By Mike Worsnop - 30 Jul 2013
Some fairly grandiose claims have been made about the potential
effect of new technologies such as 3D printing on traditional
manufacturing industries, but based on the rapid developments in
this area some of those claims are not nearly as overblown as they
might first appear. And as things stand, current intellectual
property (IP) laws are unlikely to provide much in the way of
protection for manufacturers and other IP owners.
For the uninitiated, 3D printing is the process of creating a
three-dimensional object from a digital model or blueprint using an
additive process, where successive layers of material are laid down
in different shapes. This can be contrasted with traditional
techniques where material is progressively removed to reveal a
final form - think of a bowl carved from a piece of wood.
And this is not theoretical. 3D printing has already been
successfully used to render a miscellany of objects from toys and
jewellery to spare parts for commercial use. Perhaps the high water
mark was reached in May when a US company designed the first
firearm using 3D printing technology and published the instructions
online - before the US State Department demanded their removal.
Until recently the cost of 3D printers, the limited range of
products capable of being produced and the time taken to
manufacture those products, limited the use of 3D printers for mass
production, but that is changing. The implication for
manufacturers and other IP owners is the ability for copyists to
reproduce objects quickly and cheaply from anywhere. To quote the
Economist, the real potential for 3D printing is that it will make
it as cheap to create single items as it is to produce thousands
and thus undermine economies of scale.
Unfortunately for IP owners, but perhaps not the ordinary
consumer, current IP laws appear inadequate to deal with the
challenge of this new technology. Many manufactured objects
are never patented or the claims are inadequately expressed.
Design registration, only available to protect certain designs, is
IP's poor cousin and not commonly utilised. Copyright may
apply where the original product is scanned and copied or if the
product is a work of artistic craftsmanship but may be of little
assistance otherwise. By avoiding use of IP owners' trade marks,
copyists can also avoid laws against trade mark infringement.
What will be needed is legislative change, in much the same way
as copyright laws have been changed to address problems with file
sharing, format shifting and other disruptive technologies. But
this is unlikely to occur any time soon and will ultimately be
driven by New Zealand's international trading partners and New
Zealand's response to international treaty obligations.
This article was based in part on the work of a number of our Meritas
affiliates, including Matthew Hall, a partner at
Swaab attorneys in Sydney who has been widely published on the
legal ramifications of 3D printing.
Meritas is a network of law firms worldwide. Via our involvement
in Meritas we can provide our clients with access to specialist
lawyers in most other countries.
Contact
Mike
Worsnop