And that's where I have a problem with this. Sure, it's completely legal. But it doesn't seem ethical to just take someone else's work wholesale and profit from it.
Of course there's real gain! Imagine small colleges, hacker spaces, and even more individuals being able to afford these things. That's a MASSIVE gain. Increasing access to this kind of product is almost, if not more, important than improving the actual product.
Imagine a world in which there had never been a computing race to the bottom. Maybe every computer would be a supercomputer, sure, but then none of us would be able to afford our own computer in our own homes!
The TangiBot isn't a competitor to the MakerBot in the traditional sense of the word. There wasn't a parallel design process. Matt Strong has not attempted to even improve the design of the MakerBot. At best, it's a copy or the MakerBot, only cheaper. At worst, it's just a cheap knockoff.
Better products are also good, of course. If we have to trade off "the rate products improve" verses "the rates products get cheaper", I don't know what the optimal trade is, but I'm pretty sure it's not all on one side.
Also, isn't equal quality for a lower price, better?
it's not fair to say a tangibot is equal quality (yet).
lower prices are good, everyone agrees with that though!
So it's ok (and actually required) for him to mention MakerBot at least once, "(but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)"
I don't think Matt suggested that MakerBot endorsed it in anyway, he just attributed the design ALOT!