Brain gear in rigid blue
From DLA Piper:The move from production and distribution models reliant upon physical media to digital production has already seen massive upheavals in music, video and computer software. The increasing availability of cheap 3D printers is set to bring the digital revolution to traditional industrial manufacturing
...COPYING - FROM BREACH OF COPYRIGHT TO PATENT AND DESIGN RIGHT INFRINGEMENTFrom an October 2012 post that is looking more and more important:
We're used to stories about music, videos and software files being copied and shared over the Internet, and the efforts of the various industry bodies to control such copying. So far, the legal battles around such copying have concentrated almost entirely on copyright, as music, movies, TV shows and even computer software are all protected in law as various kinds of works in which copyright subsists.
However, by using a 3D scanner and 3D printer, it is possible to take a digital copy of a real object and then produce multiple copies or share the resulting digital model file via the Internet in the same way that other files are currently shared. Copyright Such 3D copying could clearly be a breach of copyright. Where the object being scanned, shared or printed is a sculpture, woodcut, architect's model or similar, it is likely to be an 'artistic work' within the meaning of section 4 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). Any copying of that object (or a substantial part) without the copyright holder's permission would therefore, on the face of it, be an infringing act. It is relatively easy to imagine breaches of copyright occurring using a 3D printer.
Whilst the number of people copying the works of noted artistic sculptors may not be problematic, the vastly more commercial 'sculptures' of objects or characters from popular culture (action figures, toys, dolls, etc.) are likely to be ready targets for duplication using 3D printers. The only potential relief for copiers is provided by the reduced term of copyright protection of 25 years pursuant to section 52 of the CDPA where a work has been exploited industrially.
Unregistered Design Rights
Unregistered design rights exist in the shape or configuration of an object (s. 213 (2), CDPA). Clearly, any copying of an object using a 3D scanner and 3D printer will necessarily result in the shape of the object being duplicated. To the extent that any design rights subsist in the object (not necessarily a simple question given case law in this area), then any such copying without permission from the holder of the design right will be an infringement.
This is bound to have an impact upon the market for highly designed items. A number of brands successfully sell their goods at a premium based solely on the quality their design rather than their utility, and already have to protect against unauthorised imitations. At present, in general it is only economic to produce such unauthorised imitations in large quantities using industrial manufacturing techniques.
Interestingly, the CDPA limits the scope of unregistered design to an 'exclusive right to reproduce the design for commercial purposes' in section 226(1). Therefore, domestic reproduction of a design that does attract unregistered design protection for personal use would not constitute infringement.
Therefore, if widespread domestic adoption of 3D printers means that it becomes possible for an individual to easily copy a designer cruet set, photo frame, belt buckle or phone case in the home for personal use, then the market for such goods will be radically impacted.
It should be noted that the 'must fit' and 'must match' exceptions (s. 213 (3) (b), of the CDPA) provide somefurther protection for those who may use 3D scanners or3D printers to produce spare parts, even where commercial use is to be made of the printed item, provided that the resulting spare parts are not branded as having been manufactured by the original manufacturer - i.e. they must be branded as being spares to fit whatever the original product may be. Accordingly it is easy to imagine that in future it will be possible to download and print out a replacement part for a machine on that basis - and the ability to do so will be manifestly more useful to a commercial repair business than for a domestic user....MUCH MORE
"Being a Patent Troll Now Patented"...
...In the meantime here's MIT's Technology Review:
A patent that covers digital encryption of "objects" could bring copy protection to 3-D printing.Sometime in the none-too-distant future, replacing your favorite coffee mug or creating a new iPhone case might be as simple as downloading a design you like from the Internet and firing up your 3-D printer.
Zip, zap, zip, and voilà.
Most 3-D printing has been done in industry or by hobbyists who share their designs freely online. Now Intellectual Ventures, the company run by Nathan Myhrvold, the former Microsoft CTO and alleged patent troll, has been issued a patent on a system that could prevent people from printing objects using designs they haven’t paid for.
The patent, issued Tuesday by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, is titled “Manufacturing control system” and describes methods for managing “object production rights.”...MORE
