Current laws in the US are not adequate enough and should be modified to combat the new threats that emerge from the 3-D printer revolution.One of these new threats is the threat of patent infringements. The second is the threat of liability for product defects and finally the most important one, the threat of printing undetectable weapons that by-pass security. The solution is to take a look for innovative ways of bringing the 3-D printer to the average person yet complying with updated legislation accordingly.
First we will focus on the patent infringement aspect. The core of 3-D printing involves creating objects from the computer assisted design files, this opens new possibilities to exploit patents, demolish old operations of manufacturing, and create undetectable weapon threats.
The core of 3-D printing involves creating objects from the computer assisted design files, this opens new possibilities to exploit patents, demolish old operations of manufacturing, and create undetectable weapon threats. Under Title 35 of the United States Code § 271 - Infringement of patent, currently has no protection against 3-D printing and the foreseen abuse of patents. This state of the law leaves patentees helpless to combat a large class of infringement of their product claims.
For example, in 2014, the Georgetown Law Journal, titled, “Patents, Meet Napster: 3-D Printing and the Digitization of Things,” Dr. Desai Deven stated, that “3-D printing will harm patents and other forms of intellectual property that have relied on physical limits to stop infringement.”
In 2013,the journal of Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, published an article, titled, “Asserting Patents to Combat Infringement via 3-D Printing: It’s No “Use””, Daniel Harris Brean, an intellectual property attorney, stated that “CAD files is not a sale of “the patented invention,” the CAD file is not a “component” of the product, and the creation and distribution of the files is not a “use” of the product since it does not put the product into service.”
Although 3-D printing brings the problems of digitization to patents for the first time, the technology also extends that issue to copyright and trademark. Copyright applies to three-dimensional items such as sculptures and jewelry. Trademarks are often displayed labels; they also come in the form of product shapes such as a Coca-Cola bottle or an iPhone. Leading intellectual property lawyers from Gartner, the world's leading information technology research and advisory company, predict that over $100 billion in intellectual property losses will occur as a result of 3-D printing technologies by just 2018.
Next we will move on to the effects 3-D printers will have on the manufacturing end. 3-D printing disrupts the original chain of manufacturing which leaves costumers more vulnerable to defective products as a result reliability is very complex. As consumers begin to print objects that are complex, questions of who actually is responsible for defective products or injuries is different on a case by case basis.
On May 1, 2015, Arizona Law Review published an article titled, “Manufacturing Consumer Protection for 3-D Printed Products” in it Dr. Heidi Nielson stated “As consumers begin to print increasingly dangerous and complex products at home, they may seek redress in the courts for injuries sustained through a product’s use.” Currently, Amazon and Shapeways print and sell products that are designed by third parties. They might hold themselves out as service providers rather than manufacturers, and may attempt to contract out of liability for defects and instead hold CAD-file designers responsible.
When an additional player is involved—an independent CAD-file designer—the law becomes obscure and unclear. For example, “a consumer could purchase a CAD file from MakerBot’s digital store in order to print an item from Martha Stewart’s line on her 3-D printer. If the consumer were injured because of a defect in the product, the consumer could try to bring a strict liability claim against two companies, both of which would be very difficult”, said Nielson. “A plaintiff may not be able to recover against a CAD-file designer who is not an identifiable entity. CAD files are rarely downloaded from a known business entity, like Martha Stewart, and are, in fact, rarely purchased at all.” said Dr. Nielson. “A plaintiff may not be able to recover against a CAD-file designer who is not an identifiable entity. CAD files are rarely downloaded from a known business entity, like Martha Stewart, and are, in fact, rarely purchased at all.” said Dr. Nielson. Finally the most terrifying and troubling matter resulting from the 3-D printing revolution.
3-D printing will significantly reduce the barriers to access a gun at any-time, to anyone able operate a 3-D printer. The Department of State effectively proceeded on a presumption of “guilty until proven to comply with ITAR-regulations,” despite failing to offer any actual evidence of an export to a foreign individual.
The ITAR does nothing to prevent a U.S. citizen—who is not otherwise classified as a foreign person—from obtaining CAD files from another U.S. citizen and creating the exact same harm. In May of 2015, the Indiana Law Journal, published an article, titled, “Unlocked and Loaded: Government Censorship of 3-D Printed Firearms and a Proposal for More Reasonable Regulation of 3-D Printed Goods”, Dr. Danton Bryans, law professor at Indiana University states, the future effectiveness of the ITAR faces clear challenges with the ever-increasing connectivity and decentralization of the Internet.
Similarly, to the ITAR, several authorities and commentators have noted that 3-D printed plastic firearms should be banned under the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (UFA). Assuming a 3-D printed firearm has a detectable signature equal to a 3.7 ounce stainless steel block and the firearm’s major components are detectable by an airport x-ray scanner, the 3-D printed firearm is not in violation with the UFA.
