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.

“Is that concrete all around, or is it in my head?” asked Ian Hunter in “All the Young Dudes,” the song David Bowie wrote for Mott the Hoople in 1972. Concrete is all around us, and we haven’t quite wrapped our heads around it. It’s one of the indispensable materials of modernity; as we try to decarbonize the built environment, it’s part of the problem, and innovations in its composition may become part of the solution. Understanding its history more clearly, the Skyscraper Museum’s new exhibition in Manhattan implies, just might help us employ it better. Concrete is “the second most used substance in the world, after water,” the museum’s founder/director/curator Carol Willis told AN during a recent visit. For plasticity, versatility, and compressive strength, reinforced concrete is hard to beat, though its performance is more problematic when assessed by the metric of embodied and operational carbon, a consideration the exhibition acknowledges up front. In tall construction, concrete has become nearly hegemonic, yet its central role, contend Willis and co-curator Thomas Leslie, formerly of Foster + Partners and now a professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, is underrecognized by the public and by mainstream architectural history. The current exhibition aims to change that perception. The Skyscraper Museum in Lower Manhattan features an exhibition, The Modern Concrete Skyscraper, which examines the history of material choices in building tall towers. (Courtesy the Skyscraper Museum) The Modern Concrete Skyscraper examines the history of tall towers’ structural material choices, describing a transition from the early dominance of steel frames to the contemporary condition, in which most large buildings rely on concrete. This change did not happen instantly or for any single reason but through a combination of technical and economic factors, including innovations by various specialists, well-recognized and otherwise; the availability of high-quality limestone deposits near Chicago; and the differential development of materials industries in nations whose architecture grew prominent in recent decades. As supertalls reach ever higher—in the global race for official height rankings by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) and national, corporate, or professional bragging rights—concrete’s dominance may not be permanent in that sector, given the challenge of pumping the material beyond a certain height. (The 2,717-foot Burj Khalifa, formerly Burj Dubai, uses concrete up to 1,987 and steel above that point; Willis quotes SOM’s William Baker describing it as “the tallest steel building with a concrete foundation of 156 stories.”) For the moment, however, concrete is ahead of its chief competitors, steel and (on a smaller scale) timber. Regardless of possible promotional inferences, Willis said, “we did not work with the industry in any way for this exhibition.” “The invention of steel and the grid of steel and the skeleton frame is only the first chapter of the history of the skyscraper,” Willis explained. “The second chapter, and the one that we’re in now, is concrete. Surprisingly, no one had ever told that story of the skyscraper today with a continuous narrative.” The exhibition traces the use of concrete back to the ancient Roman combination of aggregate and pozzolana—the chemical formula for which was “largely lost with the fall of the Roman Empire,” though some Byzantine and medieval structures approximated it. From there, the show explores comparable materials’ revival in 18th-century England, the patenting of Portland cement by Leeds builder Joseph Aspdin in 1824, the proof-of-concept concrete house by François Coignet in 1856, and the pivotal development of rebar in the mid-19th century, with overdue attention to Ernest Ransome’s 1903 Ingalls Building in Cincinnati, then the world’s tallest concrete building at 15 stories and arguably the first concrete skyscraper. The exhibition includes a timeline that depicts concrete’s origins in Rome to its contemporary use in skyscraper construction. (Courtesy the Skyscraper Museum) Baker’s lectures, Willis reported, sometimes pose a deceptively simple question: “‘What is a skyscraper?’ In 1974, when the World Trade Center and Sears Tower are just finished, you would say it’s a very tall building that is built of steel, an office building in North America. But if you ask that same question today, the answer is: It’s a building that is mixed-use, constructed of concrete, and [located] in Asia or the Middle East.” The exhibition organizes the history of concrete towers by eras of engineering innovation, devoting special attention to the 19th- and early-20th-century “patent era” of Claude Allen Porter Turner (pioneer in flat-slab flooring and mushroom columns) and Henry Chandlee Turner (founder of Turner Construction), Ransome (who patented twisted-iron rebar), and François Hennebique (known for the re-inforced concrete system exemplified by Liverpool’s Royal Liver Building, the world’s tallest concrete office building when completed in 1911). In the postwar era, “concrete comes out onto the surface [as] both a structural material and aesthetic.” Brutalism, perhaps to some observers’ surprise, “does not figure very large in high-rise design,” Willis said, except for Paul Rudolph’s Tracey Towers in the Bronx. The exhibition, however, devotes considerable attention to the work of Pier Luigi Nervi, Bertrand Goldberg (particularly Marina City), and SOM’s Fazlur Khan, pioneer of the structural tube system in the 1960s and 1970s—followed by the postmodernist 1980s, when concrete could express either engineering values or ornamentation. The exhibition highlights a number of concrete towers, including Paul Rudolph’s Tracey Towers in the Bronx. (Courtesy the Skyscraper Museum) “In the ’90s, there were material advances in engineering analysis and computerization that helped to predict performance, and so buildings can get taller and taller,” Willis said. The current era, if one looks to CTBUH rankings, is dominated by the supertalls seen in Dubai, Shanghai, and Kuala Lumpur, after the Petronas Towers (1998) “took the title of world’s tallest building from North America for the first time and traumatized everybody about that.” The previous record holder, Chicago’s Sears (now Willis) Tower, comprised steel structural tubes on concrete caissons; with Petronas, headquarters of Malaysia’s national petroleum company of that name, a strong concrete industry was represented but a strong national steel industry was lacking, and as Willis frequently says, form follows finances. In any event, by the ’90s concrete was already becoming the standard material for supertalls, particularly on soft-soiled sites like Shanghai, where its water resistance and compressive strength are well suited to foundation construction. Its plasticity is also well suited to complex forms like the triangular Burj, Kuala Lumpur’s Merdeka 118, and (if eventually completed) the even taller Jeddah Tower, designed to “confuse the wind,” shed vortices, and manage wind forces. Posing the same question Louis Kahn asked about the intentions of a brick, Willis said, with concrete “the answer is: anything you want.” The exhibition is front-loaded with scholarly material, presenting eight succinct yet informative wall texts on the timeline of concrete construction. The explanatory material is accompanied by ample photographs as well as structural models on loan from SOM, Pelli Clarke & Partners, and other firms. Some materials are repurposed from the museum’s previous shows, particularly Supertall! (2011–12) and Sky High and the Logic of Luxury (2013–14). The models allow close examination of the Burj Khalifa, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Tower, Merdeka 118, and others, including two unbuilt Chicago projects that would have exceeded 2,000 feet: the Miglin-Beitler Skyneedle (Cesar Pelli/Thornton Tomasetti) and 7 South Dearborn (SOM). The Burj, Willis noted, was all structure and no facade for a time: When its curtain-wall manufacturer, Schmidlin, went bankrupt in 2006, it “ended up going to 100 stories without having a stitch of glass on it,” temporarily becoming a “1:1 scale model of the structural system up to 100 stories.” Its prominence justifies its appearance here in two models, including one from RWDI’s wind-tunnel studies. Eero Saarinen’s only skyscraper, built for CBS in 1965 and also known as “Black Rock,” under construction in New York City. (Courtesy Eero Saarinen Collection, Manuscripts, and Archives, Yale University Library) The exhibition opened in March, with plans to stay up at least through October (Willis prefers to keep the date flexible), with accompanying lectures and panels to be announced on the museum’s website (skyscraper.org). Though the exhibition’s full textual and graphic content is available online, the physical models alone are worth a trip to the Battery Park City headquarters. Intriguing questions arise from the exhibition without easy answers, setting the table for lively discussion and debate. One is whether the patenting of innovations like Ransome bar and the Système Hennebique incentivized technological progress or hindered useful technology transfer. Willis speculated, “Did the fact that there were inventions and patents mean that competition was discouraged, that the competition was only in the realm of business, rather than advancing the material?” A critical question is whether research into the chemistry of concrete, including MIT’s 2023 report on the self-healing properties of Roman pozzolana and proliferating claims about “green concrete” using alternatives to Portland cement, can lead to new types of the material with improved durability and lower emissions footprints. This exhibition provides a firm foundation in concrete’s fascinating history, opening space for informed speculation about its future. Bill Millard is a regular contributor to AN.

Welcome back to TechCrunch Mobility — your central hub for news and insights on the future of transportation. Sign up here for free — just click TechCrunch Mobility! It might have been a short week, but there was still plenty of news, including another Zoox recall, an update on the Stellantis-Amazon partnership, and a few startup-funding deals.  One item of note: This week, I wrote about Carma Technology and its patent infringement lawsuit against Uber. This isn’t a patent troll situation, and the IP attorneys I have spoken with say it will be a challenging case for Uber.  The gist? Carma, which was formed in 2007 by serial entrepreneur and SOSV Ventures founder Sean O’Sullivan, filed a lawsuit earlier this year against Uber, alleging the company infringed on five of its patents that are related to the system of matching riders (or packages) with capacity in vehicles. In other words, ride-sharing. IP attorney Larry Ashery provided the money quote that explains why this is such a complicated and challenging case.  “What’s important to understand here is, Carma isn’t just asserting five patents. They have had a very sophisticated strategy of patent procurement that they’ve been working on for the past 18 years.” Carma’s five patents are part of a 30-patent family that are all related and connected to the original filing date. That matters because each of the five asserted patents contains multiple patent claims, which define the legal boundaries of the invention. These individual claims — not just the patents as a whole — are what Carma is asserting against Uber.That means Uber will have to address and defend against each asserted claim, making the litigation more complex and difficult to defeat, Ashery noted.  Techcrunch event Save now through June 4 for TechCrunch Sessions: AI Save $300 on your ticket to TC Sessions: AI—and get 50% off a second. Hear from leaders at OpenAI, Anthropic, Khosla Ventures, and more during a full day of expert insights, hands-on workshops, and high-impact networking. These low-rate deals disappear when the doors open on June 5. Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot at TC Sessions: AI and show 1,200+ decision-makers what you’ve built — without the big spend. Available through May 9 or while tables last. Berkeley, CA | June 5 REGISTER NOW Let’s get into the rest of the news.  A little bird Image Credits:Bryce Durbin A few little birds have been chirping at us for months now about a new autonomous vehicle technology startup that has been quietly plugging along for a year. The interesting nugget about this startup — which is called Bedrock Robotics — is who is behind it: Boris Sofman, who led Waymo’s self-driving trucks program and previously co-founded and led the popular consumer robotics company Anki.  The San Francisco-based startup is still in stealth, but my sources tell me it has raised considerable venture funds. Bedrock Robotics is working on a self-driving kit that retrofits onto construction equipment and other heavy machinery, according to a filing with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  Got a tip for us? Email Kirsten Korosec at kirsten.korosec@techcrunch.com or my Signal at kkorosec.07, Sean O’Kane at sean.okane@techcrunch.com, or Rebecca Bellan at rebecca.bellan@techcrunch.com. Or check out these instructions to learn how to contact us via encrypted messaging apps or SecureDrop. Deals! Image Credits:Bryce Durbin Firefly Aerospace received a $50 million investment from Northrop Grumman as part of its Series D round. This investment will further advance production of the startup’s  co-developed medium launch vehicle, now known as Eclipse. Pallet, a warehouse logistics software startup based in Fremont, California, raised $27 million in a Series B funding round led by General Catalyst. Bain Capital Ventures, Activant Capital, and Bessemer Venture Partners also participated. Volteras, a London-based startup building virtual connective tissue that will allow plugged-in EVs to offer their batteries to support the grid, closed an $11.1 million Series A led by Union Square Ventures, with participation from Edenred, Exor, Long Journey Ventures, and Wex. Way Data Technologies, a fleet management startup founded by veterans of Lucid Motors and Wolt, raised €2.6 million ($2.95 million) in pre-seed funding led by Pale Blue Dot, with participation from 10x Founders and Greens Ventures.  Notable reads and other tidbits Image Credits:Bryce Durbin Autonomous vehicles Rivr’s four-wheeled, stair-climbing delivery robot — which its CEO and founder, Marko Bjelonic, describes as a dog on roller skates — will ferry packages from Veho vans directly to customers’ front doors as part of a pilot program in Austin, Texas. Both companies see this small pilot as a critical step toward solving a unique slice of the end-to-end autonomous delivery journey.   TuSimple (now CreateAI) sent a trove of sensitive data — effectively the blueprint of an American-made autonomous vehicle system — to a Beijing-owned firm after committing to the U.S. government that it would cease such transfers under a national security agreement. The revelation, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, prompted numerous “not surprised” responses from several readers and sources within the industry. Zoox issued its second voluntary software recall in a month, following a collision between one of its robotaxis and an e-scooter rider in San Francisco on May 8. The incident is notable, largely for what happened after the unoccupied Zoox vehicle operating at low speed was struck by the e-scooter after braking to yield at an intersection.  According to Zoox, the e-scooterist fell to the ground directly next to the vehicle and the “robotaxi began to move and stopped after completing the turn, but did not make further contact with the e-scooterist.” In other Zoox news, the company announced it was the “official robotaxi partner of Resorts World Las Vegas.” As part of the deal, there will be a dedicated and Zoox-branded robotaxi pickup and drop-off location at Resorts World Las Vegas.  Electric vehicles, charging, & batteries The Tesla Cybertruck is having a rough time. Dozens of unsold Tesla Cybertrucks are piling up at a Detroit shopping center parking lot. And while Cybertruck owners are now allowed by Tesla to trade in their vehicles for the first time since they hit the market, they’ll face a steep depreciation hit. CarGurus recently showed depreciation rates of up to 45%. Meanwhile, Tesla sales in Europe and the U.K. have fallen by nearly half, according to data released by the European Automobile Manufacturers Association.  The Volkswagen emissions cheating scandal of 2015 rippled through the automotive sector and prompted the company (and later followed by others) to shift away from diesel and toward hybrids and electric vehicles. Now, four former Volkswagen executives have received prison sentences for their role. In-car tech Amazon is no longer working with Stellantis to create in-car software for the automaker’s vehicles. The partnership, first announced in January 2022, was part of Stellantis’ plan to generate $22.5 billion annually from software. Stellantis told TechCrunch it would be pivoting to an Android-based system.

