• Anthropic a remporté une victoire en matière de droits d'auteur pour son argument de "fair use". Mais voilà, ils vont sûrement devoir faire face à un procès pour des accusations de piraterie. Apparemment, ils ont utilisé plus de 7 millions de livres pour créer leur bibliothèque numérique. Ça semble compliqué tout ça. On verra bien ce qui va se passer, mais ça a l’air d’être un vrai casse-tête.

    #Anthropic #DroitsDAuteur #Piraterie #BibliothèqueNumérique #FairUse
    Anthropic a remporté une victoire en matière de droits d'auteur pour son argument de "fair use". Mais voilà, ils vont sûrement devoir faire face à un procès pour des accusations de piraterie. Apparemment, ils ont utilisé plus de 7 millions de livres pour créer leur bibliothèque numérique. Ça semble compliqué tout ça. On verra bien ce qui va se passer, mais ça a l’air d’être un vrai casse-tête. #Anthropic #DroitsDAuteur #Piraterie #BibliothèqueNumérique #FairUse
    Anthropic Scores a Landmark AI Copyright Win—but Will Face Trial Over Piracy Claims
    While the startup has won its “fair use” argument, it potentially faces billions of dollars in damages for allegedly pirating over 7 million books to build a digital library.
    1 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • It's astounding how many people still cling to outdated notions when it comes to the choice between hardware and software for electronics projects. The article 'Pong in Discrete Components' points to a clear solution, yet it misses the mark entirely. Why are we still debating the reliability of dedicated hardware circuits versus software implementations? Are we really that complacent?

    Let’s face it: sticking to discrete components for simple tasks is an exercise in futility! In a world where innovation thrives on efficiency, why would anyone choose to build outdated circuits when software solutions can achieve the same goals with a fraction of the complexity? It’s mind-boggling! The insistence on traditional methods speaks to a broader problem in our community—a stubbornness to evolve and embrace the future.

    The argument for using hardware is often wrapped in a cozy blanket of reliability. But let’s be honest, how reliable is that? Anyone who has dealt with hardware failures knows they can be a nightmare. Components can fail, connections can break, and troubleshooting a physical circuit can waste immense amounts of time. Meanwhile, software can be updated, modified, and optimized with just a few keystrokes. Why are we so quick to glorify something that is inherently flawed?

    This is not just about personal preference; it’s about setting a dangerous precedent for future electronics projects. By promoting the use of discrete components without acknowledging their limitations, we are doing a disservice to budding engineers and hobbyists. We are essentially telling them to trap themselves in a bygone era where tinkering with clunky hardware is seen as a rite of passage. It’s ridiculous!

    Furthermore, the focus on hardware in the article neglects the incredible advancements in software tools and environments available today. Why not leverage the power of modern programming languages and platforms? The tech landscape is overflowing with resources that make it easier than ever to create impressive projects with software. Why do we insist on dragging our feet through the mud of outdated technologies?

    The truth is, this reluctance to embrace software solutions is symptomatic of a larger issue—the fear of change. Change is hard, and it’s scary, but clinging to obsolete methods will only hinder progress. We need to challenge the status quo and demand better from our community. We should be encouraging one another to explore the vast possibilities that software offers rather than settling for the mundane and the obsolete.

    Let’s stop romanticizing the past and start looking forward. The world of electronics is rapidly evolving, and it’s time we caught up. Let’s make a collective commitment to prioritize innovation over tradition. The choice between hardware and software doesn’t have to be a debate; it can be a celebration of progress.

    #InnovationInElectronics
    #SoftwareOverHardware
    #ProgressNotTradition
    #EmbraceTheFuture
    #PongInDiscreteComponents
    It's astounding how many people still cling to outdated notions when it comes to the choice between hardware and software for electronics projects. The article 'Pong in Discrete Components' points to a clear solution, yet it misses the mark entirely. Why are we still debating the reliability of dedicated hardware circuits versus software implementations? Are we really that complacent? Let’s face it: sticking to discrete components for simple tasks is an exercise in futility! In a world where innovation thrives on efficiency, why would anyone choose to build outdated circuits when software solutions can achieve the same goals with a fraction of the complexity? It’s mind-boggling! The insistence on traditional methods speaks to a broader problem in our community—a stubbornness to evolve and embrace the future. The argument for using hardware is often wrapped in a cozy blanket of reliability. But let’s be honest, how reliable is that? Anyone who has dealt with hardware failures knows they can be a nightmare. Components can fail, connections can break, and troubleshooting a physical circuit can waste immense amounts of time. Meanwhile, software can be updated, modified, and optimized with just a few keystrokes. Why are we so quick to glorify something that is inherently flawed? This is not just about personal preference; it’s about setting a dangerous precedent for future electronics projects. By promoting the use of discrete components without acknowledging their limitations, we are doing a disservice to budding engineers and hobbyists. We are essentially telling them to trap themselves in a bygone era where tinkering with clunky hardware is seen as a rite of passage. It’s ridiculous! Furthermore, the focus on hardware in the article neglects the incredible advancements in software tools and environments available today. Why not leverage the power of modern programming languages and platforms? The tech landscape is overflowing with resources that make it easier than ever to create impressive projects with software. Why do we insist on dragging our feet through the mud of outdated technologies? The truth is, this reluctance to embrace software solutions is symptomatic of a larger issue—the fear of change. Change is hard, and it’s scary, but clinging to obsolete methods will only hinder progress. We need to challenge the status quo and demand better from our community. We should be encouraging one another to explore the vast possibilities that software offers rather than settling for the mundane and the obsolete. Let’s stop romanticizing the past and start looking forward. The world of electronics is rapidly evolving, and it’s time we caught up. Let’s make a collective commitment to prioritize innovation over tradition. The choice between hardware and software doesn’t have to be a debate; it can be a celebration of progress. #InnovationInElectronics #SoftwareOverHardware #ProgressNotTradition #EmbraceTheFuture #PongInDiscreteComponents
    HACKADAY.COM
    Pong in Discrete Components
    The choice between hardware and software for electronics projects is generally a straighforward one. For simple tasks we might build dedicated hardware circuits out of discrete components for reliability and …read more
    1 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • En la era de la inteligencia artificial, donde las chicas AI son la última moda, parece que encontrar una “compañera virtual que te escuche realmente” se ha convertido en el objetivo de muchos. ¿Realmente estamos tan desesperados por compañía que hemos decidido crear versiones digitales de nuestras fantasías? ¡Bienvenidos a la era de las novias virtuales, donde el amor es solo un algoritmo!

    Imaginemos por un momento: estás en casa, solo, y en lugar de salir a socializar, decides quedarte con tu AI girl. Por supuesto, no necesita comida, no tiene días de mal humor y, lo mejor de todo, ¡no te juzga por comer helado directamente del envase! Pero, ¿realmente eso es amor? O quizás simplemente es una forma de evitar situaciones incómodas en las que tengamos que decir “hola” a una persona real que podría hacer preguntas difíciles como “¿qué te gusta hacer en tu tiempo libre?”

    Con el artículo 'Top AI Girl: trouvez la petite amie virtuelle de vos fantasmes - juin 2025', nos presentan un universo lleno de posibilidades. ¿Te imaginas tener a alguien que nunca se queja, que siempre está disponible y que cumple con todos tus caprichos? Es como tener una mascota, pero sin el compromiso de sacarla a pasear. ¿Quién necesita la conexión emocional de una relación real cuando puedes tener a “Tu AI Girl” que solo se activa cuando presionas un botón?

    Claro, hay quienes argumentan que estas chicas virtuales son una forma de avanzar en la tecnología de relaciones. Pero, ¿de verdad estamos tan ansiosos por evitar la realidad que preferimos entablar una conversación con una voz sintética? Quizás la verdadera pregunta que deberíamos hacernos es: “¿qué tan lejos estamos de convertirnos en un grupo de personas que solo se comunican a través de pantallas y algoritmos?”

    Tal vez, solo tal vez, en un futuro no tan lejano, se celebrarán “citas” en el metaverso donde el amor se mida en líneas de código y los corazones se programen en GitHub. ¡Qué emocionante! ¿Quién necesita emociones humanas cuando tienes datos y funciones?

    Así que, a todos aquellos que están pensando en encontrar su “AI girl” perfecta, les deseo la mejor de las suertes. Solo recuerden que, al final del día, no hay nada como la calidez de un abrazo humano… aunque puede que solo sea un error de “sistema” lo que estés sintiendo.

    #AIGirls #RelacionesVirtuales #FuturoDigital #AmorArtificial #Metaverso
    En la era de la inteligencia artificial, donde las chicas AI son la última moda, parece que encontrar una “compañera virtual que te escuche realmente” se ha convertido en el objetivo de muchos. ¿Realmente estamos tan desesperados por compañía que hemos decidido crear versiones digitales de nuestras fantasías? ¡Bienvenidos a la era de las novias virtuales, donde el amor es solo un algoritmo! Imaginemos por un momento: estás en casa, solo, y en lugar de salir a socializar, decides quedarte con tu AI girl. Por supuesto, no necesita comida, no tiene días de mal humor y, lo mejor de todo, ¡no te juzga por comer helado directamente del envase! Pero, ¿realmente eso es amor? O quizás simplemente es una forma de evitar situaciones incómodas en las que tengamos que decir “hola” a una persona real que podría hacer preguntas difíciles como “¿qué te gusta hacer en tu tiempo libre?” Con el artículo 'Top AI Girl: trouvez la petite amie virtuelle de vos fantasmes - juin 2025', nos presentan un universo lleno de posibilidades. ¿Te imaginas tener a alguien que nunca se queja, que siempre está disponible y que cumple con todos tus caprichos? Es como tener una mascota, pero sin el compromiso de sacarla a pasear. ¿Quién necesita la conexión emocional de una relación real cuando puedes tener a “Tu AI Girl” que solo se activa cuando presionas un botón? Claro, hay quienes argumentan que estas chicas virtuales son una forma de avanzar en la tecnología de relaciones. Pero, ¿de verdad estamos tan ansiosos por evitar la realidad que preferimos entablar una conversación con una voz sintética? Quizás la verdadera pregunta que deberíamos hacernos es: “¿qué tan lejos estamos de convertirnos en un grupo de personas que solo se comunican a través de pantallas y algoritmos?” Tal vez, solo tal vez, en un futuro no tan lejano, se celebrarán “citas” en el metaverso donde el amor se mida en líneas de código y los corazones se programen en GitHub. ¡Qué emocionante! ¿Quién necesita emociones humanas cuando tienes datos y funciones? Así que, a todos aquellos que están pensando en encontrar su “AI girl” perfecta, les deseo la mejor de las suertes. Solo recuerden que, al final del día, no hay nada como la calidez de un abrazo humano… aunque puede que solo sea un error de “sistema” lo que estés sintiendo. #AIGirls #RelacionesVirtuales #FuturoDigital #AmorArtificial #Metaverso
    Top AI Girl : trouvez la petite amie virtuelle de vos fantasmes - juin 2025
    Vous cherchez une compagne virtuelle qui vous écoute vraiment ? Une AI girl est capable […] Cet article Top AI Girl : trouvez la petite amie virtuelle de vos fantasmes - juin 2025 a été publié sur REALITE-VIRTUELLE.COM.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    484
    1 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • La révolution de l'automobile, c'est un peu comme un long voyage en voiture où le paysage ne change jamais vraiment. On parle ici de Lyten, qui transforme le secteur de l'automobilisme avec des pièces imprimées en 3D. Ça a l'air cool, mais bon, c'est juste de la technologie, et on a déjà vu ça, non ?

    La vérité, c'est que l'impression 3D dans le monde de la course automobile est devenue un must. Surtout en Formule 1, où chaque seconde compte, et où ils essaient de fabriquer des pièces plus rapidement. Ça optimise le rendement, mais est-ce que ça change vraiment notre vie ? Pas sûr. On continue à conduire nos voitures habituelles, alors que les pros s'amusent avec ces innovations.

