Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

3D Printing pp 11–35Cite as

When 3D Printing and the Law Get Together, Will Crazy Things Happen?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 2591 Accesses

Part of the book series: Information Technology and Law Series ((ITLS,volume 26))

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    An earlier version of this chapter has appeared as a white paper: Weinberg 2010.

  2. 2.

    Vance 2010.

  3. 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. 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. 5.

    See 35 U.S.C. § 101.

  6. 6.

    See 35 U.S.C. § 102.

  7. 7.

    See 35 U.S.C. § 103.

  8. 8.

    See 35 U.S.C. § 112.

  9. 9.

    See 35 U.S.C. § 154 (a)(2).

  10. 10.

    See Bullock Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 129 F.105, 109–110 (C.C.A.6 1904).

  11. 11.

    See 35 U.S.C. § 101.

  12. 12.

    See Leeds and Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 213 U.S. 301, 318 (1909).

  13. 13.

    15 U.S.C. § 1114.

  14. 14.

    See 15 USC § 1125(c).

  15. 15.

    Or, if the trademark is considered appropriately famous, as soon as you wear them in public.

  16. 16.

    See Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 35 U.S. 336, 344 (1961) (Aro I).

  17. 17.

    See Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476, 480 (1964 (Aro II).

  18. 18.

    See Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. V. R & D Tool & Eng’g Co., 291 F.3d 780, 785 (Fed.Cir. 2002).

  19. 19.

    Ibid.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., 785–786 (quoting Aro I).

  21. 21.

    Ibid., 786.

  22. 22.

    Ibid.

  23. 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. 24.

    35 U.S.C. § 171.

  25. 25.

    Ibid.

  26. 26.

    See Best Lock Corp. v. Ilco Unican Corp., 94 F3d 1563, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

  27. 27.

    Ibid.

  28. 28.

    Ibid, 1567.

  29. 29.

    Ibid, 1566.

  30. 30.

    See Design Patents and Auto Replacement Parts: Hearing Before the H. Comm. On the Judiciary, 111th Cong. (2010).

  31. 31.

    Brean 2008.

  32. 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. 33.

    Ibid, 213.

  34. 34.

    See Traffix Devices v. Mktg. Displays, 532 U.S. 23, 29 (2001).

  35. 35.

    Ibid, 33.

  36. 36.

    Ibid.

  37. 37.

    Ibid, 35.

  38. 38.

    When downloading a file, a user creates a copy of that file on her own hard drive, thus implicating copyright.

  39. 39.

    See 35 U.S.C. 271(c).

  40. 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. 41.

    See, e.g., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 932–933 (2005) (Grokster).

  42. 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. 43.

    See Ricoh Co., Ltd. V. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

  44. 44.

    See Sony, 442.

  45. 45.

    See In Re Bill of Lading, 687.

  46. 46.

    See SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

  47. 47.

    See DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co., Ltd., 471 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

  48. 48.

    See SEB S.A., 1377.

  49. 49.

    17 U.S.C. § 1301 et al.

  50. 50.

    See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores; Traffix Devices.

  51. 51.

    15 U.S.C. § 1125 (c)(1)(A−H).

  52. 52.

    See, e.g., Grokster.

  53. 53.

    See, e.g., 17 U.S.C. § 1001–1010.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Public Knowledge, Washington DC, USA

    Michael Weinberg

Authors
  1. Michael Weinberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Weinberg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. eLaw (Center for Law & Digital Tech.,), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Bibi van den Berg

  2. eLaw (Center for Law & Digital Tech.,), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Simone van der Hof

  3. TILT, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Eleni Kosta

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation