Considering purchasing the PS2. Anyone concerned with the lawsuit brought against Bambu infrigement? Not a big deal for consumers?
1 Like
No. It will not make a difference.
The lawsuit with Pop Mart has already been settled.
Unless you are referring to the Stratasys patent dispute. This can easily make a huge difference when the results come out later this year, but it shouldn’t be any thing to stop you from buying a printer now. Once the machine is in your hands, it is not your problem.
Personally, I think that Bambu is infringing on the patents, but at the same time these technologies are nothing particularly new and have been used in many printers before Bambu Lab even existed. For example, one of the points in that lawsuit is that Bambu is using a polymer coating on its build plates, although that has been a standard thing for a long time.
It is a dumb lawsuit. This is a good example of a company that did not enforce their patents, let the technology become the industry norm, now they want to cry about it.
2 Likes
Or their patent was not enforcable to start with. I am sure they were not the first outfit to make a polymer coated build plate.
1 Like
You have to remember, Stratasys was the “first” for almost everything in 3d printing. They have simply been in the game for a long time. They invented FDM printing.
- Stratasys was the first to use a polymer bed in 1991
- Stratasys was the first to use the prime tower method
- Stratasys was the first to use cloud management and filament RFID
- Stratasys pretty much invented multicolor printing.
- The eddy sensor system is almost identical to what stratasys has been doing for decades.
The only thing that I do not think Stratasys has ground to stand on is the heated build platform.
Assuming true, and assuming a polymer bed and polymer-coated bed are the same, this would have expired in 2011?
Both the polymer bed patents and heated build platform patents have expired. The one for the heated bed expired in 2014 I think. But both of those are still important because it shows legal standing through showing prior work.
Side note: There are more recent patents that cover the same thing, but they are more specific to the technology that they are using. The heated plate is still an important one because it clarifies on the type of heaters used and heat distribution methods.
The most important one (in my opinion and not a lawyer) is the patents for purge towers and material switching.
It is hard to read a patent if you haven’t before, but if you get the time, this is a good read…
Another side note because I am thinking about this now:
Open source has always been very important to 3d printing, but most of the innovations that have been happening in open source are simply copies of existing products.
Patent suits are 1) To stop future revenue through the unauthorized use of a patented technology and 2) To obtain compensation for revenues already gained through the unauthorized use of said patent.
Neither of those have any impact to consumers typically.
The one exception I could think of is software, either slicer or machine firmware, where a company could be prevented from including the feature in future updates - but that’s not really what’s in play here.
I’d love to see Bambu acquire Stratasys just to swat them out of existence. Whatever their role in getting 3D printing to where it is today, at this point they’re just patent trolls holding the whole industry back. C’mon Bambu, you’re valued at 10 billion, a 650 million market cap is pocket change!
2 Likes
It is said until you are sued, you are not successful.
The FDM was patented in 1989 which expired after 20 years. So it has been out for a while now.
The patents for purge towers and the heat build platform are likely invalid.
Others, let the lawyers do their work. We as consumers don’t have to be worry about.
I like how you bring up some context and facts around this case. In my personal opinion, Stratasys may have been the first to do this, but Bambu is much better at it. I do not own a Stratasys printer, and they seem very high end and expensive. Bambu brought a whole new game of accessibility into the market, so no wonder why there is a lawsuit against them. You only target things when they pose a threat to your market.
Again, all of this is merely just my opinion, and I may be very wrong.
The trademark for FDM is still valid and is still being held under stratasys. But when you look at it, I would consider that the FDM patent was infringed in 2005 with the RepRap, then the Prusa Mendel was based on that using similar tech, then the prusa i3 was based on that that, then creality machines were pretty much clones of the i3.
My point is that it is a slippery slope. Patent law can really be a mess. That is why this suit in particular has been going on for so long.
Out of curiosity, why do you say this? The patents for the purge tower are still active and as stated in a previous post the heated build platform is expired.
Let the lawyers do their work. It is not like this is a new case but I still find it interesting.
Stratasys was the first and they are much better at it. Depending on your definition of better of course.
Their machines are much more advanced than any machine that Bambu has put out. We have 8 of them in our additive manufacturing lab, they are built to a completely different standard. But in all fairness, we also have 2 X1E’s in our office. Stratasys does not make any consumer level or even compact machines.
They are simply aimed at completely different markets. I think that they filed the suit against bambu instead of any other brand because people started to use Bambu’s for industrial purposes. It doesn’t help that Bambu started to market professional machines like the X1E and H2D pro.
They were not competing up until recently. I think (again not a lawyer) that this suit will come to conclusion with a clause that states that Bambu can never make a professionally oriented machine and that they will have to pay huge amounts for the use of their patents for so long.
1 Like
I am not interested enough to look into the specific claims in these two patents, but I remember I read some argued that the same or similar technologies existed before the 2013-2015 period when these two patents were filed. So the patents’ claims have “prior art”
Earlier this year, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did a review and found that there is a “reasonable likelihood” that these two patents can be invalidated.
.
My definition of better is: Superior quality and functionality at a superior price. For the cost of Bambu Labs printers, there are some amazing things you can do with them. I would consider them to almost be industrial quality. I have used my X1C to what I would consider an industrial scale (of production) and it has been great.
The PTAB review only made a decision on the heated bed. Stratasys was smart when they were filing. Each patent infringement is set under its own lawsuit, meaning that if one is thrown out, they still have the others to back them up.
The decision will be made by the court, if they don’t settle and go to trial.
Stratasys made about 10 claims. Looks to me like “throwing mud at the wall and see what sticks”. Maybe they are smart or maybe they don’t have that much confidence in their case.
That opinion is 100 percent correct for the consumer mindset.
In the industrial mindset, that is not so true. In terms of quality, both brands have machines that can produce great quality parts, but quality also has to take into account dimensional accuracy, consistency, and speed. Print exclusively with ABS on an X1C and you see a different story. The standards are higher all around.
I laughed a little bit when I read this. What I consider an industrial scale is a lot different.
1 Like
That’s how the legal system works
1 Like
If you consider high volume to be industrial, there is something to be said for the economy of a rack of consumer machines. But I’d also ask why you aren’t injection moulding, or die-casting, etc; your part would require additive.
Now if you need exacting precision or special materials with FDM, that’s a different story - you will need a really expensive “industrial” 3d printer.
edit I lived through a similar paradigm shift in tech, where we changed from high end “enterprise” servers to racks of consumer hardware. Those enterprise boxes are still around but you have to have a legit reason to use them these days.
Dont get me wrong. Commercial machines can provide a lot of scale, that is why there are companies that run huge print farms with them.
Size of the printer is more important in an industrial setting. Having to split and glue parts causes issues. Also, industrial use is usually ABS, where commercial machines (even ones with chamber heaters) can not keep up.
It takes a long time to get to the threshold for injection molding to work out profitable.
1 Like
How large are we talking about? IMO 800mm PLA/PETG is at the upper end of consumer, 800mm enclosed or high temp would be industrial. What worries me about 800mm machines is how solid they need to be to combat thermal expansion. (EDIT So I guess I would count 800mm + precision as industrial).