Tom is about to do his build…

New Home Forum Updates Tom is about to do his build…

This topic contains 444 replies, has 71 voices, and was last updated by  Janus 3 hours, 4 minutes ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 241 through 270 (of 445 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #113449

    Guffy
    Participant

    I came back to say to Ryan – you have to don’t care too much about all that. Just doing your job and go ahead. That’s not end of the world 🙂

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #113451

    Rick
    Participant

    @jason You spelled out the context that I missed at first, where I thought Ryan was in the wrong and it was all over “one part”.

    I’m glad someone took the time to do that. I wasn’t sure I could have explained it well.

    Tom was misleading at best with his summary on his last video.

     

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  Rick.
    3 users thanked author for this post.
    #113458

    Rick Stephens
    Participant

    Hi.

    To Ryan – if your goal is to service this community, you are doing an admirable job.  You have produced something that you can be proud of, and that can (and should) get better over time.

    If your goal is to do this and make enough money to provide an adequate living, I again applaud you.  Not many will do this.

    If your goal is to create a business, one that employs enough people so you do not have to stuff bags all day, then you will need to change.  You will need lawyers; you will need accountants; you will need steady, reliable income.  And you will need to rethink licensing, because you will need more protections, not less.  Or, as put so well, you will need a product that no one could duplicate as quickly or as well as you do (think Prusa).

    I am not finding fault in what you want, but I do not think some/few sales and some/few donations are the business model that gets past one man, in a garage, doing everything.

    This incident with Tom isn’t about licensing.  It’s about what you want and what you will need or not need to do.

    You have my respect either way.

    4 users thanked author for this post.
    #113460

    MariusSorteberg
    Participant

    My first post here

    Thanks @Ryan for your design! I bought the full kit from you two weeks ago, just after Tom published the first video in the series. I’m still printing the parts, had the 25mm stainless tubing from a planned project (since ten years ago) and are happy they soon will become useful in combination with a AMB (Kress) 1050 FME-P.

    I just published a long comment on YouTube. I like Tom and his videos, but in this case he was wrong. He may be embarrassed because of his failed build, but if he had gone further with his release of parts under another licence than Ryan’s, he would not stand a chance in court.

    I fully respect your decisions Ryan, but think that Open Source of your design will result in a better result in the longer run. The business model is a lot harder, and you risk to lose control over your own design.

    If you chose to do Open Source, your income must come from services (support) and selling “verified” components. In addition you have to be in the forefront in development of your own design, possible in a pace you are not comfortable with. Like other has mentioned before me, Prusa has done this, and since they are growing rapidly in sales and employees, something must be right.

    Still, this is not and easy choice to make. I’ll hit the donate button now and wish your business the best.

    This is what I just posted on Tom’s YouTube channel:

    “Dear Tom, I hope you read this, because it is meant as constructive feedback on your MPCNC series, which I have seen all episodes of. First, thank you for creating so much good material, I’ve been following you for a while and watched many of your videos. After watching the last episode of the series, I better understand your attitude, but think the ending of this is a shame for the creative environment. I myself have 22 years in IT / Software business where Open Source has been in focus on almost everything I have done, and I know the benefits and challenges this can bring. One of the main reasons I chose Prusa MK3S as my latest 3D printer was that Open Source provides a higher improvement rate than “closed” licenses, and you reviews was one of my sources before buying.  This does not entitle you to try to pressure Ryan into releasing his intellectual property (IP) under a license other than the one he chose. It is complicated to do business with Open Source, and I have every respect that Ryan chooses a model that gives him more control. He gives free support to anyone who uses his design, whether they have purchased components from him or not. If someone asks for support for a design of his model that has “drifted” towards another design, this can be difficult and time consuming. Personally, I would recommend Ryan another financial model (and licence), but it is completely wrong to pressure him releasing his IP under Open Source. I would have liked to have test your suggestion for belt attachment, it may be better than Ryan’s solution, but before you start improving the design you should have asked yourself why there are several thousand people who have a working MPCNC according to designs that can also cut aluminum (and steel). Your build failed, either because something was wrong in the build process or the wrong components were selected (I suspect your spindle and very long zip-tie, but it’s not essential here). My wish is that this series ended with you being curious enough to find the bug, fix it and get a working MPCNC, like many others. Now, this was ended in a childish way that that I did’t expect from you. For all of you that think this series put you of building the MPCNC, look up all the videos of people that made it, buy your stuff from trusted sources (like https://www.v1engineering.com) and happy milling!”

     

     

    8 users thanked author for this post.
    #113462

    Jason
    Participant

    Isn’t it a little early for the wine, Jason? 🙂

    After Tom’s video I wished I could have opened a bottle this morning 😀

    But for the record, that’s  3 year old photo taken at 10:30 at night (May 21st, 2016 10:38PM to be exact) it just happened to the be first one I found that showed the old corner design 😉

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #113463

    Gene buckle
    Participant

    I’m just flabbergasted at this whole thing.

    I saw that Tom had a new video up.  I had no idea it was going to end up with him breaking his toys and going home.

    I’ve seen him get wildly butthurt over licenses in the past – that’s why he dropped OnShape and went to Fusion 360.  (He made the erroneous assumption that because he made money showing people how to make things in OnShape that it violated their license of non-commercial use…)

    His part is /clearly/ a derivative work.  Regardless of what he /thinks/ it is.  That’s where this whole thing pivots – he doesn’t understand what works “derivative” encapsulate.  (Hint: When you derive the hole positions for your part by measuring an existing part (in order to do the same job), it’s a derivative work).

    The NC clause of the license (as is my understanding, please correct me if I’m wrong) basically means that you cannot produce the licensed parts for sale.  It implies /nothing/ about how you can USE the parts you make.  If you want to make an MPCNC machine and charge rich idiots thousands of dollars per ounce for Artisanal Pine Swarf (aka “Chips for Dips(tm)”), the NC portion of the license doesn’t prevent that.  Tom appeared to be under the mistaken belief that the NC license meant he couldn’t use the machine on his channel.  (I think.  I may have mis-heard something during his eight minute disassembly-trum.)

    This whole thing would never have happened had Tom not leapt atop his high horse to yabber on about something he didn’t know anything about.

    One thing I don’t get – I’ve got an MPCNC build that’s got 50″+ rails – how the hell did he end up with that much play in that tiny build of his?  When my motors are energized, the only way those things so much is twitch is if I hit ’em hard enough to force them to skip steps or teeth.  That boy done screwed something up. 😉

    Ryan, you’ve got a good design and there’s not a damn thing wrong with how you’re running your business.  Ignore Tom – he’s probably still irked that our grandparents kicked the living **** out of his grandparents. 😀  Do NOT read the comments on YouTube.  It’s a toxic cesspool of shouty ignorance.

    I suspect there’s a LowRider in my future… 😀

    g.

    (edit: I bought a shirt too! 🙂 )

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  Gene buckle.
    8 users thanked author for this post.
    #113476

    Geoffrey
    Participant

    Also, @vicious1 where is the donate link?

    https://www.v1engineering.com/donate/

    It’s under Shop->Donate. Ryan won’t promote it, but I will :).

    Ryan you sneaky SOB!! I remember asking you to get on Patreon, then I never even noticed when you actually were.  Sending you a monthly couple of beers… you need them.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #113509

    Joseph
    Participant

    I saw that Tom had a new video up. I had no idea it was going to end up with him breaking his toys and going home.

    I’ve seen him get wildly butthurt over licenses in the past – that’s why he dropped OnShape and went to Fusion 360. (He made the erroneous assumption that because he made money showing people how to make things in OnShape that it violated their license of non-commercial use…)

    I just looked up the video you are talking about so I can understand everything better and it blows my mind. Do you know what he says is “a step too far?”
    If you use the free version of OnShape, you automatically grant a worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license to any End User, without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, plublish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies.

    In his own words, “Anything you produce in OnShape is now free for anyone to do anything with, basically”… “But I think actually making stuff essentially public domain, for anyone to do whatever they want with it, might just be a step too far

    Contrast that with the most recent video where he copies and modifies a design released under Creative Commons Attribution non Commercial (which is fine, as long as you share alike with the same license) and says, “I’m sharing this as a Creative Commons 0 aka public domain, print it modify it, you don’t even have to give credit for it, basically, do whatever you want with it

    Come on Thomas, not only does that go against the original license the parts were released under, you’ve already stated on your channel that this is a step too far.

    (Side note, I finished printing parts for the machine today, and I eagerly await my shipment from Ryan. I’m super excited to put this together, and I’ve looked into it enough to know what its capable of)

    7 users thanked author for this post.
    #113515

    Heath
    Participant

    Wow, I’m just now learning about all of this today.  I haven’t even followed his MPCNC build (but I did follow Michael Laws’ – aka Teaching Tech – build of the LowRider).  Tom’s part was clearly derivative.  It doesn’t matter if it was redrawn from “scratch” in F360. The majority of the part is visually and functionally the same, the aesthetic is the same, etc.  It LOOKS like a V1 Engineering part.

    Capture

    I understand Tom’s love of open source, but you have to respect the wishes of the original creator of a work.  I don’t know about legally, but morally Tom was wrong.  Why was it so hard for him to just respect the license, even if he disagreed with it?

    I hate you’re going through this, Ryan.

    Capture-2

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  Heath.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  Heath.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  Heath.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  Heath.
    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #113523

    Leon
    Participant

    Ryan has always been very supportive of redesigns and making your own parts for this machine. I think that’s a huge misconception that’s being propogated. The #1 reason any of this matters is, there are people who will print the STLs from thingiverse, sell them on ebay, and then direct users to come to v1engineering for support. This causes a big impact to Ryan and his sales, especially internationally.

    If Tom had just used the same CC-SA-NC, or what have you, license, this would have been praised and not been a fight at all. The fear is that Tom will redesign the entire machine (which he said he would do), release the files in CC0, and then ebayers will start taking large portions of business from Ryan and we’d end up with a bunch of angry users in the forums.

    I mean in the case of someone printing, then selling the MPCNC files on ebay and directing users to V1Engineering for support then I completely agree with Ryan and his interpretation of the licensing (and don’t see any gray areas when it comes to 3d parties selling for profit). Using SA-NC to lock that down makes sense. Really, these forums from a business perspective are considered advertising and as well as a free service/knowledge base for users, anyone outside of the V1Engineering space trying to use them to promote their own redesign is morally (and most likely legally) in the wrong. I don’t really get the feeling Tom would have done that though, however I understand users may have come here anyway, and in that case Ryan, or anyone, would have fully been within their right to say “Sorry, that’s not a supported part. As we’re not the designers of it and have no experience with it, we’re unable to help you properly. Try XYZ alternative.”, as I’m sure already happens with modified files from Thingiverse. I know that’s probably a PITA though.

    If Tom was to direct people to V1Engineering for any of his OPCNC parts and claim that Ryan, these forums, or you are a support platform, I think that be the point a cease and desist would probably come into play. Ethically it would be a huge stain on Tom too, but his fanbase may not care.

    I spend far too much time here in the forums helping others. My reason for being here is because of the free parts of the project. The fact that you can print the parts yourself and go to a local store for much of the rest, is huge for me. It’s for that reason that I support a lot of people on these forums. Many people getting support here aren’t paying Ryan a dime, and I love the machine and community enough to support them for free.

    Yeah, after doing some more reading I’ve noticed how much involvement you have here. You’ve definitely spent a lot of time and effort trying to help out and your replies on this situation are probably the most level headed and reasonable. As someone who’s done a lot on r/3DPrinting, I know the rabbit hole providing free support can be, and you seem to deal with everyone with respect and patience which can be trying at times. So major props to you, you speak volumes for this community.

    No. This is more akin to someone taking some wheels (let’s say Enkei RPF1s), opening a CAD program, copying every single measurement from the wheels into the cad program, then changing the location of the valve stem.

    Out of interest (and not looking for an argument here, just some knowledge), would you feel the same if the bracket was shaped as a large rectangle/box and the only “copied” parts were the bolt spacing, and the slot for the tube OD?

    Aesthetically there doesn’t seem to be much to the part that isn’t functional. Belt needs to be on the same side, the belt holder is angled as it is to compensate for strain/sheering forces, and the external curvature is to reduce material cost (I assume). I mean ignoring the “Zip Ties vs No Zip Ties” argument, Ryan’s design is pretty tight and minimalist because it’s designed well, but because of that there aren’t going to be too many ways to design the part from ground up that don’t add unnecessary bulk or “features”.

    That said, I never saw Tom’s part outside of the screenshot, but if the design was fully parametric then I think saying his work is the equivalent of only changed the valve stem location is a bit of a stretch.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #113524

    Ryan
    Keymaster

    I bet you guys do not know how hard it is for me to keep my mouth shut…I really wish he didn’t present this as me and a single part, instead of the entire machine as he intended. That might slow down quite a few people down from such fast judgement.

