-1

What are some relatively simple improvements to FDM 3D printers that cannot be sold however because they are under patent?

I know a heated build chamber is one such thing: According to the RepRap Wiki Heated_Build_Chamber:

The disclosure on how to fabricate a heated build chamber might also be illegal as it is protected by patent.

So I wonder if there are similar "simple" FDM printer upgrades for which it currently would be forbidden to sell (or even promote?) parts due to patent infringement.

This is exactly the question I am interested in. This is not about a specific printer. A heated build chamber is a simple upgrade that would benefit pretty much any FDM printer. I am interested in other relatively simple upgrades which you won't find on most commercial 3D printers despite their simplicity for the reason that the feature is patented.

What other simple improvements are there, that are protected by patents?

Greenonline
  • 5,831
  • 7
  • 30
  • 60
matthias_buehlmann
  • 447
  • 1
  • 4
  • 13
  • 2
    The edit still does not make it answerable. From [help] center: `Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.` There could be a lot of patents out there limiting selling. What would be gained when you know the list if you don't know what to upgrade? It would be better to state your problem so that people can recommend viable upgrades for your problem, rather then speculate on what you could have used instead. – 0scar Jun 08 '19 at 20:52
  • 1
    "The disclosure on how to fabricate a heated build chamber might also be illegal as it is protected by patent" is nonsense. The patent **is the disclosure** of how to do it. – R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE Jun 09 '19 at 00:09
  • @R but I guess if you explain the process on your website and by that drive traffic to your site you’re also making use of the patented invention, at least that’s how I understood that phrase.. – matthias_buehlmann Jun 09 '19 at 00:56
  • 4
    As far as I know, "heated build chamber" in general is not patented. What is patented it a specific implementation of it, where the motors are outside the build chamber and not exposed to the heat. – Tom van der Zanden Jun 09 '19 at 05:52
  • 3
    `The disclosure on how to fabricate a heated build chamber might also be illegal as it is protected by patent.` That's the exact opposite of how patents work. – towe Jun 12 '19 at 14:00

1 Answers1

2
  • Porisity control
  • Seam hiding
  • Dissolvable supports

Porosity Control - The ability of a 3d printer to produce a variable infil rate (e.g. 20%) is covered by a Stratasys utility patent.

Seam Hiding - The ability of a 3d printer to start printing from a different point on the perimeter such that no seam appears on the printed part, is covered by a Stratasys utility patent.

Dissolvable supports - The ability of a 3d printer to print with 2 (or more) filaments such that one one of the filaments, acting as support material (or scaffolding), can be removed by sustained immersion in water, is covered by a Stratasys utility patent.

http://www.afinia.com/wp-content/uploads/Afinia-Response-Stratasys-Complaint.pdf

I could not find a url with the original Stratasys case, but I saved a copy back when it first came out. The document seems to be behind paywals now. You can reference it as :

CASE 0:13-cv-03228-DWF-JJG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Minnesota%20District%20Court/case/0%3A13-cv-03228

user77232
  • 2,298
  • 9
  • 19
  • could you link the stratasys complaint too? the answer is impossible to read without the complaint itself – Trish Jun 12 '19 at 11:18
  • Interesting... I've seen the dissolvable supports thing for a while now, with support in several slicers. I've never had problems with visible seams, either. But the porosity control sounds intersting, where a model could be more hollow towards the center, and use more infill as you approach the top layer so that top doesn't need to bridge as much. – Joel Coehoorn Jun 12 '19 at 13:47
  • Now we know why PVA material is so expensive... :) – 0scar Jun 12 '19 at 13:57
  • Let's hope Chinese engineers show their usual lack of empathy towards patent holders. – towe Jun 12 '19 at 14:02