Follow this blog:
RSS

Could a new patent prevent a 3D printing free-for-all?

By | October 16, 2012, 2:13 AM PDT

A patent for a DRM system that aims to stop future 3D printer owners from printing whatever they please has been granted.

We may have imagined the day when cheap, commercial 3D printers invaded every household — letting us print everything from clothes to cars — but for companies that manufacture and design these products, a world where people could download these blueprints (think Wiki Weapons as an example), the future doesn’t look so rosy.

If you consider how Inkjet printers revolutionized the printing industry twenty years back and put the commercial printing guy out of business, the idea is not so far-fetched.

DRM systems are used heavily in the music, movie and video game industries, although it doesn’t stop people from playing the pirate — using websites to find and download torrents which can distribute illegal content. Earlier this year, torrent search website The Pirate Bay launched ‘Physibles’ — where you can download blueprints for anything from model cars to a pair of sneakers.

But would a new DRM patent make a difference?

The new patent was issued this week by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and is titled “Manufacturing control system.” Applied for four years ago, the patent describes a system where 3D printers will have to obtain “authorization” before printing items requested by a user.

In a nutshell, if you want to print that pirate blueprint of the latest Nike shoes, your printer will have to go through a database for permission. Unlikely, in theory.

“This is an attempt to assert ownership over DRM for 3D printing. It’s “Let’s use DRM to stop unauthorized copying of things,” Michael Weinberg, staff lawyer at Public Knowledge told TorrentFreak.

The patent has been issued to former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold’s firm Intellectual Ventures.

(via TorrentFreak)

Image credit: Tristan Bethe

Related:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Charlie Osborne

About Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne

Contributing Editor

Charlie Osborne is a freelance journalist and graphic designer based in London. In addition to SmartPlanet, she also writes the iGeneration column for business technology website ZDNet. She holds degrees in medical anthropology from the University of Kent.

Follow her on Twitter.

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
11
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
are you kidding me?
what use would it be to print a hard, brittle, and fragile copy of the latest Nike shoe?

unless of course the photo of the 'art' you display should also be illegal...

3d printing is use for prototyping designs. if this gets approved, we will lose one of the cheapes and fastest methods to test a design before creating multi-tens of thousands of dollar molds.
Posted by Cabo Wabo Addict
16th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Mostly meaningless.
The power of the patent actually makes it LESS likely that there will be DRM
on the printers since the makers of those printers would need to pay a
royalty for the "privilege" of such protection. Since the printers are
generally used for prototyping, who would risk transmitting their designs
to a third party for "permission" to print? The instant a manufacturer
decided to install it in their "brand" they would see their sales plummet.

Now where this "could" be of use would be in commercial stores where
a machine is specifically allowed to only print specific designs to
prevent, for example, a Nike store employee printing a Puma brand
shoe and thus violating copyright and possibly patent laws.
Posted by richard233
Updated - 16th Oct
+3 Votes
+ -
Your design is yours
Prototypes won't have DRM protection so there won't be any authorization required. Of course the USPTO only applies to the USA. If this is an attempt to force everyone to ask Nathan Myhrvold for permission to make a plastic coffee cup ? I sense a great bottleneck in the force. Denial of service would cripple manufacturing in any state insane enough to implement this.
Posted by jwaustin
16th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
"Intellectual Vultures"
More like.
Posted by fairportfan
16th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
3D Printing
3D printing is still in its infancy. Most of the ones I have seen have limited capabilities in producing items using different materials. There are cheap 3D printers that can make an object out of PVC plastic, the colors are limited to one color. 3D printers are not good for mass productions, but are great for rapid prototyping. It is premature to talk about extending DRM to 3D printers and there are laws against making pirated copies of things.
Posted by sboverie
16th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Saw this coming.
Capitalism is a system that relies on limiting resources only to those who have them already. Digital copying obviates that limitation, so of course a "true" Capitalist is against digital copying, UNLESS it is his OWN digital copying that is in question. Then, it's seen as just another way to "add value," as he puts it.

DRM is a deeply corrupt philosophy. Music is made by an artist, but DRM gives the profits to the distributor, with the intent of creating an unending source of profits -- based on the concept of endless copying, the VERY ACTION the DRM-favored distributor wants to make illegal when someone else does it. Based on nothing but extorted contracts.

So... just WHO is "cheating" WHOM here, eh?
Posted by Lightning Joe
Updated - 16th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Some kind of bull....
The evaluators sitting in the USPO must me taking stupid pills every morning in stead of vitamins to grant a patent for this.

I have seen high definition 3D printers being used by one F1-Formula car manufacturer for making masters for investment steel casting. One example being a very complicated inlet manifold. . To start with these designs are well kept secrets. Same can be said for any short run precision casting process. What about making a replacement part for an item that is no longer being manufactured / serviced / parts made available for. Apart from prototyping or very short manufacturing runs this in fact is most likely scenario for 3D printing.
Posted by pmshah@...
16th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
It Figures
It figures that a Microsoft guy would do this. Doesn't Myhrvold have enough power and money already? Actually, it is a pretty easy concept. It probably only took less than a page to outline the complete project. It is just as bad as patenting genes that people or living things already have.
Posted by gbsk
17th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
DVD Duplicator
The post is discussing if a new patent can prevent a 3s printing free for all. Read the post to know details
http://www.summittechnology.com.au

DVD Duplicator
Posted by SummitTechnology
22nd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
BluRay Disc Replication
You can know how to prevent a 3d printing free for cast through a patent. Useful post
http://www.promodisc.org/glossary/bluray-disc-replication
Posted by Promodisc
28th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Another attempt to run a civilization blessed with abundance...
...as if it were cursed instead with a severe lack of all resources.

I can take a few hundred (or less) photographs of any object, ad extract 3-D CAD drawings, with other software I can determine optimum material properties, and with a complex enough printer, I can duplicate the object. DRM or not. I can see it, I can copy it.

Increasingly these machines are used for short-run production. At some point they will evolve into recycling production machines so that you no longer need to store 'stuff' but only patterns (which take far less space!)

While it's true that the early technology ranges over a wide variety of materials and resolutions, proof of high-resolution, multiple material printers exists, and at some point nano manipulation will give precise control over design and construction.

The fact is, our socio-economic governmental system no longer operates under the long-assumed basis that 'there simply isn't enough of anything.'

Energy is the limit of life. As of 1975 we have had the capability to harvest tens of thousands of times our civilizations entire energy use to date, on a daily basis. With energy on that scale, all other problems of scarcity vanish. For over 35 years, we have fought, killed, died and squabbled over the insignificant resources of the outermost skin of the Earth, as if that fraction were the sum total of the Universe.

For nearly two generations, we have ignored our abundance of resources in order to support the power and games of those who thrive on controlling others.

I do not have to suffer in order for you to live well, nor do you have to suffer so I can live well, there is abundance, far more than you can imagine, energy for a billion years of civilization, materials in abundances on a stellar scale.

Humans need to work--the always find something to do, it's inherent. But we no longer require masses of humans to perform redundant, boring, repetative or dangerous work merely in order to keep civilization functional. Indeed, the vast majority of such work is automated by tireless and accurate machinery--many modern products can be manufactured no other way than by robot.

We can create Heaven or Hell or any combination on Earth or in the Solar system.

Which we choose?
Posted by wizoddg
4th Dec
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!