Never seen a post more obviously translated from chinese.
Why a heart attack? “Copying” someone’s work is the ultimate form of flattery… And why steal, when you can find it anyway on the Telegram’ stl sharing groups?
Why I get the feeling that the translation is not from Chinese but from Russian …
4 Likes
Chat GPT?
Just curious.
25 impish imps
1 Like
Nah. ChatGPT is way to complex for someone who’s syntax ain’t based on English… And as of late, BL staff have demonstrated they do know relatively good English… However, the Cyrillic speaking trolls have, traditionally, demonstrated a strong aversion towards English phraseology and syntax, resulting (obviously) in the typical mambo-jambo they tend to think it’s educated English…
2 Likes
Youre probably right. 25 letters
1 Like
someone mentioned chatgpt - here it says
Searched 5 sites
Stratasys, a major player in the 3D printing industry, is suing Bambu Lab, a rapidly growing Chinese company, for allegedly infringing on several of its patents related to 3D printing technology. The lawsuits cover a broad range of technologies, including heated build platforms, purge towers for multi-color printing, and systems for detecting contact force in 3D printers. These patents are foundational to the functionalities of many modern 3D printers, and Stratasys has specifically named Bambu Lab’s popular models like the X1C, X1E, and A1 series as infringing on their patents.
The outcome of this lawsuit is challenging to predict, but several factors will play a role:
- Legal Precedents: Stratasys has had mixed results in previous lawsuits. For instance, they have had some unsuccessful attempts in the past, but there have also been cases where companies were required to pay damages for patent infringement. If Stratasys wins, it could lead to a significant financial payout and an injunction preventing Bambu Lab from selling the infringing products in the U.S. However, if the patents are found invalid or not infringed, Bambu Lab could emerge unscathed.
- Impact on the Market: This lawsuit could have broader implications for the 3D printing industry, particularly if it sets a precedent that affects other companies using similar technologies. This could potentially stifle innovation or lead to further litigation within the industry.
- Public Sentiment and Market Dynamics: Bambu Lab has garnered significant support from the hobbyist community, which views Stratasys as an aggressor against smaller, innovative companies. This public sentiment might not directly influence the legal outcome but could affect the companies’ market positions and reputations.
In summary, while it’s uncertain how the courts will rule, the case could significantly impact both companies and the broader 3D printing market (3D Printing Industry) (All3DP) (3Dnatives).
The same but written in the style of russia=n disinformation
In a shocking and blatantly aggressive move, the American corporate behemoth Stratasys has launched a legal assault on the innovative Chinese company Bambu Lab, seeking to stifle its success and dominate the global 3D printing market. The pretext? Allegations of patent infringement that are as dubious as they are desperate. Stratasys, fearful of losing its grip on the industry, is targeting Bambu Lab’s breakthrough technology, which has rapidly gained popularity among hobbyists and professionals alike.
Stratasys, whose once-mighty empire is now crumbling under the weight of its own mismanagement and outdated technology, is clearly threatened by the rise of Bambu Lab. The Chinese company, known for its high-speed, consumer-friendly 3D printers, has outpaced Stratasys in innovation, leaving the American giant with no choice but to resort to underhanded legal tactics. Stratasys is claiming infringement on patents that cover basic technologies widely used across the industry—an attempt to monopolize the market and crush competition.
This lawsuit is not just about patents; it’s about a desperate attempt by a fading power to reassert control over an industry it can no longer compete in fairly. Bambu Lab, representing the new wave of technological innovation, is being unfairly targeted in what can only be seen as an attack on China’s growing influence in high-tech manufacturing.
Support for Bambu Lab is swelling among the global 3D printing community, as many see this lawsuit for what it truly is: a thinly veiled effort to undermine a successful Chinese company and maintain American dominance in the industry. The outcome of this case will not only determine the future of Bambu Lab but will also signal whether the global market will remain open to innovation or be strangled by the dying grasp of outdated American corporations.
2 Likes
The russian disinformation one mirrors some comments made here lmao.
1 Like
I have decided to save all my purge towers and send them to Stratasys.
Saving them starting tonight.
9 Likes
I honestly turn the tower off anyway. Ive found no difference. Just purge 1.1. I know the towers purpose but havnt noticed a difference when not using it.
The only other thing I see is the bed force sensors, but thats not even the best way of leveling a bed anymore. Could easily do away with that too.
1 Like
Normally when you develop products you are assisted by patient attorneys whose job is to steer you around strong patents or assess the risks of violating weak ones. Every company deals with creating and defending IP. Most try not to violate patents but instead plan product launches when they expire.
Since this product has been improved for so long by the public I would think it difficult to create new patents on heated beads for example. But it’s a business advantage to try.
Keep in mind during those reprap days I’m sure FDM patents prevented companies from building closed source printers. It wasn’t lack of technology I think Makerbot (the first printer company that I recall) was all open source for that reason. I sure wouldn’t want to go back to those open source days. At least for the hardware.
