GW Takes Ghamak To Court!

[Redscope 2731xp 4]

The way this typically works is if you show people a picture of the original and the copy next to each other if people who know nothing about the subject would struggle to tell them part you have a case.

Just look at the model above. Its the same scale / size as the GW figure, you have the have design armour, chain swords, halo around the helmet, skull on the knee, eagal on the chest plate, helmet shape and design, power glove weapon etc etc. That is not everything I could list on this model. Even the damn base they are on is a GW necromuda one.

You can get away with one or two features the same by “accident” in a mini design but to have 40 odd features the same that is never going to hold up in any court. If you showed that picture to anyone they would say it was a 40k space marine.

Look at the Dark Angel model Nathaniel from him which is clearly a copy of Sammael 40k model. Your telling me you dont think that is anything other than a complete rip from GW trying to be passed off as the original GW one ?

Look at his Vengeful Angels range and tell me you could not name every single dark angels model it is based on ?

Not just 40k. Look at the War Altar of Grimwald. I mean come on are you telling me you dont know what that is the instance you look at ?

He has based his business on ripping off another company. It is not legal. You cannot in law do that and expect to get away with it. It is as the law defines as unfair competition. It is clearly what he is doing on a massive scale.

Passing off: Misrepresenting one’s goods or services as being those of another business to take advantage of their reputation and goodwill.

They have gone after him because it is not just one or two models which are close it is 100’s of figures purely designed to replicate the GW models. No effprt to hide it in fact he has on purpose even named to people know what it is.

He has zero defence. If this goes to court the GW lawyers will rip him apart model by model pointing out all the elements which are the same. It is endless. I would not know how on earth he could construct even a basic defence to claim he was not on purpose trying to rip them off.

You can sail close to the wind, you can do models like GW which have some fantasy or historic elements and it is not a problem. When it is as clear as day your models are trying to rip off GW the way he has you cannot claim any defence at all.

[blinky465 17178xp 2]

Maybe it’s because we’re so close to understanding the differences that make something NOT-GW (whereas a “muggle” might not be able to tell them apart) that makes this such an interesting case. But anyone buying STIL files for minis online isn’t a “muggle” who has accidentally stumbled into a confusing marketplace – they’ve actively gone looking for this sort of stuff, with an knowledge and understanding of what it is they are buying.

Here in the UK, Aldi has been involved in numerous cases of alleged “passing off”.

Some they won, some they lost.
In the UK, passing off has to be intentional (which is how Aldi get away with so many similar packaging/branding “clones”). There have been cases of claimed “post-sale confusion” but these are indecisive –  a famous case was the “Colin the Catapillar cake” case. (Despite settling out-of-court, Aldi continues to sell “Cuthbert the Catapillar” cakes).
Aldi’s defence rested on the argument that when people enter an Aldi store, they know they are presented with cheaper alternatives to the “real thing”. In which case, nobody buying from Aldi could accidentally believe they were buying a more expensive alternative (like an M&S cake) because they specifically entered what is well-known as a “budget brand store”.
(incidentally, Aldi lost the case against Thatchers Cider which was brought on similar grounds).

There’s a fair argument to say that if you visit a web store where a guy is selling STL files of his own sculpts, you already know that you’re not buying GW genuine models – even if they look remarkably similar. So the passing-off argument falls.
How this is resolved in Europe (as opposed to the US or UK) could well be different again.

Which leaves the IP/copyright argument.
And if the case goes to court and is held up because of this, it potentially threatens every independent miniature creator and puts a massive amount of power in GW’s hands to just shut down anyone who presents a commercial threat.

I’m not sure the case is as cut-and-dried as “if it looks the same, it’s a rip-off and the entire store needs to be shut down”.
When I see “Titan” chocolate bars in Aldi, I can see they are trying to be Mars bars.
They use the same style packaging, colours, the font is similar – they are making it very clear what they are supposed to be.
And I buy them because they are trying to be the thing I know and am familiar with.
That’s not reason enough to prevent Aldi from selling them. Because I know it’s not a real Mars bar. So “passing off” doesn’t apply (if they used the same name, packaging and colours, and I bought what I thought was a Mars bar, things would be very different).

Ghamak’s miniatures are not exact copies of GW minis and he’s not saying that’s what they are.
Anyone buying Ghamak’s minis know they are not buying GW minis (like the Aldi argument – because of where you’re buying the goods, you can’t be tricked into believing you’re buying the “genuine article”).

Ghamak’s Dark Angel model Nathaniel is clearly an alternative of the Sammael 40k model. But it is not trying to be “passed off” as the original GW one. You can’t buy GW STLs online. So nobody downloading an STL of Nathaniel can legitimately claim they thought they were buying the GW original Sammael.
(if someone printed Nathaniel and advertised it for sale as GW’s Sammael, this would be passing off – but it would be the printer/seller, not the original sculptor guilty of this).

So the GW argument is simply “this looks too much like our stuff, so he shouldn’t be allowed to  sell it”.
Which is a very dangerous precedent for a company (that literally built their lore over the last 40 years by copying existing fantasy IP) to be allowed to set, without – as Ghamak claims – identifying which distinguishing features they are objecting to, and just applying for a blanket ban.

 

 

[redscope]

I am not sure you are quite understanding the law here.

Take Cuthbert the Catapillar” the legal problem was not that Aldi where selling a catapillar cake lots of stores did at the same time. The problem was the how alike it was the original M&S one. From the design and color of the box to the design of the cake, the face was the same the eyes where the same, the placement of the smarties on the top was the same. Side by side clear ones was trying to copy the other.

M&S won because Aldi backed down before the case and had to change the design of the cake. Its still a catapillar cake but it does not look like the M&S one as much.

Look at the Nathaniel against the actual model. Its not that people think downloading an STL from a website is the same as buying Sammael from GW but clearly it is enough the same as people would confuse the product side by side. He is trying to pass it off as another companies product.

Here again is how it is defined

Misrepresenting one’s goods or services as being those of another business to take advantage of their reputation and goodwill.

Has he created the model to take advantage of GW reputation and goodwill. Basically are people buying in direct replacement of the GW one ? Well yes very clearly that is the case.

When you say

“So the GW argument is simply “this looks too much like our stuff, so he shouldn’t be allowed to  sell it”. Which is a very dangerous precedent for a company”

Really ? You do understand this is the law ? You cannot just copy other companies products ? I am not sure what you are trying to argue here ? You cannot sell fake rolex watches or knock off nike t-shirts. This is already law. Precedent has been set on this matter already. You can still sell watches and t-shirts just not ones that are very clearly a design from another company.

I think like him you dont really understand this is not just IP/copyright this is commerical law under the EU and Italian legal system. This could be a criminal case against him not just a please stop using our IP. You legally just cannot rip off another companies design you have never been able to do that.

Let me be clear about this you cannot design and sell marvel figures or Star wars ones or anyone elses IP. That is the law. This is not testing the water in a new case or breaking new ground. This is using existing laws we have in place.

We all knew this was never legal. You honestly cannot look at his models and tell me you dont see the issue lol.

 

• This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by redscope.

[onlyonepinman 18108xp 1]

I stopped buying GW products a few years ago.  I hadn’t really been buying miniatures from them for a while,  just paints. But I have fully switched to army painter now.  I made the switch to Army Painter precisely because I no longer wished to hand money over to a company that behaves the way GW behaves.

I can’t really sit here and defend Ghamak though – he sailing very close to the wind with a lot of his designs.  Which is why it is so surprising that GW have launched a lawsuit claiming “unfair competition” rather than copyright infringement, assuming that is indeed what they have done.  Looking at his models, I think they might have a point if they went with copyright infringement.  But claiming unfair competition seems like they’re on a hiding to nothing given that you could use chess pieces for 40k if you really wanted to.  If they win such a case it could have serious ramifications for the entire industry.  So if I can see evidence that he is being sued for unfair competition,  I may consider chipping in.  I need to see a bit more information though because this seems a bit too dumb to be true.

[blinky465 17178xp 4]

I think we’re understanding the same issues here differently, so there’s not really much point in “arguing” further.
I don’t really understand “the law” because it’s not clear which law is being adhered to, and in which jurisdiction.

You cannot sell fake rolex watches or knock off nike t-shirts.

Absolutely not – although in places like Turkey, this is more of a “grey area” 😉

But generally, you cannot take a cheap watch and paint “Rolex” on it and sell it as if it is a Rolex.
You can make a cheap watch that looks similar to and has similar features to a Rolex.
Too similar – or include protected design elements (like a name/logo) – and you breach IP laws.
Similarly, you cannot put a well-recognised tick logo on a t-shirt and sell it as a Nike t-shirt.
You can put some other design on a t-shirt and sell it as a not-a-Nike t-shirt.
You cannot put some other design on a t-shirt and sell it as a Nike-t-shirt-with-a-design-you-just-don’t-know-about-yet.

The design you put on the t-shirt while selling it as not-a-Nike-t-shirt can get very, very close to a Nike tick logo.
Too close, and you get caught in copyright infringement. Different enough – as long as you’re not telling people it’s a Nike branded shirt – and there’s no problem.

But if Nike were to shut down t-shirt sellers who had very similar designs, not on copyright/IP infringement grounds, but “unfair competition” grounds, it would be concerning for all t-shirt sellers, who would effectively need “permission” from Nike in future, to sell their own designs.

Some of Ghamak’s designs are very close to GW IP. Some are different enough to fall outside of a copyright claim.
GW are not asking for offending designs to be removed (or for recompense for breaching copyright).
They are claiming “unfair competition”.

If :that guy over there: is selling his own action figures with a dude in a red and blue spandex suit, big white eyes and a covered in a web design – he’s clearly ripping off Spiderman (wow, you brought a lot of different examples to the table!). He might change the colours to orange and turquoise. It’s still close enough to be confused as possibly Spiderman. But black and yellow? – clearly not Spiderman. But Spiderman has other distinctive characteristics, not just a red-and-blue coloured suit.
So a superhero in a spandex costume, covered in webs and a spider on his chest – irrespective of colour – is clearly taking inspiration from Spiderman. If the seller takes the spider off the front (as Ghamak took the aquilla off the armour designs, for example) and you can see the inspiration and also clearly see it’s not Spiderman. If he called him “Arachnidman” he’s clearly taken inspiration from, but is different to Spiderman and, he’s not claiming that it is Spiderman.
Eventually the changes are enough that you can both see the blatant and obvious inspiration and recognise that one is not the other.

So if Marvel then raised a court case, saying that anyone who produces action figures of characters in spandex suits was creating “unfair competition” (not that they were ripping off specific designs) they would rightly be laughed out of court.

To be clear – Ghamak has ripped off some GW designs in the past – some were out-and-out copies of GW IP.
But he also has some designs that are different enough to have merit on their own right.
How different does “different” need to be to be acceptable?
Which is why it is wrong for GW to demand the entire operation be shut down for reasons of “unfair competition”.
Not for “passing off” or breaching copyright/IP laws.

Because if this sets a precedent, then large companies can shut down smaller competition on grounds not of “passing off” but simply “unfair competition” – and that is not a good thing in general, let alone in our own tiny corner of the nerd-world.

I agree completely with @onlyonepinman – it’s not about GW shutting down a guy who has clearly benefitted from people wanting to buy “knock off” proxies for GW miniatures – it’s the means they’re using to do it.
Because it’s opening the door for an abuse of power for them (and other large, cash-rich companies, who can finance such law suits) to shut down competition, simply by citing this case as “unfair competition” (and not shutting down specific cases of “passing off” for which they may have had an argument).

Has he created the model to take advantage of GW reputation and goodwill. Basically are people buying in direct replacement of the GW one ? Well yes very clearly that is the case.

This is not against the law. People buy Aldi’s cheaper Mars bar alternatives indirect replacement of the more expensive genuine article. It is not against the law to create a product similar to a competitor’s in order to encourage customers to buy “in direct replacement” of the original one. But GW’s argument of “unfair competition” is trying to make exactly this point.

Ghamak is not an entirely innocent party in all this.
But the way GW is going about things is entirely disingenuous and threatens future creators and smaller, independent miniature designers and sellers.

 

[frankelee]

The standard for what constitutes IP theft or an attempt to violate trademark is much higher than the common person believes it is, at least here in the United States where I live. Saying a space marine looks like another space marine to your mom is not likely to be the criterion a court will use, or which would survive appeal, probably sub 1% chance of that happening.

On the contrary usually the similarities must be rather exacting and designed to cause confusion, or for IP theft, be nearly directly taking the thing and just reusing it with permission or rights payments. There has been a lot of movement on this issue in the last five decades though, at one time the Star Wars IP holder could threaten the Battlestar Galactica producer to not have laser rays come out of their guns and it was taken seriously and likely would have been backed up by a court. Now that threat would be laughed at, furthermore, courts have adopted tougher standards for what constitutes violating IP as the parties in question have gone from mega-corporations to private individuals.

If Ghamak were well funded and based in the United States, I can tell you looking at the first several pages of STLs he has for sale on his website that GW would have no case off of any of that. And in a related story, like Baron of Dice will likely prevail in their case should GW actually take them to court as that company is based in the United States. As for Italian law, I don’t know.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by frankelee.

[tankkommander 6454xp 4]

It will be an interesting case. It might be more fun if the EU competition commission get involved and take GW to court for unfair trade practices (you can only use GW miniatures in our games) 🙂

Eventually GW will shift to selling STL’s when 3D printing becomes ubiquitous. They are still protecting the current dying business model as they have such great margins?

[Lazagram 57xp 2]

I am of the same vein of thought, they are clinging onto the plastic production side because they have so few overhead costs, the mould being the primary upfront cost (over the forming machinery itself, likely ancient), I’d assume, they can re-run them, write them off for tax years ago, then re-run them or whatever mechanisms they are up to. Just look at the Old World re-release.

They need to protect as much of the IP as possible and perhaps even more stringently, so they can market it to Game Publishing Companies and Film/TV production outfits. I think they realised the money was in the long game of leveraging the backlog of the Black Library, Warhammer Plus, and Previous Game Titles (Total War Warhammer, Space Marine, Dawn of War, Rogue Trader, etc).  I think they thought that Printing wouldn’t become as widely adopted as it has, but I’m sure, like any corporation with shareholders, they have been planning for the other eventuality. I see the company eventually embracing the print your own aspect of the community, but how and through what format, I’m not sure.

[onlyonepinman 18108xp 0]

@franklee Is he being sued in Italy or in the UK? Technically he is selling in the UK as he is selling via MyMiniFactory, which I believe is a UK based website.

I am not a copyright lawyer so I am not going to make definitive statements about what constitutes copyright infringement/IP theft and what doesn’t.  I will simply reiterate what I already said.  His designs sail very close to the wind and I certainly wouldn’t want to have to fight the case in court if my livelihood (and that of several other people) depended on it.  I think GW often gamble on that – the threat of legal action, no matter how unjustified, is usually enough to make people back down.  For anyone who remembers Chapter House, he only won that case on paper.  In reality it bankrupted the business and in the end, GW got the outcome they wanted.

If it is true, however,  that he is being sued for Unfair Competition, then that is a major problem.  Any ruling that favours GW in their claim that anyone making miniatures that COULD be used in warhammer 40k, sets a very damaging precedent. Such a ruling would mean anyone who make 28mm-32mm scale miniatures, regardless of genre, regardless of whether they have their own game and regardless of how original their designs are, would be classed as unfair competition simply because those models could be used in 40k.  Infinity, Warpath, Wild West Exodus, Star Wars Legion, Bolt Action/Konflict 47 and many other games all provide miniatures that could be used in 40k and thus could be deemed as unfair competition.  And with legal precedent on their side, they could pursue any of their competition.  However I also believe that the UK courts understand this, I believe that GW know that the courts understand this and as such I find it rehard to believe that it is true.  That, or there is a lot more going on than we are being told.

That said,  on the chance that it IS true, then I hope he nails GW in court and drags their name through the mud.  A public humbling might do them some good.  I doubt it,  and if not then I can console myself by pointing and laughing at the silly corporate giant.

[onlyonepinman 18108xp 2]

@tankcommander their business model isn’t dying.  We are a million miles away from 3d printing becoming ubiquitous and until it does, HIPS is king.  I have a 3d printer, I love it, but if the option is there to buy a physical model, in ANY medium, I take it over 3d printing because it is just more convenient.  I go online,  click a few buttons and wait a few days.  A bit of assembly at the end and I am done.  I don’t have to faff about preparing supports and print beds, cleaning models, curing them under UV light, dealing with noxious chemicals or cleaning the printer when done.  I also don’t need to worry so much about my purchase failing in quite the same way as I have to worry about a print failure.  Until all those things are eliminated, GW’s current business model is safe.

[frankelee 1475xp 0]

@onlyonepinman I was under the impression he was being sued in Italy, but Europe can be tied together legally in ways that is foreign to the rest of the world. If GW tried to sue me over what I sold on MMF in the UK, when I’m a citizen of the United States, they would just be wasting their time, I don’t have to abide by the UK’s laws even if I’m selling on MMF. Which I know I have talked online to Europeans who thought people in the US would, which an is insane thing to think, but I take it the EU, and maybe the UK even as a former EU member, has some different situations set up across borders.

So that’s why this whole situation is pretty up in the air to me. Precedent doesn’t work from one nation to another for at least the vast majority of the world, so if GW sues him in Italy or the UK for some kind of strange ‘unfair competition’ laws, well that won’t even translate to most other nations as a law because they don’t have a similar statute. So somebody could buy out Ghamak’s range and sell it in their own country, including the United States, and as long as they have deep enough pockets to hire a basic lawyer to smack down any nuisance threats, there’s not much GW can do unless they want to try a Chapterhouse 2.0, which will probably end up vastly less successful than the first, and the first was pretty bad for them. We’re working with very few details right now.

[onlyonepinman]

A bit of internet searching reveals the following:

Italian unfair competition law, primarily found in Article 2598 of the Civil Code, prohibits acts like misusing competitors’ names, imitating products, spreading damaging information, and using other dishonest means. The Italian Competition Authority (ICA) enforces these rules, with recent legislation (Law n. 214/2023) giving it new powers and aligning Italy with EU competition law. The law also covers a range of other acts, including misleading advertising, and can lead to administrative and criminal penalties. 

What is considered unfair competition under Article 2598?

• Misappropriation of distinctive signs: Misusing a competitor’s name, trademarks, or other distinctive signs.  
• Imitation: The slavish imitation of a competitor’s products or activities in a way that causes confusion.  
• Acts creating confusion: Any act that creates confusion with a competitor’s products or business, such as domain name appropriation (cybersquatting).  
• Spreading false information: Spreading news or opinions about a competitor that are likely to discredit their products or business.  
• Misleading and comparative advertising: Using dishonest means, including misleading or comparative advertising, to gain prestige or damage a competitor.  
• Unethical or dishonest practices: The use of other unfair and dishonest means to damage a business.

That’s just an AI overview, however it would seem if the case is litigted in Italy, the highlighted section would be the most likely to apply and, well, it’s hard to deny that his sculpts imitate those of GW.  Whether or not it causes confusion, well, I guess we will find out when it goes to court.  I know Ghamak is saying that he is being sued for making models that are compatible with Warhammer 40,000, but I suspect that in court Games Workshop are going rely on the fact that Ghamak’s models look an awful lot like thier own models and not simply the fact that his models could be used in their game.  I reserve the right to be wrong, but I would not be putting money on Games Workshop presenting a case that the models are compatible with 40k and therefore it constitutes unfair competition when a stronger case is available.

Obviously I am not supporting Games Workshop, but as I said before, I would still like to see a lot more information about what the lawsuit is actually claiming.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by onlyonepinman.

[Redscope 2731xp 0]

People talking about legal Precedent have been watching way to many US legal shows. This is a statutory EU law which was then also passed in various coutries such as Italy. Statutory means it has been written and approved as a legal document by that countries government. There is no “Precedent” to set and frankly that is more of something we see in the US system than europen courts.

I believe GW are very likely to charge him under the law as you said under what is called passing off.

Misrepresenting one’s goods or services as being those of another business to take advantage of their reputation and goodwill.

To be honest this would be a slam dunk case for GW. You take a any line from Ghamak range and go down the list and compare it direct to the GW model. Each of those models you can pin point how much alike they are to the GW one. Even as far as using names. For example his lion model is named after a famous knight.

I dont know what defence you could put forward to suggest that you have not just copied an whole range of models in a effort to take advantage of reputation and demand of the GW models. If he was not so up front and frankly had some many models he could make some case but when it is this many and so close he does not have a hope in hell.

I want to make a point on Chapterhouse that people should go read the detail on that case. Everyone seems to think GW lost but it was not that simple. GW lost trying to trademark generic term for Space marine and generic rounded design for shoulder pads. They did loss a few which had been generic in case. For people that dont understand in any case you typically have claims and counter claims some you win some your lose.

It has always been this myth GW lost because they lost the Space Marine battle. GW actually won about half the design elements when compared to Chapterhouse. They managed to force chapterhouse to having to pull off sale most of the range this in effect put Chapterhouse out of business. The case was more 50-50 but the end result was the one GW wanted because Chapterhouse could not sell the models.

This has been true for Stars Wars IP, Comics, Marvel. This has been proven in cases before. Ghamak models are not just close to GW but he his in many cases straight out mirroring whole faction lines they make. I dont understand how anyone would think that would be legal for any business to do.

 

 

[onlyonepinman 18108xp 0]

The general consensus in the Chapter House case is that Chapter House won.  Sure, GW won on SOME of their claims but the majority of the findings went in Chapter House’s favour – not half, it was about 2/3 of the claims.  It still remains a pyhrric victory that ultimately led to the closure of the company, but the result is generally seen as a loss for GW, not least because it led to significant changes in company policy in the wake of the ruling over naming conventions and not creating rules for models they don’t actually make.

The term “passing off” means deliberately misrepresnting a product as being that of someone else’s (for example selling fake branded clothing).  So whilst I agree that Ghamak’s models are very similar indeed to GW’s, I do not believe that he is “passing them off” them as official 40k miniatures.  He does not brand them using 40k imagery nor does he make any claim that they are for 40k.  In fact, he is very careful not to mention 40k at all and he markets them as being for One Page Rules’ “Grimdark Future” system.  I don’t think anyone can claim that he is misrepresenting them as warhammer models because he makes no claim that they are .  I think he can certainly be accused of copying their designs, which may constitute immitation and which is covered under the relevant Italian law, but I do not think he is misrepresenting his products.  In fact, I think he relies on the fact that anyone buying from him already knows exactly what they are looking for – i.e. people already know what 40k is, what the units are and as such they know which models to select as proxies without him having to specifically state that.  Therefore they implicitly know that it is not an official GW miniature.  Anyone with no prior knowledge of 40k would not learn anything about 40k as a resultof looking at Ghamak’s range. So I don’t think there is any merit to the claim he is passing his models off as 40k miniatures.

The “imitation” clause of the Unfair Competition law is where they may be a claim;  but imitation is not the same as passing off.  Imitation only requires that one product resembles another to a greater or lesser extent.  However, proving whether one design copies another design has, historically, proven to be a rather difficult subject to deal with because aesthetics are very hard to quantify and any assessment is always going to be subjective.  So, while I certainly wouldn’t want to be in Ghamak’s position trying to defend this, because the outcome is highly uncertain, I don’t think it’s a slam dunk for GW by any stretch, assuming that they are going to pursue him for imitating their products and not, as Ghamak states, for making something that is compatible with 40k (which I honestly can’t bring myself to believe is true).

[limburger 22075xp 0]

I’d say part of the problem here is that :
(a) he is selling digital products instead of physical ones
(b) laws have yet to adapt to that concept which creates loopholes for both sides to abuse …

Part of what probably helped the ALDI case was that you had to physically walk into that store and buy the product.
You were therefor acutely aware that you weren’t buying a fancy high end cake, but an imitation.

That sort of thing is not as obvious with a digital good being sold on a digital market place.

And while he may avoid mentioning GW or related trademarks. The issue is that once he sells those STL’s he can’t prevent others from re-selling them as GW models. It also is real easy to remove any traces of the original creator from such files, compared to actual physical items.

You have to be pretty blind to not see that this guy is attempting to see how far he can push the legality of the product he is producing. As such GW have every right to want to stop him from doing so.

To me there are two dangerous aspects of this situation :
– how much creative freedom do creators really have and where does one draw the line between honest inspiration and malicious infringing ? This is something that is likely to be along the lines of “is it porn or is it art ?” and very difficult to nail down as the intent and experience of the consumer need not always be the same. An answer to this question is needed, but the amount of grey area it creates (or doesn’t allow for) is what is going to cause problems down the line as it could affect companies like Mantic who happen to create minis for things that are similar to but never meant to be related to concepts that GW has.

– what unintended consequences will flow from the legal tactics that GW has chosen to use ?
Will this expand to situations where anything that a corporation deems a threat to its business to be an acceptable target instead of regular competition ?

What I really don’t want to happen is for 3D printing to start enforcing DRM. It’s bad enough that printers/copiers have had to be re-designed to stop them from literally printing money.
a 3D printer that can only print ‘approved’ designs is a terrible concept.

[Author]

Posts