A new open-source tool is reshaping how engineers design multi-material objects. Charles Wade, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Colorado Boulder, has created a design system software package that uses functions and code to map not just shapes but also where different materials belong in a 3D object.

It’s hard to overstate the impact desktop 3D printing has had on the making and hacking scene. It drastically lowered the barrier for many to create their own projects, and much of the prototyping and distribution of parts and tools that we see today simply wouldn’t be possible via traditional means.

What might not be obvious to those new to the game is that much of what we take for granted today in the 3D printing world has its origins in open source hardware (OSHW). Unfortunately, [Josef Prusa] has reason to believe that this aspect of desktop 3D printing is dead.

Open hardware desktop 3D printing is dead – you just don’t know it yet
https://www.josefprusa.com/articles/open-hardware-in-3d-printing-is-dead/

What happened?

Well, if you are in 3D printing a little bit longer, you must have noticed that over the last 5 years, a huge number of vibrant brands died. Basically every country in Europe and many states in the USA had a couple of their own machines and the industry was very very creative in that regard. Somebody brought an innovation, others adopted it and shared it back.

But around the year 2020 we registered the first mention of 3D printing as a strategic industry by the Chinese government. We know that now, after a few years of research. We first realized something is off when the price of the parts is higher than the sale price of a complete machine in some cases. That is what sparked our interest and research into the subsidies. They exist, and are very efficient https://rhg.com/research/far-from-normal-an-augmented-assessment-of-chinas-state-support/. Our industry, desktop 3D printing, faces a bleak future. Comparable to the automotive sector as if only one high volume car brand, say Audi, remained outside of China. That’s it. An inch away from complete dependency on China in an vital piece of tech, the one absolutely critical for creation of new IP.

Patent minefield

When looking into the data we were wondering why there is suddenly a multiple fold increase in 3D printing patent applications in China just around the year 2020, take a look yourself.

WTF has happened?

3D printing became a strategic industry and things like “Super deduction” became applicable to it. It is quite normal that R&D costs are tax deductible around the world. But definitely not 200% as in this case. From our understanding you have to prove the true innovations to qualify and of course a patent application is clear proof! It doesn’t even have to be granted! Perfect!

So even in industries where a lot of the low-hanging fruit is gone, and the true innovations are now really rare – like 3D printing, you just patent spam every little variation of the stuff out there. And that is why open hardware is very disadvantaged because it’s just so easy to file the stuff which is out there already or do minimal modifications to it. From what we’ve seen the validity checks are not stringent at all and prior art doesn’t seem to matter much.

Are these patents bogus?

Mostly, but when hunting with a shotgun you don’t need to hit with all the pellets. With the sheer number just statistically some have to land.
Are they dangerous?

There are already some patents on our watch that could hamper the industry if they slip through and get granted in the EU or USA.
Isn’t there prior art for everything in 3D printing?

There is a huge discrepancy at the cost of filing the patent and then striking it down. 125 USD to file it in China. It is almost unrealistic for an open source project to even monitor these, let alone try to strike them in the application stage if not local to China. Proactively striking down the application when brought to EU/USA roughly 12,000 USD in really straightforward cases and multiple times that in other cases. When already granted it is 75,000 USD just to start and it is not a short run.

The fact you hold a prior art in your hand, doesn’t mean much. The patent will still prevent you from importing/selling etc of the “infringing” stuff. And you will have to battle the thing in the court to use the prior art card you hold. That can be a nice million dollar bill all while not being able to do your thing for years …

Open hardware has a huge disadvantage as it has to be manufactured/transported/sold and even if you do not want to manufacture and sell your own product, you want someone else to do it. And they will always try to avoid the risk.

Once the patent is awarded, there is a priority period for filing in other IP markets when you can ask for the protection and you have a good head-start compared to fresh filing.

All in all I think this super deduction is a great exploitation of the global IP law treaties but as always the small innovators and businesses outside are hurt the most.

Impact

True impact is still not here “you just don’t know it yet” because of the timescale IP protections take, it can be well over 5 years from first filing in China to having someone’s project killed.