INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Free Software Foundation V’s 3DPrinting Copyright?

Our recent articles regarding the a new patent from Intellectual Ventures that attempts to assert ownership of DRM for 3DPrinting raises a plethora of validation issues, concerns, positive applications and negative speculations.

Technology Review’s explanation of how things would work:

“You load a file into your printer, then your printer checks to make sure it has the rights to make the object, to make it out of what material, how many times, and so on,” says Michael Weinberg, a staff lawyer at the nonprofit Public Knowledge, who reviewed the patent at the request of Technology Review. “It’s a very broad patent.”

It’s perhaps an obvious approach, which most engineers or designers could, and doubntless have, conceived. Leaving aside this familiar problem with the patent system, there’s an important expostulation that does not arise in the above exposition – that the printer has the power to disregard the users instructions: to refuse to print the object that you wish, because of the DRM in the file describing it, or there is no DRM at all.

This parallels the situation for computers, where DRM is based on the assumption that your computer is not fully under your control, and has the ability to ignore your commands. That’s one of the reasons why free software is so important: it is predicated on the idea that the user is always in control.

Against the background of the new 3DPrinting patent, this announcement from the Free Software Foundation (FSF) that it has recently certified a 3DPrinter made by Aleph Objects as “respecting the user’s freedom”, takes on a particular significance:

‘The Free Software Foundation (FSF) today awarded its first Respects Your Freedom (RYF) certification to the LulzBot AO-100 3D Printer sold by Aleph Objects, Inc. The RYF certification mark means that the product meets the FSF’s standards in regard to users’ freedom, control over the product, and privacy.’

The FSF’s criteria for making the award:

‘The desire to own a computer or device and have full control over it, to know that you are not being spied on or tracked, to run any software you wish without asking permission, and to share with friends without worrying about Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) – these are the desires of millions of people who care about the future of technology and our society. Unfortunately, hardware manufacturers have until now relied on close cooperation with proprietary software companies that demanded control over their users. As citizens and their customers, we need to promote our desires for a new class of hardware – hardware that anyone can support because it respects your freedom.’

That is, in making the award, the FSF has established that the LulzBot remains fully under the user’s control.

Until now, that hasn’t been an issue – there’s no practical way to stop someone from simply downloading a file and then printing it out on a compatible 3DPrinter. But the patent from Intellectual Ventures is the first step towards a time when users of 3DPrinters will be confronted with issues of control in exactly the same way that computer users are today.
Once 3DPrinting becomes more widespread, we can certainly expect pressure from manufacturers to bring in laws against unauthorized copying of physical objects and circumvention of 3D DRM schemes, just as the copyright industries have pushed for ever-harsher laws against file sharing.

They may even try to get open hardware systems like the LulzBot made illegal on the grounds that the user is fully in control – just as large multi-media companies would doubtless love to make computers running free software illegal?

That’s a battle they lost, largely because free software existed long before digital media files were sold to consumers.

We may not be so lucky next time…
Expanded from:

CNN Suggests 3DPrinting is Going Mainstream >

In this video, CNN highlights another way 3DPrinting is expanding its presence in our everyday lives.  It’s a nice video, but it doesn’t do justice to this technology. 
For example: General Electric (NYSE: GE) currently produces jet engine turbine blades with 3DPrinting and saves an estimated $25,000 per engine.  If GE builds its estimated 5850 jet engines in 2012, it will save over $146 million on this one part for this one product alone.
SelectTech Geospatial developed and built a fully functional drone aircraft with 3DPrinting in two weeks (instead of six) at a cost of $5,000 (instead of $30,000).Popular Mechanics designated 3DPrinting as a Top Ten Tech Breakthrough for 2012. will custom build a bobblehead doll in your likeness with color 3DPrinting!

“3DPrinting is hyped, but mainstream and growing. “

But where to turn to invest in this new phenomena? 

Formlabs and Makerbot, the companies featured in the video, are not publicly traded… companies that are include 3D Systems (NYSE: DDD) and Stratasys (NASDAQ: SSYS).

They build the printers, develop the materials and write the software for both commercial and personal use.  Both are considered leaders in the 3DPrinting industry.  Both are similar in size (DDD is $2 billion market cap, SSYS is $1.3 billion) and valuation (the PE for DDD is 62, SSYS is 70).  Both are coming off recent declines in their stock prices of about 20%.  No question both companies bear the burden of high expectations for steadily improving earnings and game changing technology.  I think they both are up to the challenge.

DDD reports steadily increasing earnings from operations with a 50% quarterly revenue growth yoy.  DDD recently acquired Bespoke Innovations, a company that 3D manufactures custom prosthetic limbs for amputees.  The Dutch firm TIM was acquired this past month.  TIM is a full service, on demand 3D manufacturer of custom parts in Europe.  Just announced is the acquisition of Rapidform of South Korea, a 3D scanning, reverse engineering and inspection firm.  Rapidform is expected to add six to nine cents a share to DDD’s earnings, a 10% boost.  Additionally, DDD has joined with the Smithsonian Institute to make 3D printed replicas of the Institute’s collection of artifacts.

SSYS isn’t sitting down on the job, either.  Their big move is merging with Objet Printing, an Israeli company that has supplied 3DPrinters to Israel Aerospace Industries.  This merger combines SSYS’s manufacturing capabilities with Objet’s rapid prototyping expertise into one firm – a potent combination.  This should add to SSYS’s record earnings reported last August.  NASA is using SSYS 3DPrinters to design complex parts for its next Mars rover.  Piper Aircraft has recently turned to the Fortus 3D Printer to help it build its new Altaire single engine jet.  Turns out, Piper can design specialized tools and parts in two thirds less time than traditional methods.  And we all know, time is money.

Another 3DPrinting player is Autodesk (NASDAQ: ADSK), a firm that develops the software to design a product and relies on partner companies to actually print the thing out.  ADSK is a leader in 3D design and engineering in a wide variety of industries.  The Autodesk 123D 3D printing software is free and generally elicits favorable reviews.  For example, an Apple iPhone or iPad user can take pictures of some thing, upload the images to the ADSK cloud, and voila, a 3D model is made.  The software allows the user to touch up the model before actually printing it.  The company, as an investment though, isn’t performing like DDD or SSYS.

As the above graph from Yahoo! Finance illustrates, ADSK has increased in share price in the past year, but has been outgunned by both DDD and SSYS.  ADSK has acquired other firms to boost its presence in cloud computing and CAD.  However, its 2Q earnings announcement in August disappointed and company guidance didn’t generate much excitement. ADSK reports that 72% of its net revenue comes from foreign countries.  Perhaps the economic slowdown in Europe and Asia contributes to less than great expectations.

3DPrinting is a viable, growing technology.  In August, 2011, Forbes quoted The Wohler’s Report that projected 3DPrinting growing from a $1.3 billion industry in 2010 to a $5.2 billion industry in 2020.  Commercial applications prove 3D designed and printed parts can be made faster and cheaper than traditional manufacturing methods.  I believe DDD and SSYS represent the best opportunities.  There will be bumps on the way for these two companies.  Given their current presence, patented technology and aggressive acquisitions, I believe investors would do well to invest in this part of the future.



Industries that would almost certainly be put out of business by 3DPrinting, were it to become a household norm, are not going to go down without a fight, say legal experts. And what will be their weapon of choice? 

Intellectual property laws…

The presumed fear is that people will eventually be able to download CAD files, or create their own with advanced 3DScanners, of anything in the world: shoes, televisions, guitars, iPhones, and on, and on. Yes, 3DPrinter users would likely have to create these object piece-by-piece (as is currently the case). But in the end, they would still have a complete product. So just as the movie and music industries have gone after bit-torrent files and the sites that share them in their war against online piracy, so too will manufacturers attack CAD files and CAD file sharing, experts watching the space believe.


As incumbent companies begin to see small-scale 3DPrinting as a threat, they will inevitably attempt to restrict it by expanding intellectual property protections



wrote Michael Weinberg, a staff lawyer for Public Knowledge, in a recently published white paper on 3DPrinting. “In doing so they will point to easily understood injuries to existing business models such as lost sales, lower profits, and reduced employment.”

Prepare for battle?

This is a cycle we’ve seen before. Weinberg notes that “incumbent companies” put up similar fights against the printing press, photo copiers, VCRs, and even the personal computer. In the case of the PC, writes Weinberg:

these interests pushed through laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that made it harder to usecomputers in new and innovative ways.”

The challenge for the fledgling 3DPrinting industry is to understand “how intellectual property law relates to 3DPrinting, and how changes might impact 3DPrinting’s future,” so that it will be ready to fight “before incumbents try to cripple 3DPrinting with restrictive intellectual property laws.”

While patent and trademark law may be used by established industries to trample 3DPrinting, both have a number of limitations that will make them difficult to use against home 3DPrinting, explains Weinberg. Instead, threatened industries will likely seek to strengthen copyright laws to make the recreation of objects — or even the creation of objects that perform the same function as a copyrighted item — illegal.

“Useful objects could be protected for decades after creation. Mechanical and functional innovation could be frozen by fears of massive copyright infringement lawsuits,” warns Weingberg. “Furthermore, articles that the public is free to recreate and improve upon today would become subject to inaccessible and restrictive licensing agreements.”


At the very least, says Weinberg, “rightsholders could insist that, in order to avoid liability, 3DPrinter manufacturers incorporate restrictive DRM that would prevent their printers from reproducing CAD designs with ‘do not copy’ watermarks.”


What next?

As mentioned, the goal of Weinberg’s paper is to prepare the 3DPrinting industry and its customers for a coming legal battle over this emerging technology. For the moment, however, 3DPrinting remains a niche.


If Weinberg is right, so-called incumbent companies will flex whatever muscles they can to stop that day from ever arriving…

Read more:

3DPrinting an EU Industrial Revival? >

  • EU paper promotes new tech to boost GDP from 16% to 20% of EU GDP by 2020
  • Manufacturing job losses 3 million since crisis
  • Advanced manufacturing markets to double by 2015

The decline in the European Union’s manufacturing is the center of the sights for The European Commission’s leaked paper seek by Reuters  asking countries to invest heavily in new technologies such as 3DPrinting.

The European Union’s main regulators are aiming to ensure that new technologies are exploited to cheapen manufacturing costs and increase production to combat the trends for diminishing output of the key manufacturing industries in Europe.

The paper, which outlines the bloc’s future industrial policy, said the commission wants to raise manufacturing from 16 percent to 20 percent of EU GDP by 2020 using new techniques such as 3DPrinting – the technology that enthusiasts calculate will revolutionise manufacturing, including electronics such as mobile phones, and save millions in costs.

The Commission also wants countries to invest heavily in advanced technologies such as industrial biotechnology – which uses living cells to make materials such as chemicals, detergents and paper.

The market for such technologies is tipped to grow by 50 percent from 646 billion euros to more than 1 trillion euros by 2015, the paper said.

Industrial production has declined 10 percent since the crisis and more than 3 million industrial jobs have been lost.

The car industry is among the hardest hit, with large over capacity in mid-market car makers in France, Spain and Italy: Total European car sales fell 6.6 percent in the period from January to August this year.

The paper indicates that the European Union has not exploited past emerging industries such as rechargeable lithium batteries. It says European firms hold more than 30 percent of the relevant patents “without any production of such batteries taking place in the EU”.

To reverse such trends the Commission proposes non-binding targets for manufacturing and investment, both public and private.

The European commissioner in charge of industrial policy Antonio Tajani (see profile link below) will launch the new proposals on Wednesday.

The policy will also promote green vehicles, smart grids, sustainable construction materials, and so-called key enabling technologies which include nanotechnology and photonics.’



Antonio TAJANI – European commissioner in charge of industrial policy


Born on 4 August 1953, Roma, Italy


Curriculum vitae (The MEP is solely responsible for the information published)


  • Graduate in law (La Sapienza University of Rome). Editor of ‘Il Settimanale’ (1982); presenter of Radio 1 news programme (1982); head of the Rome editorial office of the newspaper ‘Il Giornale’ (1983).
  • Spokesman for the Prime Minister (1994). Vice-chairman of the European People’s Party. Member of Rome City Council (since June 2001).
  • Member of the European Parliament (since 1994). Head of the Forza Italia delegation in the European Parliament.



3DPrinting NOT Revolutionary?


