Right now 3D printing is poised to be the MP3 of design, moving swiftly and ferociously through 20th century law in a way that completely rewrites the book on protection. And with the law in no way poised to slow it down, we’re living in the wild west of 3D printing right now.
3D printing is presenting more applications, innovations, and legal hiccups each day. While lawmakers were quick to jump on banning 3D printed guns, almost no other areas of 3D printing have people on the same legal page. So now that we can see that 3D printing is here to stay–and will likely change the way we build things–why don’t we have any way of regulating it? It could be because it won’t be possible by adhering to a past model.
Just like how a regular printer would lay down ink on a paper, 3D printers build objects by adding thin layers of material on top of each other in order to create a three-dimensional object. It started with just wax, but users can now use a wide array of material including plastics, metal, and even bio-materials, so the possibilities are seemingly limitless.
Though, for now, 3D printing is still a lengthy, often costly process for those who print things, its versatility is a distinct disrupt to our existing manufacturing ecosystems, and the intellectual property law that goes with it. As Joren De Wachter wrote in a guest post for Trading Secrets, no one’s quite sure how to protect IP in 3D printing:
As I’ve stated before, the problem with patents is that they are very hard to enforce in an open environment – when even at the level of the mobile phone market, patent litigation is clearly not cost-effective, and destroys a lot of shareholder value, how will anyone be able to enforce patents against a myriad community of developers and makers?
Unless of course legislation is changed, and the scope of patents is expanded – but that would risk a serious backlash, as anyone who remembers the SOPA/PIPA story will confirm.
Design rights remain problematic; indeed, it is hard to see how design rights or design patents will be useful in blocking access to the market of competitive designs or products. Again, the issue of cost-effectiveness of litigating someone to keep products that can be manufactured at a much lower price off the market will meet with both practical and political problems…
BitTorrent sites and other peer-to-peer approaches are already developing rapidly growing forums where people can share their files to be printed. It will be a lot less clear for right holders in a product to claim that they have rights in an .stl file developed by someone else, allowing to print a product that looks like, but not quite is, that original product.
It’s a new frontier for the way we buy, own, and sell things, similar to but not completely analogous with the what the music industry had to reconcile once digital music hit the scene. And for now, no one’s quite sure what it will, or even should, look like. Which unfortunately leaves us without a clear solution for legislation. Unless, as Jason Voiovich writes on a guest blog for DuetsBlog, we choose to embrace the technology:
What if I can scan that knife I wanted to buy at my friend’s house and print a copy of it at home? What about printing a replacement for a cracked cabinet door handle? What about upgrading the review mirror in my car? What does that mean for the owners of the intellectual property – the design patents – whose designs I am copying? Is it fair use? But what if I sell my printed copy? Or just give it away? Am I infringing? What if the design fails and the part breaks? Can I sue? Can they sue me?
Frankly, today, there are more questions than answers. But if the recording and film industries have taught us anything, it is that resisting this transition is futile at best, destructive at worst.
The futuristic example I shared earlier illustrates a different path forward. Instead of resisting change, embrace it. Instead of selling physical items, why not sell the electronic files to replicate the item at home? Why not allow people to make minor adjustments (like the color of the knife handle) to suit their tastes? I’ll bet people would pay more for the privilege. Would they pay as much as they would for the finished item today? No. But then again, Williams Sonoma in my example didn’t need to carry inventory that might not sell. Wusthof didn’t need to ship it, insure it, package it, or fabricate it. Those things cost money, and by nature of economies of scale, limit customer choice.
There is a better way, but it will take creativity from the legal community to structure licenses in such a way to allow whole new business models to emerge. It’s offensive versus defensive. It’s protection through openness. It’s different. Scary. And very, very cool.
It will likely be an awkward growth spurt as the industry and legislators figure out what amounts to protection or infringement of a copyright in the world of 3D printing. Currently the only law regarding 3D printing on the books, or even in the works, is prohibiting gun printing, which is expensive and dangerous. Given the things it can already do, and that personal 3D printers are under $500 on Amazon, it’s shocking that there isn’t more legislative hype around this. It will certainly require better communication–and possibly even an upgrade of–copyright law, and legislators are quick to move on that.
It may seem like a hefty undertaking, but once the music industry finally embraced a digital model global music sales increased for the first time in years. Plus, there’s not a lot of choice when it comes to new technologies. Those digging their heels in against 3D printing would do well to remember the words of the Borg: resistance is futile.