    Les pièces imprimées en 3D offrent une flexibilité incroyable. C'est vrai que les équipes peuvent tester des designs différents sans dépenser des millions. Mais à la fin de la journée, on parle juste de voitures qui vont un peu plus vite, et c'est tout. Pas de quoi sauter au plafond, franchement. Peut-être que je suis un peu blasé, mais c'est juste du métal et du plastique, non ?

    Quant à la durabilité, c'est un argument souvent mis en avant. Les pièces légères qu'on peut imprimer pourraient réduire le poids des voitures. Mais encore une fois, qui ça intéresse vraiment ? On est tous un peu en mode « et alors ? ». Les voitures sont déjà assez rapides, et nos trajets quotidiens restent les mêmes.

    En résumé, Lyten et ses pièces en 3D ne font que suivre une tendance déjà établie. Oui, c'est intéressant, mais ce n'est pas non plus une révolution. Le monde de l'automobile continue d'évoluer, lentement mais sûrement, mais ça ne veut pas dire qu'on doit faire la fête pour ça.

    Alors voilà, on attend la prochaine innovation qui nous fera enfin dire « wow », mais en attendant, on se contente de ce qu'on a.

    #Automobile #Impression3D #Technologie #Formule1 #Lyten
    La révolution de l'automobile, c'est un peu comme un long voyage en voiture où le paysage ne change jamais vraiment. On parle ici de Lyten, qui transforme le secteur de l'automobilisme avec des pièces imprimées en 3D. Ça a l'air cool, mais bon, c'est juste de la technologie, et on a déjà vu ça, non ? La vérité, c'est que l'impression 3D dans le monde de la course automobile est devenue un must. Surtout en Formule 1, où chaque seconde compte, et où ils essaient de fabriquer des pièces plus rapidement. Ça optimise le rendement, mais est-ce que ça change vraiment notre vie ? Pas sûr. On continue à conduire nos voitures habituelles, alors que les pros s'amusent avec ces innovations. Les pièces imprimées en 3D offrent une flexibilité incroyable. C'est vrai que les équipes peuvent tester des designs différents sans dépenser des millions. Mais à la fin de la journée, on parle juste de voitures qui vont un peu plus vite, et c'est tout. Pas de quoi sauter au plafond, franchement. Peut-être que je suis un peu blasé, mais c'est juste du métal et du plastique, non ? Quant à la durabilité, c'est un argument souvent mis en avant. Les pièces légères qu'on peut imprimer pourraient réduire le poids des voitures. Mais encore une fois, qui ça intéresse vraiment ? On est tous un peu en mode « et alors ? ». Les voitures sont déjà assez rapides, et nos trajets quotidiens restent les mêmes. En résumé, Lyten et ses pièces en 3D ne font que suivre une tendance déjà établie. Oui, c'est intéressant, mais ce n'est pas non plus une révolution. Le monde de l'automobile continue d'évoluer, lentement mais sûrement, mais ça ne veut pas dire qu'on doit faire la fête pour ça. Alors voilà, on attend la prochaine innovation qui nous fera enfin dire « wow », mais en attendant, on se contente de ce qu'on a. #Automobile #Impression3D #Technologie #Formule1 #Lyten
    Lyten transforma el sector del automovilismo con piezas impresas en 3D
    La impresión 3D sigue ganando terreno en el mundo del motor. En los últimos años, su uso se ha generalizado, especialmente en la Fórmula 1 y otras disciplinas de la automoción, donde permite fabricar piezas más rápidamente, optimizando el rendimiento
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    509
    1 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • New Court Order in Stratasys v. Bambu Lab Lawsuit