Yep (…plus a bunch of … whatever…to get the 25 characters)
Something for you guys (and BL’s management) to read. Connected to this matter: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375637442_Patent_Parasites_Non-Inventors_Patenting_Existing_Open-Source_Inventions_in_the_3-D_Printing_Technology_Space
2 Likes
Just wanted to share this nice netflix documentary on the early years of consumer 3D printers. It’s somewhat echoing what’s happening now.
Print the Legend Print the Legend - Google Search
1 Like
I am a Canadian lawyer and I am always surprised by the American Justice system where suing for infringement of intellectual property rights is a lucrative activity for lawyers similar to some sport. Of course any case must look serious even the frivolous ones. But they are the bread and butter of lawyers.
Thomas Jefferson thought of intellectual property laws as regulation to encourage invention but limited in shortest time possible not to infringe on technological advancement of humankind. He was a great thinker and a great president.
These cases are generally complex and everyone doing business in the technological arena is suing or is being sued by someone else. Think of Apple, Microsoft, etc.
Remember the case of the 3,5 Floppy disk drive, the case was settled many years after the demise of the device!!! Big $$$ theoretical settlement but do you know anyone who received money from it (except lawyers)?
The court cases against MP3 piracy didn’t change anything; streaming did but not the judicial battles.
USA is economic power no1, China no2! Confrontation is normal. Amazon/Temu is an example, Temu is really a bad company according to some US politicians… Amazon is no angel either.
Courts are just another battlefield.
I personally believe Western countries would have more interests in stopping or limiting the sale of national or multinational corporations to Chinese interests. How can western economic domination be maintained if we are for sale?
As for this case, it is just a day in the life of intellectual property law firms. Lawyers will win on all sides, maybe some business billionaires or millionaires too, maybe, but that’s it. It is like a Casino… Mankind… lol… ordinary people… lol
2 Likes
Yeah and my mom gave birth to me, but that doesn’t mean she was a good mother, it doesn’t mean she deserves the praise for what I became.
After Stratasys lost control, innovation started happening. Just because they invented it, I don’t think that should give them the ungodly right to prevent humankind as a whole from progressing forward so they can make an extra buck. I think the modern 3d printing industry has proven and shown how much companies like Statasys stood in the way. 3D Printing is what it is today despite Statasys…
Just like I’m an (arguably) great designer despite my mother. Early on in my career of doing 3d, she told me straight to my face that I’m stupid and what I’m doing is stupid.
Maybe Stratasys didn’t tell it’s printers they’re stupid, but they did hold them back because of their own greed and desire for control. Just because you (Not you personally; talking generally) gave birth to an idea, to something, doesn’t mean you are worthy of what it has become. It doesn’t mean it’s the sum of you, as it has taken on a life of it’s own and become much more than what you ever let it be.
3 Likes
Wow, that’s a hot take. But you are more than welcome to your view. My point was simply, correcting the thought that Stratasys was inconsequential. Where in all honesty they created FDM 3D printing and many of the things we use today on our 3D printers, in some cases, now tens of years later. They were very much one of the front runners. And yes, they completely stopped others from using their IP. That is very normal. I can’t be mad at someone who decided to cash in on their hard work. There’s a reason their garbage company is worth $520 Million. I would bet its mostly piggybacking on those initial patents.
However, there are complaints that they didn’t create some of these things. There are complaints that they only patented the open source work. Which if true, is not only scummy, it will invalidate any patent granted and open them to lawsuits (for paid licensing if applicable, or lost earnings based on a fraudulent patent).
However, anyone who put in the work to develop IP has EVERY RIGHT to protect it, whether we like it or not. Personally, I think the 3D printing community has a broken view of IP, but I love the giving nature of the community. Many people give freely what most of the outside world would sell. That is commendable. But I don’t think everyone should be required to do so. I fully understand the idea of not using common art to make your own IP, but at what point is common art still relevant to the open source agreements? 20 years, 50, 100? At some point doing something the obvious way has to truly be open. This comes back to the Bambu IP protectionism. I can understand the argument that they shouldn’t use open source IP that is a few years old to patent things off of, but using Marlin as a base that is close to 15 years old, I think that is another thing. At some point the foundational items have to be general IP.
2 Likes
What do mean? I’m not sure to understand.
In your opinion, open source contents should entrer into the public domain after a certain amount of time like parents?
If it’s that’s what you were saying. I don’t see the point of it. I’m not a lawyer, but open source licenses aren’t IPs, there are diffusion licenses. And almost all of them are like public domain “IPs” with an added attribution term.
I don’t don’t see what that will change if they pass into the public domain after a certain amount of time.
It will always be prior art, and could patent afterward.
I think I’m missing something ^^
Not sure Stratasys made out well on that purchase. $400 Million in cash and the remaining $200 million may have never been paid as it was performance based. Being this would have been performance from 2013-2015, when the Creality were coming online. Additionally, in that time period they had significant layoffs, so its not unthinkable that they never made that last $200 Million.
Now, with a net worth of $520’ish Million, I can’t say the Makerbot acquisition really paid off, unless they came with other IP. At this point Stratasys looks to be sharing Makerbot ownership with Ultimaker with Stratasys having a minority ownership. My guess is MakeBot failed to deliver and was close to shuttering and Ultimaker found value in acquiring it or its IP.