Nathan Myhrvold's Cunning Plan to Prevent 3-D Printer Piracy
technologyreview.com
technologyreview.com
Seriously, the idea that "Hey, let's apply DRM to files describing physical goods" is absurd, even on patent law's own terms. DRM is just DRM, it doesn't particularly care what's in the file being DRM'ed. This patent should be denied on obviousness grounds.
Plus we already have printing prevention on physical 2D printers, but it's only used to stop paper currency counterfeiting, instead of being for private parties. Never tried it myself, but my understanding is that printers will cut it off and give you a link to http://www.rulesforuse.com instead.
Seriously, I do hope "cunning" is being used ironically here. There is absolutely zero cunning involved in "DRM, but for 3d printers!"
2. If they set the price high enough (which they will for the same reason that music prices are so high), then this is the best possible outcome for the future of 3d printers
I mean he's already rich - and unlike some lawyers put under the pump to do evil things he has absolutely no reason to do so.
As CTO at Microsoft he probably had to deal with lawyers and patent issues constantly. Maybe they upset him? Or they excited his curiousity?
I could be wrong, but with IV, he is running what amounts to a patent law firm or a corporate patent department that has no corporate client. They just obtain patents and collect payments. They produce nothing, except patents and lawsuits, hiding behind shell companies. They take no risks and thus can offer no gains to society. They just collect money. They are a tax on creativity and production.
You are not the only one who has pondered this question. Why? He put up his own money to finance this business.
Sometimes I just don't understand how people think.
Clearly Myhrvold has made the world a worse place. The only thing I can think of that's worse was IBM's patenting the process of patent trolling.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/08/01/157743897/can-you-...
Assholes never think of themselves as assholes. If they're assholes in a socially acceptable manner, then they see themselves as simply following the crowd. If they're assholes in a legally acceptable manner, they see themselves as hacking the system. If they're assholes in a manner most people detest, they may either not care, or see themselves as crusaders bringing truth to the unwashed masses.
Myhrvold is an asshole in all three senses. He's a patent troll who games the system; he brings harm to everyone by "protecting business interests", and he likely sees himself as a crusader against the evils of copyright infringement perpetrated by those who are too ignorant to know better.
In short, he's a grade A asshole, but he likely views himself as unjustly persecuted and justified in his actions.
It was quite convincingly written (and before all the patent troll stories surfaced). I guess he sees himself as that person.
I looked for it, and think it was this one, or a similar piece: http://www.technologyreview.com/featured-story/401437/the-in...
Seriously, I can't see anyone in the Maker crowd endorsing this plan, which pretty much kills it.
Myhrvold is smart enough to realize this won't work in practice but he'll still probably profit from it. Corps will inevitably call for this sort of DRM to be forced on commercially sold 3D printers and when they do Myhrvold will be laughing all the way to the bank unless some substantial patent reform has taken place in the meantime, which it probably won't.
[1]:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrovision#Content_protection_...]
Printer companies like HP and Canon use extensive DRM in their ink cartridges. They wouldn't hesitate to add it to their input validation, either.
The 3D printer world is still at the hobbyist stage now. When Best Buy is carrying them for $99, the ones carried by Best Buy will have DRM incorporated.
The method described in the patent, on the other hand, is largely uninnovative -- it simply describes a "phone-home" licensing scheme. It doesn't even appear to describe the "object code" as being encrypted, which would make it rather trivial to bypass.
The software on the Myhrvold side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changes everything right there.
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/papers/aliaga/eg2009.pdf
(One of the authors on that paper was my advisor in college).
Uh huh.
I can't wait for the future!
3D-printing is going to be rather limited at first. You're not likely to be able to 3D-print something as simple as a thermos-mug for quite some time! However, there is going to be room to use materials and construction methods that make traditionally manufactured goods distinct and desirable. There will also be ample opportunity to provide services surrounding the sale of 3D models, as Valve, Amazon, and Apple currently do for software sales.
One thing that is different from the music industry is that there will likely be a big market for bespoke designs. People are going to want items that are unique and tailored to their needs. Designing for mass production could give way to designing for individuals and industrial design could become a cottage craft. In this scenario, designers would make most of their money off of bespoke commissions. There may actually be an explosion in demand for designers since traditional manufacturing processes are not really suited to produce more than a few designs at a time. While bespoke designs may wind up being shared by buyers with "pirates", buyers will pay the cost of losing the uniqueness they paid for if they do share models. This is quite different from music. While people want their friends to listen to the music they like, they generally want to have distinctive items from them.
Similar to the labels that used to serve as distributors for music, manufacturers who only produce goods that can also be 3D-printed will be the big losers. Just as Artists who have treated "piracy" as the "new radio" have benefited, designers could also greatly benefit in a world with ubiquitous 3D printing. e.g. If a coffee mug you designed is trending on the "pirate" sites, you'll probably get a lot of bespoke commissions!
The prospects provided by 3D printing are especially enticing for consumers, and not just because it will be possible to find free designs and (presumably) save money. Consumers will have direct contact with designers and freedom from the constraints on design imposed by mass production. We are going to see the design of 3D printable models evolve to meet consumer needs faster and more effectively than at any point in human history. Whatever you're doing, the tools are just going to get more and more dialed in and perfect. You also won't need to go looking for a new design when you have an old design that was perfect, as we so often have to do now.
The only reason for DRM to exist is to protect the dinosaurs. Hopefully we've learned enough from the music and movie industries that we can be happy just letting them evolve or die.
Instead, we've ended up with Apple iTunes Store, YouTube, and a handful of streaming services such as Pandora and Spotify.
I see the Myhrvold patent as less a threat in itself than of a very strong indicator of how and what he's thinking of. And I don't care for what it suggests, though I don't know how bad the effects will be.
A huge factor for 3-D printing will be that replication isn't merely a copyright issue anymore, but that we'll be staring straight into the abyss of wide-scale patent infringement. A patent incurs infringement on anyone who ... "without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent".
Big ole' can o' worms there. And IV looks to be sitting right in the middle of it.
There are exceptions, e.g., for research and development.
Would printing a prototype of a product to be produced overseas (and never imported) be infringement?
When patent trolls start being linked to loss of jobs, i.e. linked to impeding the creation of new jobs, then IV is going to have a more serious PR problem.
pIt is the aggressive pursuit of the small inventor^1 that will signal the eventual demise of the trolling business, because at that point it will have become more than just tax collection on innovation from existing businesses. It will be an impediment to the formation of new businesses and the creation of new jobs.
1. Ironically it was the small inventor, with the help of an enterprising litigator like Niro, approaching the large company producing products, like Intel, that motivated to the term "patent troll". But truthfully, some small inventors do want to produce products. Some of them do start companies. All large companies were once small ones. If the trolling business is taken to its natural end, building an impenetrable thicket that can block any player in a given industry, are potential entrepreneurs going to pay a troll for a license just to _start_ a business? What do you think?
I'm more familiar with copyright statute, but I still have no awareness of "fair use" exemptions to patent rights.
There are proposals for such a thing. At present, they're just that. http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2005/03/index.html
That was what I was thinking of. Section 271. Subsection (e) and maybe another one or two.
This is DRM.