Molecular Rebar Design, a nanomaterials company based in Austin, Texas, has patented a new additive manufacturing (AM) composition that utilizes oxidized discrete carbon nanotubes (CNTs) with bonded dispersing agents to enhance 3D printing resins. The patent, published under US20210237509A1, outlines methods to improve resin properties for applications such as vat photopolymerization, sintering, and thermoplastic fusion. The inventors, Clive P. Bosnyak, Kurt W. Swogger, Steven Lowder, and Olga Ivanova, propose formulations that improve electrical conductivity, thermal stability, and mechanical strength, while overcoming dispersion challenges common with CNTs in composite materials. Image shows a schematic diagram of functionalized carbon nanotubes. Image via Molecular Rebar Design. Functionalized CNTs for additive manufacturing At the core of the invention is the chemical functionalization of CNTs with dispersing agents bonded to their sidewalls, enabling higher aspect ratios and more homogeneous dispersions. These dispersions integrate into UV-curable acrylates, thermoplastics, and elastomers, yielding improved green strength, sinterability, and faster cure rates. The patent emphasizes the benefit of using bimodal or trimodal distributions of CNT diameters (single-, double-, or multi-wall) to tune material performance. Additional fillers such as carbon black, silica, and metallic powders can also be incorporated for applications ranging from electronic encapsulation to impact-resistant parts. Experimental validation To validate the invention, the applicants oxidized carbon nanotubes using nitric acid and covalently bonded them with polyether dispersing agents such as Jeffamine M2005. These modified CNTs were incorporated into photopolymer resin formulations. In tensile testing, specimens produced with the dispersions demonstrated enhanced mechanical performance, with yield strengths exceeding 50 MPa and Young’s modulus values above 2.8 GPa. Impact strength improved by up to 90% in certain formulations compared to control samples without CNTs. These performance gains suggest suitability for applications demanding high strength-to-weight ratios, such as aerospace, electronics, and structural components. Nanotube innovations in AM Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have long been explored for additive manufacturing (AM) due to their exceptional mechanical and electrical properties. However, challenges such as poor dispersion and inconsistent aspect ratios have hindered their widespread adoption in AM processes. Recent advancements aim to overcome these barriers by integrating oxidation and dispersion techniques into scalable production methods. For instance, researchers at Rice University have developed a novel acid-based solvent that prevents the common “spaghetti effect” of CNTs tangling together. This innovation simplifies the processing of CNTs, potentially enabling their scale-up for industrial 3D printing applications. Similarly, a research team led by the University of Glasgow has created a 3D printable CNT-based plastic material capable of sensing its own structural health. This material, inspired by natural porous structures, offers enhanced toughness and strength, with potential applications in medicine, prosthetics, automotive, and aerospace design. Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to keep up with the latest 3D printing news. You can also follow us onLinkedIn and subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry YouTube channel to access more exclusive content. At 3DPI, our mission is to deliver high-quality journalism, technical insight, and industry intelligence to professionals across the AM ecosystem.Help us shape the future of 3D printing industry news with our2025 reader survey. Feature image shows schematic diagram of functionalized carbon nanotubes. Image via Molecular Rebar Design.

Basic scientific research is a key contributor to economic productivity.getty Is science running out of steam? A growing body of research suggests that disruptive breakthroughs—the kind that fundamentally redefine entire fields—may be occurring less frequently. A 2023 article in Nature reported that scientific papers and patents are, on average, less “disruptive” than they were in the mid-20th century. The study sparked intense interest and considerable controversy, covered in a recent news feature provocatively titled “Are Groundbreaking Science Discoveries Becoming Harder To Find?” Before weighing in, however, it is worth interrogating a more fundamental question: What do we mean when we call science “disruptive”? And is that, in fact, the appropriate benchmark for progress? The study in question, led by entrepreneurship scholar Russell Funk, employs a citation-based metric known as the Consolidation–Disruption (CD) index. The tool attempts to quantify whether new research displaces prior work—a signal of disruption—or builds directly upon it, thereby reinforcing existing paradigms. It represents a noteworthy contribution to our understanding of scientific change. Their conclusion, that disruption has declined across disciplines even as the volume of scientific output has expanded, has ignited debate among scientists, scholars and policymakers. Innovation May Be Getting Harder—But Also Deeper At a structural level, science becomes more complex as it matures. In some sense it has to slow down. The simplest questions are often the first to be answered, and what remains are challenges that are more subtle, more interdependent, and more difficult to resolve. The law of diminishing marginal returns, long familiar in economics, finds a natural corollary in research: at some point the intellectual “low-hanging fruit” has largely been harvested. Yet this does not necessarily imply stagnation. In fact, science itself is evolving. I think that apparent declines in disruption reflect not an impoverishment of ideas, but a transformation in the conduct and culture of research itself. Citation practices have shifted. Publication incentives have changed. The sheer availability of data and digital resources has exploded. Comparing contemporary citation behavior to that of earlier decades is not simply apples to oranges; it’s more like comparing ecosystems separated by tectonic time. More profoundly, we might ask whether paradigm shifts—particularly those in the Kuhnian sense—are truly the milestones we should prize above all others. Much of the innovation that drives societal progress and economic productivity does not emerge from revolutions in thought, but from the subtle extension and application of existing knowledge. In fields as varied as biomedicine, agriculture, and climate science, incremental refinement has yielded results of transformative impact.Brighter green hybrid rice plants (left) help increase yields at this Filipino farm. (Photo by ... More Dick Swanson/Getty Images)Getty Images Science Today Is More Sophisticated—And More Efficient Scientists are publishing more today than ever. Critics of contemporary science attribute this to metric-driven culture of “salami slicing,” in which ideas are fragmented into the “minimum publishable unit” so that scientists can accrue an ever-growing publication count to secure career viability in a publish-or-perish environment. But such critiques overlook the extraordinary gains in research efficiency that have occurred in the past few decades, which I think are a far more compelling explanation for the massive output of scientific research today. Since the 1980s, personal computing has transformed nearly every dimension of the scientific process. Manuscript preparation, once the province of typewriters and retyped drafts, has become seamless. Data acquisition now involves automated sensors and real-time monitoring. Analytical tools like Python and R allow researchers to conduct sophisticated modeling and statistics with unprecedented speed. Communication is instantaneous. Knowledge-sharing platforms and open-access journals have dismantled many of the old barriers to entry.Advances in microcomputer technology in the 1980s and 1990s dramatically accelerated scientific ... More research.Denver Post via Getty Images Indeed, one wonders whether critics have recently read a research paper from the 1930s or 1970s. The methodological rigor, analytical depth, and interdisciplinary scope of modern research are, by nearly any standard, vastly more advanced. The Horizon Has Expanded In biology alone, high-throughput technologies—part of the broader “omics” revolution catalyzed by innovations like the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which enabled rapid DNA amplification and supported the eventual success of the Human Genome Project—continue to propel discovery at an astonishing pace.Nobel Prize laureate James D. Watson speaks at a press conference to announce that a six-country ... More consortium has successfully drawn up a complete map of the human genome, completing one of the most ambitious scientific projects ever and offering a major opportunity for medical advances, 14 April 2003 at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. The announcement coincides with the 50th anniversary of the publication of the landmark paper describing DNA's double helix by Watson and Francis Crick. AFP PHOTO / Robyn BECK (Photo credit should read ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images)AFP via Getty Images When critics lament the apparent decline of Nobel-caliber “blockbusters” they overlook that the frontier of science has expanded—not narrowed. If we consider scientific knowledge as a volume, then it is bounded by an outer edge where discovery occurs. In Euclidean geometry, as the radius of a sphere increases, the surface area (scaling with the square of the radius) grows more slowly than the volume (which scales with the cube). While the volume of knowledge grows more rapidly—encompassing established theories and tools that continue to yield applications—the surface area also expands, and it is along this widening frontier, where the known meets the unknown, that innovation arises. Rethinking Returns on Investment The modern belief that science must deliver measurable economic returns is, historically speaking, a relatively recent development. Before the Second World War, scientific research was not broadly viewed as a driver of productivity. Economist Daniel Susskind has argued that even the concept of economic growth as a central policy goal