The New Industrial Revolution: Are we actually ready for this?

goldengull3 said:That is precisely why a rule of law exists—to prevent such things, much like how it prevents you from doing 120 mph on an interstate. Either you follow the law, or you commit a crime. And given how fast technology moves, detection is easier than ever; we went from fingerprinting to DNA sequencing, which has become increasingly efficient. Crime has never been more easily uncovered.

Yes, but there is absolutely nothing stopping you from developing your own inventions your way. Nothing at all. It just means you cannot meddle with inventions that someone else has protected—it’s that simple. Otherwise, you face the consequences. It's straightforward. Of course, nobody will bother you if you build something in your garage for non-profit use, but once you take it to market, that is a different story entirely.

The logic is simple: stop forcing your philosophy on everyone else and just live it. Use open-source projects, free industrial designs, royalty-free music, and independent films. Don't bypass payment when creators explicitly ask for it—whether it’s a movie ticket, a rental, or a patent license. Then everyone stays happy.

Otherwise, you have to be prepared to deal with the fallout.

Anyway, we are getting off track. 🙂

Fine, whatever. But who is this "rule of law" actually protecting? It protects the people pouring hundreds of billions into the system just to ensure they claw back an extra hundred billion in profit instead of just fifty.

Quincy:

Sure, but nothing stops you from developing your own inventions. Absolutely nothing. You just don't mess with designs that someone else has protected—it's that simple. Otherwise, you deal with the consequences. It's basic logic. No one cares if you build something in your garage for fun, but once you take it to market, that’s a different story. It’s pretty straightforward: don't force your philosophy on everyone else; just live it. Use open-source projects, free industrial designs, free music, free films—you get the idea. Don't bypass payment when creators are asking for it—whether it’s a movie ticket, a rental, or a patent license. Then everyone stays happy. [/B] Otherwise—you better be ready to face the fallout.

Alright... Mom? What is the point of this post?

Industrial piracy is already a reality. With 3D printing, it’s just going to scale up. Go ahead—try to stop some African nation from copying the engine design of a brand-new Mercedes. What are you going to do? Send in the military? Sanctions?

We aren't off-topic here; 3D printing could significantly lower industrial production costs. Look at how parts of Africa are starting to industrialize. What are we supposed to do about Somali pirates? (edit: there’s your headline in the news seven or eight years from now 🙂 )

goldengull3 said:I don’t have the luxury of sitting here and watching the whole thing right now, but if you ask me, the job market shift is actually quite straightforward. We are seeing the elimination of roles that are purely repetitive and offer zero incremental value, though, in their place, entirely different opportunities are emerging.

The jobs being phased out include things like:
- Assembly line workers—a robot handles that far more efficiently.
- Grocery clerks—they don't add unique value or meaningfully drive sales.
- Truck drivers—automation is already proving superior (even as we speak).

But conversely, certain roles aren't disappearing; in fact, demand will only climb:
- Designers—the advent of 3D modeling presents a massive new frontier.
- Mechanical engineers—they can now develop technologies they previously could only dream of.
- Chefs—they provide intrinsic value by refining and customizing a product (though I suspect high-volume cafeteria cooks will eventually be replaced by advanced printers).
- Car salespeople or servers—human social interaction drives sales in a way a kiosk simply cannot replicate.

That said, this reality completely dismantles the outdated vision of "industry" that many Americans cling to. The kind of industrial landscape being built today doesn't require massive factories packed with thousands of low-skilled laborers.

The logic holds up because there is a fundamental ceiling to what a single laborer, salesperson, or driver can accomplish. A human being can only produce a finite amount of work within a given timeframe, and that specific manual or interpersonal labor isn't something you can simply replicate with technology—at least, not until the moment you actually do, which effectively renders the human element obsolete anyway.

goldengull3 said:I don’t have the luxury of sitting here and watching the whole thing right now, but if you ask me, the job market shift is actually quite straightforward. We are seeing the elimination of roles that are purely repetitive and offer zero incremental value, though, in their place, entirely different opportunities are emerging.

The jobs being phased out include things like:
- Assembly line workers—a robot handles that far more efficiently.
- Grocery clerks—they don't add unique value or meaningfully drive sales.
- Truck drivers—automation is already proving superior (even as we speak).

But conversely, certain roles aren't disappearing; in fact, demand will only climb:
- Designers—the advent of 3D modeling presents a massive new frontier.
- Mechanical engineers—they can now develop technologies they previously could only dream of.
- Chefs—they provide intrinsic value by refining and customizing a product (though I suspect high-volume cafeteria cooks will eventually be replaced by advanced printers).
- Car salespeople or servers—human social interaction drives sales in a way a kiosk simply cannot replicate.