Printed robot at the Oslo School of Architecture and Design. (flickr/Mads Boedker)



A new digital revolution is coming, this time in fabrication. It draws on the same insights that led to the earlier digitisations of communication and computation, but now what is being programmed is the physical world rather than the virtual one. Digital fabrication will allow individuals to design and produce tangible objects on demand, wherever and whenever they need them. Widespread access to these technologies will challenge traditional models of business, foreign aid, and education.

The roots of the revolution date back to 1952, when researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) wired an early digital computer to a milling machine, creating the first numerically controlled machine tool. By using a computer program instead of a machinist to turn the screws that moved the metal stock, the researchers were able to produce aircraft components with shapes that were more complex than could be made by hand. From that first revolving end mill, all sorts of cutting tools have been mounted on computer-controlled platforms, including jets of water carrying abrasives that can cut through hard materials, lasers that can quickly carve fine features, and slender electrically charged wires that can make long thin cuts. 

Today, numerically controlled machines touch almost every commercial product, whether directly (producing everything from laptop cases to jet engines) or indirectly (producing the tools that mold and stamp mass-produced goods). And yet all these modern descendants of the first numerically controlled machine tool share its original limitation: they can cut, but they cannot reach internal structures. This means, for example, that the axle of a wheel must be manufactured separately from the bearing it passes through. 

The aim is to not only produce the parts for a drone, for example, but build a complete vehicle that can fly right out of the printer.

In the 1980s, however, computer-controlled fabrication processes that added rather than removed material (called additive manufacturing) came on the market. Thanks to 3DPrinting, a bearing and an axle could be built by the same machine at the same time. A range of 3DPrinting processes are now available, including thermally fusing plastic filaments, using ultraviolet light to cross-link polymer resins, depositing adhesive droplets to bind a powder, cutting and laminating sheets of paper, and shining a laser beam to fuse metal particles. Businesses already use 3DPrinting to model products before producing them, a process referred to as rapid prototyping. Companies also rely on the technology to make objects with complex shapes, such as jewelry and medical implants. Research groups have even used 3DPrinting to build structures out of cells with the goal of printing living organs.

Additive manufacturing has been widely hailed as a revolution, featured on the cover of publications from Wired to The Economist…

This is, however, a curious sort of revolution, proclaimed more by its observers than its practitioners. In a well-equipped workshop, a 3DPrinting might be used for about a quarter of the jobs, with other machines doing the rest. One reason is that the printers are slow, taking hours or even days to make things. Other computer-controlled tools can produce parts faster, or with finer features, or that are larger, lighter, or stronger. Glowing articles about 3DPrinting read like the stories in the 1950s that proclaimed that microwave ovens were the future of cooking. Microwaves are convenient, but they don’t replace the rest of the kitchen.

The revolution is not additive versus subtractive manufacturing; it is the ability to turn data into things and things into data. That is what is coming; for some perspective, there is a close analogy with the history of computing. The first step in that development was the arrival of large mainframe computers in the 1950s, which only corporations, governments, and elite institutions could afford. Next came the development of minicomputers in the 1960s, led by Digital Equipment Corporation’s PDP family of computers, which was based on MIT’s first transistorized computer, the TX-0. These brought down the cost of a computer from hundreds of thousands of dollars to tens of thousands. That was still too much for an individual but was affordable for research groups, university departments, and smaller companies.

The people who used these devices developed the applications for just about everything one does now on a computer: sending e-mail, writing in a word processor, playing video games, listening to music. After minicomputers came hobbyist computers. The best known of these, the MITS Altair 8800, was sold in 1975 for about $1,000 assembled or about $400 in kit form. Its capabilities were rudimentary, but it changed the lives of a generation of computing pioneers, who could now own a machine individually. Finally, computing truly turned personal with the appearance of the IBM personal computer in 1981. It was relatively compact, easy to use, useful, and affordable.

Just as with the old mainframes, only institutions can afford the modern versions of the early bulky and expensive computer-controlled milling devices. In the 1980s, first-generation rapid prototyping systems from companies such as 3D Systems, Stratasys, Epilog Laser, and Universal brought the price of computer-controlled manufacturing systems down from hundreds of thousands of dollars to tens of thousands, making them attractive to research groups.

The next-generation digital fabrication products on the market now, such as the RepRap, the MakerBot, the Ultimaker, the PopFab, and the MTM Snap, sell for thousands of dollars assembled or hundreds of dollars as parts. Unlike the digital fabrication tools that came before them, these tools have plans that are typically freely shared, so that those who own the tools (like those who owned the hobbyist computers) can not only use them but also make more of them and modify them. Integrated personal digital fabricators comparable to the personal computer do not yet exist, but they will.

Personal fabrication has been around for years as a science-fiction staple. When the crew of the TV series Star Trek: The Next Generation was confronted by a particularly challenging plot development, they could use the onboard replicator to make whatever they needed. Scientists at a number of labs (including mine) are now working on the real thing, developing processes that can place individual atoms and molecules into whatever structure they want. Unlike 3DPrinting today, these will be able to build complete functional systems at once, with no need for parts to be assembled. The aim is to not only produce the parts for a drone, for example, but build a complete vehicle that can fly right out of the printer. This goal is still years away, but it is not necessary to wait: most of the computer functions one uses today were invented in the minicomputer era, long before they would flourish in the era of personal computing. Similarly, although today’s digital manufacturing machines are still in their infancy, they can already be used to make (almost) anything, anywhere. That changes everything.


I first appreciated the parallel between personal computing and personal fabrication when I taught a class called “How to Make (almost) Anything” at MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms, which I direct. CBA, which opened in 2001 with funding from the National Science Foundation, was developed to study the boundary between computer science and physical science. It runs a facility that is equipped to make and measure things that are as small as atoms or as large as buildings. 

We designed the class to teach a small group of research students how to use CBA’s tools but were overwhelmed by the demand from students who just wanted to make things. Each student later completed a semester-long project to integrate the skills they had learned. One made an alarm clock that the groggy owner would have to wrestle with to prove that he or she was awake. Another made a dress fitted with sensors and motorized spine-like structures that could defend the wearer’s personal space. The students were answering a question that I had not asked: What is digital fabrication good for? As it turns out, the “killer app” in digital fabrication, as in computing, is personalisation, producing products for a market of one person.

