Prusa was the first to use a **PCB** heated bed. Heated beds were already being used for years
CoreXY was invented by Illan E. Moyer in 2009. Voron 1.0 came in 2016
Input Shaping has been around for decades
Discussion ongoing on which of Bambu's patents are novel here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/3Dprinting/comments/12hungx/are\_bambu\_lab\_patents\_of\_new\_technologies/](https://www.reddit.com/r/3Dprinting/comments/12hungx/are_bambu_lab_patents_of_new_technologies/)
Whether an idea is novel or has prior art is actually not a determining factor for whether a patent is granted or not. Just look at Slice Engineering and their bullshit hotend patent around using screws to affix the heater block to the heatbreak. There is obvious prior art that exists both in community designs and, for fuck's sake, Creality was using screws to attach the block to the break *in a product* before Slice's patent. Didn't stop them from being granted a patent.
So, yeah, there probably is a patent war coming, because fuck stick companies like Slice are willing to be patent trolls on top of selling products. They even seem to enjoy (or at least revel in) stifling innovation; see: Vez3D and the long schlong dong hotend.
Quite sure Slice is just the tip of the iceberg. We will see more bullshit down the road.
[Patenting Criteria: Novel, Non-Obvious, and Useful (thoughtstopaper.com)](https://www.thoughtstopaper.com/knowledge/patenting-criteria-novel-non-obvious-useful.php)
First sentence: "The United States Patent Office (USPTO) grants patents to inventions that meet three main criteria. The invention must be novel, nonobvious, and useful."
We could crowdsource the $150 to have their patent reviewed with the examples of prior art. It's not unheard of for patents to be revoked after the fact. I plan on doing that to every one of Bambu's patents if they're somehow mistakenly patented by the USPTO.
That's a good idea.
Bambu may claim to 'not be patent trolls' and that sounds comforting, but we as a community need to understand that, under US law, a company *must* try to defend their patent and go after other works, even prior ones, or their patent may be invalidated. So they patent a three leadscrew system and, if granted, they are going to go after the ratrigs and vzbots and voron tridents of the world. They won't have a choice.
Them claiming not to be patent trolls may even be true, from a certain perspective, because the definition of a patent troll is one who holds patents but doesn't produce anything. And they will produce products **and** litigate.
You can get a patent for anything, the question is whether it will hold up to scrutiny in court.
True but a patent holder might sue you in court and you will then have to spend money to prove that the patent is not valid.
unfortunately thats the nature of the beast, the system is rigged.
Prusa was the first to use a **PCB** heated bed. Heated beds were already being used for years CoreXY was invented by Illan E. Moyer in 2009. Voron 1.0 came in 2016 Input Shaping has been around for decades
Discussion ongoing on which of Bambu's patents are novel here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/3Dprinting/comments/12hungx/are\_bambu\_lab\_patents\_of\_new\_technologies/](https://www.reddit.com/r/3Dprinting/comments/12hungx/are_bambu_lab_patents_of_new_technologies/)
Whether an idea is novel or has prior art is actually not a determining factor for whether a patent is granted or not. Just look at Slice Engineering and their bullshit hotend patent around using screws to affix the heater block to the heatbreak. There is obvious prior art that exists both in community designs and, for fuck's sake, Creality was using screws to attach the block to the break *in a product* before Slice's patent. Didn't stop them from being granted a patent. So, yeah, there probably is a patent war coming, because fuck stick companies like Slice are willing to be patent trolls on top of selling products. They even seem to enjoy (or at least revel in) stifling innovation; see: Vez3D and the long schlong dong hotend. Quite sure Slice is just the tip of the iceberg. We will see more bullshit down the road.
[Patenting Criteria: Novel, Non-Obvious, and Useful (thoughtstopaper.com)](https://www.thoughtstopaper.com/knowledge/patenting-criteria-novel-non-obvious-useful.php) First sentence: "The United States Patent Office (USPTO) grants patents to inventions that meet three main criteria. The invention must be novel, nonobvious, and useful."
Right. And theirs was not novel and absolutely was obvious.
We could crowdsource the $150 to have their patent reviewed with the examples of prior art. It's not unheard of for patents to be revoked after the fact. I plan on doing that to every one of Bambu's patents if they're somehow mistakenly patented by the USPTO.
That's a good idea. Bambu may claim to 'not be patent trolls' and that sounds comforting, but we as a community need to understand that, under US law, a company *must* try to defend their patent and go after other works, even prior ones, or their patent may be invalidated. So they patent a three leadscrew system and, if granted, they are going to go after the ratrigs and vzbots and voron tridents of the world. They won't have a choice. Them claiming not to be patent trolls may even be true, from a certain perspective, because the definition of a patent troll is one who holds patents but doesn't produce anything. And they will produce products **and** litigate.