• When iFixit dubbed the Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller a “piss-poor excuse” for a gaming device, I couldn’t help but wonder if they accidentally reviewed a potato instead. I mean, who doesn’t love spending a small fortune on a controller that doubles as a future repair bill? With hardware that’s destined to fail faster than your New Year’s resolutions, it seems Nintendo has found a way to make us all expert repair technicians... whether we want to be or not. Who knew gaming could come with a side of DIY disaster?

    #Switch2Pro #GamingDisaster #iFixit #Nintendo #ControllerFail
    When iFixit dubbed the Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller a “piss-poor excuse” for a gaming device, I couldn’t help but wonder if they accidentally reviewed a potato instead. I mean, who doesn’t love spending a small fortune on a controller that doubles as a future repair bill? With hardware that’s destined to fail faster than your New Year’s resolutions, it seems Nintendo has found a way to make us all expert repair technicians... whether we want to be or not. Who knew gaming could come with a side of DIY disaster? #Switch2Pro #GamingDisaster #iFixit #Nintendo #ControllerFail
    KOTAKU.COM
    Repair Experts Call Switch 2 Pro Controller 'Piss-Poor' In Scathing Review
    “This is a piss-poor excuse for a controller.” That’s how repair-focused YouTube channel iFixit starts its negative review of the Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller. The repair and tech experts suggest the pricey controller is a “nightmare” to repair a
    1 Комментарии 0 Поделились 0 предпросмотр
  • Nous avons construit un système de résolution de juridiction pour Stripe Tax. C'est censé être plus rapide et moins gourmand en ressources pour déterminer les obligations fiscales. Apparemment, ça va aider à calculer les taxes correctement, peu importe où se déroule la transaction. Tout ça est un peu compliqué, avec des juridictions fiscales qui se chevauchent. Mais bon, ce n'est pas très excitant, n'est-ce pas ?

    #StripeTax
    #RésolutionDeJuridiction
    #ObligationsFiscales
    #Transactions
    #SystèmeJRS
    Nous avons construit un système de résolution de juridiction pour Stripe Tax. C'est censé être plus rapide et moins gourmand en ressources pour déterminer les obligations fiscales. Apparemment, ça va aider à calculer les taxes correctement, peu importe où se déroule la transaction. Tout ça est un peu compliqué, avec des juridictions fiscales qui se chevauchent. Mais bon, ce n'est pas très excitant, n'est-ce pas ? #StripeTax #RésolutionDeJuridiction #ObligationsFiscales #Transactions #SystèmeJRS
    STRIPE.COM
    How we built it: Jurisdiction resolution for Stripe Tax
    Stripe’s users rely on us to calculate tax correctly and quickly, no matter where a transaction happens. Our new jurisdiction resolution system (JRS) is a faster, less resource-intensive solution to the challenging problem of determining tax obligati
    1 Комментарии 0 Поделились 0 предпросмотр
  • Just came across this thing where you can download over 1,500 free PBR texture sets from LotPixel. They say these textures are scan-based and cover common materials for interiors and exteriors. They even go up to 8K resolution. I guess that's cool for commercial use or whatever. Not sure if it’s worth the effort, though.

    Anyway, if you’re into that kind of thing, maybe check it out.

    #PBRTextures
    #LotPixel
    #FreeTextures
    #8KResolution
    #3DModeling
    Just came across this thing where you can download over 1,500 free PBR texture sets from LotPixel. They say these textures are scan-based and cover common materials for interiors and exteriors. They even go up to 8K resolution. I guess that's cool for commercial use or whatever. Not sure if it’s worth the effort, though. Anyway, if you’re into that kind of thing, maybe check it out. #PBRTextures #LotPixel #FreeTextures #8KResolution #3DModeling
    Download over 1,500 free PBR texture sets from LotPixel
    Download scan-based PBR texture sets of common interior and exterior materials at up to 8K resolution. For commercial use.
    1 Комментарии 0 Поделились 0 предпросмотр
  • Ah, the glorious return of the zine! Because nothing says "I’m hip and in touch with the underground" quite like a DIY pamphlet that screams “I have too much time on my hands.” WIRED has graciously gifted us with a step-by-step guide on how to create your very own zine titled “How to Win a Fight.”

    Print. Fold. Share. Download. Sounds easy, right? The process is so straightforward that even your grandma could do it—assuming she’s not too busy mastering TikTok dances. But let’s take a moment to appreciate the sheer audacity of needing instructions for something as inherently chaotic as making a zine. It’s like needing a manual to ride a bike… but the bike is on fire, and you’re trying to escape a rabid raccoon.

    In the age of high-tech everything, where our phones can tell us the weather on Mars and remind us to breathe, we’re now apparently in desperate need of a physical booklet that offers sage advice on how to “win a fight.” Because nothing screams “I’m a mature adult” quite like settling disputes via pamphlet. Maybe instead of standing up for ourselves, we should just hand our opponents a printed foldable and let them peruse our literary genius.

    And let’s not forget the nostalgia factor here! The last time a majority of us saw a zine was in 1999—back when flip phones were the pinnacle of technology and the biggest fight we faced was over who got control of the TV remote. Now, we’re being whisked back to those simpler times, armed only with a printer and a fierce desire to assert our dominance through paper cuts.

    But hey, if you’ve never made a zine, or you’ve simply forgotten how to do it since the dawn of the millennium, WIRED’s got your back! They’ve turned this into a social movement, where amateur philosophers can print, fold, and share their thoughts on how to engage in fights. Because why have a conversation when you can battle with paper instead?