is a mid-20th century invention. After the war, that changed dramatically. Governments began to see research as critical to national development, security, and public health. Yet even as expectations have grown, relative public investment in science has, paradoxically, diminished, despite the fact that basic scientific research is a massive accelerant of economic productivity and effectively self-financing. While absolute funding has increased, government spending on science as a share of GDP has declined in the US and many other countries. Given the scale and complexity of the challenges we now face, we may be underinvesting in the very enterprise that could deliver solutions. Recent proposals to cut funding for NIH and NSF could, by some estimates, cost the U.S. tens of billions in lost productivity. There is compelling evidence to suggest that significantly increasing R&D expenditures—doubling or even tripling them—would yield strong and sustained returns. AI and the Next Wave of Scientific Efficiency Looking to the future, artificial intelligence offers the potential to not only streamline research but also to augment the process of innovation itself. AI tools—from large language models like ChatGPT to specialized engines for data mining and synthesis—enable researchers to traverse disciplines, identify patterns, and generate new hypotheses with remarkable speed. The ability to navigate vast bodies of scientific literature—once reserved for those with access to elite research libraries and ample time for reading—has been radically democratized. Scientists today can access digitized repositories, annotate papers with precision tools, manage bibliographies with software, and instantly trace the intellectual lineage of ideas. AI-powered tools support researchers in sifting through and synthesizing material across disciplines, helping to identify patterns, highlight connections, and bring under-explored ideas into view. For researchers like myself—an ecologist who often draws inspiration from nonlinear dynamics, statistical physics, and cognitive psychology—these technologies function as accelerators of thought rather than substitutes for it. They support the process of discovering latent analogies and assembling novel constellations of insight, the kind of cognitive recombination that underlies true creativity. While deep understanding still demands sustained intellectual engagement—reading, interpretation, and critical analysis—these tools lower the barrier to discovery and expand the range of intellectual possibilities. By enhancing cross-disciplinary thinking and reducing the latency between idea and investigation, AI may well reignite the kind of scientific innovation that some believe is slipping from reach. Science as a Cultural Endeavor Finally, it bears emphasizing that the value of science is not solely, or even primarily, economic. Like the arts, literature, or philosophy, science is a cultural and intellectual enterprise. It is an expression of curiosity, a vehicle for collective self-understanding, and a means of situating ourselves within the universe. From my vantage point, and that of many colleagues, the current landscape of discovery feels more fertile than ever. The questions we pose are more ambitious, the tools at our disposal more refined, and the connections we are able to make more multidimensional. If the signal of disruption appears to be dimming, perhaps it is only because the spectrum of science has grown too broad for any single wavelength to dominate. Rather than lament an apparent slowdown, we might ask a more constructive question: Are we measuring the right things? And are we creating the conditions that allow the most vital forms of science—creative, integrative, and with the potential to transform human society for the better—to flourish?

Valve co-founder and CEO Gabe Newell’s new startup plans to launch brain-computer interface chips (BCIs) as soon as 2025.Newell’s company, Valve, owns the world’s largest game distribution platform, Steam, and has developed numerous acclaimed game series like Half Life, Portal, and Counter-Strike.But don’t expect exciting gaming tie-ins from the new chips—at least not right now. Rather than using your brain to play much-rumored titles like Valve's Half-Life 3, the new chips from Starfish Technologies seem earmarked for treating neurological disorders like Parkinson’s, much like Elon Musk’s Neuralink.The company hopes the chips will one day form part of “minimally invasive, distributed neural interfaces” that have simultaneous access to multiple brain regions, enabling the “recording and stimulation of neural activity with a level of precision vastly exceeding what is possible with currently available systems.”In the announcement, the startup said the chips are planned to emphasize “minimal size and low power,” with the “intent of future integration into a fully wireless, battery-free implant.” The startup thinks these chips could one day prove useful for treating disorders where “interactions between brain regions may be misregulated,” requiring “reading and writing to multiple connected parts of the brain at once” to treat. Recommended by Our EditorsWhile the new startup may be focusing on medical use cases, some of the world's largest gaming companies, including Valve itself, have been openly discussing how brain-computer interface chips could help improve in-game experiences.In a 2019 talk given at the Game Developers Conference (GDC), noted by The Verge, a Valve executive discussed how these types of brain interfaces could be used in the future by pro gamers to reduce their reaction times, or even to adapt gameplay in real-time based on players’ brain activity. For example, creating more enemies for a relaxed player, or fewer for a stressed player.Though other gaming giants have been more tight-lipped about their brain interface aspirations, we've seen huge firms like Sony and Chinese tech giant Tencent file patents referencing brainwave-based controls. Meanwhile, plenty of examples have already emerged of disabled gamers using tools like Elon Musk's Neuralink to play mainstream games like Counter-Strike. Meanwhile, Apple is currently testing support for brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) for iOS, iPadOS, and visionOS, in partnership with Brooklyn-based startup Synchron, using a synthetic vein implanted in the brain’s motor cortex. Synchron's tech, though not without technical issues, has allowed victims of degenerative diseases like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) to enjoy Apple devices.

