Spread of 3D Printing Raises Intellectual Property Questions

As 3-D printing technology enables more and more users to fabricate components, and potentially entire products, from home, protecting the rights on patented designs could form the next major intellectual property conflict.


At the White House Science Fair this month, President Obama shook hands with a fully operational robotic arm that cost a few hundred dollars’ worth of parts, all of which (except for some motors, screws and gears) were generated from a 3-D printer. Made by 17-year-old Easton LaChapelle, of Mancos, Colo., the 3-D printed arm was inspired by the hope of replacing an $80,000 prosthetic arm of a young girl he had met.

Additive manufacturing, or 3-D printing, can take computer-aided design (CAD) information and build or print a physical object layer by layer. Instead of ink that prints documents, a range of materials, including plastic and metals, can be sourced into the 3-D printer and used to form physical objects.

As the cost of 3-D printers continues to decrease and exciting open-source designs become more widely available, do-it-yourselfers like LaChapelle are taking advantage of these new opportunities, adopting 3-D printing for all kinds of applications. However, the proliferation of massively customizable 3-D printable designs may come to pose a significant problem in regard to intellectual property (IP) rights.

“It will surprise no one that technology capable of reproducing physical objects may trigger a number of intellectual property (IP) related concerns,” Michael Weinberg, staff attorney for Public Knowledge, a non-profit organization that upholds and protects the rights of consumers to use innovative technology lawfully, told IMT. Weinberg focuses primarily on copyright issues before the FCC and on emerging technologies like 3-D printing.

3-D printed objects are potentially covered by a combination of copyrights, patents and trademarks. Should an innovator like Mr. LaChapelle reproduce a patented object without permission, he risks violating those rights.

“For my purposes with 3-D printing, I am just getting my ideas to the right level to patent them,” LaChappelle told IMT. “Most people think that if you made something on a 3-D printer the world has your ideas and that’s far from true! The current arm I’ve been working on is very protected and because it’s all original files it makes having IP on your designs very easy. Although 3-D printing, for me at least, is only a platform for prototyping, it’s supposed to get you to a point that you’re able to prove that everything works properly. From there I believe that patents come in and make everything yours.”

To understand the often complex arena of IP security and appreciate how a violation might occur, it’s important to understand the legal definitions associated with IP. Copyrights cover creative works, patents protect technical works, and trademarks cover how goods are identified in the marketplace.

For copyright law, think creative works – those which are written down, filmed, painted, and recorded. Copyright is automatic from the instant it is “fixed in a tangible medium,” and lasts a long time – the life of the author plus 70 years.

Patents, on the other hand, protect inventions, systems, or compounds that are new to society and usually made by scientists and engineers. A patent lasts 20 years. Thus, in purely functional items, an item including its plans and documents, whose patent has expired can be freely 3-D printed.

“Right now, in our IP regime, [which includes] copyright and patent, there is not some sort of fatal blind spot in them that 3-D printing can exploit,” Weinberg said. “There are plenty of problems with copyright, there are plenty of problems with patents, but I don’t know that there are, right now, 3-D printing-specific problems with either of those.”

One of the things Public Knowledge focuses on as an organization is avoiding the creation of new types of copyright or patent restrictions in response to 3-D printing. Weinberg feels that would be a shortsighted reaction to this technology. He believes many of the ways people could react to 3-D printing would have a significant cost and make 3-D printing much less useful going forward. Because the kinds of concerns people might raise are hard to address through legislation, it would have a high cost and low benefit and thus be ill-considered.

However, some of the things that 3-D printers can make are protected by a patent. The act of fabricating these objects would be a violation, just as if they were made in a machine shop. While a patent-holder may be worried about infringement, the spectrum of potential violators today is currently limited, yet it’s likely expand dramatically in the near future.

“What we’re seeing now is potentially a change in scale,” Weinberg noted. “I don’t think we’re there yet – but where the difference could possibly occur, is the scale.”

A totally wide open, general purpose technology that allows for innovation and the creation of new novel things, like a 3-D printed prosthetic arm, also enables the creation of things that may or may not infringe on a patent. On balance, society is much richer for the technology. Still, the IP road could prove legally bumpy in the days ahead.

 

Share

Email  | Print  | Post Comment  | Follow Discussion  | Recommend  |  Recommended (0)

some_text   Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,
 
Comments:
  • April 30, 2013

    [...] 3-D Printing and the Looming Intellectual Property Debate As 3-D printing technology enables more and more users to fabricate components, and potentially entire products, from home, protecting the rights on patented designs could form the next major intellectual property conflict. Read more on ThomasNet Industrial News Room [...]


  • Gary Duerr
    May 1, 2013

    Maybe the designs should carry a copy-write of sorts. If they are derivative & that can be proved, they can be challenged for a percentage of any profit derived from the product. I am sure with some creative thinking, a solution can be found.


    • May 1, 2013

      There is little to nothing that isn’t derivative. Even Einstein based his famous work on the likes of Max Plank and Newton. Newton famously said he wasn’t a giant but stood on the shoulders of giants. Do you think companies like Apple invented the iPhone in a vacuum? Nope it was derivative of everything that came before it, that is why IP is such a fraud.


      • Johan Van Tonder
        May 2, 2013

        Jmaximus, you could be correct in a sense because ideas cannot be copyrighted. You have to reduce it to paper, plans and written specifications or notations etc. The idea of a light globe was not original but the particular implementation and hours of research and development lead to a product that evolved even further. Development should carry a protection for the original thinking implemented in the creation and that is how I read it all from a designer’s point of view. To abandon this concept will discourage invention and innovation. Even evolving an existing product should protect the developers but obviously with a reward included for the original designers/creators efforts such as in music. It is not rewarding the creator for the existence of the notes and paying Pythagoras or who ever developed the current western scale of notation, but for the arrangement of the notes. My two cents worth.
        Johan Van Tonder


Leave a Comment:

Your Comment:




CAPTCHA Image

[ Different Image ]

Press Releases
Resources
Home  |  My ThomasNet News®  |  Industry Market Trends®  |  Submit Release  |  Advertise  |  Contact News  |  About Us
Brought to you by Thomasnet.com        Browse ThomasNet Directory

Copyright© 2014 Thomas Publishing Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Use - Privacy Policy






Bear
Thank you for commenting close

Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.
 
   
 
   
Error close

Please enter a valid email address