Inspired by the success of that first class, in 2003, CBA began an outreach project with support from the National Science Foundation. Rather than just describe our work, we thought it would be more interesting to provide the tools. We assembled a kit of about $50,000 worth of equipment (including a computer-controlled laser, a 3DPrinting, and large and small computer-controlled milling machines) and about $20,000 worth of materials (including components for molding and casting parts and producing electronics). All the tools were connected by custom software. These became known as “fab labs” (for “fabrication labs” or “fabulous labs”). Their cost is comparable to that of a minicomputer, and we have found that they are used in the same way: to develop new uses and new users for the machines.

Starting in December of 2003, a CBA team led by Sherry Lassiter, a colleague of mine, set up the first fab lab at the South End Technology Center, in inner-city Boston. SETC is run by Mel King, an activist who has pioneered the introduction of new technologies to urban communities, from video production to Internet access. For him, digital fabrication machines were a natural next step. For all the differences between the MIT campus and the South End, the responses at both places were equally enthusiastic. A group of girls from the area used the tools in the lab to put on a high-tech street-corner craft sale, simultaneously having fun, expressing themselves, learning technical skills, and earning income. Some of the home-schooled children in the neighborhood who have used the fab lab for hands-on training have since gone on to careers in technology.

The digitization of material is not a new idea. It is four billion years old, going back to the evolutionary age of the ribosome.

The SETC fab lab was all we had planned for the outreach project. But thanks to interest from a Ghanaian community around SETC, in 2004, CBA, with National Science Foundation support and help from a local team, set up a second fab lab in the town of Sekondi-Takoradi, on Ghana’s coast. Since then, fab labs have been installed everywhere from South Africa to Norway, from downtown Detroit to rural India. In the past few years, the total number has doubled about every 18 months, with over 100 in operation today and that many more being planned. These labs form part of a larger “maker movement” of high-tech do-it-yourselfers, who are democratizing access to the modern means to make things.

Local demand has pulled fab labs worldwide. Although there is a wide range of sites and funding models, all the labs share the same core capabilities. That allows projects to be shared and people to travel among the labs. Providing Internet access has been a goal of many fab labs. From the Boston lab, a project was started to make antennas, radios, and terminals for wireless networks. The design was refined at a fab lab in Norway, was tested at one in South Africa, was deployed from one in Afghanistan, and is now running on a self-sustaining commercial basis in Kenya. None of these sites had the critical mass of knowledge to design and produce the networks on its own. But by sharing design files and producing the components locally, they could all do so together. The ability to send data across the world and then locally produce products on demand has revolutionary implications for industry.

The first Industrial Revolution can be traced back to 1761, when the Bridgewater Canal opened in Manchester, England. Commissioned by the Duke of Bridgewater to bring coal from his mines in Worsley to Manchester and to ship products made with that coal out to the world, it was the first canal that did not follow an existing waterway. Thanks to the new canal, Manchester boomed. In 1783, the town had one cotton mill; in 1853, it had 108. But the boom was followed by a bust. The canal was rendered obsolete by railroads, then trucks, and finally containerized shipping. Today, industrial production is a race to the bottom, with manufacturers moving to the lowest-cost locations to feed global supply chains.

Now, Manchester has an innovative fab lab that is taking part in a new industrial revolution. A design created there can be sent electronically anywhere in the world for on-demand production, which effectively eliminates the cost of shipping. And unlike the old mills, the means of production can be owned by anyone. 

Why might one want to own a digital fabrication machine? Personal fabrication tools have been considered toys, because the incremental cost of mass production will always be lower than for one-off goods. A similar charge was leveled against personal computers. Ken Olsen, founder and CEO of the minicomputer-maker Digital Equipment Corporation, famously said in 1977 that “there is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.” His company is now defunct. You most likely own a personal computer. It isn’t there for inventory and payroll; it is for doing what makes you yourself: listening to music, talking to friends, shopping. Likewise, the goal of personal fabrication is not to make what you can buy in stores but to make what you cannot buy. Consider shopping at IKEA. The furniture giant divines global demand for furniture and then produces and ships items to its big-box stores. For just thousands of dollars, individuals can already purchase the kit for a large-format computer-controlled milling machine that can make all the parts in an IKEA flat-pack box. If having the machine saved just ten IKEA purchases, its expense could be recouped. Even better, each item produced by the machine would be customized to fit the customer’s preference. And rather than employing people in remote factories, making furniture this way is a local affair.

This last observation inspired the Fab City project, which is led by Barcelona’s chief architect, Vicente Guallart. Barcelona, like the rest of Spain, has a youth unemployment rate of over 50 percent. An entire generation there has few prospects for getting jobs and leaving home. Rather than purchasing products produced far away, the city, with Guallart, is deploying fab labs in every district as part of the civic infrastructure. The goal is for the city to be globally connected for knowledge but self-sufficient for what it consumes.

The digital fabrication tools available today are not in their final form. But rather than wait, programs like Barcelona’s are building the capacity to use them as they are being developed.


In common usage, the term “digital fabrication” refers to processes that use the computer-controlled tools that are the descendants of MIT’s 1952 numerically controlled mill. But the “digital” part of those tools resides in the controlling computer; the materials themselves are analog. A deeper meaning of “digital fabrication” is manufacturing processes in which the materials themselves are digital. A number of labs (including mine) are developing digital materials for the future of fabrication. 

The distinction is not merely semantic. Telephone calls used to degrade with distance because they were analog: any errors from noise in the system would accumulate. Then, in 1937, the mathematician Claude Shannon wrote what was arguably the best-ever master’s thesis, at MIT. In it, he proved that on-off switches could compute any logical function. He applied the idea to telephony in 1938, while working at Bell Labs. He showed that by converting a call to a code of ones and zeros, a message could be sent reliably even in a noisy and imperfect system. The key difference is error correction: if a one becomes a 0.9 or a 1.1, the system can still distinguish it from a zero.

Digital fabrication could be used to produce weapons of individual destruction.

At MIT, Shannon’s research had been motivated by the difficulty of working with a giant mechanical analog computer. It used rotating wheels and disks, and its answers got worse the longer it ran. Researchers, including John von Neumann, Jack Cowan, and Samuel Winograd, showed that digitizing data could also apply to computing: a digital computer that represents information as ones and zeros can be reliable, even if its parts are not. The digitization of data is what made it possible to carry what would once have been called a supercomputer in the smart phone in one’s pocket. 

These same ideas are now being applied to materials. To understand the difference from the processes used today, compare the performance of a child assembling LEGO pieces to that of a 3DPrinting.

