Comments on: iRobot files patent application for autonomous all-in-one 3D printing, milling, drilling and finishing robot

By: Bri

Bri — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:59:43 +0000

And for what purpose are you hitting a target? Oscar Pistorias used a cricket bat. Should they be banned? The problem is people, morsels and ethics. How do you instill a sense of right and wrong?

By: PCMcGee

PCMcGee — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:27:32 +0000

I can’t imagine much that doesn’t fit that description. Do we need to ban it all to quench the fear?

By: jm

jm — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:27:28 +0000

The sole purpose of a firearm is to launch a projectile accurately to a target.

By: Bri

Bri — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 23:13:50 +0000

Dick Cheney would agree.

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 21:06:31 +0000

Perhaps you need to re-learn the definition of dangerous. hint: “Able or likely to cause harm or injury”. Given that the sole purpose of a weapon is to cause harm or injury I would suggest that weapons are in deed dangerous.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:00:21 +0000

Or patent litigation will just ruin the singularity entirely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E

By: Whittaker

Whittaker — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:39:40 +0000

Weapons are not dangerous, it is the intelligence that is using the weapons that is dangerous (and is responsible for the consequences).

By: cosmowrench

cosmowrench — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:26:05 +0000

Depends on what printer principle you use. With the extrusion deposition method, overhangs are not possible. The granular materials binding method, like electron beam melting and selective laser sintering does allow for overhangs. Electron beam melting makes milling and drilling totally unnecessary.

By: David

David — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:54:59 +0000

Should be easy to print semi-automatic or automatic weapons one day.

By: GatorALLin

GatorALLin — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:18:32 +0000

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/tech/inventor-advice-market/index.html

By: Whittaker

Whittaker — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:44:44 +0000

Do you no about China’s incredible bourgeoning “Shanzhai” (pirate, imitation products) industry?
They have shanzhai cars, shanzhai Iphones (which work just as well as the Apple’s iphone, and anyways the Apple’s assembly plants are in China).
I personally consider people in the Chinese shanzhai industry as heroes, liberators of poor.If more people in the world can do similar works, we will enter Singularity faster.

By: GatorALLin

GatorALLin — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:27:25 +0000

…agreed… Note that even if they get a patent, you as an individual can make one for your own use (you can not make them to sell of course). So a patent would give some detailed instructions on what they claim and so just maybe this would help you build one.

By: Gorden Russell

Gorden Russell — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:00:47 +0000

Well, whatever you have to say about the novelty of the design, or the patentability, this could be the gadgetron to put out the robot that turns around and prints out another printer. Once there are a few robots to keep pouring seed component into the bin and march back and forth to the loading dock to bring in more seed component, this will allow them to keep doubling their numbers until it will be like the “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” segment of the Disney film, “Fantasia.”

When the “Robotic Fabricator” gets to the point where it can duplicate itself and the robot that feeds and unloads it in one day, then in 30 days of reproducing like bacteria, there will be over a billion fabricators and robots. The iRobot company will need to set up in one of those giant, old, abandoned assembly plants in the Rust Belt to approach these numbers…but they can certainly make a lot of these machines.

By: MikeB

MikeB — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:35:36 +0000

hmmm … since the same thing exists in a larger box ie. a factory, does the reduction in volume constitute something novel? BUT if you actually read the patent claim then you see what they’re getting at. At the moment 3D printers deposit in 3D, building an object vertically; overhangs, for instance, are impossible without installing a temporary support. THIS machine would rotate the object so deposition could occur without a temporary support. Is that new or novel?

By: adrian

adrian — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:39:34 +0000

I’m curious as to the novel part of this. Surely merely placing several machines in one box is not sufficient to make something patentable ? Machines where this is done (such as combination woodworking machines) typically patent specific features that are only required in order to re-use parts, such as special joints or clamps.

By: Phillipe Cantin

Phillipe Cantin — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:19:51 +0000

I really hope this is not going to stall or stop the DIY 3D-printer maker movement. As recently proven by Apple, patents can be use in evil ways.