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

Open hardware desktop 3D printing is dead?

josefprusa.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 450 posts

Re: Open hardware desktop 3D printing is dead?

#271

Post by nobodyandproud »

lettergram wrote: post #249
amluto wrote: post #234

If the US cared about remaining competitive with China, the government would attack this . Example approaches: a) Smallish hammer: disallow priority based on Chinese patents. b) Big hammer: if anyone wants to manufacture anything in the US and sell to the US market, give an automatic patent workaround. For example, there could be compulsory licensing, at enforced and genuinely reasonable prices, for all patents, fore…

I run a company in this space... First, China patents ~5-10x more than the US does currently on a given month. Further, China has made it required for companies to patent. The US definitely could not respect the Chinese patents, or they could treat Chinese patent's differently. IMO there's a ~1% chance of that happening. Patent law is pretty well defined, there are a multitude of treaties and if the US wants their pa…

If you can find prior art to invalidate the nemesis system held by Warner Bros, that would be a great way to get some free press for your services.

At least for and via gamers.

Re: Open hardware desktop 3D printing is dead?

#272

Post by reactordev »

skybrian wrote: post #172
reactordev wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don't entirely disagree with you. You have to understand why the courts exist at all. To govern working class citizens. Laws are written by the powerful and wealthy - always has been - to control the working class (everyone else). You're freedom is an illusion. A social contract agreed upon by you following certain rules. Those rules, written by the wealthy, don't apply to the wealthy. In a just society they…

That’s an exaggeration. As a famous example, Musk believed that laws didn’t apply to him and he ended up having to buy Twitter anyway after he tried to back out. Corporate law is a thing. There are huge, consequential lawsuits between giant corporations.

Strawman

Re: Open hardware desktop 3D printing is dead?

#273

Post by mystraline »

ajmurmann wrote: post #148
JimmyBiscuit wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As a creator, how am I supposed to create, when all avenues lead to "source it in China"? That... Is huge. Trying to make a thing and not sourcing stuff internationally is almost impossible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZTGwcHQfLY

I think "sourcing internationally" is one thing and avoiding China (or any single country for that matter) is another. The current administration puts a lot of effort on being independent from everyone else. I think that approach is misguided. We have allies and we need them anyways. Unlike the Soviet Union, China has 3x the population of the US. If we want to have weight on the international stage, we need our allie…

That wasn't really the problem I had.

I'm also not a Sinophobe. I've ordered plenty from China. I even have a XiaoHongShu account.

As an inventor, one thing that greatly speeds up making stuff is a rapid order and getting parts. And in my case, I literally needed a rectangular sheet of aluminum. I did all the CAD work, submitted to local companies who could do it, and not a peep. I would have paid the American premium of getting it made locally.

I'm also not the only person with this problem. I know others who wanted to hire a welder for a 2 hour job. Even went to the Union hall. Nobody. Nada. And the guy was also part of the IBEW as well. Doesn't matter if you're paying.

And again, this was over a metal plate. No powder coating. No special treatment. Nothing.

I know its a very boomerish thing to say, but its like companies in the USA really don't want to work. My thing would have been small. But I would have brought more small fabrication jobs, and informed local makers that they could do this. But no.

Re: Open hardware desktop 3D printing is dead?

#274

Post by vjvjvjvjghv »

jandrese wrote: post #200
izacus wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more I look into it, the more I'm convinced that current state of IP law is the rot at the core of western worlds technological stagnation. The rise of monopolistic megacorps, lack of independent innovation and enshittifcation can pretty much be traced back to the wide free market violating reach of current IP law. This article just highlights it and shows how China weaponized this weakness of the west and is suc…

It's telling that before the Patent system the solution was secretive guilds that jealously (sometimes lethally) guarded their secrets to avoid competition. This was obviously terrible since it greatly slowed down innovation. I'm not sure what the correct solution is to this problem. We want to avoid anything that causes a return of the guild system, but at the same time we don't want small inventors steamrolled by l…

“ In fact it's questionable how much value society gets out of large corporation patents”

I think it’s overwhelmingly negative. They are killing innovation by small players and don’t produce much innovation compared to their size.

Re: Open hardware desktop 3D printing is dead?

#275

Post by bluGill »

balfirevic wrote: post #263
bluGill wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hobby sized machines would fit into your apartment. Sure I can do things on my big machines that you couldn't, but there are plenty of things my south bend heavy 10 cannot do.

Which ones do you have in mind? Enclosed "desktop" mills, like Nomad 3 - that I can understand (although that one is pricey, and I can't can't even find what it would cost to get where I live). Regular mills and lathes would basically turn the room where it's located into a shop, with chips flying everywhere, so you better have a spare room. Noise might also be a problem. Even moving them is a project by itself. Tall…

Sieg. Or any machine from little machine shop. You need to build a plastic chip guard before using it in your apartment but many people do.

or check out the work clickspring has done with tiny homemade tools.

Re: Open hardware desktop 3D printing is dead?