First, because the LEGO pieces must be aligned to snap together, their ultimate positioning is more accurate than the motor skills of a child would usually allow. By contrast, the 3DPrinting process accumulates errors – as anyone who has checked on a 3DPrint that has been building for a few hours only to find that it has failed because of imperfect adhesion in the bottom layers can attest.

Second, the LEGO pieces themselves define their spacing, allowing a structure to grow to any size. A 3DPrinter is limited by the size of the system that positions the print head.

Third, LEGO pieces are available in a range of different materials, whereas 3DPrinters have a limited ability to use dissimilar materials, because everything must pass through the same printing process.

Fourth, a LEGO construction that is no longer needed can be disassembled and the parts reused; when parts from a 3DPrinter are no longer needed, they are thrown out.

These are exactly the differences between an analog system (the continuous deposition of the 3DPrinter) and a digital one (the LEGO assembly).

The digitization of material is not a new idea. It is four billion years old, going back to the evolutionary age of the ribosome, the protein that makes proteins. Humans are full of molecular machinery, from the motors that move our muscles to the sensors in our eyes. The ribosome builds all that machinery out of a microscopic version of LEGO pieces, amino acids, of which there are 22 different kinds. The sequence for assembling the amino acids is stored in DNA and is sent to the ribosome in another protein called messenger RNA. The code does not just describe the protein to be manufactured; it becomes the new protein. 

Labs like mine are now developing 3D assemblers (rather than printers) that can build structures in the same way as the ribosome. The assemblers will be able to both add and remove parts from a discrete set. One of the assemblers we are developing works with components that are a bit bigger than amino acids, cluster of atoms about ten nanometers long – an amino acid is around one nanometer long. These can have properties that amino acids cannot, such as being good electrical conductors or magnets.

The goal is to use the nanoassembler to build nanostructures, such as 3D integrated circuits. Another assembler we are developing uses parts on the scale of microns to millimeters. We would like this machine to make the electronic circuit boards that the 3D integrated circuits go on. Yet another assembler we are developing uses parts on the scale of centimeters, to make larger structures, such as aircraft components and even whole aircraft that will be lighter, stronger, and more capable than today’s planes: think a jumbo jet that can flap its wings.

A key difference between existing 3DPrinters and these assemblers is that the assemblers will be able to create complete functional systems in a single process. They will be able to integrate fixed and moving mechanical structures, sensors and actuators, and electronics. Even more important is what the assemblers don’t create: trash. Trash is a concept that applies only to materials that don’t contain enough information to be reusable. All the matter on the forest floor is recycled again and again. Likewise, a product assembled from digital materials need not be thrown out when it becomes obsolete. It can simply be disassembled and the parts reconstructed into something new.

The most interesting thing that an assembler can assemble is itself. For now, they are being made out of the same kinds of components as are used in rapid prototyping machines. Eventually, however, the goal is for them to be able to make all their own parts. The motivation is practical. The biggest challenge to building new fab labs around the world has not been generating interest, or teaching people how to use them, or even cost; it has been the logistics.

Bureaucracy, incompetent or corrupt border controls, and the inability of supply chains to meet demand have hampered our efforts to ship the machines around the world. When we are ready to ship assemblers, it will be much easier to mail digital material components in bulk and then e-mail the design codes to a fab lab so that one assembler can make another. 

Assemblers’ being self-replicating is also essential for their scaling. Ribosomes are slow, adding a few amino acids per second. But there are also very many of them, tens of thousands in each of the trillions of cells in the human body, and they can make more of themselves when needed. Likewise, to match the speed of the Star Trek replicator, many assemblers must be able to work in parallel.


Are there dangers to this sort of technology? In 1986, the engineer Eric Drexler, whose doctoral thesis at MIT was the first in molecular nanotechnology, wrote about what he called “gray goo,” a doomsday scenario in which a self-reproducing system multiplies out of control, spreads over the earth, and consumes all its resources.

In 2000, Bill Joy, a computing pioneer, wrote in Wired magazine about the threat of extremists building self-reproducing weapons of mass destruction. He concluded that there are some areas of research that humans should not pursue. In 2003, a worried Prince Charles asked the Royal Society, the United Kingdom’s fellowship of eminent scientists, to assess the risks of nanotechnology and self-replicating systems.

Although alarming, Drexler’s scenario does not apply to the self-reproducing assemblers that are now under development: these require an external source of power and the input of nonnatural materials. Although biological warfare is a serious concern, it is not a new one; there has been an arms race in biology going on since the dawn of evolution.

“A more immediate threat is that digital fabrication could be used to produce weapons of individual destruction. An amateur gunsmith has already used a 3DPrinter to make the lower receiver of a semiautomatic rifle, the AR-15.”

This heavily regulated part holds the bullets and carries the gun’s serial number. A German hacker made 3- copies of tightly controlled police handcuff keys. Two of my own students, Will Langford and Matt Keeter, made master keys, without access to the originals, for luggage padlocks approved by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration. They x-rayed the locks with a CT scanner in our lab, used the data to build a 3D computer model of the locks, worked out what the master key was, and then produced working keys with three different processes: numerically controlled milling, 3DPrinting, and molding and casting.

These kinds of anecdotes have led to calls to regulate 3DPrinters. When I have briefed rooms of intelligence analysts or military leaders on digital fabrication, some of them have invariably concluded that the technology must be restricted. Some have suggested modeling the controls after the ones placed on color laser printers. When that type of printer first appeared, it was used to produce counterfeit currency. Although the fake bills were easily detectable, in the 1990s the U.S. Secret Service convinced laser printer manufacturers to agree to code each device so that it would print tiny yellow dots on every page it printed. The dots are invisible to the naked eye but encode the time, date, and serial number of the printer that printed them. In 2005, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that defends digital rights, decoded and publicized the system. This led to a public outcry over printers invading peoples’ privacy, an ongoing practice that was established without public input or apparent checks.

