> To protect our intellectual property, certain features – such as fan impeller geometries – have been slightly modified while remaining visually very close to the actual product.<p>Noob question: If someone wants to copy their design with no respect to their intellectual property, can't they just 3D scan?
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.
just make sure there aren't any rounded corners
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.<p>The US restriction is quite mad, if you think about it. Freedom my ass.
The legalese about not making a patented item for personal use is basically a technicality. From what I recall I think it might be limited more to process than physical devices, too.<p>No individuals gets prosecuted for it. The companies would spend more on lawyers than they could possibly collect.
> The whole point of a patent is encouraging progress through disclosure of knowledge.<p>Well, in terms of its design, the patent system was designed to reward what we now call theft of IP, by granting someone exclusive use of a technology that they would bring in from another country. Greenfield invention was an afterthought and some of the problems we face stem from that disconnect.
Design by whom? The origin of patent law is older than most nations and constitutions. There have been various variations, reiterations and stated intentions. There is also no such thing as a natural intellectual property and the very legal concept is based on ideas like patent law. And of course, laws only apply to the people governed by them. Bad premises aside, back then, ripping off other peoples was a costly endeavor akin to research investment. And given the importance of the emerging patent system in the industrial revolution, I think your claims are a bit far fetched.
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.
Research is permitted, if the protected invention is commercially available, as far as I know. E.g. medical research. I believe, this means use for research cannot be restricted once commercially available. I am not sure, if it's limited to medicine in Germany. The US has similar exceptions for medical research AFAIK.<p>Sadly there is indeed no blanket permission for public research and education in Germany, either. There is little point mentioning it, but HN rate-limited my account, so I couldn't edit or comment to clarify in time.<p>I am not advocating for the German patent system, I just think the US is particularly ridiculous prohibiting personal reproduction and use. Like, you got a lathe, lab, computer or 3D printer and are literally prohibited to use it as you please, not allowed create certain mechanisms, substances, shapes and functions, for your own use, or even survival, without (possibly) harming anyone else.
> At least in Germany, you are legally allowed to make patented things for yourself or science to some capacity.<p>Yeah, it has always amazed me that Ruf could market their own versions of the 911 without there being a design patent legal problem.
<p><pre><code> The whole point of a patent is encouraging progress through disclosure of knowledge.
</code></pre>
Is it, though? It seems like the purpose of a patent is pretty direct: make money for people(/corporations...) who invent things.<p>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!
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.<p>The problem is the time has been repeatedly extended across the world to the point that society gets very little from this arrangement.<p>At this point we're better off removing the concept of IP entirely.
The original idea was "we protect the invention so the companies have guarantee that their investment in the innovation pays off".<p>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
Modern patent law came from 15th century Venice, where in the 13th century the glassmaker’s guild took trade secrecy so seriously that they decided that any glassworker who left the city without permission was to be hunted down and killed if imprisoning their family didn’t convince them to return.
Obscurity makes no sense on a world with patents.
Obscurity is otherwise known as "trade secret". It's used when the company <i>really</i> 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.
Unless you don’t think anyone will ever figure out how you do something.
> 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.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent</a><p>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. They have become also less informative, more vague, so really the bargain with the collective is off now.
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.
Correct me, if I am wrong:<p>> Except as otherwise provided in this title, <i>whoever</i> without authority <i>makes</i>, <i>uses</i>, 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.<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271" rel="nofollow">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271</a><p>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 (valid defense).<p>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.<p>But it's still infringement and consequently you may get away with reproduction, but cannot talk about it.<p>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.
But can I clone my lover?
Thermaltake already makes a clone:<p><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/features/noctua-nf-a12x25-vs-toughfan-120" rel="nofollow">https://www.tomshardware.com/features/noctua-nf-a12x25-vs-to...</a><p>Noctua seems fine so long as you’re not copying the color scheme and branding. Interestingly TT had a 140mm version before Noctua. Noctua seems happy being the premium option.
Unless they have patents on their fan impleller geomeries, the IP they're referring to is likely just trade secrets. Trade secrets do have legal protections in the US, but those protections are mainly about disclosing or stealing those secrets, not about physically inspecting something and deriving the trade secret that way.<p>Not sure about the tech aspect of 3D scanning or if that would be accurate enough; I don't have any experience there to draw on.
I would think so, or by taking cross sections. Its hard to believe they have some miraculous geometry that needs guarding anyway. Maybe they are trying to dissuade people who might try to 3d print an impeller.<p>3d models for industrial fan manufacturers (Sanyo,NMB) are widely available.
> Its hard to believe they have some miraculous geometry that needs guarding anyway.<p>They do. Their products are an example of a company refining a concept to an extreme degree to squeeze out as much performance as possible.
There could be geometrically tiny optimizations that lead to an outsized impact in noise and flow by turbulence reduction. While optimizing an impeller with computational FSI (fluid structure interaction) is not as hard as before, it still is not trivial. And it's these (perhaps small) optimizations that justify Noctua being 5x more expensive than generic black fan.
I believe the tolerances to the fan housing (which reduces turbulence and thus noise), and the the material stiffness needed for that small tolerance, are the alleged reason there are few copycats. Supposedly getting plastic that rigid is hard. I've tried to find hard numbers and validate that claim, but I wasn't able to. Would probably have to measure an actual noctua fan blade to know. On the other hand, metal printing is attainable now..
While metal printing is attainable..it generally produce shit, surface quality wise. You still need to CNC that if you want a surface roughness not measured in mm<p>And is not like a 5axis could not produce these fan geometries from a block
Do they add glass fibers, I wonder. That's a way to make plastic stiffer but it's a bit harder to make.
Yes, though the fidelity offered by faithful CAD would be both easier to interpret correctly and might even hint at the CAD feature tree.<p>Kudos to them for releasing models useful for integration.
Yes, by no means did I comment to take away from the great service they are doing to the builders. I'm a Noctua fan!<p>I was just curious.
From what I remember from my NASA friend, a few companies, hired a few fluid flow engineers, during the defense bust, and designed fan blades that remarkably increased air flow. ( think profiles like air plane wing ). Something happened and in a few years, there were good fans, and there were great fans.<p>I happen to own a pair of Noctura fans, and wow! They are great, so I would assume that some heavy lifting was done in fluid flow.
You really don’t need to 3d scan, I’m not a cad expert and it took me just a few evenings to replicate pretty much the blade profile of my Noctua fans based on photos
I think they are trying to stop random small shops from making cosmetic copies that compete with their products.<p>Crude copies with convincing appearance would tarnish their brand. Visibly crude copies stop performance data of such copies from being mistaken as representative of actual products.
If your goal is to reproduce it you could just make a cast of the fan and then use that to make a mold.<p>It’d be a bit tricky since you wouldn’t really have a convenient spot for a planar parting line, but should be possible.
A copy-of-a-copy can lose a lot of detail. If you're good, people are going to clone you, but you might as well not do their work for them and filter out at least the lowest effort clones. Given the profit margins of a lot of these things the effort and skill required could make the whole cloning venture not worth it.
Wouldn't there be too much error when you both 3D scan and 3D print it?
The 3d scan is generally used as a base for your cad model, you don’t print it it directly, you instead replicate the shapes in your cad software, that gives you pretty much infinite precision thanks to NURBS<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-uniform_rational_B-spline" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-uniform_rational_B-spline</a>
you'd probably have to do a bit of fixing on a model to get close
My guess is that both 3D printed fans and production fans get balanced, but the production fans have an extra bit of design, that makes the profile sail at both a wider speed range, and peaks at a higher speed.