Technology has always been the touchstone of human progress. It has revolutionized the way of living, speaking, and trading. The story with most technological innovations proper from cloning to the Internet and to the latest cell phones has been same-preliminary euphoria of the assets of the discovery and the establishment of the regulatory configuration to save your misuse or violation. Going via the precedents, it is reasonable that this pattern of the story will apply to future technological innovations too.
3D Printing era
One such technological invention that has fallen into the fold of this narrative albeit within the initial period is the additive manufacturing technology or more usually called 3D printing generation. The application of this technological stage from Industrial tooling to Bioprinting which entails the printing of human tissues from human cells.
3-D printing relates to processes in which material is joined or solidified below computer control to create a 3-dimensional object by means of including material collectively. This technology emerged in the 1980s, largely for industrial packages and has therefore extended to diverse fields which consist of food and medication.
The Legal Issues
As described above, the initial legal troubles due to the adoption of 3-D printing technology throughout multiple stakeholders which comprises Industries and Individuals. Most obstacles rise up due to the use by these Individuals or Hobbyists which drive to violations of the regulation. The legal guidelines violated generally are as follows:
Intellectual Property Laws
- Design regulation violations.
Tort Law Violations
Tort Law violations which occur due to product responsibility issues cropping up from the cease ‘revealed’ product.
The IP law challenges
The IP law violations stand up in large part due to the subsequent additives of the era:
- The 3-D printer that’s used to create or print the items, whether or not this printer can print objects underneath patent safety or whether or not the printer itself can be patented.
- The access to a 3-D printer to private individuals has raised concerns around the printing of those products which might be underneath patent safety that may result in growth in counterfeit products.
- This has been an immense trouble to reign in large part because it’s far tough for song folks that print those covered objects in the confines of their home.
- Still, the printer itself can be patented if the printer fulfills the standards required for patenting viz novelty and able to industrial application.
- The CAD file or the virtual software which has the layout/model or the scan of the item to be published whether or not this leads to copyright infringement of the reproducing software program without authorization.
- The more contentious legal issue with 3-D printing is related to copyright violation attributable to the use of the CAD file or the virtual software program adapted for modeling or scanning the object.
- The CAD is the key to developing the prototype product and is considered as software program as a result blanketed as creative work under copyrights law.
- The Indian copyright act, 1957 gives protection from the violation of artistic work beneath the provisions cited under section 14 of the act.
- The provision for protection with respect to 3-D printing is mentioned segment 14 (c) (i) which restricts to reproduce the work in any cloth form such as in 3 dimensions of a -dimensional work or vice versa.
- Therefore, by means of scanning of a product and creating a 2D document and then printing the 3-D products amounts to copyright violation as copyright persists within the CAD report itself and the 3-D print of it quantities to violation of the writer’s copyright of the file.
- The final design of the product printed whether or not the layout of the final product encroaches at the design of a layout covered product.
- In case of Design of the final printed object, best the visual functions, as severed from the helpful part of the published item can be a concern for copyright protection.
- Therefore, if as an example, there’s a complex sample in a 3D revealed authority, best that pattern might be covered and no longer space itself. Also, the word design itself does no longer fit into the criminal definition under the act in all cases.
- Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 calls for that visual capability be carried out via an industrial technique. However, the courts have interpreted the commercial procedures as the ones which are performed on a large scale. Therefore, making it difficult to convey the one’s objects which might be revealed the use of transportable 3-D printing gadgets at domestic and workplaces under the ambit of the statute.
The way ahead
- The narrative/role of the 3D printing generation with respect to troubles raised is not unique and it’s been the case with many route-breaking innovative technologies earlier than it.
- The gaps within the law are taken observe off and new ones will emerge with the growing demand and use of the technology.
- However, the lawmakers and the legal community have to take into consideration the gravity of the state of affairs, especially given the generation’s effect in risky sectors like remedy and pharmaceuticals.
- Given the impact and the utility of the technology, this technology is right here to stay, as a result, it’s far only cautious that these troubles are addressed at the earliest.