    Sorry Joseph, I had an earlier appointment and a later lack of enthusiasm to look at the parts to pack up orders for very long. Don’t worry I am not very behind in shipping anymore.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #113543

    Jeffeb3
    Participant

    If Tom was to direct people to V1Engineering for any of his OPCNC parts and claim that Ryan, these forums, or you are a support platform, I think that be the point a cease and desist would probably come into play. Ethically it would be a huge stain on Tom too, but his fanbase may not care.

    It’s not Tom that would do that, but if he released the entire machine (like Tom said he would) with CC0, others would have. It’s happens frequently, and Ryan’s defense is the CC-NC license.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #113546

    Mmmfishtacos
    Participant

    I really can’t understand some people logic, I had people try to tell me that not all the parts would be covered under the license. Then what’s the point of a license?  I really don’t see what was so hard about following the license set up with the original design. Then we had a lot of cell phone case and break rotor comparisons. Even had one about taking photos of bunnies. I really can’t follow people logic some times. Mostly because it isn’t there.

    4 users thanked author for this post.
    #113547

    Ryan
    Keymaster

    Oh my goodness, Tom helped us find tacos! You have been gone a long time, glad to see your comment.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #113556

    Mmmfishtacos
    Participant

    Sorry, I have two boxes worth of part to build. I just dont have the space. Still looking forward to the day I can build mine. I’ve been learning lots though. I learn zbrush and got pretty decent with fusion. I’m always on twitter if anyone wants to contact me. 🙂

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #113557

    RussianCatFood
    Participant

    @Ryan

    Created account just to express my solidarity with V1 Engineering and standing by your license. We go through the same shenanigans on weekly basis at VORON Design. It’s infuriating that Tom decided to paint you a villain and ride off into the sunset in his Open Hardware cape. It’s disingenuous and frankly childish.

    Keep up good work and don’t let the clowns derail your efforts.

    5 users thanked author for this post.
    #113565

    Ryan
    Keymaster

    Thanks, a little rough but what can you do.

    Those are some nice build pictures. I need to dig through your gallery more, and I kinda have a thing for black and red!

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #113566

    Tim
    Participant

    Out of interest (and not looking for an argument here, just some knowledge), would you feel the same if the bracket was shaped as a large rectangle/box and the only “copied” parts were the bolt spacing, and the slot for the tube OD?

    Aesthetically there doesn’t seem to be much to the part that isn’t functional.

    I would feel a bit different, yes. I can’t speak for Ryan but I have a feeling he would too?

    You might say the shape is dictated by the function. But if you go back to page 9, someone posted a picture of the old design… which performs the same function, but has a vastly different shape. I don’t think that a part has to be artistically designed to be afforded IP protections. Ryan came up with the design first and narrowed it down to what was functionally necessary. Tom comes along, copies the design, and then says “it is designed like this because that’s what’s functionally necessary. I didn’t copy it.”

    #113567

    Gene buckle
    Participant

    One thing I find slightly amusing – if you google “what is a derivative work”, every single result (at least on the first page of results, I didn’t look further) defines what Tom did as a derivative work.  Everyone arguing the opposite (including Tom) is offering an opinion, not an actual fact.  The problem is that people seem to think that their opinions have the same weight as facts and they do not.  Confirmation Bias at work folks. 😉

    I’ll even make it easy for folks to be annoying:

    https://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+a+derivative+work 😀 😀 😀

    Ryan, if anyone continues to assert that what Tom created wasn’t “derivative”, just reply with that link.  No other text. 😀  If they still argue, you’ve got a troll or an idiot on your hands and a new entry in your block list. 🙂

     

    g.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #113569

    Mmmfishtacos
    Participant

    One thing I find slightly amusing – if you google “what is a derivative work”, every single result (at least on the first page of results, I didn’t look further) defines what Tom did as a derivative work. Everyone arguing the opposite (including Tom) is offering an opinion, not an actual fact. The problem is that people seem to think that their opinions have the same weight as facts and they do not. Confirmation Bias at work folks. 😉

    I’ll even make it easy for folks to be annoying:

    https://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+a+derivative+work 😀 😀 😀

    Ryan, if anyone continues to assert that what Tom created wasn’t “derivative”, just reply with that link. No other text. 😀 If they still argue, you’ve got a troll or an idiot on your hands and a new entry in your block list.

    g.

     

    You mean I’m not crazy?

