Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is 3D printing being held back by an invalid patent?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 51 posts

Re: Is 3D printing being held back by an invalid patent?

#21

Post by AnimalMuppet »

K0balt wrote: post #16

disclaimer, I am not an expert in patent litigation but have been involved in and hold several patents) also, hold my beer and watch this. Having read the claims on both patents (US2023/11813789B2, US1997/5653925A) , it still seems pretty sus to me on both sides of the fence. The basic concept of of the geometric layer pattern is identical in the claims and illustrations in both patents, but the expired patent mentio…

So there's two uses for patents. One is to keep others from doing what you're doing. The second is to keep anyone else from getting a patent on it, and then using it to keep you from doing what you're doing.

This could be (currently) used in the second way. ("Defensive" patent, as it is sometimes called.)

The problem is that patents can change hands, and in the hands of a troll, this patent could be a problem.

Re: Is 3D printing being held back by an invalid patent?

#22

Post by schiffern »

atrettel wrote: post #10

This comment is not legal advice. This comment is merely for educational purposes. The quote that you have about the 1997 patent, namely "U.S. Pat. No. 5,659,925 teaches a process for adjusting the deposition rate..." is from the specification. That is written by either the inventors or more likely the attorneys filing the application. The specification is not legally enforceable or binding. It is supposed to disclos…

  > The quote that you have about the 1997 patent, namely "U.S. Pat. No. 5,659,925 teaches a process for adjusting the deposition rate..." is from the specification. 

  > I should note that it does not appear that the patent examiner considered the 1997 patent directly relevant because they did not cite it... However, they likely did at least look at it since it is listed in the specification.
Again that quote from the specification gives the wrong patent number, so we don't know that the patent examiner looked at it.

Re: Is 3D printing being held back by an invalid patent?

#23

Post by [deleted] »

schiffern wrote: post #22
atrettel wrote: post #10

This comment is not legal advice. This comment is merely for educational purposes. The quote that you have about the 1997 patent, namely "U.S. Pat. No. 5,659,925 teaches a process for adjusting the deposition rate..." is from the specification. That is written by either the inventors or more likely the attorneys filing the application. The specification is not legally enforceable or binding. It is supposed to disclos…

> The quote that you have about the 1997 patent, namely "U.S. Pat. No. 5,659,925 teaches a process for adjusting the deposition rate..." is from the specification. > I should note that it does not appear that the patent examiner considered the 1997 patent directly relevant because they did not cite it... However, they likely did at least look at it since it is listed in the specification. Again that quote from the sp…

[deleted]

Re: Is 3D printing being held back by an invalid patent?

#25

Post by atrettel »

schiffern wrote: post #22
atrettel wrote: post #10

This comment is not legal advice. This comment is merely for educational purposes. The quote that you have about the 1997 patent, namely "U.S. Pat. No. 5,659,925 teaches a process for adjusting the deposition rate..." is from the specification. That is written by either the inventors or more likely the attorneys filing the application. The specification is not legally enforceable or binding. It is supposed to disclos…

> The quote that you have about the 1997 patent, namely "U.S. Pat. No. 5,659,925 teaches a process for adjusting the deposition rate..." is from the specification. > I should note that it does not appear that the patent examiner considered the 1997 patent directly relevant because they did not cite it... However, they likely did at least look at it since it is listed in the specification. Again that quote from the sp…

Wow, great catch! I just copied the text idly without reading it closely. I agree that the examiner may not have looked at the discussed reference (US5653925A).

(Disclaimer: this is not legal advice.)

Re: Is 3D printing being held back by an invalid patent?

#26

Post by FL410 »

atrettel wrote: post #10

This comment is not legal advice. This comment is merely for educational purposes. The quote that you have about the 1997 patent, namely "U.S. Pat. No. 5,659,925 teaches a process for adjusting the deposition rate..." is from the specification. That is written by either the inventors or more likely the attorneys filing the application. The specification is not legally enforceable or binding. It is supposed to disclos…

> This comment is not legal advice.

Serious question, why do lawyers always do this? No other profession seems to feel the need to disclaim their dialog.

Is there some precedent for attorneys discussing their area of expertise and unwittingly becoming someone’s counsel?

Re: Is 3D printing being held back by an invalid patent?

#28

Post by atrettel »

FL410 wrote: post #26
atrettel wrote: post #10

This comment is not legal advice. This comment is merely for educational purposes. The quote that you have about the 1997 patent, namely "U.S. Pat. No. 5,659,925 teaches a process for adjusting the deposition rate..." is from the specification. That is written by either the inventors or more likely the attorneys filing the application. The specification is not legally enforceable or binding. It is supposed to disclos…

> This comment is not legal advice. Serious question, why do lawyers always do this? No other profession seems to feel the need to disclaim their dialog. Is there some precedent for attorneys discussing their area of expertise and unwittingly becoming someone’s counsel?

No problem, I'll give you a serious answer.

First of all, I'm not a lawyer. I'm a mechanical engineer.

And to answer your question, yes, many attorneys are in fact worried about giving legal advice online [1], especially the fact that it may imply some sort of legal representation being extended. This is why I added the disclaimer at the top and why I emphasized that this is not the right forum for this and that the original poster should in fact get an attorney (which strongly implies that I am not their attorney).

This is also why I did not discuss the specifics of the claims being made in the different patents, because that could imply that I am giving specific legal advice. I am not giving any legal advice. Instead, I just discussed broadly how the patent system works in this particular context, especially in regards to what parts of a patent are legally enforceable and how examiners examine patents (and how you can look up what they did).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL

(Extended disclaimer for the sake of emphasis: I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice. My comments in this thread are merely educational in nature.)

Re: Is 3D printing being held back by an invalid patent?

#29

Post by User23 »

atrettel wrote: post #28
FL410 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This comment is not legal advice. Serious question, why do lawyers always do this? No other profession seems to feel the need to disclaim their dialog. Is there some precedent for attorneys discussing their area of expertise and unwittingly becoming someone’s counsel?

No problem, I'll give you a serious answer. First of all, I'm not a lawyer. I'm a mechanical engineer. And to answer your question, yes, many attorneys are in fact worried about giving legal advice online [1], especially the fact that it may imply some sort of legal representation being extended. This is why I added the disclaimer at the top and why I emphasized that this is not the right forum for this and that the…

If you were a lawyer then you'd be bound by bar standards and such. But you're not, so why the disclaimer? Is there some legal jeopardy a non-lawyer places themselves in by talking about the law? If so that sounds positively dystopian.

More generally I am entirely supportive of not giving unsolicited advice of any sort. Not for legal reasons, but because it's presumptuous, rude, and often even pompous.

Re: Is 3D printing being held back by an invalid patent?

#30

Post by K0balt »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #21
K0balt wrote: post #16

disclaimer, I am not an expert in patent litigation but have been involved in and hold several patents) also, hold my beer and watch this. Having read the claims on both patents (US2023/11813789B2, US1997/5653925A) , it still seems pretty sus to me on both sides of the fence. The basic concept of of the geometric layer pattern is identical in the claims and illustrations in both patents, but the expired patent mentio…

So there's two uses for patents. One is to keep others from doing what you're doing. The second is to keep anyone else from getting a patent on it, and then using it to keep you from doing what you're doing. This could be (currently) used in the second way. ("Defensive" patent, as it is sometimes called.) The problem is that patents can change hands, and in the hands of a troll, this patent could be a problem.

That would certainly be a less clown-world explanation. Thanks for the insight.
Post reply on HN