Unless they still have an unexpired patent on the design, it's completely legal to clone. Physical objects simply do not have the same type of copyright protection, and there is considerable precedent in making compatible components --- the most notable example being the automotive aftermarket.

▲ jijijijij an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I believe the restriction on personal replication of patented designs is a US thing (only?). At least in Germany, you are legally allowed to make patented things for yourself or science to some capacity. The whole point of a patent is encouraging progress through disclosure of knowledge.

The US restriction is quite mad, if you think about it. Freedom my ass.

▲ V__ an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You correct, you are allowed to "break" patent law in Germany, if the use is private and non-commercial. This does not encompass schools and science though.

▲ bbor an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

  The whole point of a patent is encouraging progress through disclosure of knowledge.

Is it, though? It seems like the purpose of a patent is pretty direct: make money for people(/corporations...) who invent things.

I guess you could argue that inventors would hide their designs without patents, but that's not how any industry I'm familiar with works; if they thought that obscurity was an option, they'd stick with it and just label it a trade secret!

▲

bfivyvysj 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, that is the purpose. It incentives R&D by providing a sanctioned monopoly on the result. The trade in return is that the public domain gets access to the trade secret after enough time has passed to provide the inventor with reward for their investment risk.

The problem is the time has been repeatedly extended across the world to the point that society gets very little from this arrangement.

At this point we're better off removing the concept of IP entirely.

▲

PunchyHamster 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The original idea was "we protect the invention so the companies have guarantee that their investment in the innovation pays off".

The assumption was the invention was something rare and hard, not something you could re-recrate from scratch in a week or evening (in case of software invention) or that patent is only filled to cast a wide net to block the competition

▲

0-_-0 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Obscurity makes no sense on a world with patents.

	▲	close04 11 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Obscurity is otherwise known as "trade secret". It's used when the company really doesn't want to give anyone even a hint of what and how it's doing things, maybe going as far as assuming nobody can figure out the process independently either, so filing for a patent is out of the question. The Coca Cola formulation is a famous example.
	▲	teaearlgraycold an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Unless you don’t think anyone will ever figure out how you do something.

▲

jijijijij 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> It offers a bargain between society and inventor:for a limited period of exclusivity, the inventor agrees to make the invention public rather than to keep it secret.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

In today's world patents are mostly dysfunctional, or straight malignant. They tend to slow, discourage progress and selectively aid large corporation who can afford the legal warfare.

▲ an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲ teaearlgraycold an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Uh no you can definitely make a replica of a patented device at home in the US. You can not sell it. I don’t think you could distribute the files of a reverse engineered Noctua fan online either.

	▲	jijijijij 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Correct me, if I am wrong: > Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271 There seems to be no exception for personal use. A quick search shows apparent patent lawyers claiming personal use/manufacturing not to be permitted, either (I won't link it here, since it may or may not be SEO/AI spam). If I understand correctly, this is also evident by legal precedent regarding rights to repair (invalid defense). De facto it may be usually without consequences, since patent violations need to be called out by the offended party. If the patent holder is oblivious, nothing will happen. And since personal reproduction is likely not causing financial damages, you are likely only gonna be told to stop, I presume. But it's still infringement and consequently you may get away with reproduction, but cannot talk about it. Honestly, I couldn't believe it at first either. It seems wildly overstepping into personal freedom what you are allowed to make with your own hands for yourself. Especially since patents are now granted liberally for stuff borderline trivial, or not actually innovative, lacking thorough research.

▲ taskforcegemini 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

just make sure there aren't any rounded corners

▲ unixhero 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But can I clone my lover?