Honestly IDGAF about Bambu, but these patents are for technologies clearly used by other manufacturers as well. Stratasys is just picking on Bambu because Bambu is successful, and they’re smelling a payout.
It is in the best interest of everyone in the hobby – not just manufacturers – that Stratasys loses.
Not a lawyer, but I think it should be pretty straightforward to prove that Stratasys is selectively /inequitably enforcing the patent given the prevalence of PEI build plates and automatic leveling, among other things, long before Bambu released a machine or became popular.
Ah but there’s the rub. The lack there of of proof and logic is the exact reason Stratasys brought the suit to the Eastern district court of Texas. This is the same court where patent trolls go to win their fairy tale suits based on antiquated and overly broad patents that they purchased from long defunct companies. In the Eastern district court of Texas it’s not what you can prove it’s who do you know. Also known as corruption.
Truly amazing that the legal system in the rest of the US honors and enforces their edicts, or that anyone continues to do business within their jurisdiction, for that matter.
Yes, but if the companies being sued don’t do business in that jurisdiction, it falls on other jurisdictions to enforce that courts’ edicts. Anyone that does so is just enabling the corruption.
I think Bambu would had to have never allowed sales or use of a printer in east Texas (a huge state).
I’m now curious if EULAs or geofencing products to make using them in that district a violation of the license. As terrible as it would be, it could be useful in protecting businesses from patent trolls. Maybe even teach east Texas to stop giving the trolls a stage.
You don’t have to do geo-fencing or disallow use. Don’t distribute or ship to East Texas, and don’t do support there, warranty or otherwise, done. You’re onto something with the EULA bit, but beyond that is a burden they are not obligated to take up or impose upon grey-market customers.
Ah, I forget sometimes that common sense and reasoning isn’t worth shit in a country where people are second-class citizens behind business entities. I can’t even imagine what decent labor and consumer protections look like, let alone fair and responsible IP governance.
Bambu Lab was founded in 2020. Prusa, Creality and a whole bunch of other companies have been “violating” these patents long before Bambu even existed. Either this gets thrown out of court, or Stratasys will be able to sue quite literally every 3D printer manufacturer that exists for compensation.
Not to mention the patent for heated build platforms wasn’t filed for something like 4 years after the first heated bed was put to use. Stratasys only has the patent because that bought the company that filed it last year.
Also the heated bed was first put to use in 2010 as a way around the stratasys patent on heated build chambers, they never even thought to heat only the best.
How the hell was that even issued? Ianal obviously, my recollection from uni engineering was that Prior Art matters.
Also, given that there’s a lot of skilled people in the field these days, you’d think some of these patents could be challenged as being “obvious to a skilled person”, bed levelling to me could fit that bill given it’s a common issue that would make sense to pursue a solution for. Granted I’m not versed in us patent law (I barely have a basic understanding of Canadian Patent Law), so maybe that’s different.
If you’re making me side with Bambu in a court hearing you must be a pretty shit company.
Honestly IDGAF about Bambu, but these patents are for technologies clearly used by other manufacturers as well. Stratasys is just picking on Bambu because Bambu is successful, and they’re smelling a payout.
It is in the best interest of everyone in the hobby – not just manufacturers – that Stratasys loses.
Not a lawyer, but I think it should be pretty straightforward to prove that Stratasys is selectively /inequitably enforcing the patent given the prevalence of PEI build plates and automatic leveling, among other things, long before Bambu released a machine or became popular.
Ah but there’s the rub. The lack there of of proof and logic is the exact reason Stratasys brought the suit to the Eastern district court of Texas. This is the same court where patent trolls go to win their fairy tale suits based on antiquated and overly broad patents that they purchased from long defunct companies. In the Eastern district court of Texas it’s not what you can prove it’s who do you know. Also known as corruption.
Truly amazing that the legal system in the rest of the US honors and enforces their edicts, or that anyone continues to do business within their jurisdiction, for that matter.
The companies that want to sue all have shell offices and PO boxes in east Texas.
It’s probably one of the main industries in some of the smaller towns. Tyler Texas I think maybe? It’s been a while since I first read about it.
Yes, but if the companies being sued don’t do business in that jurisdiction, it falls on other jurisdictions to enforce that courts’ edicts. Anyone that does so is just enabling the corruption.
I think Bambu would had to have never allowed sales or use of a printer in east Texas (a huge state).
I’m now curious if EULAs or geofencing products to make using them in that district a violation of the license. As terrible as it would be, it could be useful in protecting businesses from patent trolls. Maybe even teach east Texas to stop giving the trolls a stage.
You don’t have to do geo-fencing or disallow use. Don’t distribute or ship to East Texas, and don’t do support there, warranty or otherwise, done. You’re onto something with the EULA bit, but beyond that is a burden they are not obligated to take up or impose upon grey-market customers.
Ah, I forget sometimes that common sense and reasoning isn’t worth shit in a country where people are second-class citizens behind business entities. I can’t even imagine what decent labor and consumer protections look like, let alone fair and responsible IP governance.
Bambu Lab was founded in 2020. Prusa, Creality and a whole bunch of other companies have been “violating” these patents long before Bambu even existed. Either this gets thrown out of court, or Stratasys will be able to sue quite literally every 3D printer manufacturer that exists for compensation.
Not to mention the patent for heated build platforms wasn’t filed for something like 4 years after the first heated bed was put to use. Stratasys only has the patent because that bought the company that filed it last year.
Also the heated bed was first put to use in 2010 as a way around the stratasys patent on heated build chambers, they never even thought to heat only the best.
How the hell was that even issued? Ianal obviously, my recollection from uni engineering was that Prior Art matters.
Also, given that there’s a lot of skilled people in the field these days, you’d think some of these patents could be challenged as being “obvious to a skilled person”, bed levelling to me could fit that bill given it’s a common issue that would make sense to pursue a solution for. Granted I’m not versed in us patent law (I barely have a basic understanding of Canadian Patent Law), so maybe that’s different.
deleted by creator