Justified or not, the same approach would not work with 3DPrinters. There are only a few manufacturers that make the print engines used in laser printers. So an agreement among them enforced the policy across the industry. There is no corresponding part for 3DPrinters. The parts that cannot yet be made by the machine builders themselves, such as computer chips and stepper motors, are commodity items: they are mass-produced and used for many applications, with no central point of control. The parts that are unique to 3-D printing, such as filament feeders and extrusion heads, are not difficult to make. Machines that make machines cannot be regulated in the same way that machines made by a few manufacturers can be. 

here is some barrier to entry to using the intellectual property and if infringement can be identified. That applies to the products made in expensive integrated circuit foundries, but not to those made in affordable fab labs. Anyone with access to the tools can replicate a design anywhere; it is not feasible to litigate against the whole world. Instead of trying to restrict access, flourishing software businesses have sprung up that freely share their source codes and are compensated for the services they provide. The spread of digital fabrication tools is now leading to a corresponding practice for open-source hardware.

RepRap and Bowyer


Communities should not fear or ignore digital fabrication. Better ways to build things can help build better communities. A fab lab in Detroit, for example, which is run by the entrepreneur Blair Evans, offers programs for at-risk youth as a social service. It empowers them to design and build things based on their own ideas.

It is possible to tap into the benefits of digital fabrication in several ways. One is top down. In 2005, South Africa launched a national network of fab labs to encourage innovation through its National Advanced Manufacturing Technology Strategy. In the United States, Representative Bill Foster (D-Ill.) proposed legislation, the National Fab Lab Network Act of 2010, to create a national lab linking local fab labs. The existing national laboratory system houses billion-dollar facilities but struggles to directly impact the communities around them. Foster’s bill proposes a system that would instead bring the labs to the communities. 

Another approach is bottom up. Many of the existing fab lab sites, such as the one in Detroit, began as informal organizations to address unmet local needs. These have joined regional programs. These regional programs, such as the United States Fab Lab Network and, in Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, take on tasks that are too big for an individual lab, such as supporting the launch of new ones. The regional programs, in turn, are linking together through the international Fab Foundation, which will provide support for global challenges, such as sourcing specialized materials around the world.

To keep up with what people are learning in the labs, the fab lab network has launched the Fab Academy. Children working in remote fab labs have progressed so far beyond any local educational opportunities that they would have to travel far away to an advanced institution to continue their studies. To prevent such brain drains, the Fab Academy has linked local labs together into a global campus. Along with access to tools, students who go to these labs are surrounded by peers to learn from and have local mentors to guide them. They participate in interactive global video lectures and share projects and instructional materials online.

The traditional model of advanced education assumes that faculty, books, and labs are scarce and can be accessed by only a few thousand people at a time. In computing terms, MIT can be thought of as a mainframe: students travel there for processing. Recently, there has been an interest in distance learning as an alternative, to be able to handle more students. This approach, however, is like time-sharing on a mainframe, with the distant students like terminals connected to a campus. The Fab Academy is more akin to the Internet, connected locally and managed globally. The combination of digital communications and digital fabrication effectively allows the campus to come to the students, who can share projects that are locally produced on demand.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts that in 2020, the United States will have about 9.2 million jobs in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. According to data compiled by the National Science Board, the advisory group of the National Science Foundation, college degrees in these fields have not kept pace with college enrollment. And women and minorities remain significantly underrepresented in these fields. Digital fabrication offers a new response to this need, starting at the beginning of the pipeline. Children can come into any of the fab labs and apply the tools to their interests. The Fab Academy seeks to balance the decentralized enthusiasm of the do-it-yourself maker movement and the mentorship that comes from doing it together.

After all, the real strength of a fab lab is not technical; it is social. The innovative people that drive a knowledge economy share a common trait: by definition, they are not good at following rules. To be able to invent, people need to question assumptions. They need to study and work in environments where it is safe to do that. Advanced educational and research institutions have room for only a few thousand of those people each. By bringing welcoming environments to innovators wherever they are, this digital revolution will make it possible to harness a larger fraction of the planet’s brainpower.

Digital fabrication consists of much more than 3DPrinting. It is an evolving suite of capabilities to turn data into things and things into data. Many years of research remain to complete this vision, but the revolution is already well under way. The collective challenge is to answer the central question it poses:

How will we live, learn, work, and play when anyone can make anything, anywhere?

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: 3DPrinting Sector Update >


Further to the tide of concern to Terms of Service on MakerBot’s opensource design storage of 3DPrintables ‘Thingiverse,’  a rundown of Intellectual Property on popular 3DPrint services:

123D Catch

For those of who you do not know, 123D Catch is an Autodesk photogrammetry application (consisting of a client application, whether on a desktop, phone or otherwise) and a web service for the creation of 3D models from uploaded photographs. It is the content capture piece of the 123D product family, descriptions of which can be found here:

The terms of service can be found here: (last updated July 26th, 2012). Other terms of service are incorporated by reference into this agreement. They can be found here:

The site provides for a “Gallery” function where people can upload and share models (see: as well as connect to various fabrication services (i.e., currently laser cutting and 3D printing). iMaterialise, Ponoko, and Shapeways, among others, are listed as partners.

The terms of service applicable to (the location of the cloud service that provides support for 123D Catch and other Autodesk applications) incorporate a CCL (Creative Commons License) model for content shared amongst users but which differs when defining Autodesk’s rights. Section 3 (“Your Content”) outlines the allocation of IP rights in the service. It generally provides that if you agree to upload content to a public area of the service, you are allowing Autodesk to use that uploaded content for whatever purpose they desire (commercial, non-commercial, or otherwise). See specifically Section 3(b)(i). This section also provides that by uploading the content you warrant that you have all rights to do so.

Section 3(b)(ii) outlines the rights granted to other users of the service (and not to Autodesk) and provides that if you upload content to a public area of the site, you have agreed to grant other users of the service the right to re-distribute, re-use, modify, adapt, create derivative works, etc. for non-commercial purposes based on your uploaded publicly shared content in a manner that is consistent with the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike License (see:

It’s interesting that Autodesk reserves the right to make commercial use of uploaded “public” content but restricts use to “non-commercial” purposes by other users’ (by incorporation of the CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) license schemes.


Kraftwurx positions itself as “the Original community & marketplace for quality custom products, printed in 3D.” Kraftwurx is based in Houston, Texas, and the company’s vision “is to empower consumers for mass customization by 3DPrinting anything they could imagine.” Kraftwurx describes itself as both a “marketplace and community.”

The Kraftwurx terms can be found here under the heading “Non-Exclusive License”: as well as here: defining terms of service.