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  Mmmfishtacos.
    #113571

    Jonathan
    Participant

    I’m genuinely interested in seeing what an actual IP attorney would advise in this situation. I’m new to this community, having recently finished my LowRider2 build. I’m also a small business owner, so I understand the pressure Ryan is under. I can honestly see both sides of this debate. If this was my business I’d seek counsel, not to litigate, but to better understand my position and inform future decisions regarding my business. Ryan, please let us know if you seek counsel. I would donate to the cause. I’m really interested in hearing a legally-informed opinion on this matter.

    #113574

    Aaron
    Participant

    noncommercial

     

    His license is

    white-knight

     

    The hypocrisy.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
    #113578

    rkrammes
    Participant

    Just wanted to hold up my hand in support of Ryan in this troubling period.  This too shall pass.  I built my MPCNC 2 years ago and got a lot of help here on the forums yet never gave a penny to V1 Engineering.  So, many thanks to all of you.

    Quick context, up until this time Tom was my favorite 3D printing youtuber.  I have enjoyed his analytical perspective and the fact he would sometimes make DIY focused videos.  I enjoyed his build series and I was excited to see what “improvements”  he felt the MPCNC needed.  I was a little discouraged when he didn’t seem to be building with much concern for accuracy.  I was much more discouraged when he seemed conspicuously ignorant of the wealth of informations and suggestions available for fixing his problems.  Now, I am sickened by the arrogance he had in refusing your polite request to correct the liscense.  I refuse to believe it, and I think it would be wise for Ryan to refuse to believe it as well, but if he were going to do a hit peice, I don’t think he could have done a better job.

    He livestreamed a build and took every chance to complain about the assembly while not even putting forward much effort.

    He then jumped right into difficult cuts.  The machine performed terribly.

    He focused on a small part of the build that is easy to critisize since zip ties are inexpensive and therefore bad.

    He then designed a “fix”, that again, couldn’t have looked more derivative if he tried, and made a big deal about how it would be released with the intensions to subvert your license whether your interpretation of that license is correct or not.

    Jebuz, it just gives me that sinking feeling inside.

    Now, on the productive side.  One of my co-workers is going to build an MPCNC because Tom’s video still inspired him.  He has multiple engineering degrees and was not diswaded by Tom’s conclusions.

    Also, I had an idea.  I don’t think you should cave to the trolls but what about a peace offering?  What if you announced that the next version of the MPCNC would be parametric but with the same license?  Just an idea.

    Keep up the good work Ryan and everyone else helping support the project.  I mean, Ive got a CNC in my garage.  That’s awesome!!

    3 users thanked author for this post.
    #113579

    Ryan
    Keymaster

    What if you announced that the next version of the MPCNC would be parametric but with the same license? Just an idea.

    I am not that good at CAD. My model is fully parametric but with hundreds of operations on most of them changing any number is bound to break something. It takes me a long time to do the two other versions once I have finalized and tested something. Sometimes I find out I simply can not make it fit on all three designs so I have to revise again. If the parts were very blockish I would stand a chance but the more”design elements” I add complicates things. That is for one piece, then don’t for get this is an assembly of lots of parts, and heaven forbid we discount all the hardware shapes and sizes all over the world that have to fit as well.

    4 users thanked author for this post.
    #113584

    RussianCatFood
    Participant

    Heaven forbid we discount all the hardware shapes and sizes all over the world that have to fit as well.

    ❤️

    “But I have this PVC drain pipe and some 2x4s. I wanna remix your design! Gimme CAD files!”

    The level of entitlement open source movement has bred is astonishing. Don’t worry about the time and effort you put into R&D, design, testing, manual, making sure procurement is lined up and streamlined, made it all look presentable, and cultivated a community of users. Nope! You put an imperial screw in there! Travesty!

     

    As rkrammes broke it down, this was a hit job. He had an agenda and he executed perfectly, unfortunately. Sorry man.

     

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #113585

    Clay
    Participant

    I didn’t think he was going to make a video like that, I naively assumed he was above that. He knew what the reaction would be.

    I hope I see him at a convention so I can give him a piece of my mind. What a petty thing to do.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    Tim
    #113593

    Anttix
    Participant

    Congratulations Ryan! You’ve made it!

     

    It probably doesn’t feel like that right now, but you’ve built something people care enough about to copy and have heated Twitter discussions about. This is good, believe me. It’s like they say in the entertainment business: If SNL pokes fun at you, you’ve made it!

     

    On another note though, you may want to make sure you know what IP laws can really do for you so you can adjust your business accordingly and be ready for the attack of the clones that every successful product will be subjected to.