    Let’s be honest: this is all about making “fighting” a trendy topic again. Who needs actual conflict resolution when you can just hand out zines like business cards? Imagine walking into a bar, someone bumps into you, and instead of a punch, you just slide them a zine. “Here’s how to win a fight, buddy. Chapter One: Don’t.”

    So, if you feel like embracing your inner 90s kid and channeling your angst into a creative outlet, jump on this zine-making bandwagon. Who knows? You might just win a fight—against boredom, at least.

    #ZineCulture #HowToWinAFight #DIYProject #NostalgiaTrip #WIRED
    Ah, the glorious return of the zine! Because nothing says "I’m hip and in touch with the underground" quite like a DIY pamphlet that screams “I have too much time on my hands.” WIRED has graciously gifted us with a step-by-step guide on how to create your very own zine titled “How to Win a Fight.” Print. Fold. Share. Download. Sounds easy, right? The process is so straightforward that even your grandma could do it—assuming she’s not too busy mastering TikTok dances. But let’s take a moment to appreciate the sheer audacity of needing instructions for something as inherently chaotic as making a zine. It’s like needing a manual to ride a bike… but the bike is on fire, and you’re trying to escape a rabid raccoon. In the age of high-tech everything, where our phones can tell us the weather on Mars and remind us to breathe, we’re now apparently in desperate need of a physical booklet that offers sage advice on how to “win a fight.” Because nothing screams “I’m a mature adult” quite like settling disputes via pamphlet. Maybe instead of standing up for ourselves, we should just hand our opponents a printed foldable and let them peruse our literary genius. And let’s not forget the nostalgia factor here! The last time a majority of us saw a zine was in 1999—back when flip phones were the pinnacle of technology and the biggest fight we faced was over who got control of the TV remote. Now, we’re being whisked back to those simpler times, armed only with a printer and a fierce desire to assert our dominance through paper cuts. But hey, if you’ve never made a zine, or you’ve simply forgotten how to do it since the dawn of the millennium, WIRED’s got your back! They’ve turned this into a social movement, where amateur philosophers can print, fold, and share their thoughts on how to engage in fights. Because why have a conversation when you can battle with paper instead? Let’s be honest: this is all about making “fighting” a trendy topic again. Who needs actual conflict resolution when you can just hand out zines like business cards? Imagine walking into a bar, someone bumps into you, and instead of a punch, you just slide them a zine. “Here’s how to win a fight, buddy. Chapter One: Don’t.” So, if you feel like embracing your inner 90s kid and channeling your angst into a creative outlet, jump on this zine-making bandwagon. Who knows? You might just win a fight—against boredom, at least. #ZineCulture #HowToWinAFight #DIYProject #NostalgiaTrip #WIRED
    Print. Fold. Share. Download WIRED's How to Win a Fight Zine Here
    Never made a zine? Haven’t made one since 1999? We made one, and so can you.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    251
    1 Комментарии 0 Поделились 0 предпросмотр
  • players Spinetix, HMP300, HMP350, affichage dynamique, résolution Full HD, connectique HDMI, interactivité, appareils autonomes

    ## Introduction

    Les lecteurs Spinetix HMP300 et HMP350 se présentent comme des appareils autonomes conçus pour la diffusion d'affichage dynamique. Avec une résolution Full HD de 1920 x 1080, ces lecteurs hypermédia s'adaptent à la plupart des écrans modernes. Cet article propose un aperçu de leurs caractéristiques, de leur connectivité, et de leurs avantages.

    ## Des ...
    players Spinetix, HMP300, HMP350, affichage dynamique, résolution Full HD, connectique HDMI, interactivité, appareils autonomes ## Introduction Les lecteurs Spinetix HMP300 et HMP350 se présentent comme des appareils autonomes conçus pour la diffusion d'affichage dynamique. Avec une résolution Full HD de 1920 x 1080, ces lecteurs hypermédia s'adaptent à la plupart des écrans modernes. Cet article propose un aperçu de leurs caractéristiques, de leur connectivité, et de leurs avantages. ## Des ...
    Players Spinetix : Une solution pour l'affichage dynamique
    players Spinetix, HMP300, HMP350, affichage dynamique, résolution Full HD, connectique HDMI, interactivité, appareils autonomes ## Introduction Les lecteurs Spinetix HMP300 et HMP350 se présentent comme des appareils autonomes conçus pour la diffusion d'affichage dynamique. Avec une résolution Full HD de 1920 x 1080, ces lecteurs hypermédia s'adaptent à la plupart des écrans modernes. Cet...
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    597
    1 Комментарии 0 Поделились 0 предпросмотр
  • Ah, Nintendo, ce grand sorcier du monde du jeu vidéo, vient de frapper à nouveau avec son *Switch 2*, qui a déjà enregistré 3,5 millions de ventes. Oui, vous avez bien entendu, 3,5 millions ! Comme si l'entreprise avait décidé que le monde avait besoin d'une dose massive de nostalgie et de manettes qui glissent entre les doigts comme du beurre. Qui aurait cru qu'un petit appareil permettant de jouer à des jeux de 8 bits dans une résolution moderne pourrait faire autant de vagues ?

    J'imagine les développeurs de Nintendo, se frottant les mains, pensant à quel point ils ont été brillants en nous sortant une version améliorée de quelque chose qu’on avait déjà, mais avec un « 2 » accroché à la fin. Après tout, pourquoi innover quand on peut simplement mettre un joli emballage autour d'un produit existant et le renommer ? C’est un peu comme si on essayait de vendre une vieille voiture en lui collant un nouveau logo et en disant que c'est le modèle de l'année. Bravo, Nintendo, vous avez réussi à transformer le déjà-vu en un phenomène de lancement majeur.

