One man's defense of MakerBot's patent filings. What do you guys and girls think?
8 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
- Rather sadly I have to agree with you EddieJun 6, 2014
- He's set up a false dichotomy - patent, or be sued by someone who does. Thankfully, reality provides a much more useful spectrum of options including defensive filing of prior art, trusted royalty-free shared patent pools like the Open Invention Network, and a plethora of royalty-free patent licenses. To name just a few.
I would expect a company which talks so much about it's openness to be aware of at least some of the tools other businesses and open source projects are using to deal with the patent mess.
It appears they've chosen exclusion over inclusiveness, despite both being proven, viable options.Jun 6, 2014
- Jun 6, 2014
- Eddie is wrong. Patenting something you didn't invent is fraud, plain and simple. There is no reason to race to commit fraud.
The right way for Arthur to defend this is to file a disclosure about his invention. That's not a patent. It is a record of prior art. Unfortunately, Arthur views the legal requirements for protecting intellectual property with contempt, and hasn't done the necessary work to protect his invention. He is now discovering that "first to file" means just that. He can complain about the rules of the game, and morally I might even agree with him, but it's pointless. The various patent offices simply don't have the resources to check for prior art. They rely on inventors to register their inventions by either a patent filing or a disclosure filing. Right or wrong, those are the rules of the game.Jun 6, 2014
- Don't forget that Makerbot was bought by Stratisys, the same company that sued Afinia. Party's over, folks.Jun 6, 2014
- Concur with Peter Binkley, but who they have sued is a separate issue from whether they have standing to patent.Jun 6, 2014