OPINION
Monday, April 6, 2015 15
3D printing
» continued from page 7
It seems unnecessary, however, to find remedy
through these distortions of the criminal law.
Attempts to stymie the dissemination of controversial source code by denying it protection as free speech
appear to be based on a solution to the matter that
goes beyond addressing concerns for the safety of the
public. It is overreaching to suggest that mere possession of source code that has the potential to create a
dangerous weapon should be equated to possession of
that weapon itself. This logic falls victim to the basic
fallacy of necessity. Source code produces dangerous
weapons. John possesses source code. Therefore, John
produces dangerous weapons. These sentiments speak
to a larger issue whereby stakeholders are using these
safety concerns and other distractions in an attempt to
curtail the disruptive influence 3D printing has on the
status quo. Yes, the technology gives individuals the
ability to print drugs, sex toys, and dangerous weapons; but the danger in allowing the debate to become
overshadowed by these potential negative consequences prevents an innovative transformation that
has the potential to reshape our culture for the better.
Another particularly interesting aspect of 3D
printing is its capacity to intersect with all forms of
intellectual property: patents, trademarks, copyright,
industrial designs, and even trade secrets. Rarely
before have we seen a technology with the potential
for users to create objects so comprehensively covered
by IPRs. Previously, access to 3D printers was limited
to industry and out of reach for the general public. As
the patents on this technology begin to expire, what
previously cost $25,000 now sells for roughly $1,300.
As these financial barriers disappear, access to the
technology has increasingly become available to the
public. This has raised concerns about the impact this
rapidly developing field of technology will have upon
intellectual property rights. The fear is that the ability
to regulate and enforce these rights will be diminished
as the capacity to produce infringing objects becomes
ubiquitous. Comparisons have been drawn between
the effects of 3D printing on patents and Napster’s
effects on copyright. In an article published in the
Georgetown Law Journal, professors Deven Desai and
Gerard Magliocca suggest that 3D printing “will do for
physical objects what MP3 files did for music.”
In our increasingly technocratic society, social
media has allowed for a shift in the traditional balance of power. These new online communication
models have given rise to a culture defined by active
participation and expression. As a result of this new
philosophy taking hold on a new generation, we have
increasingly seen the derogation of intellectual property rights. In fact, some extremist thinkers have
speculated that we are in the midst of a technical
revolution that is set to bring about the abrogation of
intellectual property law as a whole. While the concerns that give rise to these fears might prove to be
well-founded, the notion that 3D printing will render
intellectual property rights irrelevant and obsolete
can more accurately be described to be academic fearmongering than a potential reality. Giving credence
to this view discounts an established institution’s
ability to respond and adapt to a changing environment. Similar predictions were made with respect to
copyright law in the music industry as P2P sharing
networks rose in popularity on the Internet. A stubborn and ill-conceived response from rights holders
certainly didn’t help to dispel the threats they faced.
Notwithstanding these tactical blunders, the industry
was eventually able to piece together some semblance
of a new business model that appropriately responded
to the ways in which new technology had reshaped
the demands of the market. Online services developed
which focused on access to rather than ownership of
creative works. Sites like Apple’s iTunes were the first
to reimagine the way in which intellectual property could be commercialized after the effect of digitization. By identifying and responding to this new
unconventional understanding of proprietary information, the doors to a world embracing the democratization of knowledge had been opened.
Finally, what is most fascinating about this area
of technology is how little attention it has received
within academic circles in the legal community. If
we are truly on the cusp of what is shaping to be the
“third industrial revolution,” it seems remiss not to
develop a more substantive discourse that contemplates the impact 3D printing will have upon our
society’s legal rights and obligations. What currently
exists has only touched upon the surface of what begs
to be considered. u
ê Joseph DeSimone, cofounder of Carbon3D.
Photo credit: TED.com
t humbs UP
Coachella dismissing selfie sticks as
“narcisstics.”
Non-full-time/contract faculty
WE WANT
YOU.
More than half of teachers in Ontario’s colleges and universities
are non-full-time/contract faculty.
Help us understand you better to improve education for everyone.
Take the survey.
Make a difference.
Visit invisibleworkforce.ca now.
HEQCO is an independent agency
of the Government of Ontario.