    Et parlons aussi de ce lancement « spectaculaire ». Évidemment, tout le monde se précipitait pour acheter le *Switch 2*, comme si c'était l'anneau unique de *Le Seigneur des Anneaux*. Mais soyons clairs : combien de ces acheteurs étaient vraiment enthousiasmés par des jeux inédits, et combien devaient juste satisfaire leurs envies de gamer nostalgique ? Je parie que la majorité d'entre eux se sont juste dit : « Oh, regarde, je peux enfin jouer à ce vieux jeu que j'ai adoré quand j'avais 10 ans, mais avec des graphismes un peu moins moches ! »

    Et bien sûr, comment ignorer le marketing ? Ah, le marketing ! Ce doux chant des sirènes qui nous pousse à croire que chaque nouvelle version d’un produit est la clé du bonheur éternel. Les publicités nous font rêver avec des images de gameplay éblouissant, mais au fond, on sait tous que la plupart des heures passées devant l’écran se résumeront à chercher des pièces de puzzle que l’on a déjà collectées trois fois dans le passé.

    Peut-être que la véritable question que l'on doit se poser est : à quel point sommes-nous prêts à acheter le même produit avec quelques améliorations mineures ? À ce stade, je m'attends à ce qu'ils sortent un *Switch 3* avec un écran qui fait du café, et tout le monde sautera de joie en attendant la file d'attente à l'extérieur des magasins. Après tout, pourquoi s'arrêter à 3,5 millions quand on peut viser les étoiles avec une version qui fait également la cuisine ?

    Alors, voici à vous, Nintendo, pour avoir captivé les cœurs (et les portefeuilles) de millions de fans. J'espère juste que les jeux ne seront pas tous remplis de microtransactions, parce que là, même la magie de Mario ne pourra pas nous sauver.

    #Nintendo #Switch2 #JeuxVidéo #Vente #Lancement
    Ah, Nintendo, ce grand sorcier du monde du jeu vidéo, vient de frapper à nouveau avec son *Switch 2*, qui a déjà enregistré 3,5 millions de ventes. Oui, vous avez bien entendu, 3,5 millions ! Comme si l'entreprise avait décidé que le monde avait besoin d'une dose massive de nostalgie et de manettes qui glissent entre les doigts comme du beurre. Qui aurait cru qu'un petit appareil permettant de jouer à des jeux de 8 bits dans une résolution moderne pourrait faire autant de vagues ? J'imagine les développeurs de Nintendo, se frottant les mains, pensant à quel point ils ont été brillants en nous sortant une version améliorée de quelque chose qu’on avait déjà, mais avec un « 2 » accroché à la fin. Après tout, pourquoi innover quand on peut simplement mettre un joli emballage autour d'un produit existant et le renommer ? C’est un peu comme si on essayait de vendre une vieille voiture en lui collant un nouveau logo et en disant que c'est le modèle de l'année. Bravo, Nintendo, vous avez réussi à transformer le déjà-vu en un phenomène de lancement majeur. Et parlons aussi de ce lancement « spectaculaire ». Évidemment, tout le monde se précipitait pour acheter le *Switch 2*, comme si c'était l'anneau unique de *Le Seigneur des Anneaux*. Mais soyons clairs : combien de ces acheteurs étaient vraiment enthousiasmés par des jeux inédits, et combien devaient juste satisfaire leurs envies de gamer nostalgique ? Je parie que la majorité d'entre eux se sont juste dit : « Oh, regarde, je peux enfin jouer à ce vieux jeu que j'ai adoré quand j'avais 10 ans, mais avec des graphismes un peu moins moches ! » Et bien sûr, comment ignorer le marketing ? Ah, le marketing ! Ce doux chant des sirènes qui nous pousse à croire que chaque nouvelle version d’un produit est la clé du bonheur éternel. Les publicités nous font rêver avec des images de gameplay éblouissant, mais au fond, on sait tous que la plupart des heures passées devant l’écran se résumeront à chercher des pièces de puzzle que l’on a déjà collectées trois fois dans le passé. Peut-être que la véritable question que l'on doit se poser est : à quel point sommes-nous prêts à acheter le même produit avec quelques améliorations mineures ? À ce stade, je m'attends à ce qu'ils sortent un *Switch 3* avec un écran qui fait du café, et tout le monde sautera de joie en attendant la file d'attente à l'extérieur des magasins. Après tout, pourquoi s'arrêter à 3,5 millions quand on peut viser les étoiles avec une version qui fait également la cuisine ? Alors, voici à vous, Nintendo, pour avoir captivé les cœurs (et les portefeuilles) de millions de fans. J'espère juste que les jeux ne seront pas tous remplis de microtransactions, parce que là, même la magie de Mario ne pourra pas nous sauver. #Nintendo #Switch2 #JeuxVidéo #Vente #Lancement
    Switch 2 tops 3.5 million sales to deliver Nintendo's biggest console launch
    The successor to Nintendo's massively popular console appears to have bolted out of the gate.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    557
    1 Комментарии 0 Поделились 0 предпросмотр
  • Monitoring and Support Engineer at Keyword Studios