In May of 2013, in an article titled, Plastic gun draws eyes to 3-D printing, from the source Plastic News, Michael Weinberg, vice president at Public Knowledge, a digital advocacy group in Washington, stated “We have rules for home gun manufacture, and no, 3-D printing doesn’t really change that,”. Laws governing “undetectable” plastic firearms — those that don’t trigger metal detectors — have been in place for decades. The Liberator complies by including a non-functional chunk of metal in the plans, preventing it from going unnoticed by metal detectors, though whether home gun fabricators include it is up to them.” Weinberg said. This could possible lead to the next mass killing.
Finally, to combat these threats the current system needs to undergo change. Solutions to these types of issues must take into that strong regulation does not prevent people from doing what’s being regulated; in fact a solution must be innovative and encourage growth in the industry. Congress should not cripple 3-D printing’s potential with over-regulation; instead, private industry and the courts are well positioned to regulate this new, and ever changing, technology.
To defend a patentee’s patent, copyright, or trademark, I would highly encourage private industries, governments here locally and around the world, to set up a database of 3-D CAD models so that before a 3-D printer allows printing an object it must first be crossed reference for any infringements. Perhaps an update of the Title 35 of the United States Code § 271 should would adequately address this issue. To fix the problems that arise as a result of product liability, the courts will be the most equipped to resolve these disputes on a case-by-case basis to accommodate this rapidly changing technology.
Many issues involving 3-D printing will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, such as whether and when to impose strict liability on hobbyist manufacturers. This is the least intrusive way to handle the legal issues that come from 3-D printing. Finally, the solution to combat the printed gun. A Danish company that sells 3-D printer parts and related software recently announced that it has come up with a “firearm component detection algorithm.” This type of software would work like antivirus software to detect CAD files, and would not allow people to print a gun, unless the person purchased the file from a licensed source. Furthermore, an update of the ITAR would be essentially needed to include the problems of distributing 3-D CAD files internationally. Finally, the solution to fix the Undeletable Firearms Act, should be changed to include that metal must be a part of the gun’s main component.
The solutions will benefit society, the 3-D printing hobbyist, and the 3-D printing industry by providing safe limited regulations that still encourage growth. For one, the solutions will encourage safe growth among the 3-D printing community, private companies will create online shops, to protect patents, copyrights, and trademarks for individuals, and halt the spread of dangerous CAD files. When 3-D printing begins to take off like the internet in the 2000’s, having regulations and innovative solutions to 3-D printing will stop the next “terrorists attack” from happening, yet still encourage use for the average person.
The three problems again with 3-D printing is that one, it is really easy to infringe on intellectual property, second it creates problems for consumer protection, and finally it makes it very easy for anyone to print their own gun. The solution is to encourage private businesses and governments worldwide to make a CAD file database that must be accessed by 3-D printers. The courts will handle the most of the consumer protection problems as it gets complicated on a case-by case basis.
Today, 3-D printing is a reality not science fiction. Thanks to some groups like Cody Wilson and his team, we have seen 3-D printing in the mainstream news. We should encourage technology like this as it has many potential benefits for humans. Although 3-D printing has been mainly used by manufacturers or hobbyists who can afford the high initial cost, the price of 3-D printers has fell in recent years. Thus, it will not be long till everyone has a 3-D printer in their garage, therefore it is important that we as a society think about these issues now, before the next “attack” brings this technology to the spotlight.
Brean, Daniel Harris. "Asserting Patents To Combat Infringement Via 3D Printing: It's No Use [Article]." Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal 3 (2012): 771. HeinOnline. Web. 3 Oct. 2015.
BRYANS, DANTON. "Unlocked And Loaded: Government Censorship Of 3D-Printed Firearms And A Proposal For More Reasonable Regulation Of 3D-Printed Goods." Indiana Law Journal 90.2 (2015): 901-934. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Oct. 2015.
DESAI, DEVEN R., and GERARD N. MAGLIOCCA. "Patents, Meet Napster: 3D Printing And The Digitization Of Things." Georgetown Law Journal 102.6 (2014): 1691-1720. Business Source Complete. Web. 3 Oct. 2015.
Lewis, Anne. "The Legality Of 3D Printing: How Technology Is Moving Faster Than The Law." Tulane Journal Of Technology & Intellectual Property 17.(2014): 303-318. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Oct. 2015.
Mead, Derek. "Congress's Plastic Gun Ban Left a 3D-Printed Loophole." Motherboard. Vice, 10 Dec. 2013. Web. 03 Oct. 2015.
Nielson, Heidi. "Manufacturing Consumer Protection For 3-D Printed Products." Arizona Law Review 57.2 (2015): 609-622. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Oct. 2015.
Rivera, Janessa. "Gartner Reveals Top Predictions for IT Organizations and Users for 2014 and Beyond." Gartner Reveals Top Predictions for IT Organizations and Users for 2014 and Beyond. N.p., 08 Oct. 2013. Web. 03 Oct. 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment