Inventors have to make substantial investments to bring their novel ideas to fruition. In order to recover the cost of this investment, inventors need to have freedom to the fix any price for the invented product. If others were allowed to make the same product, they could easily undercut this price, thereby discouraging invention or encouraging the inventor to keep his knowledge a secret. More importantly, the public would lose the benefit of this knowledge.

The patent system prevents this by rewarding the disclosure of knowledge with a patent—a temporary monopoly granted by law to an inventor. The ultimate purpose of the patent system is to benefit the public through the advancement of science.

As part of our annual IP3 Awards (this year is our 10th anniversary so it is a roast!) (and tickets are still available!) we are planning on showing off Public Knowledge’s very own Makerbot 3D printer.  However, we had a problem.  The 3D printer works by pulling plastic off of a spool. IP3 is a rollicking affair, and we cannot be sure that there will always be someone there to spin the spool. Therefore, we needed something that would hold the spool of plastic and feed it to the printer.  Could we 3D print a solution?

3D printing is technology that can turn digital files into physical reality. Design an object in a free program like Blender or Google Sketchup, or just use a 3D scanner to create a file. Once you have the file, send it to your 3D printer and wait for it to appear.

Like the Internet before it, 3D printing has the potential to be a revolutionary, disruptive technology. Because it allows people to create, copy, and modify objects, it will also have a large impact on our existing intellectual property laws.

Public Knowledge’s Position

Unfortunately, also like the Internet before it, large incumbents may come to view this disruptive technology as a threat, and try to call people who use it pirates and thieves. That is why Public Knowledge is focusing on 3D printing now, before Congress starts hearing from the incumbents. By highlighting the benefits of 3D printing, we hope to make Congress think twice before passing laws to restrict this amazing technology.

While Net Neutrality has grabbed the headlines this week, that doesn’t mean things have been quiet on the intellectual property front. The scales of justice have often tilted too far in imposing excessive restrictions through IP, but it appears the Supreme Court may be looking to restore some balance. This Monday the Supreme Court decided which cases it will be dealing with this year, and consumers and innovators should be encouraged by the results.

Public Knowledge today published a white paper, “It Will Be Awesome If They Don’t Screw It Up: 3D Printing, Intellectual Property, and the Fight Over the Next Great Disruptive Technology,” which examines how intellectual property (IP) law impacts the rapidly maturing technology of 3D printing, and how existing industries which feel threatened by its growth might try to use IP law to stop it.

An executive summary of the paper is here.

The full paper is posted here.

The issue page on the PK site is here.

UPDATE: The deadline for comments passed at 5 p.m. today.

As John noted not too long ago, the new Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator has asked for your opinions on how the various government agencies involved with IP enforcement should go about doing their jobs—what harms of infringement should be addressed, and what changes in policies, regulations, and even the law, need to be made so that we can have a workable and effective national enforcement policy.

We want to make sure that enforcement efforts aren't so broad and indiscriminate that they target fair uses of copyrighted works, or use draconian tactics that will cut off Internet access for those merely accused of infringement. We also want to make sure that changes to enforcement policy and IP law are made in open forums, not in secretive agreements like the proposed Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

If you'd like to send your thoughts to the nation's first "IP enforcement czar," have a look at the request for comments and send in an email. Or, if you like, you can use our action alert form here.

Today, Public Knowledge's Director of The Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney, Rashmi Rangnath is testifying before the US Trade Representative on the "Special 301" process. You can read her testimony here (PDF). There is not a webcast or official live coverage, per USTR rules that "prohibit the use of electronic media in its hearing room." So, despite this ban, we are relying on reports from the hearing room via twitter (using the #ustr hashtag), and hope to bring you more coverage as well.

If you're not familiar with the Special 301 process, the latest 5 Minutes with Harold Feld does a great job explaining what's going on. So does Rashmi's prior blog post — that encouraged so many of you to write comments to the USTR.

Lastly, we have a link to today's hearing schedule, that tells us who is testifying and who the Special 301 committee members are (PDF) ... also pasted below: