What do you think?
Rate this book
3D Printing and Intellectual Property
Intellectual property (IP) laws were drafted for tangible objects, but 3D printing technology, which digitizes objects and offers manufacturing capacity to anyone, is disrupting these laws and their underlying policies. In this timely work, Lucas S. Osborn focuses on the novel issues raised for IP law by 3D printing for the major IP systems around the world. He specifically addresses how patent and design law must wrestle with protecting digital versions of inventions and policing individualized manufacturing, how trademark law must confront the dissociation of design from manufacturing, and how patent and copyright law must be reconciled when digital versions of primarily utilitarian objects are concerned. With an even hand and keen insight, Osborn offers an innovation-centered analysis of and balanced response to the disruption caused by 3D printing that should be read by nonexperts and experts alike.
242 pages, Paperback
Published September 5, 2019
2 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
Read
November 3, 20213D printing is a technology with enormous potential. It allows manufacturers to produce objects more quickly and with less effort than traditional manufacturing methods. It enables the manufacturing of highly customized objects, making the technology useful for such diverse areas as the medical industry and museums (which can use 3D printing to duplicate works of art). However, it is still a technology in development.
The impression I got from this book is that the application of intellectual property law to 3D-printed goods is going to keep lawyers busy, as the “technological nuances [of 3D printing] raise novel challenges for IP law” (p. 4). Much of the existing intellectual property law in the U.S. and elsewhere does not address the unique set of circumstances related to 3D-printed objects.
This book is intended for a wide audience. In addition to lawyers, it is also aimed at policy makers, technologists, and artists. For that reason, the first part of the book addresses how the 3D-printing industry works, followed by an overview of intellectual property law intended for those without a background in the subject. Throughout the book, Osborn examines U.S., U.K., European, and Japanese intellectual property laws.
Osborn emphasizes that in order to meaningfully discuss the intellectual property issues, one needs to understand the various stages of the 3D printing process because the law affects each stage differently. There are three main file types: Computer-Aided Design, or CAD (roughly equivalent to a blueprint); Surface-Mesh Files (the most common of which is STL format); and machine-instruction files (e.g., GCODE files). It turns out there are many acronyms in 3D printing!
The author then moves to look at the relationship between 3D printing and the individual types of intellectual property law—patent, trademark, and copyright.
The patent system was designed for tangible objects. Surface mesh and design files—the two digital file types most in demand—are also the two file types that are least likely to be patentable subject matter. Under U.S. patent law, a digital object will generally not infringe a patent for a physical object and vice versa. Even if 3D printing files are patentable, the owner of the intellectual property rights may have difficulty suing end users who have infringed the patent for many reasons, including the large number of potential infringers, difficulty in determining the identity of infringers (simply downloading a digital file is not proof something was printed), the expense of litigation, and the potential nightmare of suing people who may not have been aware they were infringing copyright. Osborn suggests that potential laws should consider both a non-commercial use defense and a safe harbour framework for 3D print shops.
Osborn next looks at the relationship between trademark law and 3D goods. How do you apply trademark law to digital versions of goods bearing someone else’s trademark? Trademarks have historically also functioned as a guarantee of quality, both for the manufacturing and design of an object, but this guarantee is lessened if the manufacturer is not the same as the designer.
Copyright law, which has been addressing digitization issues for years, is the best prepared of the three legal areas to deal with 3D printing. However, because the design of a “useful” article is not generally copyrightable (some creativity is required), the author concludes that digital manufacturing files (DMFs) for utilitarian objects will be protected by patent law rather than copyright law (if they are to be protected by anything).
Osborn concludes the book with a broader policy analysis. He argues that a separate law for 3D printing is not necessary since existing intellectual property law addresses most of the issues. He believes that the intellectual property issues can be addressed by other areas of law, predicting that contracts will be the “most ubiquitous legal protection used with DMFs” (p. 219) and that technical protection measures and social norms may also be factors that constrain infringement.
The impression I got from this book is that the application of intellectual property law to 3D-printed goods is going to keep lawyers busy, as the “technological nuances [of 3D printing] raise novel challenges for IP law” (p. 4). Much of the existing intellectual property law in the U.S. and elsewhere does not address the unique set of circumstances related to 3D-printed objects.
This book is intended for a wide audience. In addition to lawyers, it is also aimed at policy makers, technologists, and artists. For that reason, the first part of the book addresses how the 3D-printing industry works, followed by an overview of intellectual property law intended for those without a background in the subject. Throughout the book, Osborn examines U.S., U.K., European, and Japanese intellectual property laws.
Osborn emphasizes that in order to meaningfully discuss the intellectual property issues, one needs to understand the various stages of the 3D printing process because the law affects each stage differently. There are three main file types: Computer-Aided Design, or CAD (roughly equivalent to a blueprint); Surface-Mesh Files (the most common of which is STL format); and machine-instruction files (e.g., GCODE files). It turns out there are many acronyms in 3D printing!
The author then moves to look at the relationship between 3D printing and the individual types of intellectual property law—patent, trademark, and copyright.
The patent system was designed for tangible objects. Surface mesh and design files—the two digital file types most in demand—are also the two file types that are least likely to be patentable subject matter. Under U.S. patent law, a digital object will generally not infringe a patent for a physical object and vice versa. Even if 3D printing files are patentable, the owner of the intellectual property rights may have difficulty suing end users who have infringed the patent for many reasons, including the large number of potential infringers, difficulty in determining the identity of infringers (simply downloading a digital file is not proof something was printed), the expense of litigation, and the potential nightmare of suing people who may not have been aware they were infringing copyright. Osborn suggests that potential laws should consider both a non-commercial use defense and a safe harbour framework for 3D print shops.
Osborn next looks at the relationship between trademark law and 3D goods. How do you apply trademark law to digital versions of goods bearing someone else’s trademark? Trademarks have historically also functioned as a guarantee of quality, both for the manufacturing and design of an object, but this guarantee is lessened if the manufacturer is not the same as the designer.
Copyright law, which has been addressing digitization issues for years, is the best prepared of the three legal areas to deal with 3D printing. However, because the design of a “useful” article is not generally copyrightable (some creativity is required), the author concludes that digital manufacturing files (DMFs) for utilitarian objects will be protected by patent law rather than copyright law (if they are to be protected by anything).
Osborn concludes the book with a broader policy analysis. He argues that a separate law for 3D printing is not necessary since existing intellectual property law addresses most of the issues. He believes that the intellectual property issues can be addressed by other areas of law, predicting that contracts will be the “most ubiquitous legal protection used with DMFs” (p. 219) and that technical protection measures and social norms may also be factors that constrain infringement.
Displaying 1 of 1 review