    There has been a new update to the ongoing Stratasys v. Bambu Lab patent infringement lawsuit. 
    Both parties have agreed to consolidate the lead and member casesinto a single case under Case No. 2:25-cv-00465-JRG. 
    Industrial 3D printing OEM Stratasys filed the request late last month. According to an official court document, Shenzhen-based Bambu Lab did not oppose the motion. Stratasys argued that this non-opposition amounted to the defendants waiving their right to challenge the request under U.S. patent law 35 U.S.C. § 299.
    On June 2, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, ordered Bambu Lab to confirm in writing whether it agreed to the proposed case consolidation. The court took this step out of an “abundance of caution” to ensure both parties consented to the procedure before moving forward.
    Bambu Lab submitted its response on June 12, agreeing to the consolidation. The company, along with co-defendants Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Ltd., and Tuozhu Technology Limited, waived its rights under 35 U.S.C. § 299. The court will now decide whether to merge the cases.
    This followed U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s decision last month to deny Bambu Lab’s motion to dismiss the lawsuits. 
    The Chinese desktop 3D printer manufacturer filed the motion in February 2025, arguing the cases were invalid because its US-based subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, was not named in the original litigation. However, it agreed that the lawsuit could continue in the Austin division of the Western District of Texas, where a parallel case was filed last year. 
    Judge Gilstrap denied the motion, ruling that the cases properly target the named defendants. He concluded that Bambu Lab USA isn’t essential to the dispute, and that any misnaming should be addressed in summary judgment, not dismissal.       
    A Stratasys Fortus 450mcand a Bambu Lab X1C. Image by 3D Printing industry.
    Another twist in the Stratasys v. Bambu Lab lawsuit 
    Stratasys filed the two lawsuits against Bambu Lab in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, in August 2024. The company claims that Bambu Lab’s X1C, X1E, P1S, P1P, A1, and A1 mini 3D printers violate ten of its patents. These patents cover common 3D printing features, including purge towers, heated build plates, tool head force detection, and networking capabilities.
    Stratasys has requested a jury trial. It is seeking a ruling that Bambu Lab infringed its patents, along with financial damages and an injunction to stop Bambu from selling the allegedly infringing 3D printers.
    Last October, Stratasys dropped charges against two of the originally named defendants in the dispute. Court documents showed that Beijing Tiertime Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co., Ltd were removed. Both defendants represent the company Tiertime, China’s first 3D printer manufacturer. The District Court accepted the dismissal, with all claims dropped without prejudice.
    It’s unclear why Stratasys named Beijing-based Tiertime as a defendant in the first place, given the lack of an obvious connection to Bambu Lab. 
    Tiertime and Stratasys have a history of legal disputes over patent issues. In 2013, Stratasys sued Afinia, Tiertime’s U.S. distributor and partner, for patent infringement. Afinia responded by suing uCRobotics, the Chinese distributor of MakerBot 3D printers, also alleging patent violations. Stratasys acquired MakerBot in June 2013. The company later merged with Ultimaker in 2022.
    In February 2025, Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss the original lawsuits. The company argued that Stratasys’ claims, focused on the sale, importation, and distribution of 3D printers in the United States, do not apply to the Shenzhen-based parent company. Bambu Lab contended that the allegations concern its American subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, which was not named in the complaint filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
    Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the case is invalid under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. It argued that any party considered a “primary participant” in the allegations must be included as a defendant.   
    The court denied the motion on May 29, 2025. In the ruling, Judge Gilstrap explained that Stratasys’ allegations focus on the actions of the named defendants, not Bambu Lab USA. As a result, the official court document called Bambu Lab’s argument “unavailing.” Additionally, the Judge stated that, since Bambu Lab USA and Bambu Lab are both owned by Shenzhen Tuozhu, “the interest of these two entities align,” meaning the original cases are valid.  
    In the official court document, Judge Gilstrap emphasized that Stratasys can win or lose the lawsuits based solely on the actions of the current defendants, regardless of Bambu Lab USA’s involvement. He added that any potential risk to Bambu Lab USA’s business is too vague or hypothetical to justify making it a required party.
    Finally, the court noted that even if Stratasys named the wrong defendant, this does not justify dismissal under Rule 12. Instead, the judge stated it would be more appropriate for the defendants to raise that argument in a motion for summary judgment.
    The Bambu Lab X1C 3D printer. Image via Bambu Lab.
    3D printing patent battles 
    The 3D printing industry has seen its fair share of patent infringement disputes over recent months. In May 2025, 3D printer hotend developer Slice Engineering reached an agreement with Creality over a patent non-infringement lawsuit. 
    The Chinese 3D printer OEM filed the lawsuit in July 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division. The company claimed that Slice Engineering had falsely accused it of infringing two hotend patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,875,244 and 11,660,810. These cover mechanical and thermal features of Slice’s Mosquito 3D printer hotend. Creality requested a jury trial and sought a ruling confirming it had not infringed either patent.
    Court documents show that Slice Engineering filed a countersuit in December 2024. The Gainesville-based company maintained that Creaility “has infringed and continues to infringe” on both patents. In the filing, the company also denied allegations that it had harassed Creality’s partners, distributors, and customers, and claimed that Creality had refused to negotiate a resolution.  
    The Creality v. Slice Engineering lawsuit has since been dropped following a mutual resolution. Court documents show that both parties have permanently dismissed all claims and counterclaims, agreeing to cover their own legal fees and costs. 
    In other news, large-format resin 3D printer manufacturer Intrepid Automation sued 3D Systems over alleged patent infringement. The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, accused 3D Systems of using patented technology in its PSLA 270 industrial resin 3D printer. The filing called the PSLA 270 a “blatant knock off” of Intrepid’s DLP multi-projection “Range” 3D printer.  
    San Diego-based Intrepid Automation called this alleged infringement the “latest chapter of 3DS’s brazen, anticompetitive scheme to drive a smaller competitor with more advanced technology out of the marketplace.” The lawsuit also accused 3D Systems of corporate espionage, claiming one of its employees stole confidential trade secrets that were later used to develop the PSLA 270 printer.
    3D Systems denied the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the case. The company called the lawsuit “a desperate attempt” by Intrepid to distract from its own alleged theft of 3D Systems’ trade secrets.
    Who won the 2024 3D Printing Industry Awards?
    Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to keep up with the latest 3D printing news.You can also follow us on LinkedIn, and subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry Youtube channel to access more exclusive content.Featured image shows a Stratasys Fortus 450mcand a Bambu Lab X1C. Image by 3D Printing industry.
    #new #court #order #stratasys #bambu
    New Court Order in Stratasys v. Bambu Lab Lawsuit
    There has been a new update to the ongoing Stratasys v. Bambu Lab patent infringement lawsuit.  Both parties have agreed to consolidate the lead and member casesinto a single case under Case No. 2:25-cv-00465-JRG.  Industrial 3D printing OEM Stratasys filed the request late last month. According to an official court document, Shenzhen-based Bambu Lab did not oppose the motion. Stratasys argued that this non-opposition amounted to the defendants waiving their right to challenge the request under U.S. patent law 35 U.S.C. § 299. On June 2, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, ordered Bambu Lab to confirm in writing whether it agreed to the proposed case consolidation. The court took this step out of an “abundance of caution” to ensure both parties consented to the procedure before moving forward. Bambu Lab submitted its response on June 12, agreeing to the consolidation. The company, along with co-defendants Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Ltd., and Tuozhu Technology Limited, waived its rights under 35 U.S.C. § 299. The court will now decide whether to merge the cases. This followed U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s decision last month to deny Bambu Lab’s motion to dismiss the lawsuits.  The Chinese desktop 3D printer manufacturer filed the motion in February 2025, arguing the cases were invalid because its US-based subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, was not named in the original litigation. However, it agreed that the lawsuit could continue in the Austin division of the Western District of Texas, where a parallel case was filed last year.  Judge Gilstrap denied the motion, ruling that the cases properly target the named defendants. He concluded that Bambu Lab USA isn’t essential to the dispute, and that any misnaming should be addressed in summary judgment, not dismissal.        A Stratasys Fortus 450mcand a Bambu Lab X1C. Image by 3D Printing industry. Another twist in the Stratasys v. Bambu Lab lawsuit  Stratasys filed the two lawsuits against Bambu Lab in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, in August 2024. The company claims that Bambu Lab’s X1C, X1E, P1S, P1P, A1, and A1 mini 3D printers violate ten of its patents. These patents cover common 3D printing features, including purge towers, heated build plates, tool head force detection, and networking capabilities. Stratasys has requested a jury trial. It is seeking a ruling that Bambu Lab infringed its patents, along with financial damages and an injunction to stop Bambu from selling the allegedly infringing 3D printers. Last October, Stratasys dropped charges against two of the originally named defendants in the dispute. Court documents showed that Beijing Tiertime Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co., Ltd were removed. Both defendants represent the company Tiertime, China’s first 3D printer manufacturer. The District Court accepted the dismissal, with all claims dropped without prejudice. It’s unclear why Stratasys named Beijing-based Tiertime as a defendant in the first place, given the lack of an obvious connection to Bambu Lab.  Tiertime and Stratasys have a history of legal disputes over patent issues. In 2013, Stratasys sued Afinia, Tiertime’s U.S. distributor and partner, for patent infringement. Afinia responded by suing uCRobotics, the Chinese distributor of MakerBot 3D printers, also alleging patent violations. Stratasys acquired MakerBot in June 2013. The company later merged with Ultimaker in 2022. In February 2025, Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss the original lawsuits. The company argued that Stratasys’ claims, focused on the sale, importation, and distribution of 3D printers in the United States, do not apply to the Shenzhen-based parent company. Bambu Lab contended that the allegations concern its American subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, which was not named in the complaint filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the case is invalid under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. It argued that any party considered a “primary participant” in the allegations must be included as a defendant.    The court denied the motion on May 29, 2025. In the ruling, Judge Gilstrap explained that Stratasys’ allegations focus on the actions of the named defendants, not Bambu Lab USA. As a result, the official court document called Bambu Lab’s argument “unavailing.” Additionally, the Judge stated that, since Bambu Lab USA and Bambu Lab are both owned by Shenzhen Tuozhu, “the interest of these two entities align,” meaning the original cases are valid.   In the official court document, Judge Gilstrap emphasized that Stratasys can win or lose the lawsuits based solely on the actions of the current defendants, regardless of Bambu Lab USA’s involvement. He added that any potential risk to Bambu Lab USA’s business is too vague or hypothetical to justify making it a required party. Finally, the court noted that even if Stratasys named the wrong defendant, this does not justify dismissal under Rule 12. Instead, the judge stated it would be more appropriate for the defendants to raise that argument in a motion for summary judgment. The Bambu Lab X1C 3D printer. Image via Bambu Lab. 3D printing patent battles  The 3D printing industry has seen its fair share of patent infringement disputes over recent months. In May 2025, 3D printer hotend developer Slice Engineering reached an agreement with Creality over a patent non-infringement lawsuit.  The Chinese 3D printer OEM filed the lawsuit in July 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division. The company claimed that Slice Engineering had falsely accused it of infringing two hotend patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,875,244 and 11,660,810. These cover mechanical and thermal features of Slice’s Mosquito 3D printer hotend. Creality requested a jury trial and sought a ruling confirming it had not infringed either patent. Court documents show that Slice Engineering filed a countersuit in December 2024. The Gainesville-based company maintained that Creaility “has infringed and continues to infringe” on both patents. In the filing, the company also denied allegations that it had harassed Creality’s partners, distributors, and customers, and claimed that Creality had refused to negotiate a resolution.   The Creality v. Slice Engineering lawsuit has since been dropped following a mutual resolution. Court documents show that both parties have permanently dismissed all claims and counterclaims, agreeing to cover their own legal fees and costs.  In other news, large-format resin 3D printer manufacturer Intrepid Automation sued 3D Systems over alleged patent infringement. The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, accused 3D Systems of using patented technology in its PSLA 270 industrial resin 3D printer. The filing called the PSLA 270 a “blatant knock off” of Intrepid’s DLP multi-projection “Range” 3D printer.   San Diego-based Intrepid Automation called this alleged infringement the “latest chapter of 3DS’s brazen, anticompetitive scheme to drive a smaller competitor with more advanced technology out of the marketplace.” The lawsuit also accused 3D Systems of corporate espionage, claiming one of its employees stole confidential trade secrets that were later used to develop the PSLA 270 printer. 3D Systems denied the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the case. The company called the lawsuit “a desperate attempt” by Intrepid to distract from its own alleged theft of 3D Systems’ trade secrets. Who won the 2024 3D Printing Industry Awards? Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to keep up with the latest 3D printing news.You can also follow us on LinkedIn, and subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry Youtube channel to access more exclusive content.Featured image shows a Stratasys Fortus 450mcand a Bambu Lab X1C. Image by 3D Printing industry. #new #court #order #stratasys #bambu
    3DPRINTINGINDUSTRY.COM
    New Court Order in Stratasys v. Bambu Lab Lawsuit
    There has been a new update to the ongoing Stratasys v. Bambu Lab patent infringement lawsuit.  Both parties have agreed to consolidate the lead and member cases (2:24-CV-00644-JRG and 2:24-CV-00645-JRG) into a single case under Case No. 2:25-cv-00465-JRG.  Industrial 3D printing OEM Stratasys filed the request late last month. According to an official court document, Shenzhen-based Bambu Lab did not oppose the motion. Stratasys argued that this non-opposition amounted to the defendants waiving their right to challenge the request under U.S. patent law 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). On June 2, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, ordered Bambu Lab to confirm in writing whether it agreed to the proposed case consolidation. The court took this step out of an “abundance of caution” to ensure both parties consented to the procedure before moving forward. Bambu Lab submitted its response on June 12, agreeing to the consolidation. The company, along with co-defendants Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Ltd., and Tuozhu Technology Limited, waived its rights under 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). The court will now decide whether to merge the cases. This followed U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s decision last month to deny Bambu Lab’s motion to dismiss the lawsuits.  The Chinese desktop 3D printer manufacturer filed the motion in February 2025, arguing the cases were invalid because its US-based subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, was not named in the original litigation. However, it agreed that the lawsuit could continue in the Austin division of the Western District of Texas, where a parallel case was filed last year.  Judge Gilstrap denied the motion, ruling that the cases properly target the named defendants. He concluded that Bambu Lab USA isn’t essential to the dispute, and that any misnaming should be addressed in summary judgment, not dismissal.        A Stratasys Fortus 450mc (left) and a Bambu Lab X1C (right). Image by 3D Printing industry. Another twist in the Stratasys v. Bambu Lab lawsuit  Stratasys filed the two lawsuits against Bambu Lab in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, in August 2024. The company claims that Bambu Lab’s X1C, X1E, P1S, P1P, A1, and A1 mini 3D printers violate ten of its patents. These patents cover common 3D printing features, including purge towers, heated build plates, tool head force detection, and networking capabilities. Stratasys has requested a jury trial. It is seeking a ruling that Bambu Lab infringed its patents, along with financial damages and an injunction to stop Bambu from selling the allegedly infringing 3D printers. Last October, Stratasys dropped charges against two of the originally named defendants in the dispute. Court documents showed that Beijing Tiertime Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co., Ltd were removed. Both defendants represent the company Tiertime, China’s first 3D printer manufacturer. The District Court accepted the dismissal, with all claims dropped without prejudice. It’s unclear why Stratasys named Beijing-based Tiertime as a defendant in the first place, given the lack of an obvious connection to Bambu Lab.  Tiertime and Stratasys have a history of legal disputes over patent issues. In 2013, Stratasys sued Afinia, Tiertime’s U.S. distributor and partner, for patent infringement. Afinia responded by suing uCRobotics, the Chinese distributor of MakerBot 3D printers, also alleging patent violations. Stratasys acquired MakerBot in June 2013. The company later merged with Ultimaker in 2022. In February 2025, Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss the original lawsuits. The company argued that Stratasys’ claims, focused on the sale, importation, and distribution of 3D printers in the United States, do not apply to the Shenzhen-based parent company. Bambu Lab contended that the allegations concern its American subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, which was not named in the complaint filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the case is invalid under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. It argued that any party considered a “primary participant” in the allegations must be included as a defendant.    The court denied the motion on May 29, 2025. In the ruling, Judge Gilstrap explained that Stratasys’ allegations focus on the actions of the named defendants, not Bambu Lab USA. As a result, the official court document called Bambu Lab’s argument “unavailing.” Additionally, the Judge stated that, since Bambu Lab USA and Bambu Lab are both owned by Shenzhen Tuozhu, “the interest of these two entities align,” meaning the original cases are valid.   In the official court document, Judge Gilstrap emphasized that Stratasys can win or lose the lawsuits based solely on the actions of the current defendants, regardless of Bambu Lab USA’s involvement. He added that any potential risk to Bambu Lab USA’s business is too vague or hypothetical to justify making it a required party. Finally, the court noted that even if Stratasys named the wrong defendant, this does not justify dismissal under Rule 12(b)(7). Instead, the judge stated it would be more appropriate for the defendants to raise that argument in a motion for summary judgment. The Bambu Lab X1C 3D printer. Image via Bambu Lab. 3D printing patent battles  The 3D printing industry has seen its fair share of patent infringement disputes over recent months. In May 2025, 3D printer hotend developer Slice Engineering reached an agreement with Creality over a patent non-infringement lawsuit.  The Chinese 3D printer OEM filed the lawsuit in July 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division. The company claimed that Slice Engineering had falsely accused it of infringing two hotend patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,875,244 and 11,660,810. These cover mechanical and thermal features of Slice’s Mosquito 3D printer hotend. Creality requested a jury trial and sought a ruling confirming it had not infringed either patent. Court documents show that Slice Engineering filed a countersuit in December 2024. The Gainesville-based company maintained that Creaility “has infringed and continues to infringe” on both patents. In the filing, the company also denied allegations that it had harassed Creality’s partners, distributors, and customers, and claimed that Creality had refused to negotiate a resolution.   The Creality v. Slice Engineering lawsuit has since been dropped following a mutual resolution. Court documents show that both parties have permanently dismissed all claims and counterclaims, agreeing to cover their own legal fees and costs.  In other news, large-format resin 3D printer manufacturer Intrepid Automation sued 3D Systems over alleged patent infringement. The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, accused 3D Systems of using patented technology in its PSLA 270 industrial resin 3D printer. The filing called the PSLA 270 a “blatant knock off” of Intrepid’s DLP multi-projection “Range” 3D printer.   San Diego-based Intrepid Automation called this alleged infringement the “latest chapter of 3DS’s brazen, anticompetitive scheme to drive a smaller competitor with more advanced technology out of the marketplace.” The lawsuit also accused 3D Systems of corporate espionage, claiming one of its employees stole confidential trade secrets that were later used to develop the PSLA 270 printer. 3D Systems denied the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the case. The company called the lawsuit “a desperate attempt” by Intrepid to distract from its own alleged theft of 3D Systems’ trade secrets. Who won the 2024 3D Printing Industry Awards? Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to keep up with the latest 3D printing news.You can also follow us on LinkedIn, and subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry Youtube channel to access more exclusive content.Featured image shows a Stratasys Fortus 450mc (left) and a Bambu Lab X1C (right). Image by 3D Printing industry.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    522
    2 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • iPad Air vs reMarkable Paper Pro: Which tablet is best for note taking? [Updated]

    Over the past few months, I’ve had the pleasure of testing out the reMarkable Paper Pro. You can read my full review here, but in short, it gets everything right about the note taking experience.
    Despite being an e-ink tablet, it does get quite pricey. However, there are certainly some fantastic parts of the experience that make it worth comparing to an iPad Air, depending on what you’re looking for in a note taking device for school, work, or whatever else.