    Monitoring and Support EngineerKeyword StudiosPasig City Metro Manila Philippines2 hours agoApplyWe are seeking an experienced Monitoring and Support Engineer to support the technology initiatives of the IT Infrastructure team at Keywords. The Monitoring and Support Engineer will be responsible for follow-the-sun monitoring of IT infrastructure, prompt reaction on all infrastructure incident, primary resolution of infrastructure incidents and support requests.ResponsibilitiesFull scope of tasks including but not limited to:Ensure that all incidents are handled within SLAs.Initial troubleshooting of Infrastructure incidents.Ensure maximum network & service availability through proactive monitoring.Ensure all the incident and alert tickets contain detailed technical information.Initial troubleshooting of Infrastructure incidents, restoration of services and escalation to level 3 experts if necessary.Participate in Problem management processes.Ensure that all incidents and critical alerts are documented and escalated if necessary.Ensure effective communication to customers about incidents and outages.Identify opportunities for process improvement and efficiency enhancements.Participate in documentation creation to reduce BAU support activities by ensuring that the Service Desks have adequate knowledge articles to close support tickets as level 1.Participate in reporting on monitored data and incidents on company infrastructure.Implement best practices and lessons learned from initiatives and projects to optimize future outcomes.RequirementsBachelor's degree in a relevant technical field or equivalent experience.Understanding of IT Infrastructure technologies, standards and trends.Technical background with 3+ years’ experience in IT operations role delivering IT infrastructure support, monitoring and incident management.Technical knowledge of the Microsoft Stack, Windows networking, Active Directory, ExchangeTechnical knowledge of Network, Storage and Server equipment, virtualization and production setupsExceptional communication and presentation skills, with the ability to articulate technical concepts to non-technical audiences.Strong analytical and problem-solving skills.Strong customer service orientation.BenefitsGreat Place to Work certified for 4 consecutive yearsFlexible work arrangementGlobal exposure
    Create Your Profile — Game companies can contact you with their relevant job openings.
    Apply
    #monitoring #support #engineer #keyword #studios
    Monitoring and Support Engineer at Keyword Studios
    Monitoring and Support EngineerKeyword StudiosPasig City Metro Manila Philippines2 hours agoApplyWe are seeking an experienced Monitoring and Support Engineer to support the technology initiatives of the IT Infrastructure team at Keywords. The Monitoring and Support Engineer will be responsible for follow-the-sun monitoring of IT infrastructure, prompt reaction on all infrastructure incident, primary resolution of infrastructure incidents and support requests.ResponsibilitiesFull scope of tasks including but not limited to:Ensure that all incidents are handled within SLAs.Initial troubleshooting of Infrastructure incidents.Ensure maximum network & service availability through proactive monitoring.Ensure all the incident and alert tickets contain detailed technical information.Initial troubleshooting of Infrastructure incidents, restoration of services and escalation to level 3 experts if necessary.Participate in Problem management processes.Ensure that all incidents and critical alerts are documented and escalated if necessary.Ensure effective communication to customers about incidents and outages.Identify opportunities for process improvement and efficiency enhancements.Participate in documentation creation to reduce BAU support activities by ensuring that the Service Desks have adequate knowledge articles to close support tickets as level 1.Participate in reporting on monitored data and incidents on company infrastructure.Implement best practices and lessons learned from initiatives and projects to optimize future outcomes.RequirementsBachelor's degree in a relevant technical field or equivalent experience.Understanding of IT Infrastructure technologies, standards and trends.Technical background with 3+ years’ experience in IT operations role delivering IT infrastructure support, monitoring and incident management.Technical knowledge of the Microsoft Stack, Windows networking, Active Directory, ExchangeTechnical knowledge of Network, Storage and Server equipment, virtualization and production setupsExceptional communication and presentation skills, with the ability to articulate technical concepts to non-technical audiences.Strong analytical and problem-solving skills.Strong customer service orientation.BenefitsGreat Place to Work certified for 4 consecutive yearsFlexible work arrangementGlobal exposure Create Your Profile — Game companies can contact you with their relevant job openings. Apply #monitoring #support #engineer #keyword #studios
    Monitoring and Support Engineer at Keyword Studios
    Monitoring and Support EngineerKeyword StudiosPasig City Metro Manila Philippines2 hours agoApplyWe are seeking an experienced Monitoring and Support Engineer to support the technology initiatives of the IT Infrastructure team at Keywords. The Monitoring and Support Engineer will be responsible for follow-the-sun monitoring of IT infrastructure, prompt reaction on all infrastructure incident, primary resolution of infrastructure incidents and support requests.ResponsibilitiesFull scope of tasks including but not limited to:Ensure that all incidents are handled within SLAs.Initial troubleshooting of Infrastructure incidents.Ensure maximum network & service availability through proactive monitoring.Ensure all the incident and alert tickets contain detailed technical information.Initial troubleshooting of Infrastructure incidents, restoration of services and escalation to level 3 experts if necessary.Participate in Problem management processes.Ensure that all incidents and critical alerts are documented and escalated if necessary.Ensure effective communication to customers about incidents and outages.Identify opportunities for process improvement and efficiency enhancements.Participate in documentation creation to reduce BAU support activities by ensuring that the Service Desks have adequate knowledge articles to close support tickets as level 1.Participate in reporting on monitored data and incidents on company infrastructure.Implement best practices and lessons learned from initiatives and projects to optimize future outcomes.RequirementsBachelor's degree in a relevant technical field or equivalent experience.Understanding of IT Infrastructure technologies, standards and trends.Technical background with 3+ years’ experience in IT operations role delivering IT infrastructure support, monitoring and incident management.Technical knowledge of the Microsoft Stack, Windows networking, Active Directory, ExchangeTechnical knowledge of Network, Storage and Server equipment, virtualization and production setupsExceptional communication and presentation skills, with the ability to articulate technical concepts to non-technical audiences.Strong analytical and problem-solving skills.Strong customer service orientation.BenefitsGreat Place to Work certified for 4 consecutive yearsFlexible work arrangementGlobal exposure Create Your Profile — Game companies can contact you with their relevant job openings. Apply
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    559
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились 0 предпросмотр
  • The AI execution gap: Why 80% of projects don’t reach production

    Enterprise artificial intelligence investment is unprecedented, with IDC projecting global spending on AI and GenAI to double to billion by 2028. Yet beneath the impressive budget allocations and boardroom enthusiasm lies a troubling reality: most organisations struggle to translate their AI ambitions into operational success.The sobering statistics behind AI’s promiseModelOp’s 2025 AI Governance Benchmark Report, based on input from 100 senior AI and data leaders at Fortune 500 enterprises, reveals a disconnect between aspiration and execution.While more than 80% of enterprises have 51 or more generative AI projects in proposal phases, only 18% have successfully deployed more than 20 models into production.The execution gap represents one of the most significant challenges facing enterprise AI today. Most generative AI projects still require 6 to 18 months to go live – if they reach production at all.The result is delayed returns on investment, frustrated stakeholders, and diminished confidence in AI initiatives in the enterprise.The cause: Structural, not technical barriersThe biggest obstacles preventing AI scalability aren’t technical limitations – they’re structural inefficiencies plaguing enterprise operations. The ModelOp benchmark report identifies several problems that create what experts call a “time-to-market quagmire.”Fragmented systems plague implementation. 58% of organisations cite fragmented systems as the top obstacle to adopting governance platforms. Fragmentation creates silos where different departments use incompatible tools and processes, making it nearly impossible to maintain consistent oversight in AI initiatives.Manual processes dominate despite digital transformation. 55% of enterprises still rely on manual processes – including spreadsheets and email – to manage AI use case intake. The reliance on antiquated methods creates bottlenecks, increases the likelihood of errors, and makes it difficult to scale AI operations.Lack of standardisation hampers progress. Only 23% of organisations implement standardised intake, development, and model management processes. Without these elements, each AI project becomes a unique challenge requiring custom solutions and extensive coordination by multiple teams.Enterprise-level oversight remains rare Just 14% of companies perform AI assurance at the enterprise level, increasing the risk of duplicated efforts and inconsistent oversight. The lack of centralised governance means organisations often discover they’re solving the same problems multiple times in different departments.The governance revolution: From obstacle to acceleratorA change is taking place in how enterprises view AI governance. Rather than seeing it as a compliance burden that slows innovation, forward-thinking organisations recognise governance as an important enabler of scale and speed.Leadership alignment signals strategic shift. The ModelOp benchmark data reveals a change in organisational structure: 46% of companies now assign accountability for AI governance to a Chief Innovation Officer – more than four times the number who place accountability under Legal or Compliance. This strategic repositioning reflects a new understanding that governance isn’t solely about risk management, but can enable innovation.Investment follows strategic priority. A financial commitment to AI governance underscores its importance. According to the report, 36% of enterprises have budgeted at least million annually for AI governance software, while 54% have allocated resources specifically for AI Portfolio Intelligence to track value and ROI.What high-performing organisations do differentlyThe enterprises that successfully bridge the ‘execution gap’ share several characteristics in their approach to AI implementation:Standardised processes from day one. Leading organisations implement standardised intake, development, and model review processes in AI initiatives. Consistency eliminates the need to reinvent workflows for each project and ensures that all stakeholders understand their responsibilities.Centralised documentation and inventory. Rather than allowing AI assets to proliferate in disconnected systems, successful enterprises maintain centralised inventories that provide visibility into every model’s status, performance, and compliance posture.Automated governance checkpoints. High-performing organisations embed automated governance checkpoints throughout the AI lifecycle, helping ensure compliance requirements and risk assessments are addressed systematically rather than as afterthoughts.End-to-end traceability. Leading enterprises maintain complete traceability of their AI models, including data sources, training methods, validation results, and performance metrics.Measurable impact of structured governanceThe benefits of implementing comprehensive AI governance extend beyond compliance. Organisations that adopt lifecycle automation platforms reportedly see dramatic improvements in operational efficiency and business outcomes.A financial services firm profiled in the ModelOp report experienced a halving of time to production and an 80% reduction in issue resolution time after implementing automated governance processes. Such improvements translate directly into faster time-to-value and increased confidence among business stakeholders.Enterprises with robust governance frameworks report the ability to many times more models simultaneously while maintaining oversight and control. This scalability lets organisations pursue AI initiatives in multiple business units without overwhelming their operational capabilities.The path forward: From stuck to scaledThe message from industry leaders that the gap between AI ambition and execution is solvable, but it requires a shift in approach. Rather than treating governance as a necessary evil, enterprises should realise it enables AI innovation at scale.Immediate action items for AI leadersOrganisations looking to escape the ‘time-to-market quagmire’ should prioritise the following:Audit current state: Conduct an assessment of existing AI initiatives, identifying fragmented processes and manual bottlenecksStandardise workflows: Implement consistent processes for AI use case intake, development, and deployment in all business unitsInvest in integration: Deploy platforms to unify disparate tools and systems under a single governance frameworkEstablish enterprise oversight: Create centralised visibility into all AI initiatives with real-time monitoring and reporting abilitiesThe competitive advantage of getting it rightOrganisations that can solve the execution challenge will be able to bring AI solutions to market faster, scale more efficiently, and maintain the trust of stakeholders and regulators.Enterprises that continue with fragmented processes and manual workflows will find themselves disadvantaged compared to their more organised competitors. Operational excellence isn’t about efficiency but survival.The data shows enterprise AI investment will continue to grow. Therefore, the question isn’t whether organisations will invest in AI, but whether they’ll develop the operational abilities necessary to realise return on investment. The opportunity to lead in the AI-driven economy has never been greater for those willing to embrace governance as an enabler not an obstacle.
    #execution #gap #why #projects #dont
    The AI execution gap: Why 80% of projects don’t reach production
    Enterprise artificial intelligence investment is unprecedented, with IDC projecting global spending on AI and GenAI to double to billion by 2028. Yet beneath the impressive budget allocations and boardroom enthusiasm lies a troubling reality: most organisations struggle to translate their AI ambitions into operational success.The sobering statistics behind AI’s promiseModelOp’s 2025 AI Governance Benchmark Report, based on input from 100 senior AI and data leaders at Fortune 500 enterprises, reveals a disconnect between aspiration and execution.While more than 80% of enterprises have 51 or more generative AI projects in proposal phases, only 18% have successfully deployed more than 20 models into production.The execution gap represents one of the most significant challenges facing enterprise AI today. Most generative AI projects still require 6 to 18 months to go live – if they reach production at all.The result is delayed returns on investment, frustrated stakeholders, and diminished confidence in AI initiatives in the enterprise.The cause: Structural, not technical barriersThe biggest obstacles preventing AI scalability aren’t technical limitations – they’re structural inefficiencies plaguing enterprise operations. The ModelOp benchmark report identifies several problems that create what experts call a “time-to-market quagmire.”Fragmented systems plague implementation. 58% of organisations cite fragmented systems as the top obstacle to adopting governance platforms. Fragmentation creates silos where different departments use incompatible tools and processes, making it nearly impossible to maintain consistent oversight in AI initiatives.Manual processes dominate despite digital transformation. 55% of enterprises still rely on manual processes – including spreadsheets and email – to manage AI use case intake. The reliance on antiquated methods creates bottlenecks, increases the likelihood of errors, and makes it difficult to scale AI operations.Lack of standardisation hampers progress. Only 23% of organisations implement standardised intake, development, and model management processes. Without these elements, each AI project becomes a unique challenge requiring custom solutions and extensive coordination by multiple teams.Enterprise-level oversight remains rare Just 14% of companies perform AI assurance at the enterprise level, increasing the risk of duplicated efforts and inconsistent oversight. The lack of centralised governance means organisations often discover they’re solving the same problems multiple times in different departments.The governance revolution: From obstacle to acceleratorA change is taking place in how enterprises view AI governance. Rather than seeing it as a compliance burden that slows innovation, forward-thinking organisations recognise governance as an important enabler of scale and speed.Leadership alignment signals strategic shift. The ModelOp benchmark data reveals a change in organisational structure: 46% of companies now assign accountability for AI governance to a Chief Innovation Officer – more than four times the number who place accountability under Legal or Compliance. This strategic repositioning reflects a new understanding that governance isn’t solely about risk management, but can enable innovation.Investment follows strategic priority. A financial commitment to AI governance underscores its importance. According to the report, 36% of enterprises have budgeted at least million annually for AI governance software, while 54% have allocated resources specifically for AI Portfolio Intelligence to track value and ROI.What high-performing organisations do differentlyThe enterprises that successfully bridge the ‘execution gap’ share several characteristics in their approach to AI implementation:Standardised processes from day one. Leading organisations implement standardised intake, development, and model review processes in AI initiatives. Consistency eliminates the need to reinvent workflows for each project and ensures that all stakeholders understand their responsibilities.Centralised documentation and inventory. Rather than allowing AI assets to proliferate in disconnected systems, successful enterprises maintain centralised inventories that provide visibility into every model’s status, performance, and compliance posture.Automated governance checkpoints. High-performing organisations embed automated governance checkpoints throughout the AI lifecycle, helping ensure compliance requirements and risk assessments are addressed systematically rather than as afterthoughts.End-to-end traceability. Leading enterprises maintain complete traceability of their AI models, including data sources, training methods, validation results, and performance metrics.Measurable impact of structured governanceThe benefits of implementing comprehensive AI governance extend beyond compliance. Organisations that adopt lifecycle automation platforms reportedly see dramatic improvements in operational efficiency and business outcomes.A financial services firm profiled in the ModelOp report experienced a halving of time to production and an 80% reduction in issue resolution time after implementing automated governance processes. Such improvements translate directly into faster time-to-value and increased confidence among business stakeholders.Enterprises with robust governance frameworks report the ability to many times more models simultaneously while maintaining oversight and control. This scalability lets organisations pursue AI initiatives in multiple business units without overwhelming their operational capabilities.The path forward: From stuck to scaledThe message from industry leaders that the gap between AI ambition and execution is solvable, but it requires a shift in approach. Rather than treating governance as a necessary evil, enterprises should realise it enables AI innovation at scale.Immediate action items for AI leadersOrganisations looking to escape the ‘time-to-market quagmire’ should prioritise the following:Audit current state: Conduct an assessment of existing AI initiatives, identifying fragmented processes and manual bottlenecksStandardise workflows: Implement consistent processes for AI use case intake, development, and deployment in all business unitsInvest in integration: Deploy platforms to unify disparate tools and systems under a single governance frameworkEstablish enterprise oversight: Create centralised visibility into all AI initiatives with real-time monitoring and reporting abilitiesThe competitive advantage of getting it rightOrganisations that can solve the execution challenge will be able to bring AI solutions to market faster, scale more efficiently, and maintain the trust of stakeholders and regulators.Enterprises that continue with fragmented processes and manual workflows will find themselves disadvantaged compared to their more organised competitors. Operational excellence isn’t about efficiency but survival.The data shows enterprise AI investment will continue to grow. Therefore, the question isn’t whether organisations will invest in AI, but whether they’ll develop the operational abilities necessary to realise return on investment. The opportunity to lead in the AI-driven economy has never been greater for those willing to embrace governance as an enabler not an obstacle. #execution #gap #why #projects #dont
    WWW.ARTIFICIALINTELLIGENCE-NEWS.COM
    The AI execution gap: Why 80% of projects don’t reach production
    Enterprise artificial intelligence investment is unprecedented, with IDC projecting global spending on AI and GenAI to double to $631 billion by 2028. Yet beneath the impressive budget allocations and boardroom enthusiasm lies a troubling reality: most organisations struggle to translate their AI ambitions into operational success.The sobering statistics behind AI’s promiseModelOp’s 2025 AI Governance Benchmark Report, based on input from 100 senior AI and data leaders at Fortune 500 enterprises, reveals a disconnect between aspiration and execution.While more than 80% of enterprises have 51 or more generative AI projects in proposal phases, only 18% have successfully deployed more than 20 models into production.The execution gap represents one of the most significant challenges facing enterprise AI today. Most generative AI projects still require 6 to 18 months to go live – if they reach production at all.The result is delayed returns on investment, frustrated stakeholders, and diminished confidence in AI initiatives in the enterprise.The cause: Structural, not technical barriersThe biggest obstacles preventing AI scalability aren’t technical limitations – they’re structural inefficiencies plaguing enterprise operations. The ModelOp benchmark report identifies several problems that create what experts call a “time-to-market quagmire.”Fragmented systems plague implementation. 58% of organisations cite fragmented systems as the top obstacle to adopting governance platforms. Fragmentation creates silos where different departments use incompatible tools and processes, making it nearly impossible to maintain consistent oversight in AI initiatives.Manual processes dominate despite digital transformation. 55% of enterprises still rely on manual processes – including spreadsheets and email – to manage AI use case intake. The reliance on antiquated methods creates bottlenecks, increases the likelihood of errors, and makes it difficult to scale AI operations.Lack of standardisation hampers progress. Only 23% of organisations implement standardised intake, development, and model management processes. Without these elements, each AI project becomes a unique challenge requiring custom solutions and extensive coordination by multiple teams.Enterprise-level oversight remains rare Just 14% of companies perform AI assurance at the enterprise level, increasing the risk of duplicated efforts and inconsistent oversight. The lack of centralised governance means organisations often discover they’re solving the same problems multiple times in different departments.The governance revolution: From obstacle to acceleratorA change is taking place in how enterprises view AI governance. Rather than seeing it as a compliance burden that slows innovation, forward-thinking organisations recognise governance as an important enabler of scale and speed.Leadership alignment signals strategic shift. The ModelOp benchmark data reveals a change in organisational structure: 46% of companies now assign accountability for AI governance to a Chief Innovation Officer – more than four times the number who place accountability under Legal or Compliance. This strategic repositioning reflects a new understanding that governance isn’t solely about risk management, but can enable innovation.Investment follows strategic priority. A financial commitment to AI governance underscores its importance. According to the report, 36% of enterprises have budgeted at least $1 million annually for AI governance software, while 54% have allocated resources specifically for AI Portfolio Intelligence to track value and ROI.What high-performing organisations do differentlyThe enterprises that successfully bridge the ‘execution gap’ share several characteristics in their approach to AI implementation:Standardised processes from day one. Leading organisations implement standardised intake, development, and model review processes in AI initiatives. Consistency eliminates the need to reinvent workflows for each project and ensures that all stakeholders understand their responsibilities.Centralised documentation and inventory. Rather than allowing AI assets to proliferate in disconnected systems, successful enterprises maintain centralised inventories that provide visibility into every model’s status, performance, and compliance posture.Automated governance checkpoints. High-performing organisations embed automated governance checkpoints throughout the AI lifecycle, helping ensure compliance requirements and risk assessments are addressed systematically rather than as afterthoughts.End-to-end traceability. Leading enterprises maintain complete traceability of their AI models, including data sources, training methods, validation results, and performance metrics.Measurable impact of structured governanceThe benefits of implementing comprehensive AI governance extend beyond compliance. Organisations that adopt lifecycle automation platforms reportedly see dramatic improvements in operational efficiency and business outcomes.A financial services firm profiled in the ModelOp report experienced a halving of time to production and an 80% reduction in issue resolution time after implementing automated governance processes. Such improvements translate directly into faster time-to-value and increased confidence among business stakeholders.Enterprises with robust governance frameworks report the ability to many times more models simultaneously while maintaining oversight and control. This scalability lets organisations pursue AI initiatives in multiple business units without overwhelming their operational capabilities.The path forward: From stuck to scaledThe message from industry leaders that the gap between AI ambition and execution is solvable, but it requires a shift in approach. Rather than treating governance as a necessary evil, enterprises should realise it enables AI innovation at scale.Immediate action items for AI leadersOrganisations looking to escape the ‘time-to-market quagmire’ should prioritise the following:Audit current state: Conduct an assessment of existing AI initiatives, identifying fragmented processes and manual bottlenecksStandardise workflows: Implement consistent processes for AI use case intake, development, and deployment in all business unitsInvest in integration: Deploy platforms to unify disparate tools and systems under a single governance frameworkEstablish enterprise oversight: Create centralised visibility into all AI initiatives with real-time monitoring and reporting abilitiesThe competitive advantage of getting it rightOrganisations that can solve the execution challenge will be able to bring AI solutions to market faster, scale more efficiently, and maintain the trust of stakeholders and regulators.Enterprises that continue with fragmented processes and manual workflows will find themselves disadvantaged compared to their more organised competitors. Operational excellence isn’t about efficiency but survival.The data shows enterprise AI investment will continue to grow. Therefore, the question isn’t whether organisations will invest in AI, but whether they’ll develop the operational abilities necessary to realise return on investment. The opportunity to lead in the AI-driven economy has never been greater for those willing to embrace governance as an enabler not an obstacle.(Image source: Unsplash)
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Angry
    Sad
    598
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились 0 предпросмотр
  • 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 Комментарии 0 Поделились 0 предпросмотр
  • fxpodcast: the making of the immersive Apple Vision Pro film Bono: Stories of Surrender

    In this episode of the fxpodcast, we go behind the scenes with The-Artery, the New York-based creative studio that brought this ambitious vision to life. We speak with Founder and CCO Vico Sharabani, along with Elad Offer, the project’s Creative Director, about what it took to craft this unprecedented experience. From conceptual direction to VFX and design, The-Artery was responsible for the full production pipeline of the AVP edition.
    Bono’s memoir Surrender: 40 Songs, One Story has taken on new life—this time as a groundbreaking immersive cinematic experience tailored specifically for the Apple Vision Pro. Titled Bono: Stories of Surrender, the project transforms his personal journey of love, loss, and legacy into a first-of-its-kind Apple Immersive Video.

    The-Artery,Founder Vico Sharabani during post-production.
    This is far more than a stereo conversion of a traditional film. Designed natively for the Apple Vision Pro, Bono: Stories of Surrenderplaces viewers directly on stage with Bono, surrounding them in a deeply intimate audiovisual journey. Shot and mastered at a staggering 14K by 7K resolution, in 180-degree stereoscopic video at 90 frames per second, the format pushes the limits of current storytelling, running at data rates nearly 50 times higher than conventional content. The immersive trailer itself diverges significantly from its traditional counterpart, using novel cinematic language, spatial cues, and temporal transitions unique to Apple’s new medium.