That said, this reality completely dismantles the outdated vision of "industry" that many Americans cling to. The kind of industrial landscape being built today doesn't require massive factories packed with thousands of low-skilled laborers.

You actually need fewer designers nowadays. Honestly, you need far fewer workers than we see today because, by the very nature of the industry, a small handful of top-tier talent will inevitably capture 99% of the market share, leaving everyone else to fight over the scraps. It is exactly what we are seeing right now with the app development market.
The demand for engineers will continue to rise, and frankly, it always has, but the reality is that most of the population lacks both the capacity and the drive to pursue that kind of work. We see an endless influx of service workers and retail clerks, yet the actual technical expertise required to sustain a modern economy remains increasingly scarce because people simply aren't willing to put in the effort.
The chef you’re talking about is essentially a food designer, whereas the role of a server or a waiter is much more questionable. When I bought my last car online, the value added by the guy at the dealership—the one I eventually paid and took delivery from—was absolutely zero; he might as well have been a robot for all the good he did. It's a similar story with servers. Unless we are discussing highly specialized, high-end hospitality, a machine could easily step in and replace them without anyone noticing.

goldengull3 said:I don’t have the luxury of sitting here and watching the whole thing right now, but if you ask me, the job market shift is actually quite straightforward. We are seeing the elimination of roles that are purely repetitive and offer zero incremental value, though, in their place, entirely different opportunities are emerging.

The jobs being phased out include things like:
- Assembly line workers—a robot handles that far more efficiently.
- Grocery clerks—they don't add unique value or meaningfully drive sales.
- Truck drivers—automation is already proving superior (even as we speak).

But conversely, certain roles aren't disappearing; in fact, demand will only climb:
- Designers—the advent of 3D modeling presents a massive new frontier.
- Mechanical engineers—they can now develop technologies they previously could only dream of.
- Chefs—they provide intrinsic value by refining and customizing a product (though I suspect high-volume cafeteria cooks will eventually be replaced by advanced printers).
- Car salespeople or servers—human social interaction drives sales in a way a kiosk simply cannot replicate.

That said, this reality completely dismantles the outdated vision of "industry" that many Americans cling to. The kind of industrial landscape being built today doesn't require massive factories packed with thousands of low-skilled laborers.

As much as you might believe that technical expertise and specialized skill sets are the ultimate keys to success in any industry, you are fundamentally mistaken if you think new job openings in any country will ever materialize in sufficient numbers to offset the ones being lost.
The trajectory of increasing automation points toward one inevitable outcome: escalating unemployment. Only a complete fool would swap out a hundred workers for a single robot that actually ends up costing more than the human staff it replaced. When you look at the math, replacing N number of jobs through automation won't actually result in cost savings equal to the wages of those N employees. Even if there are any savings at all, that surplus isn't going to be distributed among the remaining workforce; instead, it will be concentrated into the hands of a tiny, elite minority.

This relentless drive toward task automation is essentially driving a wedge into the very heart of our capitalist economy, leading us straight toward self-cannibalization. Unless we manage to engineer a solution that breaks free from this rigid neoliberal mindset—something like a guaranteed universal basic income—we are looking at a predictable descent into widespread poverty, followed inevitably by civil unrest and violent revolutions.

placidranger said:Fine, whatever. But who is this "rule of law" actually protecting? It protects the people pouring hundreds of billions into the system just to ensure they claw back an extra hundred billion in profit instead of just fifty.

Quincy:

Sure, but nothing stops you from developing your own inventions. Absolutely nothing. You just don't mess with designs that someone else has protected—it's that simple. Otherwise, you deal with the consequences. It's basic logic. No one cares if you build something in your garage for fun, but once you take it to market, that’s a different story. It’s pretty straightforward: don't force your philosophy on everyone else; just live it. Use open-source projects, free industrial designs, free music, free films—you get the idea. Don't bypass payment when creators are asking for it—whether it’s a movie ticket, a rental, or a patent license. Then everyone stays happy. [/B] Otherwise—you better be ready to face the fallout.

Alright... Mom? What is the point of this post?

Industrial piracy is already a reality. With 3D printing, it’s just going to scale up. Go ahead—try to stop some African nation from copying the engine design of a brand-new Mercedes. What are you going to do? Send in the military? Sanctions?