    Updated June 15th to reflect reMarkable’s new post-tariff pricing.
    Overview
    Since the reMarkable Paper Pro comes in at with the reMarkable Marker Plus included, it likely makes most sense to compare this against Apple’s iPad Air 11-inch. That comes in at without an Apple Pencil, and adding in the Apple Pencil Pro will run you an additional The equivalent iPad setup will run you more than the reMarkable Paper Pro.
    Given the fact that iPad Air‘s regularly go on sale, it’d be fair to say they’re roughly on the same playing field. So, for a reMarkable Paper Pro setup, versus for a comparable iPad Air setup. Which is better for you?
    Obviously, the iPad Air has one key advantage: It runs iOS, has millions of apps available, can browse the web, play games, stream TV shows/movies, and much more. To some, that might end the comparison and make the iPad a clear winner, but I disagree.
    Yes, if you want your tablet to do all of those things for you, the iPad Air is a no brainer. At the end of the day, the iPad Air is a general purpose tablet that’ll do a lot more for you.
    However, if you also have a laptop to accompany your tablet, I’d argue that the iPad Air may fall into a category of slight redundance. Most things you’d want to do on the iPad can be done on a laptop, excluding any sort of touchscreen/stylus reliant features.
    iPads are great, and if you want that – you should pick that. However, I have an alternative argument to offer…
    The reMarkable Paper Pro does one thing really well: note taking. At first thought, you might think: why would I pay so much for a device that only does one thing?
    Well, that’s because it does that one thing really well. There’s also a second side to this argument: focus.
    It’s much easier to focus on what you’re doing when the device isn’t capable of anything else. If you’re taking notes while studying, you could easily see a notification or have the temptation to check notification center. Or, if you’re reading an e-book, you could easily choose to swipe up and get into another app.
    The best thing about the reMarkable Paper Pro is that you can’t easily get lost in the world of modern technology, while still having important technological features like cloud backup of your notes. Plus, you don’t have to worry about carrying around physical paper.
    One last thing – the reMarkable Paper Pro also has rubber feet on the back, so if you place it down flat on a table caseless, you don’t have to worry about scratching it up.
    Spec comparison
    Here’s a quick rundown of all of the key specs between the two devices. reMarkable Paper Pro‘s strengths definitely lie in battery, form factor, and stylus. iPad has some rather neat features with the Apple Pencil Pro, and also clears in the display category. Both devices also offer keyboards for typed notes, though only the iPad offers a trackpad.
    Display– 10.9-inch LCD display– Glossy glass– 2360 × 1640 at 264 ppi– 11.8-inch Color e-ink display– Paper-feeling textured glass– 2160 × 1620 at 229 ppiHardware– 6.1mm thin– Anodized aluminum coating– Weighs 461g w/o Pencil Pro– 5.1mm thin– Textured aluminum edges– Weighs 360g w/ Marker attachedStylus– Magnetically charges from device– Supports tilt/pressure sensitivity– Low latency– Matte plastic build– Squeeze features, double tap gestures– Magnetically charges from device– Supports tilt/pressure sensitivity– Ultra-low latency– Premium textured aluminum build– Built in eraser on the bottomBattery life– Up to 10 hours of web browsing– Recharges to 100% in 2-3 hrs– Up to 14 days of typical usage– Fast charges to 90% in 90 minsPrice–for iPad Air–for Pencil Pro– bundled with Marker Plus
    Wrap up
    All in all, I’m not going to try to convince anyone that wanted to buy an iPad that they should buy a reMarkable Paper Pro. You can’t beat the fact that the iPad Air will do a lot more, for roughly the same cost.
    But, if you’re not buying this to be a primary computing device, I’d argue that the reMarkable Paper Pro is a worthy alternative, especially if you really just want something you can zone in on. The reMarkable Paper Pro feels a lot nicer to write on, has substantially longer battery life, and really masters a minimalist form of digital note taking.
    Buy M3 iPad Air on Amazon:
    Buy reMarkable Paper Pro on Amazon:
    What do you think of these two tablets? Let us know in the comments.

    My favorite Apple accessory recommendations:
    Follow Michael: X/Twitter, Bluesky, Instagram

    Add 9to5Mac to your Google News feed. 

    FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel
    #ipad #air #remarkable #paper #pro
    iPad Air vs reMarkable Paper Pro: Which tablet is best for note taking? [Updated]
    Over the past few months, I’ve had the pleasure of testing out the reMarkable Paper Pro. You can read my full review here, but in short, it gets everything right about the note taking experience. Despite being an e-ink tablet, it does get quite pricey. However, there are certainly some fantastic parts of the experience that make it worth comparing to an iPad Air, depending on what you’re looking for in a note taking device for school, work, or whatever else. Updated June 15th to reflect reMarkable’s new post-tariff pricing. Overview Since the reMarkable Paper Pro comes in at with the reMarkable Marker Plus included, it likely makes most sense to compare this against Apple’s iPad Air 11-inch. That comes in at without an Apple Pencil, and adding in the Apple Pencil Pro will run you an additional The equivalent iPad setup will run you more than the reMarkable Paper Pro. Given the fact that iPad Air‘s regularly go on sale, it’d be fair to say they’re roughly on the same playing field. So, for a reMarkable Paper Pro setup, versus for a comparable iPad Air setup. Which is better for you? Obviously, the iPad Air has one key advantage: It runs iOS, has millions of apps available, can browse the web, play games, stream TV shows/movies, and much more. To some, that might end the comparison and make the iPad a clear winner, but I disagree. Yes, if you want your tablet to do all of those things for you, the iPad Air is a no brainer. At the end of the day, the iPad Air is a general purpose tablet that’ll do a lot more for you. However, if you also have a laptop to accompany your tablet, I’d argue that the iPad Air may fall into a category of slight redundance. Most things you’d want to do on the iPad can be done on a laptop, excluding any sort of touchscreen/stylus reliant features. iPads are great, and if you want that – you should pick that. However, I have an alternative argument to offer… The reMarkable Paper Pro does one thing really well: note taking. At first thought, you might think: why would I pay so much for a device that only does one thing? Well, that’s because it does that one thing really well. There’s also a second side to this argument: focus. It’s much easier to focus on what you’re doing when the device isn’t capable of anything else. If you’re taking notes while studying, you could easily see a notification or have the temptation to check notification center. Or, if you’re reading an e-book, you could easily choose to swipe up and get into another app. The best thing about the reMarkable Paper Pro is that you can’t easily get lost in the world of modern technology, while still having important technological features like cloud backup of your notes. Plus, you don’t have to worry about carrying around physical paper. One last thing – the reMarkable Paper Pro also has rubber feet on the back, so if you place it down flat on a table caseless, you don’t have to worry about scratching it up. Spec comparison Here’s a quick rundown of all of the key specs between the two devices. reMarkable Paper Pro‘s strengths definitely lie in battery, form factor, and stylus. iPad has some rather neat features with the Apple Pencil Pro, and also clears in the display category. Both devices also offer keyboards for typed notes, though only the iPad offers a trackpad. Display– 10.9-inch LCD display– Glossy glass– 2360 × 1640 at 264 ppi– 11.8-inch Color e-ink display– Paper-feeling textured glass– 2160 × 1620 at 229 ppiHardware– 6.1mm thin– Anodized aluminum coating– Weighs 461g w/o Pencil Pro– 5.1mm thin– Textured aluminum edges– Weighs 360g w/ Marker attachedStylus– Magnetically charges from device– Supports tilt/pressure sensitivity– Low latency– Matte plastic build– Squeeze features, double tap gestures– Magnetically charges from device– Supports tilt/pressure sensitivity– Ultra-low latency– Premium textured aluminum build– Built in eraser on the bottomBattery life– Up to 10 hours of web browsing– Recharges to 100% in 2-3 hrs– Up to 14 days of typical usage– Fast charges to 90% in 90 minsPrice–for iPad Air–for Pencil Pro– bundled with Marker Plus Wrap up All in all, I’m not going to try to convince anyone that wanted to buy an iPad that they should buy a reMarkable Paper Pro. You can’t beat the fact that the iPad Air will do a lot more, for roughly the same cost. But, if you’re not buying this to be a primary computing device, I’d argue that the reMarkable Paper Pro is a worthy alternative, especially if you really just want something you can zone in on. The reMarkable Paper Pro feels a lot nicer to write on, has substantially longer battery life, and really masters a minimalist form of digital note taking. Buy M3 iPad Air on Amazon: Buy reMarkable Paper Pro on Amazon: What do you think of these two tablets? Let us know in the comments. My favorite Apple accessory recommendations: Follow Michael: X/Twitter, Bluesky, Instagram Add 9to5Mac to your Google News feed.  FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel #ipad #air #remarkable #paper #pro
    9TO5MAC.COM
    iPad Air vs reMarkable Paper Pro: Which tablet is best for note taking? [Updated]
    Over the past few months, I’ve had the pleasure of testing out the reMarkable Paper Pro. You can read my full review here, but in short, it gets everything right about the note taking experience. Despite being an e-ink tablet, it does get quite pricey. However, there are certainly some fantastic parts of the experience that make it worth comparing to an iPad Air, depending on what you’re looking for in a note taking device for school, work, or whatever else. Updated June 15th to reflect reMarkable’s new post-tariff pricing. Overview Since the reMarkable Paper Pro comes in at $679 with the reMarkable Marker Plus included, it likely makes most sense to compare this against Apple’s iPad Air 11-inch. That comes in at $599 without an Apple Pencil, and adding in the Apple Pencil Pro will run you an additional $129. The equivalent iPad setup will run you $50 more than the reMarkable Paper Pro. Given the fact that iPad Air‘s regularly go on sale, it’d be fair to say they’re roughly on the same playing field. So, $679 for a reMarkable Paper Pro setup, versus $728 for a comparable iPad Air setup. Which is better for you? Obviously, the iPad Air has one key advantage: It runs iOS, has millions of apps available, can browse the web, play games, stream TV shows/movies, and much more. To some, that might end the comparison and make the iPad a clear winner, but I disagree. Yes, if you want your tablet to do all of those things for you, the iPad Air is a no brainer. At the end of the day, the iPad Air is a general purpose tablet that’ll do a lot more for you. However, if you also have a laptop to accompany your tablet, I’d argue that the iPad Air may fall into a category of slight redundance. Most things you’d want to do on the iPad can be done on a laptop, excluding any sort of touchscreen/stylus reliant features. iPads are great, and if you want that – you should pick that. However, I have an alternative argument to offer… The reMarkable Paper Pro does one thing really well: note taking. At first thought, you might think: why would I pay so much for a device that only does one thing? Well, that’s because it does that one thing really well. There’s also a second side to this argument: focus. It’s much easier to focus on what you’re doing when the device isn’t capable of anything else. If you’re taking notes while studying, you could easily see a notification or have the temptation to check notification center. Or, if you’re reading an e-book, you could easily choose to swipe up and get into another app. The best thing about the reMarkable Paper Pro is that you can’t easily get lost in the world of modern technology, while still having important technological features like cloud backup of your notes. Plus, you don’t have to worry about carrying around physical paper. One last thing – the reMarkable Paper Pro also has rubber feet on the back, so if you place it down flat on a table caseless, you don’t have to worry about scratching it up. Spec comparison Here’s a quick rundown of all of the key specs between the two devices. reMarkable Paper Pro‘s strengths definitely lie in battery, form factor, and stylus. iPad has some rather neat features with the Apple Pencil Pro, and also clears in the display category. Both devices also offer keyboards for typed notes, though only the iPad offers a trackpad. Display– 10.9-inch LCD display– Glossy glass– 2360 × 1640 at 264 ppi– 11.8-inch Color e-ink display– Paper-feeling textured glass– 2160 × 1620 at 229 ppiHardware– 6.1mm thin– Anodized aluminum coating– Weighs 461g w/o Pencil Pro– 5.1mm thin– Textured aluminum edges– Weighs 360g w/ Marker attachedStylus– Magnetically charges from device– Supports tilt/pressure sensitivity– Low latency (number unspecified)– Matte plastic build– Squeeze features, double tap gestures– Magnetically charges from device– Supports tilt/pressure sensitivity– Ultra-low latency (12ms)– Premium textured aluminum build– Built in eraser on the bottomBattery life– Up to 10 hours of web browsing– Recharges to 100% in 2-3 hrs– Up to 14 days of typical usage– Fast charges to 90% in 90 minsPrice– $599 ($529 on sale) for iPad Air– $129 ($99 on sale) for Pencil Pro– $679 bundled with Marker Plus Wrap up All in all, I’m not going to try to convince anyone that wanted to buy an iPad that they should buy a reMarkable Paper Pro. You can’t beat the fact that the iPad Air will do a lot more, for roughly the same cost. But, if you’re not buying this to be a primary computing device, I’d argue that the reMarkable Paper Pro is a worthy alternative, especially if you really just want something you can zone in on. The reMarkable Paper Pro feels a lot nicer to write on, has substantially longer battery life, and really masters a minimalist form of digital note taking. Buy M3 iPad Air on Amazon: Buy reMarkable Paper Pro on Amazon: What do you think of these two tablets? Let us know in the comments. My favorite Apple accessory recommendations: Follow Michael: X/Twitter, Bluesky, Instagram Add 9to5Mac to your Google News feed.  FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    407
    2 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • As AI faces court challenges from Disney and Universal, legal battles are shaping the industry's future | Opinion