According to the Terms of Service (ToS), by uploading content to Kraftwurx you agree that it does not violate the intellectual property rights of third parties. Per the Terms of Service, under the heading of “Content,” while Kraftwurx disclaims ownership rights of uploaded content, Kraftwurx claims a broad license grant to uploaded content, without restriction to commercial or non-commercial purposes and in perpetuity.

The allocation of rights in the “Non-Exclusive License” relating to “Designs” is inconsistent with those in the ToS.  Here, under the section titled “Licenses,” Kraftwurx claims a license to publicly display, market, etc. the user-submitted designs for the purposes of creating products, and the user has the right to remove the design at any time (provided that Kraftwurx can continue to use it for marketing or other purposes, just not production). The applicable Royalty Rate can be set by the User (either as a % or a fixed dollar amount)

Under the section titled “Representations” at the very end of the “Non-Exclusive License,” a user must represent among other things that: (a) he/she owns the design or it is in the public domain; (b) no one else claims ownership in the design (knowledge qualified); (c) the design doesn’t infringe on the moral, privacy or other rights of third parties; and (d) Kraftwurx can produce physical representations of the design without infringing on the rights of third parties or requiring permission to do so.

Finally, Kraftwurx has a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) notice here – Note that the DMCA, or safe harbors, would also apply to 3DPrinting service providers.

3D Warehouse, Trimble (was Google)

In April 2012 Trimble purchased the SketchUp business from Google – including the 3D Warehouse – along with a curious allocation of rights to content that had already been submitted (with a closing that apparently happened on or about June 1st, 2012).  See: Continuing use and access to the 3D Warehouse will now be governed by Trimble’s terms, a preliminary set of which were linked through in the “User Notice” referenced above. However, the link resolves to an old set of Google 3D Warehouse terms (which are unchanged), see:


Ponoko has clearly thought through the implications of IP on the capture or create/modify/make ecosystem with a very clear and explicit licensing scheme.


Section 4 of their terms of service still provides that uploaded content may still only be used for “non-commercial” purposes – obviously a significant limitation if the user/contributor is looking to use or submit content as part of a commercial or fee-paying project.

Cubify, 3D Systems

Since the last review, 3D Systems has modified, cleaned up and tweaked the Cubify landing pages. When previously reviewed, Cubify was in the process of launching. The Cubify terms of service can now be found

Substantively the terms are similar as before. Cubify will allow for the download of hosted models under several license types, see Section 6 of the Terms of Service, specifically Sections 5(d), (e), and (f).  These are a “standard royalty free license,” “editorial license only” and “royalty free license with model release.” In Section 6(7) 3D Systems disclaims IP responsibility for uploaded content and content delivered from third-party services and sources.

Section 7 now specifically covers Intellectual Property. Section 7(1) requires that a user only upload content that it owns the rights to (and agrees not to upload content that might be subject to third-party claims). Section 7(2) outlines rights granted to 3D Systems in order to display, market and ultimately produce content that has been uploaded, and it also grants third parties the right to view the content (in order to make a purchase decision, for example). Section 7(3) provides that if a user downloads and uses content from the site, they are SOLEY responsible for any intellectual property and other legal or clearance issues – 3D Systems does not represent that the content hosted has been fully cleared or is moral/legal to produce in the jurisdiction of the person who downloads it.

To be able to become a contributor, a user must become a “Cubify Artist,” see:


See previous article on Thingiverse TOS changes.

Related articles:




Over the past week the 3DPrinting community has felt the emerging impact of what could be a full evolutionary shift, a divisive decision, or a simple misinterpretation of far from simple legal jargon…


The name ‘MakerBot’ is currently synonymous with 3DPrinter as much as ”RepRap.’ If neither of these names are of significance to the reader as yet, that would suggest that the reader is currently dipping their toe into the pleasantly warm waters of the world’s most hyped emerging technology – most hyped outside of a certain company who would doubtless craft an ‘iMaker’ or ‘iBot’ if it were swimming here too… As the iPhone 5 release was attracting attention on the level we are now accustomed,  MakerBot released the second version of their flagship Replicator 3DPrinter and the Twitter fraternity drown in a flood of #Replicator2 hashtags in due response.
What MakerBot also did was have to blog a response to a back lash of suggestions that they have stolen many tens of thousands of user created, opensource, 3DPrintable designs of ‘things’ (products) on their free hosting site This accompanied concern that their new design steps away from the revolutionary OpenSourcenature of home 3DPrinters that have evolved from RepRap designs back in 2008.These vital and very interesting issues have been emerging for some time now, pretty much as long as 3DPrinting has been attracting hype on a massive level.____________________________________________________________________

The timeline of apparent events:

  1. July 2010 – RepRap blog posting about the heated conveyor belt
  2. August 2011 – Makerbot Industries receives $10M venture capital funding. Applied for patent on heated conveyor belt.
  3. November 2011 – Makerbot Industries filed for a patent on a heated conveyor belt.
  4. February 2012 – New Terms Of Service on Thingiverse
  5. Thingiverse blog post about the TOS – only one commenter, “madscifi,” asked about the 3.2 attribution clause but wasn’t answered.
  6. July 2012 – Makerbot gets the patent. Their own design is highly flawed and no longer included in the next 2 generations
  7. September 2012 – Replicator II announced as a closed source design. 
  8. September 2012 – Blog posting about the Replicator II being closed source, later added TOS change by Josef Prusa (Twitter)
  9. Included “.thing” file format just a .zip of printable .stl and .obj files.
  10. “Occupy Thingiverse Test cube” posted on Thingiverse, more attention to TOS
  11. Josef Prusa Google+ posting
  12. Tony Buser (Makerbot Industries) posting on Google+ that the TOS didn’t chance in 8 month. 
  13. Thingiverse amke a blog post, clarifying that the TOS change was in February 
  14. Brainstorms appear regarding creating new alternatives to Thingiverse. (Thingiverse2Githubconverter, SKDB)
  15. More “occupy Thingiverse” objects popping up all the time.
  16. The story got slashdottet
  17. Blog posting by Makerbot Industries- They are “working out” just how open source they can make the Replicator II, lots about their intentions, no clear work about the specific TOS sentence. It looks like at least the software is just a thin, closed source UI that calls open source Skeinforge or their new (open source) “Miracle-Grue“.
  18. As a response the blog post by Josef Prusa gets updated. 
  19. Thingiverse replacement taking some shape in the comments of a G+ posting.
  20. Reaction of HoekenHackadayHacker News report on the issue, audience attention exponential – reports appear to suggest that the new closed-source software can be tricked into working with older MBI printer. 
The change in the Terms of Serice appears to be as followoing – previously they had a paragraph: “ does not claim ownership of the materials you post, upload, input or submit to the site.”The current TOS states a lot of granted rights but they are all limited to: “solely for the purposes of including your User Content in the Site and Services”.
What is interesting is the next sentence: “You agree to irrevocably waive (and cause to be  waived) any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to your User Content.”
There appears to be no reference to this made in the february blog posting about the Terms Of Service. The recent blog posting reassures us that attribution is done, but still doesn’t explain why the user has to agree with this when uploading a design.Moral rights in the US are separate from copyright and thus not affected by Creative Commons – but why would one waive any but the “right to the integrity of the work”? A read of the definition over at Wikipedia tells us that the move could actually be a good thing, Thingiverse may be attempting to cover the backs of their users, and themselves, as much as possible:
“Moral rights are rights of creators of copyrighted works generally recognized in civil law jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, in some common law jurisdictions. They include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work.
The preserving of the integrity of the work bars the work from alteration, distortion, or mutilation. Anything else that may detract from the artist’s relationship with the work even after it leaves the artist’s possession or ownership may bring these moral rights into play.Moral rights are distinct from any economic rights tied to copyrights. Even if an artist has assigned his or her copyright rights to a work to a third party, he or she still maintains the moral rights to the work.”
The latest MBI blog posting states that they are working out “how open source” they can make the Replicator 2. What has currently not been clarified is the Thingiverse TOS sentence about waiving attribution…


