Abstract
In this chapter, Weinberg provides an overview of the intellectual property issues that may arise in the wake of the 3D printing revolution, ranging from questions of copyright, to patents and trademarks. Weinberg argues that 3D printing could encounter a number of pitfalls in its development and spread, and uses the spread of personal computing and the internet to draw parallels in this respect. In particular, the history of personal computer has taught us that when parties with entrenched interests, for example in the music and film industry, discovered just how disruptive the internet could be for their business and revenue, they lobbied hard to ensure that new legislation against piracy and theft was created. Thus, the regulatory battle over intellectual property on the internet emerged. One of the goals of this chapter is to prepare the 3D printing community, and the public at large, before incumbents try to cripple 3D printing with restrictive intellectual property laws. By understanding how intellectual property law relates to 3D printing, and how changes might impact 3D printing’s future, this time we will be ready when incumbents come calling to Congress.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
An earlier version of this chapter has appeared as a white paper: Weinberg 2010.
- 2.
Vance 2010.
- 3.
This discussion is necessarily focused on United States law. For an excellent discussion of how EC and UK law apply, see Bradshaw et al. 2010.
- 4.
‘Fixed in a tangible medium’ is a term of art in copyright law, and a critical prerequisite for copyright protection. A work must be “sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. In practice, this requirement distinguishes a speech made up on the spot and not written down (not fixed, and therefore not protectable under copyright) from a speech that is written down and then delivered (fixed, and therefore protected under copyright).
- 5.
See 35 U.S.C. § 101.
- 6.
See 35 U.S.C. § 102.
- 7.
See 35 U.S.C. § 103.
- 8.
See 35 U.S.C. § 112.
- 9.
See 35 U.S.C. § 154 (a)(2).
- 10.
See Bullock Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 129 F.105, 109–110 (C.C.A.6 1904).
- 11.
See 35 U.S.C. § 101.
- 12.
See Leeds and Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 213 U.S. 301, 318 (1909).
- 13.
15 U.S.C. § 1114.
- 14.
See 15 USC § 1125(c).
- 15.
Or, if the trademark is considered appropriately famous, as soon as you wear them in public.
- 16.
See Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 35 U.S. 336, 344 (1961) (Aro I).
- 17.
See Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476, 480 (1964 (Aro II).
- 18.
See Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. V. R & D Tool & Eng’g Co., 291 F.3d 780, 785 (Fed.Cir. 2002).
- 19.
Ibid.
- 20.
Ibid., 785–786 (quoting Aro I).
- 21.
Ibid., 786.
- 22.
Ibid.
- 23.
Trade dress is a subsection of trademark law. A classic example of protectable trade dress is the curvy Coca Cola bottle (as opposed to the protectable trademark of ‘Coca Cola’ written in its distinctive cursive script printed onto that bottle).
- 24.
35 U.S.C. § 171.
- 25.
Ibid.
- 26.
See Best Lock Corp. v. Ilco Unican Corp., 94 F3d 1563, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
- 27.
Ibid.
- 28.
Ibid, 1567.
- 29.
Ibid, 1566.
- 30.
See Design Patents and Auto Replacement Parts: Hearing Before the H. Comm. On the Judiciary, 111th Cong. (2010).
- 31.
Brean 2008.
- 32.
Although simple trade dress can be ‘inherently distinctive’ from the moment it enters the marketplace, product design trade dress cannot be inherently distinctive and must acquire distinctiveness. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, 529 U.S. 205, 215 (2000).
- 33.
Ibid, 213.
- 34.
See Traffix Devices v. Mktg. Displays, 532 U.S. 23, 29 (2001).
- 35.
Ibid, 33.
- 36.
Ibid.
- 37.
Ibid, 35.
- 38.
When downloading a file, a user creates a copy of that file on her own hard drive, thus implicating copyright.
- 39.
See 35 U.S.C. 271(c).
- 40.
See Enpat, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 6 F.Supp. 2d 537, 538 (E.D. Va. 1998) (citing Joy Technologies, Inc. v. Flakt. Inc., 6 F.3d 770, 774 (Fed.Cir. 1993)).
- 41.
See, e.g., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 932–933 (2005) (Grokster).
- 42.
See In Re Bill of Lading Transmiss. & Processing Sys., 695 F. Supp.2d 680, 686–687 (S.D.O.H., 2010). See also Sony Corp of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 442 (1984).
- 43.
See Ricoh Co., Ltd. V. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
- 44.
See Sony, 442.
- 45.
See In Re Bill of Lading, 687.
- 46.
See SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
- 47.
See DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co., Ltd., 471 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
- 48.
See SEB S.A., 1377.
- 49.
17 U.S.C. § 1301 et al.
- 50.
See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores; Traffix Devices.
- 51.
15 U.S.C. § 1125 (c)(1)(A−H).
- 52.
See, e.g., Grokster.
- 53.
See, e.g., 17 U.S.C. § 1001–1010.
References
Bradshaw S, Bowyer A, Haufe P (2010) The intellectual property implications of low-cost 3D printing. SCRIPTed 7(1). http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol7-1/bradshaw.asp. Accessed 20 Feb 2015
Brean D (2008) Enough is enough: time to eliminate design patent and rely on more appropriate copyright and trademark protection for product design. Texas Intellect Propy Law J 16(2):325–364
Vance A (2010) 3D printing spurs a manufacturing revolution. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/technology/14print.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Accessed 20 Feb 2015
Weinberg M (2010) It will be awesome if they don’t screw it up: 3D printing, intellectual property, and the fight over the next great disruptive technology. http://publicknowledge.org/it-will-be-awesome-if-they-dont-screw-it-up. Accessed 31 July 2015
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Weinberg, M. (2016). When 3D Printing and the Law Get Together, Will Crazy Things Happen?. In: van den Berg, B., van der Hof, S., Kosta, E. (eds) 3D Printing. Information Technology and Law Series, vol 26. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-096-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-096-1_2
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-095-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-096-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)