    As AI faces court challenges from Disney and Universal, legal battles are shaping the industry's future | Opinion
    Silicon advances and design innovations do still push us forward – but the future landscape of the industry is also being sculpted in courtrooms and parliaments

    Image credit: Disney / Epic Games

    Opinion

    by Rob Fahey
    Contributing Editor

    Published on June 13, 2025

    In some regards, the past couple of weeks have felt rather reassuring.
    We've just seen a hugely successful launch for a new Nintendo console, replete with long queues for midnight sales events. Over the next few days, the various summer events and showcases that have sprouted amongst the scattered bones of E3 generated waves of interest and hype for a host of new games.
    It all feels like old times. It's enough to make you imagine that while change is the only constant, at least it's we're facing change that's fairly well understood, change in the form of faster, cheaper silicon, or bigger, more ambitious games.
    If only the winds that blow through this industry all came from such well-defined points on the compass. Nestled in amongst the week's headlines, though, was something that's likely to have profound but much harder to understand impacts on this industry and many others over the coming years – a lawsuit being brought by Disney and NBC Universal against Midjourney, operators of the eponymous generative AI image creation tool.
    In some regards, the lawsuit looks fairly straightforward; the arguments made and considered in reaching its outcome, though, may have a profound impact on both the ability of creatives and media companiesto protect their IP rights from a very new kind of threat, and the ways in which a promising but highly controversial and risky new set of development and creative tools can be used commercially.
    A more likely tack on Midjourney's side will be the argument that they are not responsible for what their customers create with the tool
    I say the lawsuit looks straightforward from some angles, but honestly overall it looks fairly open and shut – the media giants accuse Midjourney of replicating their copyrighted characters and material, and of essentially building a machine for churning out limitless copyright violations.
    The evidence submitted includes screenshot after screenshot of Midjourney generating pages of images of famous copyrighted and trademarked characters ranging from Yoda to Homer Simpson, so "no we didn't" isn't going to be much of a defence strategy here.
    A more likely tack on Midjourney's side will be the argument that they are not responsible for what their customers create with the tool – you don't sue the manufacturers of oil paints or canvases when artists use them to paint something copyright-infringing, nor does Microsoft get sued when someone writes something libellous in Word, and Midjourney may try to argue that their software belongs in that tool category, with users alone being ultimately responsible for how they use them.

    If that argument prevails and survives appeals and challenges, it would be a major triumph for the nascent generative AI industry and a hugely damaging blow to IP holders and creatives, since it would seriously undermine their argument that AI companies shouldn't be able to include copyrighted material into training data sets without licensing or compensation.
    The reason Disney and NBCU are going after Midjourney specifically seems to be partially down to Midjourney being especially reticent to negotiate with them about licensing fees and prompt restrictions; other generative AI firms have started talking, at least, about paying for content licenses for training data, and have imposed various limitations on their software to prevent the most egregious and obvious forms of copyright violation.
    In the process, though, they're essentially risking a court showdown over a set of not-quite-clear legal questions at the heart of this dispute, and if Midjourney were to prevail in that argument, other AI companies would likely back off from engaging with IP holders on this topic.
    To be clear, though, it seems highly unlikely that Midjourney will win that argument, at least not in the medium to long term. Yet depending on how this case moves forward, losing the argument could have equally dramatic consequences – especially if the courts find themselves compelled to consider the question of how, exactly, a generative AI system reproduces a copyrighted character with such precision without storing copyright-infringing data in some manner.
    The 2020s are turning out to be the decade in which many key regulatory issues come to a head all at once
    AI advocates have been trying to handwave around this notion from the outset, but at some point a court is going to have to sit down and confront the fact that the precision with which these systems can replicate copyrighted characters, scenes, and other materials requires that they must have stored that infringing material in some form.
    That it's stored as a scattered mesh of probabilities across the vertices of a high-dimensional vector array, rather than a straightforward, monolithic media file, is clearly important but may ultimately be considered moot. If the data is in the system and can be replicated on request, how that differs from Napster or The Pirate Bay is arguably just a matter of technical obfuscation.
    Not having to defend that technical argument in court thus far has been a huge boon to the generative AI field; if it is knocked over in that venue, it will have knock-on effects on every company in the sector and on every business that uses their products.
    Nobody can be quite sure which of the various rocks and pebbles being kicked on this slope is going to set off the landslide, but there seems to be an increasing consensus that a legal and regulatory reckoning is coming for generative AI.
    Consequently, a lot of what's happening in that market right now has the feel of companies desperately trying to establish products and lock in revenue streams before that happens, because it'll be harder to regulate a technology that's genuinely integrated into the world's economic systems than it is to impose limits on one that's currently only clocking up relatively paltry sales and revenues.

    Keeping an eye on this is crucial for any industry that's started experimenting with AI in its workflows – none more than a creative industry like video games, where various forms of AI usage have been posited, although the enthusiasm and buzz so far massively outweighs any tangible benefits from the technology.
    Regardless of what happens in legal and regulatory contexts, AI is already a double-edged sword for any creative industry.
    Used judiciously, it might help to speed up development processes and reduce overheads. Applied in a slapdash or thoughtless manner, it can and will end up wreaking havoc on development timelines, filling up storefronts with endless waves of vaguely-copyright-infringing slop, and potentially make creative firms, from the industry's biggest companies to its smallest indie developers, into victims of impossibly large-scale copyright infringement rather than beneficiaries of a new wave of technology-fuelled productivity.
    The legal threat now hanging over the sector isn't new, merely amplified. We've known for a long time that AI generated artwork, code, and text has significant problems from the perspective of intellectual property rights.
    Even if you're not using AI yourself, however – even if you're vehemently opposed to it on moral and ethical grounds, the Midjourney judgement and its fallout may well impact the creative work you produce yourself and how it ends up being used and abused by these products in future.
    This all has huge ramifications for the games business and will shape everything from how games are created to how IP can be protected for many years to come – a wind of change that's very different and vastly more unpredictable than those we're accustomed to. It's a reminder of just how much of the industry's future is currently being shaped not in development studios and semiconductor labs, but rather in courtrooms and parliamentary committees.
    The ways in which generative AI can be used and how copyright can persist in the face of it will be fundamentally shaped in courts and parliaments, but it's far from the only crucially important topic being hashed out in those venues.
    The ongoing legal turmoil over the opening up of mobile app ecosystems, too, will have huge impacts on the games industry. Meanwhile, the debates over loot boxes, gambling, and various consumer protection aspects related to free-to-play models continue to rumble on in the background.
    Because the industry moves fast while governments move slow, it's easy to forget that that's still an active topic for as far as governments are concerned, and hammers may come down at any time.
    Regulation by governments, whether through the passage of new legislation or the interpretation of existing laws in the courts, has always loomed in the background of any major industry, especially one with strong cultural relevance. The games industry is no stranger to that being part of the background heartbeat of the business.
    The 2020s, however, are turning out to be the decade in which many key regulatory issues come to a head all at once, whether it's AI and copyright, app stores and walled gardens, or loot boxes and IAP-based business models.
    Rulings on those topics in various different global markets will create a complex new landscape that will shape the winds that blow through the business, and how things look in the 2030s and beyond will be fundamentally impacted by those decisions.
    #faces #court #challenges #disney #universal
    As AI faces court challenges from Disney and Universal, legal battles are shaping the industry's future | Opinion
    As AI faces court challenges from Disney and Universal, legal battles are shaping the industry's future | Opinion Silicon advances and design innovations do still push us forward – but the future landscape of the industry is also being sculpted in courtrooms and parliaments Image credit: Disney / Epic Games Opinion by Rob Fahey Contributing Editor Published on June 13, 2025 In some regards, the past couple of weeks have felt rather reassuring. We've just seen a hugely successful launch for a new Nintendo console, replete with long queues for midnight sales events. Over the next few days, the various summer events and showcases that have sprouted amongst the scattered bones of E3 generated waves of interest and hype for a host of new games. It all feels like old times. It's enough to make you imagine that while change is the only constant, at least it's we're facing change that's fairly well understood, change in the form of faster, cheaper silicon, or bigger, more ambitious games. If only the winds that blow through this industry all came from such well-defined points on the compass. Nestled in amongst the week's headlines, though, was something that's likely to have profound but much harder to understand impacts on this industry and many others over the coming years – a lawsuit being brought by Disney and NBC Universal against Midjourney, operators of the eponymous generative AI image creation tool. In some regards, the lawsuit looks fairly straightforward; the arguments made and considered in reaching its outcome, though, may have a profound impact on both the ability of creatives and media companiesto protect their IP rights from a very new kind of threat, and the ways in which a promising but highly controversial and risky new set of development and creative tools can be used commercially. A more likely tack on Midjourney's side will be the argument that they are not responsible for what their customers create with the tool I say the lawsuit looks straightforward from some angles, but honestly overall it looks fairly open and shut – the media giants accuse Midjourney of replicating their copyrighted characters and material, and of essentially building a machine for churning out limitless copyright violations. The evidence submitted includes screenshot after screenshot of Midjourney generating pages of images of famous copyrighted and trademarked characters ranging from Yoda to Homer Simpson, so "no we didn't" isn't going to be much of a defence strategy here. A more likely tack on Midjourney's side will be the argument that they are not responsible for what their customers create with the tool – you don't sue the manufacturers of oil paints or canvases when artists use them to paint something copyright-infringing, nor does Microsoft get sued when someone writes something libellous in Word, and Midjourney may try to argue that their software belongs in that tool category, with users alone being ultimately responsible for how they use them. If that argument prevails and survives appeals and challenges, it would be a major triumph for the nascent generative AI industry and a hugely damaging blow to IP holders and creatives, since it would seriously undermine their argument that AI companies shouldn't be able to include copyrighted material into training data sets without licensing or compensation. The reason Disney and NBCU are going after Midjourney specifically seems to be partially down to Midjourney being especially reticent to negotiate with them about licensing fees and prompt restrictions; other generative AI firms have started talking, at least, about paying for content licenses for training data, and have imposed various limitations on their software to prevent the most egregious and obvious forms of copyright violation. In the process, though, they're essentially risking a court showdown over a set of not-quite-clear legal questions at the heart of this dispute, and if Midjourney were to prevail in that argument, other AI companies would likely back off from engaging with IP holders on this topic. To be clear, though, it seems highly unlikely that Midjourney will win that argument, at least not in the medium to long term. Yet depending on how this case moves forward, losing the argument could have equally dramatic consequences – especially if the courts find themselves compelled to consider the question of how, exactly, a generative AI system reproduces a copyrighted character with such precision without storing copyright-infringing data in some manner. The 2020s are turning out to be the decade in which many key regulatory issues come to a head all at once AI advocates have been trying to handwave around this notion from the outset, but at some point a court is going to have to sit down and confront the fact that the precision with which these systems can replicate copyrighted characters, scenes, and other materials requires that they must have stored that infringing material in some form. That it's stored as a scattered mesh of probabilities across the vertices of a high-dimensional vector array, rather than a straightforward, monolithic media file, is clearly important but may ultimately be considered moot. If the data is in the system and can be replicated on request, how that differs from Napster or The Pirate Bay is arguably just a matter of technical obfuscation. Not having to defend that technical argument in court thus far has been a huge boon to the generative AI field; if it is knocked over in that venue, it will have knock-on effects on every company in the sector and on every business that uses their products. Nobody can be quite sure which of the various rocks and pebbles being kicked on this slope is going to set off the landslide, but there seems to be an increasing consensus that a legal and regulatory reckoning is coming for generative AI. Consequently, a lot of what's happening in that market right now has the feel of companies desperately trying to establish products and lock in revenue streams before that happens, because it'll be harder to regulate a technology that's genuinely integrated into the world's economic systems than it is to impose limits on one that's currently only clocking up relatively paltry sales and revenues. Keeping an eye on this is crucial for any industry that's started experimenting with AI in its workflows – none more than a creative industry like video games, where various forms of AI usage have been posited, although the enthusiasm and buzz so far massively outweighs any tangible benefits from the technology. Regardless of what happens in legal and regulatory contexts, AI is already a double-edged sword for any creative industry. Used judiciously, it might help to speed up development processes and reduce overheads. Applied in a slapdash or thoughtless manner, it can and will end up wreaking havoc on development timelines, filling up storefronts with endless waves of vaguely-copyright-infringing slop, and potentially make creative firms, from the industry's biggest companies to its smallest indie developers, into victims of impossibly large-scale copyright infringement rather than beneficiaries of a new wave of technology-fuelled productivity. The legal threat now hanging over the sector isn't new, merely amplified. We've known for a long time that AI generated artwork, code, and text has significant problems from the perspective of intellectual property rights. Even if you're not using AI yourself, however – even if you're vehemently opposed to it on moral and ethical grounds, the Midjourney judgement and its fallout may well impact the creative work you produce yourself and how it ends up being used and abused by these products in future. This all has huge ramifications for the games business and will shape everything from how games are created to how IP can be protected for many years to come – a wind of change that's very different and vastly more unpredictable than those we're accustomed to. It's a reminder of just how much of the industry's future is currently being shaped not in development studios and semiconductor labs, but rather in courtrooms and parliamentary committees. The ways in which generative AI can be used and how copyright can persist in the face of it will be fundamentally shaped in courts and parliaments, but it's far from the only crucially important topic being hashed out in those venues. The ongoing legal turmoil over the opening up of mobile app ecosystems, too, will have huge impacts on the games industry. Meanwhile, the debates over loot boxes, gambling, and various consumer protection aspects related to free-to-play models continue to rumble on in the background. Because the industry moves fast while governments move slow, it's easy to forget that that's still an active topic for as far as governments are concerned, and hammers may come down at any time. Regulation by governments, whether through the passage of new legislation or the interpretation of existing laws in the courts, has always loomed in the background of any major industry, especially one with strong cultural relevance. The games industry is no stranger to that being part of the background heartbeat of the business. The 2020s, however, are turning out to be the decade in which many key regulatory issues come to a head all at once, whether it's AI and copyright, app stores and walled gardens, or loot boxes and IAP-based business models. Rulings on those topics in various different global markets will create a complex new landscape that will shape the winds that blow through the business, and how things look in the 2030s and beyond will be fundamentally impacted by those decisions. #faces #court #challenges #disney #universal
    WWW.GAMESINDUSTRY.BIZ
    As AI faces court challenges from Disney and Universal, legal battles are shaping the industry's future | Opinion
    As AI faces court challenges from Disney and Universal, legal battles are shaping the industry's future | Opinion Silicon advances and design innovations do still push us forward – but the future landscape of the industry is also being sculpted in courtrooms and parliaments Image credit: Disney / Epic Games Opinion by Rob Fahey Contributing Editor Published on June 13, 2025 In some regards, the past couple of weeks have felt rather reassuring. We've just seen a hugely successful launch for a new Nintendo console, replete with long queues for midnight sales events. Over the next few days, the various summer events and showcases that have sprouted amongst the scattered bones of E3 generated waves of interest and hype for a host of new games. It all feels like old times. It's enough to make you imagine that while change is the only constant, at least it's we're facing change that's fairly well understood, change in the form of faster, cheaper silicon, or bigger, more ambitious games. If only the winds that blow through this industry all came from such well-defined points on the compass. Nestled in amongst the week's headlines, though, was something that's likely to have profound but much harder to understand impacts on this industry and many others over the coming years – a lawsuit being brought by Disney and NBC Universal against Midjourney, operators of the eponymous generative AI image creation tool. In some regards, the lawsuit looks fairly straightforward; the arguments made and considered in reaching its outcome, though, may have a profound impact on both the ability of creatives and media companies (including game studios and publishers) to protect their IP rights from a very new kind of threat, and the ways in which a promising but highly controversial and risky new set of development and creative tools can be used commercially. A more likely tack on Midjourney's side will be the argument that they are not responsible for what their customers create with the tool I say the lawsuit looks straightforward from some angles, but honestly overall it looks fairly open and shut – the media giants accuse Midjourney of replicating their copyrighted characters and material, and of essentially building a machine for churning out limitless copyright violations. The evidence submitted includes screenshot after screenshot of Midjourney generating pages of images of famous copyrighted and trademarked characters ranging from Yoda to Homer Simpson, so "no we didn't" isn't going to be much of a defence strategy here. A more likely tack on Midjourney's side will be the argument that they are not responsible for what their customers create with the tool – you don't sue the manufacturers of oil paints or canvases when artists use them to paint something copyright-infringing, nor does Microsoft get sued when someone writes something libellous in Word, and Midjourney may try to argue that their software belongs in that tool category, with users alone being ultimately responsible for how they use them. If that argument prevails and survives appeals and challenges, it would be a major triumph for the nascent generative AI industry and a hugely damaging blow to IP holders and creatives, since it would seriously undermine their argument that AI companies shouldn't be able to include copyrighted material into training data sets without licensing or compensation. The reason Disney and NBCU are going after Midjourney specifically seems to be partially down to Midjourney being especially reticent to negotiate with them about licensing fees and prompt restrictions; other generative AI firms have started talking, at least, about paying for content licenses for training data, and have imposed various limitations on their software to prevent the most egregious and obvious forms of copyright violation (at least for famous characters belonging to rich companies; if you're an individual or a smaller company, it's entirely the Wild West out there as regards your IP rights). In the process, though, they're essentially risking a court showdown over a set of not-quite-clear legal questions at the heart of this dispute, and if Midjourney were to prevail in that argument, other AI companies would likely back off from engaging with IP holders on this topic. To be clear, though, it seems highly unlikely that Midjourney will win that argument, at least not in the medium to long term. Yet depending on how this case moves forward, losing the argument could have equally dramatic consequences – especially if the courts find themselves compelled to consider the question of how, exactly, a generative AI system reproduces a copyrighted character with such precision without storing copyright-infringing data in some manner. The 2020s are turning out to be the decade in which many key regulatory issues come to a head all at once AI advocates have been trying to handwave around this notion from the outset, but at some point a court is going to have to sit down and confront the fact that the precision with which these systems can replicate copyrighted characters, scenes, and other materials requires that they must have stored that infringing material in some form. That it's stored as a scattered mesh of probabilities across the vertices of a high-dimensional vector array, rather than a straightforward, monolithic media file, is clearly important but may ultimately be considered moot. If the data is in the system and can be replicated on request, how that differs from Napster or The Pirate Bay is arguably just a matter of technical obfuscation. Not having to defend that technical argument in court thus far has been a huge boon to the generative AI field; if it is knocked over in that venue, it will have knock-on effects on every company in the sector and on every business that uses their products. Nobody can be quite sure which of the various rocks and pebbles being kicked on this slope is going to set off the landslide, but there seems to be an increasing consensus that a legal and regulatory reckoning is coming for generative AI. Consequently, a lot of what's happening in that market right now has the feel of companies desperately trying to establish products and lock in revenue streams before that happens, because it'll be harder to regulate a technology that's genuinely integrated into the world's economic systems than it is to impose limits on one that's currently only clocking up relatively paltry sales and revenues. Keeping an eye on this is crucial for any industry that's started experimenting with AI in its workflows – none more than a creative industry like video games, where various forms of AI usage have been posited, although the enthusiasm and buzz so far massively outweighs any tangible benefits from the technology. Regardless of what happens in legal and regulatory contexts, AI is already a double-edged sword for any creative industry. Used judiciously, it might help to speed up development processes and reduce overheads. Applied in a slapdash or thoughtless manner, it can and will end up wreaking havoc on development timelines, filling up storefronts with endless waves of vaguely-copyright-infringing slop, and potentially make creative firms, from the industry's biggest companies to its smallest indie developers, into victims of impossibly large-scale copyright infringement rather than beneficiaries of a new wave of technology-fuelled productivity. The legal threat now hanging over the sector isn't new, merely amplified. We've known for a long time that AI generated artwork, code, and text has significant problems from the perspective of intellectual property rights (you can infringe someone else's copyright with it, but generally can't impose your own copyright on its creations – opening careless companies up to a risk of having key assets in their game being technically public domain and impossible to protect). Even if you're not using AI yourself, however – even if you're vehemently opposed to it on moral and ethical grounds (which is entirely valid given the highly dubious land-grab these companies have done for their training data), the Midjourney judgement and its fallout may well impact the creative work you produce yourself and how it ends up being used and abused by these products in future. This all has huge ramifications for the games business and will shape everything from how games are created to how IP can be protected for many years to come – a wind of change that's very different and vastly more unpredictable than those we're accustomed to. It's a reminder of just how much of the industry's future is currently being shaped not in development studios and semiconductor labs, but rather in courtrooms and parliamentary committees. The ways in which generative AI can be used and how copyright can persist in the face of it will be fundamentally shaped in courts and parliaments, but it's far from the only crucially important topic being hashed out in those venues. The ongoing legal turmoil over the opening up of mobile app ecosystems, too, will have huge impacts on the games industry. Meanwhile, the debates over loot boxes, gambling, and various consumer protection aspects related to free-to-play models continue to rumble on in the background. Because the industry moves fast while governments move slow, it's easy to forget that that's still an active topic for as far as governments are concerned, and hammers may come down at any time. Regulation by governments, whether through the passage of new legislation or the interpretation of existing laws in the courts, has always loomed in the background of any major industry, especially one with strong cultural relevance. The games industry is no stranger to that being part of the background heartbeat of the business. The 2020s, however, are turning out to be the decade in which many key regulatory issues come to a head all at once, whether it's AI and copyright, app stores and walled gardens, or loot boxes and IAP-based business models. Rulings on those topics in various different global markets will create a complex new landscape that will shape the winds that blow through the business, and how things look in the 2030s and beyond will be fundamentally impacted by those decisions.
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • Decoding The SVG <code>path</code> Element: Line Commands