Macworld Apple’s AirPods 2025 plans: In summary New AirPods Pro could launch featuring heart‑rate and temperature tracking and better ANC sound Some AirPods to get live translation feature via software update  AirPods Max could gain H2 chip, Adaptive Audio, Conversation awareness, Voice Isolation, Bluetooth 5.3 and more In September 2024, Apple introduced the AirPods 4. At the same time the company announced that hearing aid features would be coming to the 2nd generation AirPods Pro and the AirPods Max got a minor update (Lightning switched for USB-C and a color refresh). Those hoping that the AirPods Pro 3 and the AirPods Max 2 would launch were disappointed. It is now almost three years since the AirPods Pro 2 were introduced in September 2022, and more than four years since the AirPods Max introduction in December 2020. Updates are long overdue. In this article we are tracking all the rumors about the launch date, new features and specs and any other changes coming to the AirPods Pro and AirPods Max. Read on for the latest news about the 2025 AirPods. We’ll look first at the rumours and leaks relating to the AirPods Pro 3 before moving on to the AirPods Max 2 below (click here to jump to the AirPods Max section).  AirPods Pro 3 release date: When will the AirPods Pro 3 be released? In summary September 2025 launch of AirPods Pro 3 likely… …But launch could be delayed until 2026 Production delays indicated It would be typical to expect a September launch for AirPods Pro, alongside iPhone 17. The original AirPods Pro were introduced in October 2019, the AirPods 2nd-gen launched in September 2022, and those were updated with USB-C in September 2023. In a February 2025, Bloomberg report Mark Gurman suggested that the AirPods Pro 3 were “Still many months away”. That could still line up with a September (or October) launch though. Also in February an unverified leaker claimed in a tweet that there would be an AirPods Pro launch in May or June. Twitter However, in May 2025 analyst Ming-Chi Kuo suggested that we might not see an update to the AirPods until 2026. This could relate to production delays due to a new infra-red camera Apple is said to be equipping the AirPods with (more on that below). Twitter AirPods Pro 3 price: How much will the AirPods Pro 3 cost? In summary Price hike not expected… …But prices may rise due to economic factors We don’t expect the price to change, although it may increase in certain parts of the world and remain the same in others.  For example, when Apple launched the AirPods Pro in the U.K. the price was £249, that price was later reduced to £229, so it might go back up to £249. The price in the U.S. hasn’t changed since launch. Other factors may affect pricing. Pricing for the AirPods range starts at $129/£129 for the AirPods 4, and rises to $499/£549 for the AirPods Max:  Apple Earbuds: $19/£19 AirPods 4: $129/£129 AirPoids 4 with ANC: $179/£179 AirPods Pro 2nd-gen $249/£229 AirPods Max $549/£499 Ignoring the $300 premium for the AirPods Max, that’s an extra $70 between the AirPods 4 with ANC and the AirPods Pro. It would be feasible for Apple to increase the price of the AirPods Pro if the new features made the upgrade worthwhile.  We have a round-up of the Best wireless earbuds for iPhones and the best wired headphones if you’d like to consider alternatives to AirPods. Also read AirPods Pro vs AirPods to find out how the models compare. AirPods Pro 3 features: What specs and features will the AirPods Pro 3 have? In summary Heart rate monitoring Temperature monitoring Translation Better active noise cancellation It’s fairly easy to make predictions about the new features coming to AirPods Pro 3 just by looking at the AirPods 4 and the Beats Powerbeats Pro 2 (Beats is an Apple-owned subsidiary). For example, Powerbeats Pro 2, which launched in February 2025, includes heart rate monitoring. Read our review of the Powerbeats Pro 2 and our AirPods 4 review. As for the features rumored to be coming to the AirPods Pro 3, here’s what we’ve heard: Heart Rate monitoring: In December 2024, Gurman said Apple is working on in-ear heart rate monitoring. This will enable users to track heart rate while exercising without having to wear an Apple Watch.  The inclusion of heart rate monitoring in the Powerbeats Pro 2 certainly indicates that the same feature will be available on the AirPods Pro 3, but you can expect it to be superior. One issue with the Powerbeats Pro 2 is that they can’t steam music and capture heart data simultaneously. Another issue is with the interplay between the heart rate monitoring on the Apple Watch and the Powerbeats.  Temperature monitoring: Mark Gurman has also said Apple was researching in-ear temperature sensors, https://www.macworld.com/article/1978329/new-airpods-details-major-leak.html and Apple has a patent on such technology. In-ear temperature sensing could also be faster and more reliable than those via the Apple Watch. https://www.patentlyapple.com/2025/01/apple-reveals-an-all-new-temperature-sensor-that-could-be-used-with-apple-watch-airpods-and-more.html#:~:text=Apple Reveals an all-new,Electronic Devices With Temperature Sensors Translation: As part of the iOS 19 update Apple is said to be adding a live translation feature to AirPods. It’s unknown which AirPods will be compatible, but the AirPods Pro 3 are sure to be. https://www.macworld.com/article/2636989/airpods-to-get-live-translation-feature-as-part-of-ios-19-update.html We expect to hear more at WWDC. https://www.macworld.com/article/678333/wwdc-ios-macos-watchos-hardware-keynote.html Better active noise cancellation: According to Mark Gurman (in