tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7194065677301442961..comments2024-03-28T13:45:42.289+00:00Comments on The IPKat: 3D printing and the law: three recent studies -- and a critical reviewVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67957713779326923982015-05-31T16:42:44.962+01:002015-05-31T16:42:44.962+01:00@anon 14.20.
I was at pains to distinguish between...@anon 14.20.<br />I was at pains to distinguish between CAD as a process (which is achieved using software, or as the UK legislation terms it, 'computer program') and a CAD output file which is most definitely data. The authors of the study used the term CAD object design file and so I have no hesitation in maintaining my position that trying to examine a CAD file as if it was software (and thus a work of literature) is the wrong approach.<br />With all due respect to American jurisprudence, since the study was conducted at the behest of the UK IPO, the context in which the data / software issue has to be decided, initially at least, is the EU one. Because the authors of the study chose to omit patents as a category of IP which might apply to 3D printing (that is, the output process, as opposed to the means), we can thankfully leave on one side the familiar issue that the US and EU have chosen different paths when it comes to the extent to which software is patentable. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-76831830717121081032015-05-31T14:20:42.786+01:002015-05-31T14:20:42.786+01:00The author parses too finely.
Software includes C...The author parses too finely.<br /><br />Software includes CAD.<br /><br />"Data" defined is where the devil of the details awaits.<br /><br />Not all data is equal (in the Orwellian sense). The U.S. captures this notion in its ability to ascribe patentable weight to any writing that is "functionally related." Thus, whether or not something can be classified as "data" is a misdirection, as it is not important at all whether the item is "data," but rather, it is how that item interacts with its environment. It is more than just a "load the right player" situation (for one thing, the parametrics involved in today's CAD packages are more than simply "pretty pictures."<br /><br />I think that the overall picture is better put in that any one "object" may very well have multiple aspects, of which these multiple aspects may garner different protections under multiple laws. These are not mutually exclusive and any attempt to treat "objects" as being mutually exclusive simply fails at the start.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com