    In a previous article, we looked at some practical examples of how to code SVG by hand. In that guide, we covered the basics of the SVG elements rect, circle, ellipse, line, polyline, and polygon.
    This time around, we are going to tackle a more advanced topic, the absolute powerhouse of SVG elements: path. Don’t get me wrong; I still stand by my point that image paths are better drawn in vector programs than coded. But when it comes to technical drawings and data visualizations, the path element unlocks a wide array of possibilities and opens up the world of hand-coded SVGs.
    The path syntax can be really complex. We’re going to tackle it in two separate parts. In this first installment, we’re learning all about straight and angular paths. In the second part, we’ll make lines bend, twist, and turn.
    Required Knowledge And Guide Structure
    Note: If you are unfamiliar with the basics of SVG, such as the subject of viewBox and the basic syntax of the simple elements, I recommend reading my guide before diving into this one. You should also familiarize yourself with <text> if you want to understand each line of code in the examples.
    Before we get started, I want to quickly recap how I code SVG using JavaScript. I don’t like dealing with numbers and math, and reading SVG Code with numbers filled into every attribute makes me lose all understanding of it. By giving coordinates names and having all my math easy to parse and write out, I have a much better time with this type of code, and I think you will, too.
    The goal of this article is more about understanding path syntax than it is about doing placement or how to leverage loops and other more basic things. So, I will not run you through the entire setup of each example. I’ll instead share snippets of the code, but they may be slightly adjusted from the CodePen or simplified to make this article easier to read. However, if there are specific questions about code that are not part of the text in the CodePen demos, the comment section is open.
    To keep this all framework-agnostic, the code is written in vanilla JavaScript.
    Setting Up For Success
    As the path element relies on our understanding of some of the coordinates we plug into the commands, I think it is a lot easier if we have a bit of visual orientation. So, all of the examples will be coded on top of a visual representation of a traditional viewBox setup with the origin in the top-left corner, then moves diagonally down to. The command is: M10 10 L100 100.
    The blue line is horizontal. It starts atand should end at. We could use the L command, but we’d have to write 55 again. So, instead, we write M10 55 H100, and then SVG knows to look back at the y value of M for the y value of H.
    It’s the same thing for the green line, but when we use the V command, SVG knows to refer back to the x value of M for the x value of V.
    If we compare the resulting horizontal path with the same implementation in a <line> element, we may

    Notice how much more efficient path can be, and
    Remove quite a bit of meaning for anyone who doesn’t speak path.

    Because, as we look at these strings, one of them is called “line”. And while the rest doesn’t mean anything out of context, the line definitely conjures a specific image in our heads.
    <path d="M 10 55 H 100" />
    <line x1="10" y1="55" x2="100" y2="55" />

    Making Polygons And Polylines With Z
    In the previous section, we learned how path can behave like <line>, which is pretty cool. But it can do more. It can also act like polyline and polygon.
    Remember, how those two basically work the same, but polygon connects the first and last point, while polyline does not? The path element can do the same thing. There is a separate command to close the path with a line, which is the Z command.

    const polyline2Points = M${start.x} ${start.y} L${p1.x} ${p1.y} L${p2.x} ${p2.y};
    const polygon2Points = M${start.x} ${start.y} L${p1.x} ${p1.y} L${p2.x} ${p2.y} Z;

    So, let’s see this in action and create a repeating triangle shape. Every odd time, it’s open, and every even time, it’s closed. Pretty neat!
    See the Pen Alternating Trianglesby Myriam.
    When it comes to comparing path versus polygon and polyline, the other tags tell us about their names, but I would argue that fewer people know what a polygon is versus what a line is. The argument to use these two tags over path for legibility is weak, in my opinion, and I guess you’d probably agree that this looks like equal levels of meaningless string given to an SVG element.
    <path d="M0 0 L86.6 50 L0 100 Z" />
    <polygon points="0,0 86.6,50 0,100" />

    <path d="M0 0 L86.6 50 L0 100" />
    <polyline points="0,0 86.6,50 0,100" />

    Relative Commands: m, l, h, v
    All of the line commands exist in absolute and relative versions. The difference is that the relative commands are lowercase, e.g., m, l, h, and v. The relative commands are always relative to the last point, so instead of declaring an x value, you’re declaring a dx value, saying this is how many units you’re moving.
    Before we look at the example visually, I want you to look at the following three-line commands. Try not to look at the CodePen beforehand.
    const lines =;

    As I mentioned, I hate looking at numbers without meaning, but there is one number whose meaning is pretty constant in most contexts: 0. Seeing a 0 in combination with a command I just learned means relative manages to instantly tell me that nothing is happening. Seeing l 0 20 by itself tells me that this line only moves along one axis instead of two.
    And looking at that entire blue path command, the repeated 20 value gives me a sense that the shape might have some regularity to it. The first path does a bit of that by repeating 10 and 30. But the third? As someone who can’t do math in my head, that third string gives me nothing.
    Now, you might be surprised, but they all draw the same shape, just in different places.
    See the Pen SVG Compound Pathsby Myriam.
    So, how valuable is it that we can recognize the regularity in the blue path? Not very, in my opinion. In some cases, going with the relative value is easier than an absolute one. In other cases, the absolute is king. Neither is better nor worse.
    And, in all cases, that previous example would be much more efficient if it were set up with a variable for the gap, a variable for the shape size, and a function to generate the path definition that’s called from within a loop so it can take in the index to properly calculate the start point.

    Jumping Points: How To Make Compound Paths
    Another very useful thing is something you don’t see visually in the previous CodePen, but it relates to the grid and its code.
    I snuck in a grid drawing update.
    With the method used in earlier examples, using line to draw the grid, the above CodePen would’ve rendered the grid with 14 separate elements. If you go and inspect the final code of that last CodePen, you’ll notice that there is just a single path element within the .grid group.
    It looks like this, which is not fun to look at but holds the secret to how it’s possible:

    <path d="M0 0 H110 M0 10 H110 M0 20 H110 M0 30 H110 M0 0 V45 M10 0 V45 M20 0 V45 M30 0 V45 M40 0 V45 M50 0 V45 M60 0 V45 M70 0 V45 M80 0 V45 M90 0 V45" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="0.2" fill="none"></path>

    If we take a close look, we may notice that there are multiple M commands. This is the magic of compound paths.
    Since the M/m commands don’t actually draw and just place the cursor, a path can have jumps.

    So, whenever we have multiple paths that share common styling and don’t need to have separate interactions, we can just chain them together to make our code shorter.
    Coming Up Next
    Armed with this knowledge, we’re now able to replace line, polyline, and polygon with path commands and combine them in compound paths. But there is so much more to uncover because path doesn’t just offer foreign-language versions of lines but also gives us the option to code circles and ellipses that have open space and can sometimes also bend, twist, and turn. We’ll refer to those as curves and arcs, and discuss them more explicitly in the next article.
    Further Reading On SmashingMag