Here is the response to this development by Zaxhary Smith, one of the Founders of MakerBot and a big name in the 3DPrinting sector:

My name is Zachary Smith, aka Hoeken.I have been building 3D printers since 2007 as part of the RepRap project. I created a non-profit foundation (the RRRF) dedicated to pushing open source 3D printing forward. In 2009, I invited my friends Adam Mayer and Bre Pettis to go into business with me building 3D printers.Thus, MakerBot Industries was born.Fast forward to April, 2012 when I was forced out of the very same company. As a result, I have zero transparency into the internal workings of the company that I founded. See this article by Chris Thompson for more infomation.I do not support any move that restricts the open nature of the MakerBot hardware, electronics, software, firmware, or other open projects. MakerBot was built on a foundation of open hardware projects such as RepRap and Arduino, as well as using many open software projects for development of our own software.

I have been withholding judgement until hearing official word regarding the open source nature of the latest MakerBot printer. I’m trying to contact people to find out what the real scoop is but so far nobody is talking, and my ex-partners are not returning phone calls or emails. It certainly doesn’t look good.

Not only would it be a loss of a large Open Hardware manufacturer, but it would also be a loss of a poster child for the movement. Many people have pointed at MakerBot and said “Yes, OSHW is viable as a business model, look at how successful MakerBot is.” If they close those doors, then it would give people who would say OSHW is not sustainable ammunition for their arguments. It would also discourage new OSHW companies from forming. That is a sad thing indeed.

For me, personally, I look at a move to closed source as the ultimate betrayal. When I was forced out, it was a normal, if unfortunate, clash of wills where one person must stay and one person must go.

I swallowed my ego and left, because I knew that the company I founded would carry my ideals further into the world.

Regardless of our differences, I had assumed that Bre would continue to follow the principles that we founded the company on, and the same principles that played a major part in the success of our company.

Moving from an open model to a closed model is contrary to everything that I stand for, and as a co-founder of MakerBot Industries, it makes me ashamed to have my name associated with it.

Bre Pettis, please prove me wrong by clarifying exactly what license MakerBot will be releasing the design files and software under.  That is all we (the community) wants.

In closing, I would like to point out the Open Source Hardware Definition




Open source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the design or hardware based on that design.

The hardware’s source, the design from which it is made, is available in the preferred format for making modifications to it.

Ideally, open source hardware uses readily-available components and materials, standard processes, open infrastructure, unrestricted content, and open-source design tools to maximize the ability of individuals to make and use hardware.

Open source hardware gives people the freedom to control their technology while sharing knowledge and encouraging commerce through the open exchange of designs.’…



Is the MakerBot Replicator 2 Open Source?

‘We’re working that out and we are going to be as open as we possibly can while building a sustainable business. We are going to continue to respect licenses and continue to contribute to the open technology of 3D printing, some of which we initiated. We don’t want to abuse the goodwill and support of our community. We love what we do, we love sharing, and we love what our community creates. I believe strongly that businesses that share will be the winners of tomorrow and I don’t think that’s a secret. Even companies like Google and IBM are embracing open source and finding new ways to share these days.

I’m looking forward to having conversations with folks at the Open Hardware Summit to talk about how MakerBot can share as much as possible, support it’s 150 employees with jobs, make awesome hardware, and be sustainable. Will we have to experiment to make this happen? Yes, and it’s going to take a lot of collaboration, cooperation, and understanding.

I wish there were more examples of large, successful open hardware companies.

From a business perspective, we’ve been absurdly open, more open than any other business I know. There are no models or companies that I know of that have more than 150 employees that are more open. (Would love to be wrong, but I don’t think I am.) We are experimenting so that we can be as open as possible and still have a business at the end of the day.

Will we be successful? I hope so, but even if we are not, everyone will find out that either being as open as possible is a good thing for business or that nobody should do it, or something in between. I personally hope that we succeed, not just because I love what people make with MakerBots and I love the employees that make these machines but because I believe that MakerBot as a business can create a new model for businesses to learn from.

I don’t plan on letting the vulnerabilities of being open hardware destroy what we’ve created.’

Did Thingiverse terms of use change to “steal” people’s things.

Thingiverse does not steal.

We created Thingiverse to be the greatest place to share things using open licenses.

The terms, that we set up in February of this year, allow us to share your designs on our website and protect us from companies with lawyers.

Could we make that more user friendly? Yes, but lawyers cost money and making it simple for people to understand will cost many hours of lawyer time.

I’ve put it on our todo list for 2013 to make the terms easier to understand and avoid misunderstandings. If you’re concerned about this make sure to read the post that I wrote earlier this year about the terms of use on Thingiverse.’…