We aren't off-topic here; 3D printing could significantly lower industrial production costs. Look at how parts of Africa are starting to industrialize. What are we supposed to do about Somali pirates? (edit: there’s your headline in the news seven or eight years from now 🙂 )

Protect the creator, plain and simple. An author holds the sole right to do whatever they please with their own work. It isn't your concern to police creations you didn't write, nor is it your business to worry about inventions where you don't hold the patent.

placidranger said:Fine, whatever. But who is this "rule of law" actually protecting? It protects the people pouring hundreds of billions into the system just to ensure they claw back an extra hundred billion in profit instead of just fifty.

Quincy:

Sure, but nothing stops you from developing your own inventions. Absolutely nothing. You just don't mess with designs that someone else has protected—it's that simple. Otherwise, you deal with the consequences. It's basic logic. No one cares if you build something in your garage for fun, but once you take it to market, that’s a different story. It’s pretty straightforward: don't force your philosophy on everyone else; just live it. Use open-source projects, free industrial designs, free music, free films—you get the idea. Don't bypass payment when creators are asking for it—whether it’s a movie ticket, a rental, or a patent license. Then everyone stays happy. [/B] Otherwise—you better be ready to face the fallout.

Alright... Mom? What is the point of this post?

Industrial piracy is already a reality. With 3D printing, it’s just going to scale up. Go ahead—try to stop some African nation from copying the engine design of a brand-new Mercedes. What are you going to do? Send in the military? Sanctions?

We aren't off-topic here; 3D printing could significantly lower industrial production costs. Look at how parts of Africa are starting to industrialize. What are we supposed to do about Somali pirates? (edit: there’s your headline in the news seven or eight years from now 🙂 )

It’s quite simple, really. Once all five permanent members of the Security Council finally find common ground, everyone else will fall in line and cease their illicit activities, fearing the inevitable imposition of sanctions. This rampant copying we see today persists only because it serves the interests of one particular player—China. Once they achieve enough development to decide that such imitation no longer suits them—which, frankly, seems imminent—the entire landscape will shift.

Of course there will be some level of pandering; crime has been an inherent part of the human condition since the dawn of civilization.

Nicholas Chavez70 said:One could easily argue that this elevates simple criminal activity to a much more dangerous tier altogether. We're looking at a scenario where terrorists and organized crime syndicates might actually start printing their own weaponry right from their basements... 🤷

I can do it today, sure, but what you can actually print right now is practically worthless. I remember a deep dive on a military enthusiast forum regarding 3D-printed firearms, and the consensus was unanimous: current capabilities are a joke. The real future isn't in guns; it’s in printing electronic components or high-end, expensive parts—think titanium engine components for advanced fighter jets or missiles. Even then, 3D printing isn't fundamentally different from how we manufacture semiconductors, but building semiconductor fabrication plants costs billions of dollars, and there are very few players capable of doing it.

The printers you see making headlines—printing pasta, for instance (honestly, who cares if their macaroni is shaped like a dragon? It's ridiculous)—are nothing more than toys. Real industrial utility lies in metal printing, where a laser beam fuses powdered metal into shape. Currently, this is primarily used for rapid prototyping, but it will eventually become a cornerstone of mass production because it virtually eliminates material waste.

goldengull3 said:Here is a test model for you: http://www.zadarinfo.com/ZDinfo/?p=16447

The core issue is that it allows for the creation of a porous chamber. In this setup, the incoming fuel itself acts as the coolant for the chamber walls. Given the sheer intensity of the temperatures generated in there—which, frankly, would melt through just about any material known to man—this design facilitates a fundamentally different method of engine operation.

Yeah, seriously. We've known for ages just how much mileage we can squeeze out of internal combustion engines if we push them. 😍
(I was just binging Carl Sagan's Cosmos again, so my brain is kind of buzzing right now. 🙂 )

Nicholas Chavez70 said:One could easily argue that this elevates simple criminal activity to a much more dangerous tier altogether. We're looking at a scenario where terrorists and organized crime syndicates might actually start printing their own weaponry right from their basements... 🤷

The reality is that you can manufacture firearms quite reliably using nothing more than an old-school lathe. An AK is 1947 technology, anyway, and frankly, it’s often easier to just acquire one through established global channels than to attempt manufacturing it from scratch. You head down to somewhere like Somalia, buy what you need, and have it shipped to you by sea if you feel like it.

A globalized world offers plenty of advantages to criminals beyond just the internet. We don't even need 3D printing for that. There is simply no such thing as progress without its inevitable dark side.

goldengull3 said:Protect the creator, plain and simple. An author holds the sole right to do whatever they please with their own work. It isn't your concern to police creations you didn't write, nor is it your business to worry about inventions where you don't hold the patent.

It’s quite simple, really. Once all five permanent members of the Security Council finally find common ground, everyone else will fall in line and cease their illicit activities, fearing the inevitable imposition of sanctions. This rampant copying we see today persists only because it serves the interests of one particular player—China. Once they achieve enough development to decide that such imitation no longer suits them—which, frankly, seems imminent—the entire landscape will shift.