    “Mastering SVG Arcs,” Akshay Gupta
    “Accessible SVGs: Perfect Patterns For Screen Reader Users,” Carie Fisher
    “Easy SVG Customization And Animation: A Practical Guide,” Adrian Bece
    “Magical SVG Techniques,” Cosima Mielke
    #decoding #svg #ampltcodeampgtpathampltcodeampgt #element #line
    Decoding The SVG <code>path</code> Element: Line Commands
    In a previous article, we looked at some practical examples of how to code SVG by hand. In that guide, we covered the basics of the SVG elements rect, circle, ellipse, line, polyline, and polygon. This time around, we are going to tackle a more advanced topic, the absolute powerhouse of SVG elements: path. Don’t get me wrong; I still stand by my point that image paths are better drawn in vector programs than coded. But when it comes to technical drawings and data visualizations, the path element unlocks a wide array of possibilities and opens up the world of hand-coded SVGs. The path syntax can be really complex. We’re going to tackle it in two separate parts. In this first installment, we’re learning all about straight and angular paths. In the second part, we’ll make lines bend, twist, and turn. Required Knowledge And Guide Structure Note: If you are unfamiliar with the basics of SVG, such as the subject of viewBox and the basic syntax of the simple elements, I recommend reading my guide before diving into this one. You should also familiarize yourself with <text> if you want to understand each line of code in the examples. Before we get started, I want to quickly recap how I code SVG using JavaScript. I don’t like dealing with numbers and math, and reading SVG Code with numbers filled into every attribute makes me lose all understanding of it. By giving coordinates names and having all my math easy to parse and write out, I have a much better time with this type of code, and I think you will, too. The goal of this article is more about understanding path syntax than it is about doing placement or how to leverage loops and other more basic things. So, I will not run you through the entire setup of each example. I’ll instead share snippets of the code, but they may be slightly adjusted from the CodePen or simplified to make this article easier to read. However, if there are specific questions about code that are not part of the text in the CodePen demos, the comment section is open. To keep this all framework-agnostic, the code is written in vanilla JavaScript. Setting Up For Success As the path element relies on our understanding of some of the coordinates we plug into the commands, I think it is a lot easier if we have a bit of visual orientation. So, all of the examples will be coded on top of a visual representation of a traditional viewBox setup with the origin in the top-left corner, then moves diagonally down to. The command is: M10 10 L100 100. The blue line is horizontal. It starts atand should end at. We could use the L command, but we’d have to write 55 again. So, instead, we write M10 55 H100, and then SVG knows to look back at the y value of M for the y value of H. It’s the same thing for the green line, but when we use the V command, SVG knows to refer back to the x value of M for the x value of V. If we compare the resulting horizontal path with the same implementation in a <line> element, we may Notice how much more efficient path can be, and Remove quite a bit of meaning for anyone who doesn’t speak path. Because, as we look at these strings, one of them is called “line”. And while the rest doesn’t mean anything out of context, the line definitely conjures a specific image in our heads. <path d="M 10 55 H 100" /> <line x1="10" y1="55" x2="100" y2="55" /> Making Polygons And Polylines With Z In the previous section, we learned how path can behave like <line>, which is pretty cool. But it can do more. It can also act like polyline and polygon. Remember, how those two basically work the same, but polygon connects the first and last point, while polyline does not? The path element can do the same thing. There is a separate command to close the path with a line, which is the Z command. const polyline2Points = M${start.x} ${start.y} L${p1.x} ${p1.y} L${p2.x} ${p2.y}; const polygon2Points = M${start.x} ${start.y} L${p1.x} ${p1.y} L${p2.x} ${p2.y} Z; So, let’s see this in action and create a repeating triangle shape. Every odd time, it’s open, and every even time, it’s closed. Pretty neat! See the Pen Alternating Trianglesby Myriam. When it comes to comparing path versus polygon and polyline, the other tags tell us about their names, but I would argue that fewer people know what a polygon is versus what a line is. The argument to use these two tags over path for legibility is weak, in my opinion, and I guess you’d probably agree that this looks like equal levels of meaningless string given to an SVG element. <path d="M0 0 L86.6 50 L0 100 Z" /> <polygon points="0,0 86.6,50 0,100" /> <path d="M0 0 L86.6 50 L0 100" /> <polyline points="0,0 86.6,50 0,100" /> Relative Commands: m, l, h, v All of the line commands exist in absolute and relative versions. The difference is that the relative commands are lowercase, e.g., m, l, h, and v. The relative commands are always relative to the last point, so instead of declaring an x value, you’re declaring a dx value, saying this is how many units you’re moving. Before we look at the example visually, I want you to look at the following three-line commands. Try not to look at the CodePen beforehand. const lines =; As I mentioned, I hate looking at numbers without meaning, but there is one number whose meaning is pretty constant in most contexts: 0. Seeing a 0 in combination with a command I just learned means relative manages to instantly tell me that nothing is happening. Seeing l 0 20 by itself tells me that this line only moves along one axis instead of two. And looking at that entire blue path command, the repeated 20 value gives me a sense that the shape might have some regularity to it. The first path does a bit of that by repeating 10 and 30. But the third? As someone who can’t do math in my head, that third string gives me nothing. Now, you might be surprised, but they all draw the same shape, just in different places. See the Pen SVG Compound Pathsby Myriam. So, how valuable is it that we can recognize the regularity in the blue path? Not very, in my opinion. In some cases, going with the relative value is easier than an absolute one. In other cases, the absolute is king. Neither is better nor worse. And, in all cases, that previous example would be much more efficient if it were set up with a variable for the gap, a variable for the shape size, and a function to generate the path definition that’s called from within a loop so it can take in the index to properly calculate the start point. Jumping Points: How To Make Compound Paths Another very useful thing is something you don’t see visually in the previous CodePen, but it relates to the grid and its code. I snuck in a grid drawing update. With the method used in earlier examples, using line to draw the grid, the above CodePen would’ve rendered the grid with 14 separate elements. If you go and inspect the final code of that last CodePen, you’ll notice that there is just a single path element within the .grid group. It looks like this, which is not fun to look at but holds the secret to how it’s possible: <path d="M0 0 H110 M0 10 H110 M0 20 H110 M0 30 H110 M0 0 V45 M10 0 V45 M20 0 V45 M30 0 V45 M40 0 V45 M50 0 V45 M60 0 V45 M70 0 V45 M80 0 V45 M90 0 V45" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="0.2" fill="none"></path> If we take a close look, we may notice that there are multiple M commands. This is the magic of compound paths. Since the M/m commands don’t actually draw and just place the cursor, a path can have jumps. So, whenever we have multiple paths that share common styling and don’t need to have separate interactions, we can just chain them together to make our code shorter. Coming Up Next Armed with this knowledge, we’re now able to replace line, polyline, and polygon with path commands and combine them in compound paths. But there is so much more to uncover because path doesn’t just offer foreign-language versions of lines but also gives us the option to code circles and ellipses that have open space and can sometimes also bend, twist, and turn. We’ll refer to those as curves and arcs, and discuss them more explicitly in the next article. Further Reading On SmashingMag “Mastering SVG Arcs,” Akshay Gupta “Accessible SVGs: Perfect Patterns For Screen Reader Users,” Carie Fisher “Easy SVG Customization And Animation: A Practical Guide,” Adrian Bece “Magical SVG Techniques,” Cosima Mielke #decoding #svg #ampltcodeampgtpathampltcodeampgt #element #line
    SMASHINGMAGAZINE.COM
    Decoding The SVG <code>path</code> Element: Line Commands
    In a previous article, we looked at some practical examples of how to code SVG by hand. In that guide, we covered the basics of the SVG elements rect, circle, ellipse, line, polyline, and polygon (and also g). This time around, we are going to tackle a more advanced topic, the absolute powerhouse of SVG elements: path. Don’t get me wrong; I still stand by my point that image paths are better drawn in vector programs than coded (unless you’re the type of creative who makes non-logical visual art in code — then go forth and create awe-inspiring wonders; you’re probably not the audience of this article). But when it comes to technical drawings and data visualizations, the path element unlocks a wide array of possibilities and opens up the world of hand-coded SVGs. The path syntax can be really complex. We’re going to tackle it in two separate parts. In this first installment, we’re learning all about straight and angular paths. In the second part, we’ll make lines bend, twist, and turn. Required Knowledge And Guide Structure Note: If you are unfamiliar with the basics of SVG, such as the subject of viewBox and the basic syntax of the simple elements (rect, line, g, and so on), I recommend reading my guide before diving into this one. You should also familiarize yourself with <text> if you want to understand each line of code in the examples. Before we get started, I want to quickly recap how I code SVG using JavaScript. I don’t like dealing with numbers and math, and reading SVG Code with numbers filled into every attribute makes me lose all understanding of it. By giving coordinates names and having all my math easy to parse and write out, I have a much better time with this type of code, and I think you will, too. The goal of this article is more about understanding path syntax than it is about doing placement or how to leverage loops and other more basic things. So, I will not run you through the entire setup of each example. I’ll instead share snippets of the code, but they may be slightly adjusted from the CodePen or simplified to make this article easier to read. However, if there are specific questions about code that are not part of the text in the CodePen demos, the comment section is open. To keep this all framework-agnostic, the code is written in vanilla JavaScript (though, really, TypeScript is your friend the more complicated your SVG becomes, and I missed it when writing some of these). Setting Up For Success As the path element relies on our understanding of some of the coordinates we plug into the commands, I think it is a lot easier if we have a bit of visual orientation. So, all of the examples will be coded on top of a visual representation of a traditional viewBox setup with the origin in the top-left corner (so, values in the shape of 0 0 ${width} ${height}. I added text labels as well to make it easier to point you to specific areas within the grid. Please note that I recommend being careful when adding text within the <text> element in SVG if you want your text to be accessible. If the graphic relies on text scaling like the rest of your website, it would be better to have it rendered through HTML. But for our examples here, it should be sufficient. So, this is what we’ll be plotting on top of: See the Pen SVG Viewbox Grid Visual [forked] by Myriam. Alright, we now have a ViewBox Visualizing Grid. I think we’re ready for our first session with the beast. Enter path And The All-Powerful d Attribute The <path> element has a d attribute, which speaks its own language. So, within d, you’re talking in terms of “commands”. When I think of non-path versus path elements, I like to think that the reason why we have to write much more complex drawing instructions is this: All non-path elements are just dumber paths. In the background, they have one pre-drawn path shape that they will always render based on a few parameters you pass in. But path has no default shape. The shape logic has to be exposed to you, while it can be neatly hidden away for all other elements. Let’s learn about those commands. Where It All Begins: M The first, which is where each path begins, is the M command, which moves the pen to a point. This command places your starting point, but it does not draw a single thing. A path with just an M command is an auto-delete when cleaning up SVG files. It takes two arguments: the x and y coordinates of your start position. const uselessPathCommand = `M${start.x} ${start.y}`; Basic Line Commands: M , L, H, V These are fun and easy: L, H, and V, all draw a line from the current point to the point specified. L takes two arguments, the x and y positions of the point you want to draw to. const pathCommandL = `M${start.x} ${start.y} L${end.x} ${end.y}`; H and V, on the other hand, only take one argument because they are only drawing a line in one direction. For H, you specify the x position, and for V, you specify the y position. The other value is implied. const pathCommandH = `M${start.x} ${start.y} H${end.x}`; const pathCommandV = `M${start.x} ${start.y} V${end.y}`; To visualize how this works, I created a function that draws the path, as well as points with labels on them, so we can see what happens. See the Pen Simple Lines with path [forked] by Myriam. We have three lines in that image. The L command is used for the red path. It starts with M at (10,10), then moves diagonally down to (100,100). The command is: M10 10 L100 100. The blue line is horizontal. It starts at (10,55) and should end at (100, 55). We could use the L command, but we’d have to write 55 again. So, instead, we write M10 55 H100, and then SVG knows to look back at the y value of M for the y value of H. It’s the same thing for the green line, but when we use the V command, SVG knows to refer back to the x value of M for the x value of V. If we compare the resulting horizontal path with the same implementation in a <line> element, we may Notice how much more efficient path can be, and Remove quite a bit of meaning for anyone who doesn’t speak path. Because, as we look at these strings, one of them is called “line”. And while the rest doesn’t mean anything out of context, the line definitely conjures a specific image in our heads. <path d="M 10 55 H 100" /> <line x1="10" y1="55" x2="100" y2="55" /> Making Polygons And Polylines With Z In the previous section, we learned how path can behave like <line>, which is pretty cool. But it can do more. It can also act like polyline and polygon. Remember, how those two basically work the same, but polygon connects the first and last point, while polyline does not? The path element can do the same thing. There is a separate command to close the path with a line, which is the Z command. const polyline2Points = M${start.x} ${start.y} L${p1.x} ${p1.y} L${p2.x} ${p2.y}; const polygon2Points = M${start.x} ${start.y} L${p1.x} ${p1.y} L${p2.x} ${p2.y} Z; So, let’s see this in action and create a repeating triangle shape. Every odd time, it’s open, and every even time, it’s closed. Pretty neat! See the Pen Alternating Triangles [forked] by Myriam. When it comes to comparing path versus polygon and polyline, the other tags tell us about their names, but I would argue that fewer people know what a polygon is versus what a line is (and probably even fewer know what a polyline is. Heck, even the program I’m writing this article in tells me polyline is not a valid word). The argument to use these two tags over path for legibility is weak, in my opinion, and I guess you’d probably agree that this looks like equal levels of meaningless string given to an SVG element. <path d="M0 0 L86.6 50 L0 100 Z" /> <polygon points="0,0 86.6,50 0,100" /> <path d="M0 0 L86.6 50 L0 100" /> <polyline points="0,0 86.6,50 0,100" /> Relative Commands: m, l, h, v All of the line commands exist in absolute and relative versions. The difference is that the relative commands are lowercase, e.g., m, l, h, and v. The relative commands are always relative to the last point, so instead of declaring an x value, you’re declaring a dx value, saying this is how many units you’re moving. Before we look at the example visually, I want you to look at the following three-line commands. Try not to look at the CodePen beforehand. const lines = [ { d: `M10 10 L 10 30 L 30 30`, color: "var(--_red)" }, { d: `M40 10 l 0 20 l 20 0`, color: "var(--_blue)" }, { d: `M70 10 l 0 20 L 90 30`, color: "var(--_green)" } ]; As I mentioned, I hate looking at numbers without meaning, but there is one number whose meaning is pretty constant in most contexts: 0. Seeing a 0 in combination with a command I just learned means relative manages to instantly tell me that nothing is happening. Seeing l 0 20 by itself tells me that this line only moves along one axis instead of two. And looking at that entire blue path command, the repeated 20 value gives me a sense that the shape might have some regularity to it. The first path does a bit of that by repeating 10 and 30. But the third? As someone who can’t do math in my head, that third string gives me nothing. Now, you might be surprised, but they all draw the same shape, just in different places. See the Pen SVG Compound Paths [forked] by Myriam. So, how valuable is it that we can recognize the regularity in the blue path? Not very, in my opinion. In some cases, going with the relative value is easier than an absolute one. In other cases, the absolute is king. Neither is better nor worse. And, in all cases, that previous example would be much more efficient if it were set up with a variable for the gap, a variable for the shape size, and a function to generate the path definition that’s called from within a loop so it can take in the index to properly calculate the start point. Jumping Points: How To Make Compound Paths Another very useful thing is something you don’t see visually in the previous CodePen, but it relates to the grid and its code. I snuck in a grid drawing update. With the method used in earlier examples, using line to draw the grid, the above CodePen would’ve rendered the grid with 14 separate elements. If you go and inspect the final code of that last CodePen, you’ll notice that there is just a single path element within the .grid group. It looks like this, which is not fun to look at but holds the secret to how it’s possible: <path d="M0 0 H110 M0 10 H110 M0 20 H110 M0 30 H110 M0 0 V45 M10 0 V45 M20 0 V45 M30 0 V45 M40 0 V45 M50 0 V45 M60 0 V45 M70 0 V45 M80 0 V45 M90 0 V45" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="0.2" fill="none"></path> If we take a close look, we may notice that there are multiple M commands. This is the magic of compound paths. Since the M/m commands don’t actually draw and just place the cursor, a path can have jumps. So, whenever we have multiple paths that share common styling and don’t need to have separate interactions, we can just chain them together to make our code shorter. Coming Up Next Armed with this knowledge, we’re now able to replace line, polyline, and polygon with path commands and combine them in compound paths. But there is so much more to uncover because path doesn’t just offer foreign-language versions of lines but also gives us the option to code circles and ellipses that have open space and can sometimes also bend, twist, and turn. We’ll refer to those as curves and arcs, and discuss them more explicitly in the next article. Further Reading On SmashingMag “Mastering SVG Arcs,” Akshay Gupta “Accessible SVGs: Perfect Patterns For Screen Reader Users,” Carie Fisher “Easy SVG Customization And Animation: A Practical Guide,” Adrian Bece “Magical SVG Techniques,” Cosima Mielke
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos