27 ms·
From what I understand, a lot has to do with IP ownership, this was developed at MIT and any licensing deal is not as profitable as being able to sell a product
by kerneltime 7y ago
From what I understand, a lot has to do with IP ownership, this was developed at MIT and any licensing deal is not as profitable as being able to sell a product. Thus, to make a VC/equity funded commercial venture of it they have to develop a product.
- wasdfff 7y agoWhat they should have done is license the tech while developing their product. This little move probably left them billions on the table just by preferring to sit on the tech.
- neltnerb 7y agoReminder that patents filed in 1997 expired years ago. I suspect that the lack of competitors has more to do with the incredible complexity of manufacturing them reliably than due to IP issues. Unlike 3D printers which went wild after Stratasys patents finally expired.
- jonhendry18 7y agoThere's probably a bunch of patents related to the manufacturing process or mechanisms.