     

    Although I do not agree with Tom’s gung-ho approach he does have a legal high ground here. Do not listen to people who claim a reverse engineered part is “clearly” a derivative: It doesn’t matter one iota if the “original” is not covered. In order for copyright restrictions to apply, the work must be protected by copyright. CAD and STL files can be protected, appearance shape and function of utilitarian objects can not.

    This is why copying fashion designs is a big business and no company has been able to block oriental clones of their products from entering the market.

    I suggest to watch counterfeiting (#5) episode of Kal Penn’s “This Giant Beast That is the Global Economy” https://m.imdb.com/title/tt8450534/

    It covers the topic in detail with explanations of how companies stay ahead of clones. Basically using trademarks and logos (that can be protected) to stand out as an “original” and rapid innovation that forces clones into a perpetual catch-up game.

     

    You may also find this an interesting read.

    http://www.gsnh.com/drawing-line-copyright-industrial-design-protection/

     

    I don’t know if you already have a registered trade mark on your logo and product name (MPCNC). If not, it may be time to get them.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  Anttix.
    #113615

    Kurt Knopp
    Participant

    Tom is a smart guy and I can’t imagine that he really doesn’t understand all the ways he fouled this project and really didn’t understand why his results were poor.  I’ve seen his other videos, so this idea seems far-fetched to me.

    Then him deciding to make a big issue because he didn’t agree with Ryan’s licensing wishes for his intellectual property – it almost seems like this was a project he’d already decided he wasn’t going to allow to succeed.

    Contrast this video series with the one Micheal Laws of Teaching Tech (I think he does some of the absolute best “making” videos out there) did on the assembly of a Lowrider, and you have to scratch your head and wonder if both guys where working on essentially the same concept.  Both are smart guys.  Why did Micheal succeed and Thomas inferred that the design was flawed and not just his implementation of it? Had he not researched and viewed all the videos of people who were having great success with the design and had he not bothered to read forums and tips which would have solved his problems?  Apparently not.

    I’d subscribed to Thomas’s channel and enjoyed many of his videos in the past, but if he’s going to engage in this kind of careless sliming of protects he either doesn’t understand or have bothered to do the proper background research on, I don’t know why I would trust his advice on other matters.  Especially ones where I don’t have the knowledge myself to know that’s he’s just gotten it completely wrong (like with the MPCNC). This isn’t about being a “fanboy” for one or the other – it’s about the facts.  The fact is that you can find more than sufficient success stories on the MPCNC with little effort, to determine that the design works.  So inferring that your problems are due to design flaws is intellectually dishonest, and that’s a matter of fact.

    SMH.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  Kurt Knopp.
    3 users thanked author for this post.
    #113619

    Anonymous

    So, from what i see this has nothing to do with how capable Tom is. he can be the most clever chap in the world or the most stupid individual. (As others has pointed out, this is his 3th failed CNC project.)

    But the issue at hand that Ryan misses is that by saying that Tom is copying his design is that he indirectly says that EVERY design EVER that attaches to a pipe is a copy of the design that Tom made.

    I made a funny small example. Lets say that i have made a clothing rack, it is made out of pipes, pipes that are the same diameter as the pipes used in the MPCNC, if i were to make a laser pointer holder that can be attached to the clothing rack, or a motor mount that needs something to hold the belt. then Ryan CANNOT say that i copied his design, there is only SO many ways you can make a clamp for a pipe, and as long as you dont use the same exact dimensions, or remixes the part in a molding software then you cannot claim that the function of grabbing hold of a pipe is your idea. There are models going back to 2015 that is 3D printed parts that grab hold of conduits.

    While i understand that Ryan is trying to protect what he has made, his anger is misplaced on someone who made a part that CAN be used on his machine, but could also be used for LOADS of other projects.

    We have the same issues in other hobbies that im in, you have designers that think they have the right over a generic product, and goes out and bullies other people into not making what they want. It hurts the community and may discourage other people form picking up the hobby. Its a sad situation that did not have to be like this.

    #113652

    Jeffeb3
    Participant

    Mads, he hasn’t laid claim to holding pipes. If Tom had legitimately made the part without derriving it from Ryan’s parts, it wouldn’t be the same. Besides, it’s not the single part that is offensive, it is the claims Tom made that he was going to redraw the whoke thing. I know this post is long, but these points have been discussed at length already.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
Viewing 30 posts - 241 through 270 (of 445 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.