October 2023) the AirPods Pro 3 will feature a new H3 chip, which could lead to better active noise cancellation. Crash detection: An Apple patent describes a way that motion sensors inside AirPods could aid Crash Detection. AirPods Pro 3 design: Will Apple update the AirPods Pro design? In summary Changes to the charging case possible Slimmer design suggested Touch controls may work with gloves Mahmoud Itani / Foundry As mentioned above, we can look to the AirPods 4 for some clues about changes that may come to the AirPods Pro. One such change related to the charging case. The AirPod 4 charging case lacks a physical setup button, instead featuring a sensor under the status light on the front that lights up when active. There may be more changes coming. According to Mark Gurman (back in October 2023) the AirPods Pro will get a new design. We don’t expect new colors, but the buds may slim down further. The changes may be less visible, more tactile: A number of Apple patents indicate that Apple is looking to improve the way that the touch controls work on the earbuds work when the user is wearing gloves. For example in February 2025 a patent was granted to Apple that could enable this. AirPods Max 2 release date: When will the AirPods Max be updated? In summary Update long overdue Could be waiting until 2027 Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman wrote of the AirPods Max in a December 2023 newsletter, saying that “The cans don’t sell well enough for the company to invest in entirely new hardware or software features”. However, it’s now more than four years since the AirPods Max were introduced and with such a premium price Apple owes it to customers to bring the AirPods Max into line with their competition and other AirPods Apple sells.  In 2024 Mark Gurman predicted that the AirPods Max would get an updated at the iPhone event. Sadly, the update included only a color change and a switch from Lightning for USB-C connectivity.  I expect Apple to launch new AirPods Max headphones tomorrow with better noise cancellation, adaptive audio & USB-C. They’ll launch with the low-end AirPods 4. This is line with my reporting for months but runs counter to lack of low inventory in stores. https://t.co/KIJQEwywcp— Mark Gurman (@markgurman) September 9, 2024 Even worse, the change meant that the AirPods Max could no longer be used as wired headphones (a feature of the Lightning-based model). This was the case until a software update in March 2025 added this ability along with lossless and ultra low latency audio. As a result of that software update, users are now able to play lossless audio and ultra-low-latency audio through a wired connection. Lossless audio is a key feature for audio producers, while ultra‑low latency audio is key for gaming and live streams. Both very important features for the AirPods Mac. Despite these ‘updates’ the over four year old headphones are lagging behind the competition and an update is long over due. The bad news is that, if analyst Ming-Chi Kuo is correct, we could be waiting until 2027 for the second generation of AirPods Max. Twitter AirPods Max 2 price: How much will the AirPods Max 2 cost? In summary Price unlikely to change… …Although Apple could unify the U.S. and U.K. prices At $549/£499 the AirPods Max are an expensive purchase. The fact that they are now more than four years old makes that price look incredibly inflated. It’s no wonder they are frequently discounted at Amazon and elsewhere. When the new models launch we don’t expect a price change though. These are designed to fit at the premium headphones end of the market, and their competition has solar prices. That said, the price in the U.S. and U.K. may come in to line, with Apple choosing to ‘match’ the price as it usually does (many Apple products share an, e.g. $499/£499 price point) which Apple calculated based on exchange rates and local taxes. AirPods Max 2 specs: What specs and features will the AirPods Max 2 have In summary Necessary updates to bring into line with rest of the AirPods lineup New chip  Removal of ‘audio howl’ There is so much lacking from he AirPods Max compared to the AirPods Pro that it is easy to assume that the following will be included:  H1 chip upgraded to H2 (or H3)  Adaptive Audio (which combines transparency mode and ANC) Conversation Awareness  Conversation Boost Voice Isolation  Personalized Volume Option to activate with ‘Siri’ voice command (not just ‘Hey Siri’) Custom high dynamic range amplifier Bluetooth 5.3 (up from Bluetooth 5.0)  Find My  Also expect better battery life.  One patent identified in 2022 indicates Apple is looking at detecting “audio howl”, which is described as distracting audio feedback. AirPods Max 2 design: Will Apple update the AirPods Max design? In summary More protective carry case Removable ear cushions  Waterproofing  Jason Cross/IDG Improvements to gesture controls which are currently via the Digital Crown. Could Apple forgo the Digital Crown in favor of touch controls on the ear cups?  We could see changes to the carry case. Ideally it should cover the whole product and be more protective. A patent from 2022 suggested that Apple was developing a better case with magnetic clasps. The Audio Howl patent mentioned above also refers to removable ear cushions which could be reattached using magnets.  We’d also like to see a foldable design and better waterproofing. If you’re keen to hear the latest rumors about Apple’s plans, the best place to start is our roundup of New Apple products. Those interested in the current range should take a look at our roundup of the best AirPods deals for the latest bargains.