Patent trolls set 3D printing tech back two decades---only competition solves.

In nature, a parasite is a creature that lives off of an organism of another species, known as the host, and gets its food from or at the expense of its host [113]. In the intellectual property ecosystem, Heled argued that patent trolls (non-practicing entities) may be better understood when viewed as analogous to these biological parasites [114]. In the examples reviewed in this article, however, more often than not those patenting open-source inventions were not patent trolls but instead active 3-D printing manufacturing companies. These companies are better examples of patent parasites as they can kill their host. Thus, in the context of this article, the open-source 3-D printing community is the host providing nourishment to patent parasite companies that extract IP (food) from the community and patent it to the detriment of the host community. In the open-source community, there has always been some degree of freeloading [115], but this did not directly harm the community and did not become parasitic as freeloaders generally only hurt themselves by not having others build on their specific technologies because of the lack of resharing to the community [116].

With the example case studies reviewed here, a new form of patent parasitism appears to be on the rise in the 3-D printing technology space. The most common method observed in the case studies involves (1) letting the open-source community innovate and develop a technical solution, (2) waiting until that innovation has been widely tested by the open-source community and in some cases even commercialized by an open-source firm, and (3) surreptitiously patenting the technology by hiding the core ideas in the claims while using a vague (and sometimes irrelevant) patent title and abstract to obfuscate any attempts for the open-source community to police it. In the worst examples exemplified by cases 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, this is done in another language in a clearly lax patent office (China) that fails to do due diligence in searching for obvious prior art in English. If these patents are weaponized either by the firms that invested in them or by non-practicing entities that purchase the patents, the vibrancy of open-source 3-D printing technology first founded in the RepRap project could be crippled. As Průša mentions in his article [63], patent trolls pose a formidable challenge. These entities, often non-practicing organizations, exploit patent rights beyond their actual value, stifling innovation and forcing companies to engage in legal battles. The rise of patents related to 3-D printing further exacerbates the situation, creating a potential roadblock to technical progress and inhibiting the growth of 3-D printing for another two decades. Patent parasites that simply patent existing open-source technologies are potentially an even greater threat than patent trolls as they directly attack the goodwill so effective at driving innovation in the open-source paradigm.

In the recent response [117] to the article by Průša [63], the CEO of Bambu Lab presented their perspective on the role of patents in the 3-D printing industry. He acknowledged the challenges of taking a design into production, particularly in light of supply chain issues, and recognized the significant role of Creality by producing a product like the open-source Ender 3 in bringing down the costs of desktop 3-D printers. His assertion that they will not use patents as obstacles for other innovators and that they will not employ overly broad patent claims that hinder the development of the industry is commendable. However, the reality of their actions made clear in the results of this study, particularly in China, seems to contradict this statement. Worse, even if Dr. Tao (Spaghetti Monster) is honorable, Bambu Lab’s next CEO, or the company that buys the patents, may not hold these ideals, which threatens the entire industry. The fact that the results of this study have shown that companies are applying for patents that simply copy already existing open-source technologies makes such companies appear incompetent at best (e.g., maybe their engineers are simply unaware they could simply download the plans for any of the inventions detailed in case studies 3.1–3.3) and malicious at worst (e.g., if they attempt to use their patents to drive smaller firms out of the market in the future). It is well-established in the literature reviewed in the introduction that the industry and customers will benefit from competition made possible by the open-source paradigm. However, if they are patenting open-source technology that made this competition possible in the first place, firms are potentially crippling their competitors and undermining the very essence of the open-source ethos.