For quite some time now, Marlin has been the firmware of choice for any kind of custom 3D printer, with only Klipper offering some serious competition in the open-source world. …read more

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.

Additive Manufacturing UK (AMUK)’s first Members Forum of 2025 was held at Siemens’ UK headquarters in South Manchester earlier this year. The event featured presentations from AMUK members and offered attendees a chance to network and share insights.  Ahead of the day-long meetup, 3D Printing Industry caught up with Joshua Dugdale, Head of AMUK, to learn more about the current state of additive manufacturing and the future of 3D printing in Britain.  AMUK is the United Kingdom’s primary 3D printing trade organization. Established in 2014, it operates within the Manufacturing Technologies Association (MTA) cluster. Attendees at this year’s first meetup spanned the UK’s entire 3D printing ecosystem. Highlights included discussion on precious materials from Cookson Industrial, simulation software from Siemens, digital thread solutions from Kaizen PLM, and 3D printing services provided by ARRK.  With a background in mechanical engineering, Dugdale is “responsible for everything and anything AMUK does as an organization.” According to the Loughborough University alumnus, who is also Head of Technology and Skills at the MTA, AMUK’s core mission is to “create an environment in the UK where additive manufacturing can thrive.” He elaborated on how his organization is working to increase the commercial success of its members within the “struggling” global manufacturing environment. Dugdale shared his perspective on the key challenges facing 3D printing in the UK. He pointed to a “tough” operating environment hampered by global financial challenges, which is delaying investments.  Despite this, AMUK’s leader remains optimistic about the sector’s long-term potential, highlighting the UK’s success in R&D and annual 3D printing intellectual property (IP) output. Dugdale emphasized the value of 3D printing for UK defense and supply chain resilience, arguing that “defense will lead the way” in 3D printing innovation.  Looking ahead, Dugdale called on the UK Government to create a unified 3D printing roadmap to replace its “disjointed” approach to policy and funding. He also shared AMUK’s strategy for 2025 and beyond, emphasizing a focus on eductaion, supply chain visibility, and standards. Ultimately, the AMUK figurehead shared a positive outlook on the future of 3D printing in the UK. He envisions a new wave of innovation that will see more British startups and university spinouts emerging over the next five years.          Siemens’ Manchester HQ hosted the first AMUK Members Forum of 2025. Photo by 3D Printing Industry. What is the current state of additive manufacturing in the UK? According to Dugdale, the 3D printing industry is experiencing a challenging period, driven largely by global economic pressures. “I wouldn’t describe it as underperforming, I’d describe it as flat,” Dugdale said. “The manufacturing sector as a whole is facing significant challenges, and additive manufacturing is no exception.” He pointed to increased competition, a cautious investment climate, and the reluctance of businesses to adopt new technologies due to the economic uncertainty.  Dugdale specifically highlighted the increase in the UK’s National Insurance contribution (NIC) rate for employers, which rose from 13.8% to 15% on April 6, 2025. He noted that many British companies postponed investment decisions ahead of the announcement, reflecting growing caution within the UK manufacturing sector. “With additive manufacturing, people need to be willing to take risks,” added Dugdale. “People are holding off at the moment because the current climate doesn’t favor risk.”  Dugdale remains optimistic about the sector’s long-term potential, arguing that the UK continues to excel in academia and R&D. However, for Dugdale, commercializing that research is where the country must improve before it can stand out on the world stage. This becomes especially clear when compared to countries in North America and Asia, which receive significantly greater financial support. “We’re never going to compete with the US and China, because they have so much more money behind them,” he explained. In a European context, Dugdale believes the UK “is doing quite well.” However, Britain remains below Spain in terms of financial backing and technology adoption. “Spain has a much more mature industry,” Dugdale explained. “Their AM association has been going for 10 years, and it’s clear that their industry is more cohesive and further along. It’s a level of professionalism we can learn from.” While the Iberian country faces similar challenges in standards, supply chain, and visibility, it benefits from a level of cohesion that sets it apart from many other European countries. Dugdale pointed to the Formnext trade show as a clear example of this disparity. He expects the Spanish pavilion to span around 200 square meters and feature ten companies at this year’s event, a “massive” difference compared to the UK’s 36 square meters last year. AMUK’s presence could grow to around 70 square meters at Formnext 2025, but this still lags far behind. Dugdale attributes this gap to government support. “They get more funding. This makes it a lot more attractive for companies to come because there’s less risk for them,” he explained.   Josh Dugdale speaking at the AMUK Members Forum in Manchester. Photo by 3D Printing Industry. 3D printing for UK Defense  As global security concerns grow, the UK government has intensified efforts to bolster its defense capabilities. In this context, 3D printing is emerging as a key enabler. Earlier this year, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) released its first Defence Advanced Manufacturing Strategy, outlining a plan to “embrace 3D printing,” with additive manufacturing expected to play a pivotal role in the UK’s future military operations.  Dugdale identified two key advantages of additive manufacturing for defense: supply chain resilience and frontline production. For the former, he stressed the importance of building localized supply chains to reduce lead times and eliminate dependence on overseas shipments. This capability is crucial for ensuring that military platforms, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, remain operational.  3D printing near the front lines offers advantages for conducting quick repairs and maintaining warfighting capabilities in the field. “If a tank needs to get back off the battlefield, you can print a widget or bracket that’ll hold for just five miles,” Dugdale explained. “It’s not about perfect engineering; it’s about getting the vehicle home.”  The British Army has already adopted containerized 3D printers to test additive manufacturing near the front lines. Last year, British troops deployed metal and polymer 3D printers during Exercise Steadfast Defender, NATO’s largest military exercise since the Cold War. Dubbed Project Bokkr, the additive manufacturing capabilities included XSPEE3D cold spray 3D printer from Australian firm SPEE3D.     Elsewhere in 2024, the British Army participated in Additive Manufacturing Village 2024, a military showcase organized by the European Defence Agency. During the event, UK personnel 3D printed 133 functional parts, including 20 made from metal. They also developed technical data packs (TDPs) for 70 different 3D printable spare parts. The aim was to equip Ukrainian troops with the capability to 3D print military equipment directly at the point of need. Dugdale believes success in the UK defense sector will help drive wider adoption of 3D printing. “Defense will lead the way,” he said, suggesting that military users will build the knowledge base necessary for broader civilian adoption. This could also spur innovation in materials science, an area Dugdale expects to see significant advancements in the coming years.     A British Army operator checks a part 3D printed on SPEE3D’s XSPEE3D Cold Spray 3D printer. Photo via the British Army. Advocating for a “unified industrial strategy” Despite promising growth in defence, Dugdale identified major hurdles that still hinder the widespread adoption of additive manufacturing (AM) in the UK.  A key challenge lies in the significant knowledge gap surrounding the various types of AM and their unique advantages. This gap, he noted, discourages professionals familiar with traditional manufacturing methods like milling and turning from embracing 3D printing. “FDM is not the same as WAAM,” added Dugdale. “Trying to explain that in a very nice, coherent story is not always easy.” Dugdale also raised concerns about the industry’s fragmented nature, especially when it comes to software compatibility and the lack of interoperability between 3D printing systems. “The software is often closed, and different machines don’t always communicate well with each other. That can create fear about locking into the wrong ecosystem too early,” he explained.  For Dugdale, these barriers can only be overcome with a clear industrial strategy for additive manufacturing. He believes the UK Government should develop a unified strategy that defines a clear roadmap for development. This, Dugdale argued, would enable industry players to align their efforts and investments.  The UK has invested over £500 million in AM-related projects over the past decade. However, Dugdale explained that fragmented funding has limited its impact. Instead, the AMUK Chief argues that the UK Government’s strategy should recognize AM as one of “several key enabling technologies,” alongside machine tooling, metrology, and other critical manufacturing tools.  He believes this unified approach could significantly boost the UK’s productivity and fully integrate 3D printing into the wider industrial landscape. “Companies will align themselves with the roadmap, allowing them to grow and mature at the same rate,” Dugdale added. “This will help us to make smarter decisions about how we fund and where we fund.”    AMUK’s roadmap and the future of 3D printing in the UK    When forecasting 3D printing market performance, Dugdale and his team track five key industries: automotive, aerospace, medical, metal goods, and chemical processes. According to Dugdale, these industries are the primary users of machine tools, which makes them crucial indicators of market health. AMUK also relies on 3D printing industry surveys to gauge confidence, helping them to spot trends even when granular data is scarce. By comparing sector performance with survey-based confidence indicators, AMUK builds insights into the future market trajectory. The strong performance of sectors like aerospace and healthcare, which depend heavily on 3D printing, reinforces Dugdale’s confidence in the long-term potential of additive manufacturing. Looking ahead to the second half of 2025, AMUK plans to focus on three primary challenges: supply chain visibility, skills development, and standards. Dugdale explains that these issues remain central to the maturation of the UK’s AM ecosystem. Education will play a key role in these efforts.  AMUK is already running several additive manufacturing upskilling initiatives in schools and universities to build the next generation of 3D printing pioneers. These include pilot projects that introduce 3D printing to Key Stage 3 students (aged 11) and AM university courses that are tailored to industry needs.  In the longer term, Dugdale suggests AMUK could evolve to focus more on addressing specific industry challenges, such as net-zero emissions or automotive light-weighting. This would involve creating specialized working groups that focus on how 3D printing can address specific pressing issues.  Interestingly, Dugdale revealed that AMUK’s success in advancing the UK’s 3D printing industry could eventually lead to the organization being dissolved and reabsorbed into the MTA. This outcome, he explained, would signal that “additive manufacturing has really matured” and is now seen as an integral part of the broader manufacturing ecosystem, rather than a niche technology. Ultimately, Dugdale is optimistic for the future of 3D printing in the UK. He acknowledged that AMUK is still “trying to play catch-up for the last 100 years of machine tool technology.” However, additive manufacturing innovations are set to accelerate. “There’s a lot of exciting research happening in universities, and we need to find ways to help these initiatives gain the funding and visibility they need,” Dugdale urged. As the technology continues to grow, Dugdale believes additive manufacturing will gradually lose its niche status and become a standard tool for manufacturers. “In ten years, we could see a generation of workers who grew up with 3D printers at home,” he told me. “For them, it will just be another technology to use in the workplace, not something to be amazed by.”  With this future in mind, Dugdale’s vision for 3D printing is one of broad adoption, supported by clear strategy and policy, as the technology continues to evolve and integrate into UK industry.  Take the 3DPI Reader Survey — shape the future of AM reporting in under 5 minutes. 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.

The color of nostalgia Endangered classic Mac plastic color returns as 3D-printer filament Mac fan paid $900 to color-match iconic Apple beige-gray "Platinum" plastic for everyone. Benj Edwards – Jun 4, 2025 6:13 pm | 3 The Mac SE, released in 1987, was one of many classic Macs to use the "Platinum" color scheme. Credit: Apple / Polar Filament The Mac SE, released in 1987, was one of many classic Macs to use the "Platinum" color scheme. Credit: Apple / Polar Filament Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more On Tuesday, classic computer collector Joe Strosnider announced the availability of a new 3D-printer filament that replicates the iconic "Platinum" color scheme used in classic Macintosh computers from the late 1980s through the 1990s. The PLA filament (PLA is short for polylactic acid) allows hobbyists to 3D-print nostalgic novelties, replacement parts, and accessories that match the original color of vintage Apple computers. Hobbyists commonly feed this type of filament into commercial desktop 3D printers, which heat the plastic and extrude it in a computer-controlled way to fabricate new plastic parts. The Platinum color, which Apple used in its desktop and portable computer lines starting with the Apple IIgs in 1986, has become synonymous with a distinctive era of classic Macintosh aesthetic. Over time, original Macintosh plastics have become brittle and discolored with age, so matching the "original" color can be a somewhat challenging and subjective experience. A close-up of "Retro Platinum" PLA filament by Polar Filament. Credit: Polar Filament Strosnider, who runs a website about his extensive vintage computer collection in Ohio, worked for years to color-match the distinctive beige-gray hue of the Macintosh Platinum scheme, resulting in a spool of hobby-ready plastic by Polar Filament and priced at $21.99 per kilogram. According to a forum post, Strosnider paid approximately $900 to develop the color and purchase an initial 25-kilogram supply of the filament. Rather than keeping the formulation proprietary, he arranged for Polar Filament to make the color publicly available. "I paid them a fee to color match the speaker box from inside my Mac Color Classic," Strosnider wrote in a Tinkerdifferent forum post on Tuesday. "In exchange, I asked them to release the color to the public so anyone can use it." A spool of "Retro Platinum" PLA filament by Polar Filament. Credit: Polar Filament The development addresses a gap in the vintage computing community, where enthusiasts sometimes struggle to find appropriately colored materials for restoration projects and new accessories. The new filament is an attempt to replace previous options that were either expensive, required international shipping, or had consistency issues that Strosnider described as "chalky." The 1.75 mm filament works with standard 3D printers and is compatible with automated material systems used in some newer printer models. On Bluesky, Strosnider encouraged buyers to "order plenty, and let them know you want them to print it forever" to ensure continued production of the specialty color. Extruded nostalgia The timing of the filament's release coincides with growing interest in 3D-printed cases and accessories for vintage computer hardware. One example is the SE Mini desktop case, a project by "GutBomb" that transforms Macintosh SE and SE/30 logic boards into compact desktop computers that can connect to modern displays. The case, designed to be 3D-printed in multiple pieces and assembled, represents the type of project that benefits from color-accurate filament. A 3D-printed "SE Mini" desktop case that allows using a vintage compact Mac board in a new enclosure. Credit: Joe Strosnider The SE Mini case requires approximately half a spool of filament and takes a couple of days to print on consumer 3D printers. Users can outfit the case with modern components, such as Pico PSUs and BlueSCSI storage devices, while maintaining the classic Macintosh appearance. Why create new "retro" devices? Because it's fun, and it's a great way to merge technology's past with the benefits of recent tech developments. Projects like the Platinum PLA filament, the SE Mini case, and the dedication of hobbyists like Strosnider ensure that appreciation for Apple's computers of yore will continue for decades. Benj Edwards Senior AI Reporter Benj Edwards Senior AI Reporter Benj Edwards is Ars Technica's Senior AI Reporter and founder of the site's dedicated AI beat in 2022. He's also a tech historian with almost two decades of experience. In his free time, he writes and records music, collects vintage computers, and enjoys nature. He lives in Raleigh, NC. 3 Comments

European tech leaders are pushing back against high-profile VCs urging founders to work seven days a week — slamming the grindset mentality as everything from “toxic” to “childish.”  “Calling on founders to work insane hours nonstop is just bad advice,” Suranga Chandratillake, general partner at Balderton Capital and former CEO of video search engine Blinkx, told TNW. “Even sprinters don’t sprint all the time — rest and reflection is just as important as putting in the work.” His comments follow a LinkedIn post on Saturday by Harry Stebbings, podcast host and 28-year-old founder of London-based venture firm 20VC. “What European founders need to realise [is that] 7 days a week is the required velocity to win right now,” he wrote, implying that they need to match the infamous grind culture of Silicon Valley.       Martin Mignot, a partner at New York-based Index Ventures, rallied behind Stebbings. In a LinkedIn post of his own, he applauded the 9am-9pm, six days a week (illegal) work culture adopted by some tech firms in China. “Forget 9 to 5, 996 is the new startup standard,” he said.  While some echoed their views, many European tech founders and investors weren’t happy with the rhetoric. Amelia Miller, co-founder of return-to-work platform Ivee, called Stebbings’ post “unbelievably toxic.” Register Now “Only bad founders work 7 days non-stop,” she wrote. “It’s poor time management and a fast track to burnout.” Miller also said she thinks that working such long hours unfairly discriminates against parents and those with responsibilities outside the office.   Chandratillake also warned against taking advice from VCs without experience of starting and running a company. “If you’re a CEO, don’t listen to a jumped-up finance bro in a hoodie who has never done your job telling you how to do it!” he said.  The lively debate comes amid a broader conversation in European tech over whether workplace culture is holding the region back compared to the US or China.  In a podcast interview in March, Revolut boss Nik Storonsky criticised European startup entrepreneurs, saying they weren’t working hard enough and valued work-life balance too highly. Those comments followed another lively social media debate earlier this year about whether French founders lacked the “grindset” to succeed.   However, a recent survey of 128 European founders by early-stage VC firm Antler found that three-quarters of them work more than 60 hours weekly. Almost 20% of them exceeded 80 hours, challenging the notion that European founders don’t hustle.  Chandratillake said he believes that scrutinising work hours overlooks some of the real challenges founders face in Europe, such as access to late-stage financing. That said, the investor thinks there is a time and a place for the grind. “Sometimes founders have to work extremely hard and long hours, but that’s not sustainable all the time,” he said. “Building a successful company is a marathon, it takes endurance.”  European startup founders are the lifeblood of TNW Conference — and we want you there too. The tech festival takes place on June 19-20 in Amsterdam. Use the code TNWXMEDIA2025 at the ticket checkout to get 30% off. Story by Siôn Geschwindt Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehic (show all) Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehicles, he's happiest sourcing a scoop, investigating the impact of emerging technologies, and even putting them to the test. He has five years of journalism experience and holds a dual degree in media and environmental science from the University of Cape Town, South Africa. When he's not writing, you can probably find Siôn out hiking, surfing, playing the drums or catering to his moderate caffeine addiction. You can contact him at: sion.geschwindt [at] protonmail [dot] com Get the TNW newsletter Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week. Also tagged with