DPRG List  

[DPRG] Never going to buy a MakerBot now

Subject: [DPRG] Never going to buy a MakerBot now
From: John Swindle swindle at compuserve.com
Date: Wed May 28 14:21:28 CDT 2014

Thanks for the clarification. So now the way I read it is that only the original inventor may challenge the first-to-file "inventor". All others are still bound by the patent, even when they show that there is prior art. Or am I still missing it?

-------- Original message --------
Subject: Re: [DPRG] Never going to buy a MakerBot now 
From: Robert Graham <rgraham at gmail.com> 
To: John Swindle <swindle at compuserve.com> 
CC: "dprglist at dprg.org" <dprglist at dprg.org> 

First to file only changes who can owns the patent when a question of who the original inventor comes up.  It was changed to bring the U.S. system into alignment with Europe, where first to file had been the norm for a while.  

Patents are still examined in view of prior art, and publication of a piece of prior art has the same effect as before.  

An interesting note - Makerbot was spawned from the RepRap machine, and was originally open source everything, including hardware.  They took it closed source once they started selling machines more commercially.  The RepRap guys were the ones who started the NYC resistor Markerspace out in Brooklyn.  They took memberships (very limited, if you weren't at the first meeting, you couldn't become a full member) and gave (paid) classes, and I think they used that to fund the actual space and did a lot of the original RepRap work in that space.

Bre Pettis was the frontman, and Zack Smith did a lot of the hardware and software.  I think Zack left when it turned into Makerbot and they started taking it closed source, and Bre's the one who's been on the over of Wired and does all the interviews.

Makerbot originally got funding for $50MM and opened a storefront in Manhattan, and I believe the deal with Stratsys is valued around $400MM.

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:03 PM, John Swindle <swindle at compuserve.com> wrote:
As I understand current US patent law, prior art no longer has anything to do with it. Same as what dpa wrote.

IBM used to publish ideas that they did not want to spend money to patent so that no one else could patent them and then charge IBM for using IBM's idea. That ploy no longer works.

Unless I'm misinterpreting the changes.

John Swindle

DPRGlist mailing list
DPRGlist at dprg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.dprg.org/pipermail/dprglist/attachments/20140528/3e9deb54/attachment.html 

More information about the DPRG mailing list