Of course there will be some level of pandering; crime has been an inherent part of the human condition since the dawn of civilization.

Protect the copyright holder—which, let's be honest, is rarely the actual creator. In this industry, it's usually just a massive corporation.

Of course it's an issue for patent holders. 😁 So what? Since when did they deserve some kind of social hierarchy? You can make money off innovation without needing special privileges.

Quincy:

It's pretty straightforward—once all five permanent members of the Security Council agree, everyone will fall in line and stop their illegal activities because, well, they have the power to slap on sanctions. Copying is rampant right now simply because it suits China. Once they grow powerful enough to decide they no longer care, the landscape will shift.

Yeah... we'll see about that. It takes an incredible amount of industry lobbying to actually trigger sanctions against someone just copying industrial products.

I'm surprised you're fine with that logic. How are African nations supposed to develop if they don't build upon Western tech through imitation? Some things stay patented in the West, sure—but would it really be right to hit them with sanctions just for trying to catch up?

goldengull3 said:Protect the creator, plain and simple. An author holds the sole right to do whatever they please with their own work. It isn't your concern to police creations you didn't write, nor is it your business to worry about inventions where you don't hold the patent.

It’s quite simple, really. Once all five permanent members of the Security Council finally find common ground, everyone else will fall in line and cease their illicit activities, fearing the inevitable imposition of sanctions. This rampant copying we see today persists only because it serves the interests of one particular player—China. Once they achieve enough development to decide that such imitation no longer suits them—which, frankly, seems imminent—the entire landscape will shift.

Of course there will be some level of pandering; crime has been an inherent part of the human condition since the dawn of civilization.

Sure, why not. Just like how we protect music composers. Whether they want to or not, some massive corporation steps in and effectively hijacks their copyrights, all while having the audacity to call that theft "protection." Then, they use questionable accounting to tally up the earnings, apply some nonsensical formula, and—of course—make sure their lawyers and staff get paid first. Let’s not forget the taxes they rake in when I buy a camera card, just in case I happen to store their ridiculous patented nonsense on it.

goldengull3 said:Protect the creator, plain and simple. An author holds the sole right to do whatever they please with their own work. It isn't your concern to police creations you didn't write, nor is it your business to worry about inventions where you don't hold the patent.

It’s quite simple, really. Once all five permanent members of the Security Council finally find common ground, everyone else will fall in line and cease their illicit activities, fearing the inevitable imposition of sanctions. This rampant copying we see today persists only because it serves the interests of one particular player—China. Once they achieve enough development to decide that such imitation no longer suits them—which, frankly, seems imminent—the entire landscape will shift.

Of course there will be some level of pandering; crime has been an inherent part of the human condition since the dawn of civilization.

Once China secures the majority of global patents, the people currently forced to pay them will be the ones doing the copying. Just wait until they flip the script, pivoting from "protecting rights" to championing the "freedom of knowledge" and the free flow of ideas.
Smaller nations, like those in developing regions, inevitably end up as net losers if they strictly adhere to the patent demands imposed by the US.
And China isn't the only untouchable entity here. Look at India and Pakistan; they developed nuclear weapons in a relatively short timeframe, so where are the sanctions now? If they decide to start copying, they will, and there won't be any meaningful consequences. Brazil? It's the same story. Russia? Exactly the same.

Some countries, such as Iran, don't even have formal copyright laws defined in their statutes. Personally, I see absolutely no reason to build these elaborate legal castles in the sky around dubious patents. If I am the one who starts a fire, do you really believe you owe me anything for it? During the era of peak industrial expansion in the US, everything moved smoothly precisely because we weren't bogged down by these idiotic, toxic patents that are stifling innovation today.

Are you even aware of the level of absurdity being "protected" by patents these days? Apple holds a patent for a rectangular screen with two buttons at the bottom. Honestly, it's a miracle they didn't try to patent the wheel.

placidranger said:Protect the copyright holder—which, let's be honest, is rarely the actual creator. In this industry, it's usually just a massive corporation.

Of course it's an issue for patent holders. 😁 So what? Since when did they deserve some kind of social hierarchy? You can make money off innovation without needing special privileges.

Quincy:

It's pretty straightforward—once all five permanent members of the Security Council agree, everyone will fall in line and stop their illegal activities because, well, they have the power to slap on sanctions. Copying is rampant right now simply because it suits China. Once they grow powerful enough to decide they no longer care, the landscape will shift.

Yeah... we'll see about that. It takes an incredible amount of industry lobbying to actually trigger sanctions against someone just copying industrial products.

