Intellectual property: what effect will 3D printing (3DP) have on it? Is it still even useful in the coming 3DP world?

A number of young entrepreneurs, who are trying to launch their first 3D printer, do not like the idea of intellectual property (IP) and want everything to be open. Those companies that have been in this industry for 25+ years, however, like the idea of IP.

John Hornick, of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, spoke on this subject at the AMUG conference on Tuesday. He did not address specific legal issues involved in this subject, but he did give an interesting take on IP. Here are a few key points.

— 3D Systems holds more than 200 patents, more than any other company involved in 3D printing. Part of this number could be from all the companies it has acquired in the last few years. Stratasys Ltd. holds about 109 or so. Most of these companies’ patents have a broad coverage on how a process works; with fewer focusing on patenting the actual device and its components.

–With increasing “democratization,” IP becomes irrelevant. Customization replaces IP as the need for “control” disappears with everyone making his or her own unique products, parts, or tools.

–The Internet and 3DP are good tools for avoiding and defeating intellectual property. Hornick advises engineers and companies to plan ahead for this change. Many of you probably already sense what this change will be—instead of making parts, the value of your skills will be in developing the CAD files for those parts. Right now, the smart money is on how to sell the designs and let others do the “making.”

There is time to plan for this shift, though. A number of experts at AMUG don’t believe there will be a big home-based market for smaller 3D printers. I tend to agree with this view. But when you look at the use of 3DP in education, the picture changes. Within 10 years, we will have a large number of students educated in the use of 3D printers, and with some experience in using design software. If the schools start requiring homework and projects using 3d printers, then we will see the lower cost ones bought by parents to give their kids an educational edge.

Within a decade, we will have a fairly large educated base ready and wanting to use 3D printers. Toy companies are already seeing this shift and working with it. LEGO is an example of a company getting ready to make the files for its blocks available to those with a 3D printer.

–Another potential shift involves branding. If you can make what you want, will you still want to buy a branded product? Or will you prefer your custom version?

–If a “maker culture” takes hold, influencing our economy, is there a need to try to make professional/production additive manufacturing systems as fast at building as traditional manufacturing systems? If the need for mass production drops, why do we need faster build speeds? (Other than we are impatient.)

At lunch, a number of us discussed this issue of IP and Hornick’s version of a return to a “maker culture” like the one the U.S. had before the changes from WWII took hold. As one of the guests at the table mentioned, not everyone wants to be a “maker,” just as not everyone wants to be an engineer, or tax accountant, or doctor or lawyer. We may have more makers contributing to the overall economy, but makers will not replace mass production—not even in the long run.

–For those entrepreneurs waiting for a patent to expire, you may be wasting your time. As Hornick noted, once a patent has expired, you can use that exact patent to make your 3D printer. But, remember, you are working with 20-year-old technology. Be aware that the holder of the patent has probably make improvements, and has most likely taken out new patents for each and every improvement. So, while you can use that 20-year-old technology, you are very likely not allowed to improve on it without risking patent infringement. So, the expiration of a patent is not necessarily a benefit.

Leslie Langnau
llangnau@wtwhmedia.com