Did anyone ever wonder about the coincidence called LOCATION ?
Many companies lodge patents for their products or just ideas.
In the USA though it is a constant flood of applications.
And like with any patents in the USA there is no real need to be specific.
Include what is or might be possible / usable and the patent will cover it.
Companies got a patent for a teaspoon, ergonomical tool handles and of course over 90% of the human genome.
Just the human genome part should tell you enough as common sense and logic say such a thing can’t be patented but in reality it also means companies literally own what you are made of.
This problem is driven even further when it comes to claims against a patent or a patent holder starting an infringement case.
In almost all cases the courts rule in favour of the US company.
Even if the case is covered by patents in other countries where the case was already lost.
It was in the late 80’s and early 90’s when this ‘system’ was implemented in order to keep a market advantage hold by the US.
The term outsourcing became popular and with that shifting manufacturing to cheaper countries with fewer legal restrictions.
Patenting whatever is asked meant securing US products, even if it is just by blocking related imports in violation of such patents and other rights held by companies.
None of this was ever a problem though and the only thing we ever saw from this was when big electronic companies started banging heads.
Microsoft, Oracle, Alphabet, Samsung, Nokia, Apple, Sony,…
What made all this far worse was how ‘non-physical’ -, intellectual- and ‘general designs’ were allowed to enter patents.
We ‘needed’ these inclusions to cover code and computer algorithms for example.
But also to protect the often complex architecture inside microchips.
It is on these foundations Stratasys makes their claims today.
They don’t really fight against any US based printer manufacturer or third party parts manufacturer.
With that the courts are already in their favour and securing these claims would be another win for the USA as a whole.
Printers are not really like a Swiss Army Knife.
Every single component can be quickly revere engineered and even improved on.
These machines have come a long way and all manufacturers do what they do for cars and such - they do the same because it works!
The looks and fine details might differ here and there but the general principle behind is the same.
If Stratsys gets a full win here it not only means they would be able to dictate the license fees but also that they get basically global market control.
A factor US courts are only too aware of…
See it this way:
If you would have been in the 3D printing game for a decade or more and decide to manufacture your own and to sell them in huge quantities - how would YOU DO IT ?
There is only so many ways to properly transport filament to the hotend…
Very limited ways to deal with moving axis…
Even for the control electronics and capabilities of the machine you are limited - either you go all open source or risk offending someone by using code without paying for it (the new patents).
I mean, seriously: How could anyone just create a new extruder that is NOT violating their bogus patents already ?