I'm surprised you're fine with that logic. How are African nations supposed to develop if they don't build upon Western tech through imitation? Some things stay patented in the West, sure—but would it really be right to hit them with sanctions just for trying to catch up?

Oh sure, I can see Vicky rushing out to patent rice, corn, wheat, and bananas next. Then, if anyone actually dares to plant a crop, we can hit them with sanctions because they didn't pay for a license. If they can't afford the fee, let them starve, right?😍

hollowhawk412 said:Good grief, this futurist... hahaha...

I honestly don't get why everyone is latching onto these future predictions like Vojky, acting all starstruck as if he just hit the jackpot on a scratch-off ticket in Vegas. :-)

In some perfect, theoretical vacuum—assuming 3D printers actually become the miracle tools people claim they will be, which remains to be seen—we might see a shift where massive unemployment isn't even an issue because so many
independent small businesses could pop up. Our current economic model, which relies on mass production to make anything profitable, kills off individual agency, but in this utopian scenario, being self-sufficient would be easy since even tiny batches would be cost-effective. People could essentially live like folks did back in the 19th century, just owning whatever we choose to print. :-) :-)

Hahahaha... but unfortunately, reality doesn't work that way...

Because those precious printers of yours still require raw materials and electricity to function...

But let's set aside the whole resource acquisition problem for a moment...

What is the actual difference between a printer that supposedly "prints" food and the various kitchen appliances we already have sitting on our counters?
If something needs to be baked, the printer is basically just baking it too...

A 3D printer is just additive technology where you build something layer by layer, sequentially...
And if the end result requires heat, I assume it’s doing the baking inside the machine itself... I'm probably oversimplifying, but I highly doubt there's any fundamental difference. :-)

Why don't we just start calling a standard bread maker a 3D printer then?

Hell, I could probably call my oven a manual printer; I add the ingredients layer by layer and then bake them. :-)

Is a printer going to grow pork from scratch and then cure it naturally to create a genuine, high-quality prosciutto, the way nature intended? Is it going to print wine that tastes exactly like a vintage aged for years in temperature-controlled cellars inside specific oak barrels? :-)

Will a printer produce fruits and vegetables packed with all the complex minerals and nutrients found in nature?

I don't know what kind of lifestyle you people are leading, but processed food is absolute garbage, and it's a primary driver behind so many modern health issues...
The prices for unprocessed, natural foods are skyrocketing everywhere...
Take that zagorac living out near Bista, for instance; he grows and sells his own fruit and can charge a premium specifically because nothing has been touched by industrial processing.

These 3D printers might be impressive pieces of tech, but the final product is fundamentally flawed, especially when you look at these food printers.

And don't even get me started on those piping bags used for frosting cakes! 😬That's basically a printer too!

placidranger said:Protect the copyright holder—which, let's be honest, is rarely the actual creator. In this industry, it's usually just a massive corporation.

Of course it's an issue for patent holders. 😁 So what? Since when did they deserve some kind of social hierarchy? You can make money off innovation without needing special privileges.

Quincy:

It's pretty straightforward—once all five permanent members of the Security Council agree, everyone will fall in line and stop their illegal activities because, well, they have the power to slap on sanctions. Copying is rampant right now simply because it suits China. Once they grow powerful enough to decide they no longer care, the landscape will shift.

Yeah... we'll see about that. It takes an incredible amount of industry lobbying to actually trigger sanctions against someone just copying industrial products.

I'm surprised you're fine with that logic. How are African nations supposed to develop if they don't build upon Western tech through imitation? Some things stay patented in the West, sure—but would it really be right to hit them with sanctions just for trying to catch up?

And once again, you aren't stopping anyone from setting their own terms within their own company. You sound just like those Linux enthusiasts on tech forums who spend more time weeping over conspiracy theories than actually addressing the market reality: "Look, I offer this, Microsoft offers that, Apple does this, and the consumer can decide which one fits their needs."

placidranger said:Protect the copyright holder—which, let's be honest, is rarely the actual creator. In this industry, it's usually just a massive corporation.

Of course it's an issue for patent holders. 😁 So what? Since when did they deserve some kind of social hierarchy? You can make money off innovation without needing special privileges.

Quincy:

It's pretty straightforward—once all five permanent members of the Security Council agree, everyone will fall in line and stop their illegal activities because, well, they have the power to slap on sanctions. Copying is rampant right now simply because it suits China. Once they grow powerful enough to decide they no longer care, the landscape will shift.

Yeah... we'll see about that. It takes an incredible amount of industry lobbying to actually trigger sanctions against someone just copying industrial products.

I'm surprised you're fine with that logic. How are African nations supposed to develop if they don't build upon Western tech through imitation? Some things stay patented in the West, sure—but would it really be right to hit them with sanctions just for trying to catch up?

Sure, they can turn a profit by exploiting a patent. They get twenty years of exclusivity, and after that, everyone is free to use it. Why should you be allowed to profit off someone else's invention?

placidranger said:Protect the copyright holder—which, let's be honest, is rarely the actual creator. In this industry, it's usually just a massive corporation.

Of course it's an issue for patent holders. 😁 So what? Since when did they deserve some kind of social hierarchy? You can make money off innovation without needing special privileges.

Quincy:

It's pretty straightforward—once all five permanent members of the Security Council agree, everyone will fall in line and stop their illegal activities because, well, they have the power to slap on sanctions. Copying is rampant right now simply because it suits China. Once they grow powerful enough to decide they no longer care, the landscape will shift.

Yeah... we'll see about that. It takes an incredible amount of industry lobbying to actually trigger sanctions against someone just copying industrial products.

I'm surprised you're fine with that logic. How are African nations supposed to develop if they don't build upon Western tech through imitation? Some things stay patented in the West, sure—but would it really be right to hit them with sanctions just for trying to catch up?

I don't doubt WIPO will find its footing once 3D printing goes mainstream; they’ll have to find ways to protect innovation eventually.

placidranger said:Protect the copyright holder—which, let's be honest, is rarely the actual creator. In this industry, it's usually just a massive corporation.

Of course it's an issue for patent holders. 😁 So what? Since when did they deserve some kind of social hierarchy? You can make money off innovation without needing special privileges.

Quincy:

It's pretty straightforward—once all five permanent members of the Security Council agree, everyone will fall in line and stop their illegal activities because, well, they have the power to slap on sanctions. Copying is rampant right now simply because it suits China. Once they grow powerful enough to decide they no longer care, the landscape will shift.

Yeah... we'll see about that. It takes an incredible amount of industry lobbying to actually trigger sanctions against someone just copying industrial products.

I'm surprised you're fine with that logic. How are African nations supposed to develop if they don't build upon Western tech through imitation? Some things stay patented in the West, sure—but would it really be right to hit them with sanctions just for trying to catch up?

African nations can either develop their own technology or simply pay for licenses; even the South saw steady development through licensing deals with companies like Ford. If you didn't invent it, it isn't yours.

By all means, feel free to voice your opinion to the US Congress tomorrow and demand your representatives defend your stance at the EU and the UN. Once the most developed nations decide to align with your view, there won't be any trouble getting WIPO and the rest of the crew to change the rules. Until then, we operate under the current ones. And regarding 3D printing, returning to the point, it will inevitably introduce new regulations—simply because inventors tend to be quite protective of their work.

It doesn't stop them from making it available to everyone, does it? It’s quite simple, really. Much like how you have the right to develop your own word processor, release it for free, and simply watch people choose to use your software instead of Microsoft's.

placidranger said:Curious if you actually understand how molten plastic—or metal, for that matter—is shaped into 3D forms?

The theory used to justify patents is fundamentally flawed. In fact, it likely stifles innovation rather than driving it.

What "foundations" are we even talking about? The hypothesis that people wouldn't bother innovating without patent protection? Where is the empirical evidence for that? It's empty theory. And it's wrong.

No, I don't know how it's formed, which is exactly why I was asking Pizza and goldengull3.
🙂
Take something we interact with almost every single day—your car's engine block, for instance.
Inside that block, you’ve got all these intricate channels for oil and coolant, dealing with constant pressure shifts, temperature swings, and this massive demand for absolute precision and durability...

hollowtrucker77 said:No, I don't know how it's formed, which is exactly why I was asking Pizza and goldengull3.
🙂
Take something we interact with almost every single day—your car's engine block, for instance.
Inside that block, you’ve got all these intricate channels for oil and coolant, dealing with constant pressure shifts, temperature swings, and this massive demand for absolute precision and durability...

It really comes down to this: lasers fuse metal powder together. We can produce blocks with far superior quality using this method compared to traditional machining.

If you want a deeper dive into the reality of metal 3D printing, check this out: http://www.engineering.com/3DPrintin...h-America.aspx

placidranger said:In that scenario, expect industrial-scale piracy.
You wouldn't download a car? Please. You totally would.🙂

Yes, R&D costs hundreds of millions. But what if "development" just meant copying and tweaking something slightly? For everyone?
You have a public blueprint. If you’re just manufacturing that exact blueprint, a hundred other companies are doing the same thing—you have zero edge. To actually gain an advantage, you have to innovate. Since everything is publicly available, making a minor tweak to an existing design is where the profit lies. And those profits come from leveraging all the innovations others have already paved the way for.

That's essentially how 3D printers themselves evolved.
Essentially, I think the whole concept of copyright will be bypassed in many cases; blueprints will be open-source from the jump, making copying permissible—and eventually, that's where the real money will be made.

You’re being incredibly vague here.🤷

If you can just swoop in and copy every innovation anyone else makes—and they can all swoop in and copy yours—then where exactly is this "advantage" you're talking about?🤷

How does your specific innovation line your pockets while someone else's innovation somehow lines *your* pockets too? And if everyone is out there innovating, how do we not all just end up becoming identical clones doing the exact same thing?🤷

How long do you honestly think you'll hold onto that "advantage" before someone else just copies your homework?

goldengull3, why don't you go take a stroll or something while we wait for those 3D-printed blocks to actually show up?

The truth is, there isn't anything particularly groundbreaking happening with that tech right now.
Anything being built currently could just as easily—if not faster and cheaper—be done using much more traditional methods.
That’s not to say 3D printing is some kind of failure, but until it reaches a point where it's actually useful for real-world applications, I'd say we've still got a long wait ahead of us.

hollowtrucker77 said:No, I don't know how it's formed, which is exactly why I was asking Pizza and goldengull3.
🙂
Take something we interact with almost every single day—your car's engine block, for instance.
Inside that block, you’ve got all these intricate channels for oil and coolant, dealing with constant pressure shifts, temperature swings, and this massive demand for absolute precision and durability...

For crying out loud, nobody is claiming we’re going to flip a switch tomorrow and replace every existing manufacturing process overnight. It's not like we should just stop making things the "old school" way right now and sit around waiting for some magical, all-powerful printer to save us.😁

This technology has serious potential, sure, but there is still a mountain of work to do before more complex components hit mass production—though, the momentum is definitely building.

I remember seeing my first actual 3D printed part about ten years ago. If you had asked me back then what I thought about the future of 3D printing, my verdict would have been pretty blunt: don't bother wasting your time. Compared to where we were a decade ago, the quality of finished products being printed today is night and day.

goldengull3 said:And once again, you aren't stopping anyone from setting their own terms within their own company. You sound just like those Linux enthusiasts on tech forums who spend more time weeping over conspiracy theories than actually addressing the market reality: "Look, I offer this, Microsoft offers that, Apple does this, and the consumer can decide which one fits their needs."

Sure, they can turn a profit by exploiting a patent. They get twenty years of exclusivity, and after that, everyone is free to use it. Why should you be allowed to profit off someone else's invention?

I don't doubt WIPO will find its footing once 3D printing goes mainstream; they’ll have to find ways to protect innovation eventually.

African nations can either develop their own technology or simply pay for licenses; even the South saw steady development through licensing deals with companies like Ford. If you didn't invent it, it isn't yours.

By all means, feel free to voice your opinion to the US Congress tomorrow and demand your representatives defend your stance at the EU and the UN. Once the most developed nations decide to align with your view, there won't be any trouble getting WIPO and the rest of the crew to change the rules. Until then, we operate under the current ones. And regarding 3D printing, returning to the point, it will inevitably introduce new regulations—simply because inventors tend to be quite protective of their work.

It doesn't stop them from making it available to everyone, does it? It’s quite simple, really. Much like how you have the right to develop your own word processor, release it for free, and simply watch people choose to use your software instead of Microsoft's.

Am I complaining? Maybe. I don't really care. I'll copy whatever I feel like copying, and besides, this isn't about me.
You keep suggesting things for me to do—you don't actually know what I do, and frankly, I'm not interested in telling you.

Sure, they make money by exploiting patents. They have twenty years, then after that—everyone uses it how they want. Why would you profit off someone else's invention?

Why would I profit off someone else's invention? I have no idea what you're talking about.
Actually, people regularly make legal money off other people's inventions specifically because of patent protections. If you're against that principle, how can you support the concept of corporate ownership over patents instead of individual ownership by the person who actually created the invention?

I don't doubt WIPO will find solutions once 3D printing expands, since innovation will need protection.

I have no doubt it'll be a massive failure. There just isn't a strong enough global force.

African nations can develop their own tech or use licenses; even America developed steadily using licenses from companies like Ford, for instance. If you didn't invent it, it isn't yours.

That's just lobbying to protect massive profit margins. I don't have an issue with big corporations, but I do have an issue with destroying competition through monopoly strategies. No one creates inventions out of thin air—it relies on the work of thousands of people, so no single entity has an exclusive right to the profit. Besides, the opportunity to earn comes simply from being first.

Jerry Turner7 said:You’re being incredibly vague here.🤷

If you can just swoop in and copy every innovation anyone else makes—and they can all swoop in and copy yours—then where exactly is this "advantage" you're talking about?🤷

How does your specific innovation line your pockets while someone else's innovation somehow lines *your* pockets too? And if everyone is out there innovating, how do we not all just end up becoming identical clones doing the exact same thing?🤷

How long do you honestly think you'll hold onto that "advantage" before someone else just copies your homework?

People don't just copy random ideas—they copy what’s already winning. It's basic math. By definition, if someone is crushing it in the market, they’ve already successfully monetized their innovation. You aren't reinventing the wheel; you're just piggybacking on something that's proven to work while they're busy collecting the initial profits. Then, the cycle repeats. Next time, you'll be copying someone else. Eventually, maybe you'll actually stumble upon an innovation of your own—and then someone else will be right back where you are now, copying you.

Innovation gives you a head start—plain and simple. If you’re the one building the new tech, you get to roll it out first. That means you’re the first one to collect the checks while everyone else is still trying to figure out how you did it. It’s a race, and being early pays.

placidranger said:People don't just copy random ideas—they copy what’s already winning. It's basic math. By definition, if someone is crushing it in the market, they’ve already successfully monetized their innovation. You aren't reinventing the wheel; you're just piggybacking on something that's proven to work while they're busy collecting the initial profits. Then, the cycle repeats. Next time, you'll be copying someone else. Eventually, maybe you'll actually stumble upon an innovation of your own—and then someone else will be right back where you are now, copying you.

Innovation gives you a head start—plain and simple. If you’re the one building the new tech, you get to roll it out first. That means you’re the first one to collect the checks while everyone else is still trying to figure out how you did it. It’s a race, and being early pays.

Honestly, I think your perspective is a little warped here—you're looking at innovation like it's some effortless thing that just falls into your lap, like "oh, innovation is easy, I'll just dream something up whenever."
But there's this fundamental principle—call it rocket science if you want—which is basically the reality of copying... once you finally pull off an innovation that feels like a godsend, you gain this huge window of opportunity before anyone can scan your product and churn out a cheap knockoff.🤷

Developing a product is a bloodbath—it takes forever, costs a fortune, and you have to test every single damn thing... whereas copying? That's nothing. It's a total joke.

And I really don't get why people get so hung up on the idea that we should just scrap all patents and copyrights. Is it Mercedes' fault that your old Lancia doesn't have a decent engine? Of course not. It's the Lancia's fault.
Just put in the work, spend the time and the cash, and build your own stuff. Don't waste your breath worrying about what everyone else is doing.

A buddy and I were acting all proud as "builders" of RepRap 3D printers. After blowing through a few thousand dollars, we actually ended up with something usable. We printed some small boxes and figurines, started printing parts for a newer model, and then finally got an offer we couldn't refuse, so we sold the whole thing.
Basically, everything we could possibly print was available on eBay for cheaper and better quality. This brings me to the political side of things...

When people push this kind of tech for home or mass use, there’s always a catch. And I already pointed out what that catch is above. You sell technology only when you've outgrown it and have something way more powerful ready to go. That's exactly what's happening here. The only real perk of commercial 3D printers is being able to print a specific part that's hard to find. But with eBay and sites like it, there's a huge chance you'll find that part better and cheaper than anything you could print yourself.

How fast this advances is decided by powerful lobbies. Those high-end 3D printers are insanely expensive; they're basically machines designed to replace existing tech. Just like always, this stuff will be available to people with deep pockets, not mere mortals. What eventually trickles down to us will just be more expensive, lower-quality crap without a real market to drive profit.
I don't see any business opportunity here. The quality sucks, and the print times take forever...
Even if it sounds tempting at first, believe me, most things you'd want to print already exist. Anything that doesn't exist usually isn't in high enough demand to make any real money. It's fine for hobbyists, but you can't make a living off it.
As always, the idea is what matters, not the 3D printer or any other gadget. That's why our education system should focus on building creators instead of just teaching people how to use what others have built. We aren't going to get rich just by using existing tech alongside 1.5 billion Chinese people. Give me a break. When you actually have people with real ideas, technology is just a tool to realize them—it comes to you.
Expensive, accessible high-tech means nothing without people who have vision. The only way to fix our education system is to overhaul it. If we don't realize that soon, we'll never get out of this mess. If we start now, it'll take us at least ten years. There are no quick fixes or shortcuts... unless, like a Norwegian person, we stumble upon massive oil and gas reserves in the Atlantic Ocean.