Any thoughts on this. It seems pretty obvious as a development once you get into it and there doesn’t seem to be much difference between the new patent and the expired patent. Layer adhesion is the big Achilles heel of 3D printing after all.
Any thoughts on this. It seems pretty obvious as a development once you get into it and there doesn’t seem to be much difference between the new patent and the expired patent. Layer adhesion is the big Achilles heel of 3D printing after all.
I would say we should just implement it in open source software, anonymously, and let them kick rocks.
If they want to press the issue they can go after whoever-it-is for their “slice” of the infringing revenue generated, which is zero dollars and zero cents. If they want to shut down a project we can just pack it up and pop up elsewhere under a new one. Fuck 'em.
It is obviously already possible on a technical level, at least with varying degrees of ease, using modifications to existing tools. Sefan from CNC Kitchen posted a video a while ago where he managed to pull off and test several prints using brick layered perimeters.
Yeah, honestly that was at least partially my thought process posting this. I see someone else posted the same video and got a bit more traction as well, which is great: the more eyes on this, the more likely someone chooses to develop it. If someone develops a fork or plugin for various open source slicers, it’s usefulness should quickly become obvious and someone with deeper pockets will wind up going after the BS patent. Even as little as a 10% improvement in layer adhesion, if it’s reliable and consistent, is a significant upgrade. The old saying about a chain only being as strong as the weakest link comes to mind and layer adhesion is the weakest link in 3d printing.