enclosures forv3d printers and they worked around to keep holding it for close to 20 years, that is why we don't see them made by everyone.
Your innovation is that the heads are made from 3D printed parts.
yeah let's patent laws of physics
Don't let this stop you from building an amazing printer.
They can go around it by supporting FW plugins and mechanism without any wires. It can work without pre-heating. Then people can add wires and remaining SW themselves.
It's so annoying. So many great inventions were blocked by patents that were made by people who had no idea how to even make something like this. Just made a patent to make a patent.
Instead of swapping print head maybe it’s the print head that swap the entire printer. 😂
Patents hold innovation back.
As long as you arent mass producing the setup for sale, dont worry about it. You can cooy the design for something and use it for personal purposes
I don’t have any experience dealing with this, but I hope there is an easy way to work around this and continue your printer. I don’t get why a patent is allowed on that since it seems like it would be a very popular design. I hope you can work around this since I am excited to see the end result.
If youre planning a commercial application, it's definitely worth contacting them and asking if theyd be interested in a licensing deal. That may be what other 3d printers do.
Good luck with that - Stratasys is notorious for sitting on patents for 3D printing. Their patent on the concept of an enclosure for 3D printers finally expired a year or two ago, which is why we’re seeing so many printers come out with enclosures now. They literally patented “put your printer in a box” and stopped other companies from doing that for over two decades unless they worked out a licensing deal. That’s the kind of patent scum we’re talking about here.
@@DaveDDD so they were open to licensing deals...? Or was that sarcasm at the end?
Patents protect distribution and sales of the invention in the territory for which the patent was filed (and is currently valid). If you aren’t actively selling or distributing the invention, per example if you’re making something in your garage or shop, there is no enforcement action the patentee can take.
It also sounds like you have a non-US accent, if you live outside the US, keep in mind US patents do not affect you (although it will prevent you from filing the same patent, because they own the prior art). Patents are territorial.
Well the patent diagrams are notated with comic sans font so that’s cool
Patent the same system with different words 😋.
That should be easy as they don’t describe what they are trying to protect in these patents. They wording is very vague as if they want to protect all forms and figures or ideas that haven’t been made yet, I feel that this may just be to keep people from attempting to patent this system so the idea stays free.
I am no lawyer but I am engineer.There is 2 things to “maybe” bypass the claims. Look at claim 1 “ the tooling unit is configured to be cut upon the tooling unit being disengaged”. It say “relay of electrical power” to be cut. If you have capacitor or batterie in the head, you are not “cutting” power, it’s still power on. 😉 also they mention a lot “relay electrical power” the word relay I think means to pass power, to transfer power. Does not mention “data”. Here are 2 ideas. You could have wires for power and pogo pins for data OR use something like PoE. A protocol where power AND data are been use at the SAME time. Now that’s tricky because hot end needs lots of watt. How much 100-200W? That his more difficult to design with transitional PoE hardware. Also don’t know if there is prior art. That patent was 2014 but I think apple with the MagSafe connector was out before that. Which provide power and data. Euh… not sure about that. Anyway. Good luck.
Patents are granted left and right without any real revision of its validity. That could not be enforced is probably just for assurance that business the filed for it can use and not be bother by patent trolls.
Salut Mihai! Care mai e stadiul in care te afli? Banuiesc ca aveai de gand sa comercializezi din moment ce ai postat acest filmulet. Si eu lucrez la un cnc 3 in 1 ce presupune sa schimbi hotendul. Mersi anticipat pentru raspuns!
Try changing the pogo connectors to magnetic induction like on a Mac laptop but your own version of it
Or just adding magnets beside your pogo connector then will be different
Then the patent
Stratasys have always been parent trolls
I can't wait to patent my unique idea for a sandwich which has melted cheese on it 🥪
According to the international patent office patents expire after twenty years. Just find a patent already expired. If you can't find it, easiest way is just to couple it elettromagnetically, using a lora module or a wireless charging system just like the smartphone ones
Sorry to hear that, especially the second patent. Perhaps induction coils instead of pogo pins for the first patent. Idk.
something like the tool changer? basically the head quick attaches to the hotends in the printer itself
Make out of this an digital port connection with digital comunication.
Power transfer for heater, use the rails for powering it up.
Cnc machines do this and I'm sure the tech has been around so long that it's a public patent already, so either just call your 3D printer a cnc machine, which it is and use the idea that it's probably already in the public domain to interchange tools on a cnc machine...
You are not using their patent for commercial use, it's for your personal use
Build it anyway, find a good patent lawyer.
If it’s a USA patent, just ignore it, like we all do for Slice Engineering.
patent ?? what is that.. never heard of it...
What if you connected all of the tools with a tiny wire so that they are all technicly 1 tool, like when nachos are stuck together with cheess and multiple chips become 1. It would be not swapping multiple tools but 1 tool that adapts to different filament needs by using a different part of itself. Like 5 extruder fingers on 1 hand.
The patent (US8926484) and the patent application (US20150137402, granted as US9469072) have a lot of complex language which only covers part of what you are saying they claim. Both of them should be relatively easy to work around. Note that the only thing that can be enforced from a patent are the claims. It doesn't matter what the pictures look like, they support the claims. Another point is that a patent application (eg US 20150137402) has no legal right of enforcement, that can only happen after the patent is granted.
As, stated earlier in this chain they were also only granted in the US so you could practice in any country outside the US even if you couldn't work the claims.
I thought that if you didn't sell it to anyone, they can't sue you over it. Check w. an attorney, but I think if there is a violation; 1) You have to get caught. 2) They can only sue you for money lost.
Again, check with an attorney on this.
How is a tool getting pre heated if it’s “disconnected” to be put on the crib? Are you going to have a special pre heat bay that also has pogo pins and thermistor input to the board?
I heard lots of times, patents are not even claimed
I thought the purpose of patents is for rights to the idea. They can license the idea to you for a fee, right? Like you pay them X dollars and you have limited use rights to their patent. If you produce the printer for sale, you could pay them X per printer or % or profit type deal. Obviously, You could patent some of your work too. I think separating the extruder and fans from the toolhead in an efficient way is huge. Pogos are nice, but you could also use some sort of wireless or tabbed prong system, like a battery in a cordless drill. Those get pretty high voltage and just us spring clips. Not as nice as pogos, but effective and durable.
Just leave it open source it will be made and improved by enthusiasts, leaving the patent in the dust
Kinda impressive how many patent lawyers pop up in the comments and seem to instantly know with absolute certainty, without even considering trying in the court of law, that this is absolutely no problem, wherever you live or whatever you do.
It'd be nice if these super lawyers would also show up in court fighting against patents trolls as well, that would've made life a lot easier :P
Can always email them and ask about it. Might be open for open source. Never hurts to ask.
Patents give you a right to sue, not the money to sue. Even if it's really obvious it still needs to go to court.
Existing patents can be killed if they are found to be excessively vague.
Is it possible to narrowly open source the connection point any tool change solution as an entity unrelated to your business. Then as your business adapt the open source project into your specific tool head shape?
E3d toolchanger or prusa XL have power cables for each extruder, instead of putting the power in the carriage it self, maybe??
Okay I think you may be able to work around this fairly easily
Seems like prior use would apply here, it has existed for any number of devices, and I assume that they can't claim a patent on adapting a general practice for an entire domain of competing brands.
This is going to require community action. As far as I have read from the patent, because of how long ago it was submitted, it counts as Non-Obvious. Since who was doing this back in 2011? A workaround on this one is going to have to be very clever.
Damn you Stratasys
how about redesigning a connector to get around the patent?
Build it and get it working then write to the patent holders for permission to use there patent. Also like others have said they are us patents and don't really affect you if you plan to sell out side the usa
If it's your design, you don't need to change yours to cater around other people's patents. If you are not selling it for profit, you do not have to worry.
Prusa doesn't swap the hotend. Prusa has one hotend with 3 or 6 filaments and extruders, and it swaps the printing color by pulling back one color and putting in another.
But XL is a toolchanger
Maybe you could do *part* of the process using inductive power? It’s stupidly inefficient, creating soooo much heat, but hey, who knows? Maybe you can ever transfer data between modules using radio?
I find it so bizarre how simply making a patent you can essentially hinder competition or take advantage of people with no repercussions.
A patent based on power being about to be disconnected is clearly obvious and they do not have a patent on that type of connection, only this use. The right action is to fight it.
I'm not a lawyer, but from my layman's understanding of patents is that they're essentially a government guaranteed monopoly on something, they only apply to stuff you sell, so you can perfectly legally build stuff using other peoples patents but you can't sell stuff using those patents,
Screw patents, screw copyright, and screw capitalism. What a truly awful world we live in
I would recommend adding more pogo pins. Even if the pins are rated for the current. They are notorious for catching fire or failing because of bad springs or dirty contacts.
i guess you can just make your own connector and 3d print a holder for spring loaded contacts (pogo). you can just buy the connector pins from like digikey and wire it from there.unless you plan to sell the connectors then you wont really infringe on the patent?
But you already should know that private 3d printing was always delayed because stratasys got hundreds of patents preventing nearly everything from happening until the patents expire. So nothing new here.
First study stratasys.. then go for 3dPrinters :D
Fuck. Patents.
Prusa likely gets around it by having every hot end individually connected to the mainboard.
Last time I checked when it comes to Patent as long as you’re not selling them you could still create the object you just can’t sell it