|
|
"Viewpoint" is a monthly
column authored by Terry Wohlers for Time-Compression
Technologies.
This column was published in the August/September 2004 issue.
What
the 3D Systems/EOS Settlement Means to the Industry
The resolution of eight lawsuits paves the
way for improved competition and a stronger industry.
By Terry Wohlers
In early February, I received news that 3D
Systems and EOS had entered into an agreement that settled all worldwide
disputes and litigation between the two companies. This news was big for
the RP industry. Very big! In fact, the lingering battle between the two
companies has been one of the obstacles to the growth of the industry,
when you consider the magnitude of its impact. Not only were these two
companies spending enormous amounts of cash on these disputes, the
friction between the companies was a serious deterrent to the sale of
products to major corporations. I was privy to more than one instance in
which a company here in the U.S. put the brakes on purchasing new
systems because they didn't want to risk legal entanglement. This is
risk is now gone.
Prior to the arrival of Abe Reichental, 3D Systems' president and CEO
hired in September 2003, I had held little hope for a settlement based
on conversations I had with top management at both companies. Both sides
stated more than once that they were willing to negotiate a deal, but
both would say the other would not budge. It became clear to me that a
settlement would not happen until a major change occurred at one or both
companies. That change took place in September 2003. Congratulations to
Reichental and Hans Langer, chief executive at EOS, for working through
the deal.
Without a willingness and determination to bring the senseless fighting
to an end, EOS and 3D Systems would still be burning through dollars,
euros and yen. Both companies can now apply what they would otherwise
spent on legal fees to R&D, commercialization of new products and
product upgrades, and the development of new markets. It also means that
customers can anticipate more and healthier competition for laser
sintering products and services in the U.S.
As part of the settlement that was announced in February, EOS will pay
3D Systems a royalty based on the future sales of certain laser
sintering products in the U.S. Even so, EOS maintains that it had the
right to offer its products in the U.S. prior to the settlement.
Meanwhile, 3D Systems said that it plans to sell under its own brand
laser-sintering equipment and related products under an OEM supply
agreement with EOS. In a February 2004 statement, 3D stated that it
would resell the large EOSINT P 700 system from EOS.
Where does the OEM agreement stand as of early August 2004, the deadline
for this column? Comments from various industry sources suggest that it
has not progressed and that it may not develop at all. In mid-July, Hans
Langer explained to me that 3D Systems has not ordered or taken delivery
of any systems from EOS, nor has it given any recent signs that it plans
to do so. It is believed that 3D overlooked the costs associated with
adding value to the existing EOSINT P 700 platform, coupled with the
expense of offering spare parts, documentation, training, service and
support in the U.S. EOS would manufacture and supply the base machine
only, but would do nothing more. This is typical of an OEM supply
agreement.
One key source believes that 3D Systems is currently in the process of
developing its own large-frame laser-sintering machine to compete with
the EOSINT P 700. I hope this is true because it would provide customer
prospects with another product option. As we all know, competition is a
good thing.
3D Systems may or may not choose to exercise its option of the OEM
supply agreement with EOS. Regardless, the two companies are on the
right path. They are competing in the marketplace instead of the
courtroom and that's healthy for them and the RP industry.
Indeed, this is a happy conclusion to a long and costly struggle between
these two companies. The settlement gives 3D Systems and EOS a much
better chance of developing winning products-systems and materials that
will help their customers succeed. The next time you communicate with
either Reichental or Langer, thank them for putting their differences
aside and concentrating on helping to grow and further develop our vital
industry.
Industry consultant, analyst and speaker Terry Wohlers is principal
consultant and president of Wohlers Associates, Inc. (Fort Collins, CO).
For more information visit http://wohlersassociates.com.
Sidebar
Alternative Solutions
Patent litigation in the U.S. is roughly an order of magnitude more
expensive than in other countries, so one of the U.S. lawsuits could
have meant a premature end to either company. I'm in favor of protecting
intellectual property, but I could not understand why these two
companies dropped cash into a black hole for years that neither could
afford. Meanwhile, competitive companies were developing and
commercializing products regularly.
Some time ago, an RP system manufacturer in the U.S. was faced with a
probable lawsuit that would have been a major financial drain on the
company. Instead, the company was able to trade rights to patents for
company stock and everyone was happy. More recently, I spoke with the
CEO of a software company that was facing a similar situation. An
individual in the company recommended to the CEO that they take
immediate legal action for patent infringement. Instead, the wise CEO
picked up the phone, and in 15 minutes, had worked a deal with the
competitor, avoiding what would have been a costly affair.
|