#277

Post by zevon »

ohdeargodno wrote: post #260
zevon wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't care how expensive and complicated it is to repair and maintain your mountain bike (especially if you plan to eat gravel a lot)? And your take on machines is that you better throw away a bunch of working 3D printers and replace them instead of upgrading the old ones and adding new ones as needed? Hope you have a lot of money to burn in your personal and business life. ;)

Another user made the point: maybe you care about 3D printERS. The vast majority of people care about the printed end result, and buying more printers in the case of massive failure (which is already rare) makes more sense. If you're 3D printing for fun at home, a Bambu will basically never break. Spending 3 days tracking down the parts for a Prusa, taking it apart, fixing it, realising some settings have gone to shi…

As mentioned in my parent comment, I've made purchase decisions for FDM desktop printers since before Prusa (as a company and product) was around and I've been responsible for 3D printers from a lot of different manufacturers over the years. I'm not attached to any particular company or anything like that.

If I needed more "quality" (in the sense of less visible layer lines) than what comes out of a modern Bambu, Prusa (or some other modern FDM printers), I would use another manufacturing process instead of FDM printing. And no idea where you are in the world but I'm in Europe where I can get Prusa parts from different vendors very quickly and reliably and most of them (including Prusa themselves) have processes in place for B2B and public sector transactions which can be important for professional life as well.

Again: I'm not saying that Bambu printers are not very good in many ways. As I said in my parent comment: I have one. Doesn't change my other points.

Re: Open hardware desktop 3D printing is dead?

#278

Post by trenchpilgrim »

zevon wrote: post #248
ohdeargodno wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool, but that's not why people buy things. I don't buy a bike for the pleasure of getting to repair it when I inevitably eat shit on a gravel road. While you're busy ordering parts for your Prusa and taking it apart, people just buy another A1 or P1P for basically nothing. While you're spending 5 hours trying to stabilise your printing plate and ensuring your nozzle isn't vomiting out super melted , the bambulabs go…

You don't care how expensive and complicated it is to repair and maintain your mountain bike (especially if you plan to eat gravel a lot)? And your take on machines is that you better throw away a bunch of working 3D printers and replace them instead of upgrading the old ones and adding new ones as needed? Hope you have a lot of money to burn in your personal and business life. ;)

> You don't care how expensive and complicated it is to repair and maintain your mountain bike (especially if you plan to eat gravel a lot)?

I have 3 bicycles at the moment and use one as my main way of buying groceries.

My ideal bicycle ownership experience is: I change the brake fluid every few years, I spray the chain whenever I remember to, I change tires and brake pads when they wear out, and I never, ever have to do any other maintenance.

I don't care about the bicycle itself, I care about what the bicycle lets me do.

Re: Open hardware desktop 3D printing is dead?

#279

Post by BobaFloutist »

Pet_Ant wrote: post #208
martin-t wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a binary too string / too weak. It's that _copyright_: - protects the wrong entities (corporations instead of individuals who did the real work) - IP should be collectively owned by the people who created it and selling it should be illegal, - is too long, yes - DMCA can be used to harass without actually owning the IP and there are no penalties - the fair use exception can be used to allow clear cases of pl…

> - protects the wrong entities (corporations instead of individuals who did the real work) - IP should be collectively owned by the people who created it and selling it should be illegal, That's like say a band getting an advance to record their album should be illegal. Without access to people with money now a lot of it wouldn't get made. And if they are fronting the money before it exists, then they are taking ris…

You could have a system that limits sale of IP to clearly defined capitalization, I.E. instead of "You own this IP for 20 years and get x% of profits in return for funding/publishing and giving my y% of profits" it could be "In return for funding/publishing in the next 5 years, you get x% of profits and I get y% of profits, but I still own my IP and your rights expire after a short period of not publishing.

AFAIK that's actually standard for writers: publishers usually license the IP for a period for a prescribed royalty blend and for publishing, and after a certain amount of time or if they don't publish the rights revert, and international/audio/digital rights are negotiated separately.

There's an argument for "What if I don't want to deal with capitalizing on this whatsoever and just want to sell it for a cash payment now because I literally don't want that to be my job," but even then there should probably be a minimum royalty along with the lump sum to protect against exploitation.

Re: Open hardware desktop 3D printing is dead?

#280

Post by amluto »

vel0city wrote: post #246
amluto wrote: post #234

If the US cared about remaining competitive with China, the government would attack this . Example approaches: a) Smallish hammer: disallow priority based on Chinese patents. b) Big hammer: if anyone wants to manufacture anything in the US and sell to the US market, give an automatic patent workaround. For example, there could be compulsory licensing, at enforced and genuinely reasonable prices, for all patents, fore…

I do think there needs to be reforms about non-practicing entities holding large patent portfolios. Maybe we should have some kind of FRAND (or FRAND-like) requirements for their portfolios.

I gave the e-ink example quite intentionally. The patents were held by a practicing entity. You could buy their mediocre implementation of their excellent underlying invention at an outrageous price and probably not with the specs you wanted.

I’m all for rewarding inventors like this for their inventions. I do not think that the reward should include any sort of ability to stifle use and further development of the invention.

The law should make it possible to build, sell, and profit from a better e-ink product at a lower price. The law should make it possible to sell things that use H.265 at a credible price without needing to be involved in the mess of figuring out who owns what patent. If patent holders, practicing or otherwise, want to sue each other, fine, but I don’t think there should be any requirement for the companies building and selling products to be parties to those legal messes at all.

As far as I know, radio in the US actually mostly works this way. To broadcast a copyrighted song, you pay a fee, and that’s it.

Post reply on HN