Sci/Tech 3D Printer DRM Patent To Stop People Downloading a Car

[tom_mai78101]

Well, if we can't listen on it. then we can't say it sounds good.

The article states his guitar sounds pretty good, and had actually brought it with him to parties.

 

[Fatmankev]

Well, if we can't listen on it. then we can't say it sounds good.

Thanks for spelling it out for us, FC.

I don't like the idea of this just because I see mankind sort of progressing into the next era of the Age of Technology. With the internet being available to 1/3 of the world's population (that's 2.3 billion or so, which is probably the largest market anywhere), so much information can be input and subsequently accessed by anyone, and more often than not for free. There are already a lot of 'blueprints' for the 3D Printer that are available for free use online, and it just seems like a step in the wrong direction to try to get people to pay for these blueprints after they've already had access to them for free.

Yeah, it's a good business strategy. But it's all about the greed, which is what I feel like we've been starting to move away from, and I think we need to continue in that direction if we're going to salvage our already mangled, hate-filled race.

 

[Varine]

They've been saying that since the 1700's. Most of these large corporations are the ones making technology grow though, I don't necessarily like it either, however the fact remains that they do.

 

[FireCat]

Seriously, patents are granted too easily, even on trivial and obvious stuff. Why not change it a bit eh?

Ah, you don't need to thank me. @Fatmankev

 

[Varine]

They expire.

 

[tom_mai78101]

They expire.

We need to shorten the length of the time spans.

 

[KaerfNomekop]

I don't understand patents in the first place. Why keep to yourself something that would benefit from the masses, for the masses?

 

[Accname]

I don't understand patents in the first place. Why keep to yourself something that would benefit from the masses, for the masses?

The idea behind patents is that if you are an inventor and make a great new idea for a product,
but you have little money to mass produce it and you start small, big companies could just steal your idea, and make huge profits with it and you have nothing.
So if you have a patent on the product you can be the only one producing it. Or even better, you dont do anything at all and let the big companies produce it but they have to pay you for the idea.
The concept is really good. But the execution is lacking.
Patents are given too easily for "inventions" which arent really incredibly innovative or just to broad.
If i would patent the "smartphone" for example. A smartphone is not really an invention.
It uses many other things which were already there, its just an improvement of a cell phone combined with computer hardware and software.
It may be innovative but not worth a patent. (in my opinion)

 

[tom_mai78101]

If any invention gets very popular, it should belong in the public domain, like the shape of the tires, or the wall of a building.

What I mean, is that if an invention brought along common sense (i.e., someone sees a car tire, they can use their knees to think that is a car tire.), it shouldn't be patented, but rather make it available to benefit the public. Or maybe, make the said invention be protected, like a work of art, such as Mona Lisa.

 

[Varine]

I don't understand patents in the first place. Why keep to yourself something that would benefit from the masses, for the masses?

Money.

Mona Lisa doesn't get patents. Art gets copyrighted.

 

[tom_mai78101]

Welp! We're going full circles here.

 

[Varine]

Copyrights are a totally different form.

 

[tom_mai78101]

Copyrights are a totally different form.

Then I guess I could be wrong.

 

[FireCat]

copyright protects an original artistic or literary work; a patent protects an invention.

 

[KaerfNomekop]

Aren't they both still considered intellectual property?

 

[Varine]

Not really. Copyrights are IP; patents kind of cover it, but the concept is still open. Like I can make an invention and patent it, and then you can make something that does the exact same thing but change a few items on it in such a way that it doesn't conflict directly with my patent. Copyright, on the other hand, is mostly gray area and it's like "Well his idea was really similar to mine and I think he stole it."

 

[ReVolver]

Spoiler

 

[rover2341]

It's not technologically beyond us. Just expensive.

This is true, but it has dropped a huge amount in recent years. It has a long ways to go, to be practical for most uses. But Its interesting non the less.

 

[Varine]

Well yeah, if you're talking about things like an actual car. The at-home versions are useful for making little physical replicas of models, and that's about it. But if you were to get a CNC or something, which technically is still a 3D printer even though they work differently than the typical concept of them, you could assuming it was big enough. Like I've made guns and shit on my little CNC I have. They weren't very good guns, but hey, they worked for a few rounds. I don't think it would be out of my range to make a vehicle of some sort. Maybe not a full sized car that I can drive around or anything, but I could build a motor or something if I had the time/motivation to do it and assemble it.

 

[Slapshot136]

actually, that brings up a good point - being able to re-create a knob or dial/etc. perfectly would be a very nice option to have (especially for cheap plastic ones that break) - or a bumper, etc.