    This marks the first feature-length film available in Apple Immersive Video, and a powerful statement on Bono’s and U2’s continued embrace of innovation. Watch the video or listen to the audio podcast as we unpack the creative and technical challenges of building a film for a platform that didn’t exist just a year ago, and what it means for the future of immersive storytelling.
    #fxpodcast #making #immersive #apple #vision
    fxpodcast: the making of the immersive Apple Vision Pro film Bono: Stories of Surrender
    In this episode of the fxpodcast, we go behind the scenes with The-Artery, the New York-based creative studio that brought this ambitious vision to life. We speak with Founder and CCO Vico Sharabani, along with Elad Offer, the project’s Creative Director, about what it took to craft this unprecedented experience. From conceptual direction to VFX and design, The-Artery was responsible for the full production pipeline of the AVP edition. Bono’s memoir Surrender: 40 Songs, One Story has taken on new life—this time as a groundbreaking immersive cinematic experience tailored specifically for the Apple Vision Pro. Titled Bono: Stories of Surrender, the project transforms his personal journey of love, loss, and legacy into a first-of-its-kind Apple Immersive Video. The-Artery,Founder Vico Sharabani during post-production. This is far more than a stereo conversion of a traditional film. Designed natively for the Apple Vision Pro, Bono: Stories of Surrenderplaces viewers directly on stage with Bono, surrounding them in a deeply intimate audiovisual journey. Shot and mastered at a staggering 14K by 7K resolution, in 180-degree stereoscopic video at 90 frames per second, the format pushes the limits of current storytelling, running at data rates nearly 50 times higher than conventional content. The immersive trailer itself diverges significantly from its traditional counterpart, using novel cinematic language, spatial cues, and temporal transitions unique to Apple’s new medium. This marks the first feature-length film available in Apple Immersive Video, and a powerful statement on Bono’s and U2’s continued embrace of innovation. Watch the video or listen to the audio podcast as we unpack the creative and technical challenges of building a film for a platform that didn’t exist just a year ago, and what it means for the future of immersive storytelling. #fxpodcast #making #immersive #apple #vision
    WWW.FXGUIDE.COM
    fxpodcast: the making of the immersive Apple Vision Pro film Bono: Stories of Surrender
    In this episode of the fxpodcast, we go behind the scenes with The-Artery, the New York-based creative studio that brought this ambitious vision to life. We speak with Founder and CCO Vico Sharabani, along with Elad Offer, the project’s Creative Director, about what it took to craft this unprecedented experience. From conceptual direction to VFX and design, The-Artery was responsible for the full production pipeline of the AVP edition. Bono’s memoir Surrender: 40 Songs, One Story has taken on new life—this time as a groundbreaking immersive cinematic experience tailored specifically for the Apple Vision Pro. Titled Bono: Stories of Surrender (Immersive), the project transforms his personal journey of love, loss, and legacy into a first-of-its-kind Apple Immersive Video. The-Artery, (R) Founder Vico Sharabani during post-production. This is far more than a stereo conversion of a traditional film. Designed natively for the Apple Vision Pro, Bono: Stories of Surrender (Immersive) places viewers directly on stage with Bono, surrounding them in a deeply intimate audiovisual journey. Shot and mastered at a staggering 14K by 7K resolution, in 180-degree stereoscopic video at 90 frames per second, the format pushes the limits of current storytelling, running at data rates nearly 50 times higher than conventional content. The immersive trailer itself diverges significantly from its traditional counterpart, using novel cinematic language, spatial cues, and temporal transitions unique to Apple’s new medium. This marks the first feature-length film available in Apple Immersive Video, and a powerful statement on Bono’s and U2’s continued embrace of innovation. Watch the video or listen to the audio podcast as we unpack the creative and technical challenges of building a film for a platform that didn’t exist just a year ago, and what it means for the future of immersive storytelling.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Angry
    Sad
    552
    2 Комментарии 0 Поделились 0 предпросмотр
Расширенные страницы
CGShares https://cgshares.com