Well, this is essentially a poll…to We The People. 
Let’s tell the US Government what we think of MakerBot lately.
You don’t take this type of action based on accusations. You have to confirm the accusations first, which is where the courtroom comes in.
This stuff should not have even been accepted by the patent office.
@NathanielStenzel that has to be proven first though. And it’s up to a court to decide if the proof is sufficient or not.
While I appreciate where Tue community is coming from, its kind of a tempest in a teacup…even if you get 100k signatures, this is not the same level issue as a TON of other things (net neutrality, for example)
If it gets 100k signatures, the government will look into it. Even if it does not get 100k signatures, there is a chance that the president will see it and wonder because Bre Pettis was on the White House Blog and so with the president previously saying that he wanted to prevent patent trolls from holding back innovation in the USA, he could take it as an example of the very thing he was wanting to fight and a source of shame.
That is the White House Blog post that I was referring to. Perhaps Bre got a swelled head because of that.
Please, if he wanted to do anything about patent trolls there would already be patent reform on the agenda after all the Apple and Samsung nonsense.
This page vs MakerBot’s recent patent filing. Please read it. It sounds like the people that feel that MakerBot Industries stole from them and the community can get free lawyer assistance if I am reading this right.
@NathanielStenzel and if you read the proposals, they’re not even making any changes, they’re just restating how the patent system already works.
I think part of the problem is that the 3d printing community is pretty international. There aren’t enough Americans who are part of this to make it worth attempting to sign. :-/
@ThantiK you may have a point, but having signs of taking things that direction is something in and of itself.
On a side note, I have been chatting with many people in person about 3D printing and now my one coworker wants to get one.
Rather than post a petition on the USG’s website (which wants a bunch of info to be allowed to sign said petitions - no thanks) - wouldn’t it be more effective to petition Make Magazine and get them to stop advertising them? The entire Make community to be up in arms about this type of plagiarism. I think it would more likely get the point across. Well - maybe only two cents worth - but I thought it sounded good.
@Rojer_Wisner http://change.org too, perhaps. I imagine petitioning everyone advertising them would be a good idea.
I still think it is a good idea to make a fuss to the US government for the pathetic work done by the patent office though. You have to complain a bunch to get anything fixed. Our patent office needs serious fixing.
All too true. There is that and nearly everything else the USG fails at as well. 
I really like the idea of Make Magazine having a bunch of them approach us to ask them to quit accepting advertising dollars from MakerBot…
I kinda wish the poll were better worded. It’s too vague and wishy-washy ‘people say’ and ‘make them stop’ and ‘Ban them’ (entirely) from making patents…all add to a statement likely to fail. (I’m sorry to be such a downer on this, I really DO have an issue with how Makerbot is doing business, unfortunately, the REAL solution takes money, and it’s to ‘patent-up’ ourselves. Even then, there’s not a likely chance of success. ‘Litigation’ is a main arm of big IT companies and it takes a LOT of money to operate in that space. I’m thinking the EFF would be the best group to campaign for.
Hopefully, you meant IP (intellectual property) and not IT - what I do for a living.
@Mike_Miller I honestly did it quickly. Feel free to take some time and write a better one. I have been told that the whole thing is likely to never get the signature quota, but I pointed out that it did not have to get the signature quota if it got the point across.
I frankly consider the patent office to be an opponent of all non-patent ways of protecting/sharing intellectual property. Does a person have to file an anti-patent with the patent office? Is there such a thing? If there is not such a thing, won’t some jackasses try to patent an idea protected under a creative commons or other sort of IP license? Oh wait…that just happened, didn’t it? (throws jelly beans at MakerBot)