Re: U.S. v. 3D Systems Corporation and DTM Corporation

From: Marshall Burns (
Date: Wed Apr 24 2002 - 22:28:10 EEST

Jim, thanks for posting that link. It makes for interesting reading.

It's interesting that DTM had a history of suing its customers before its acquisition, whereas, as far as I know, I don't think 3D Systems actually sued a customer before, despite a very aggressive stand in patent prosecution and protection. This is probably due to the difference in the nature of prepolymers vs. powders. It is probably easier to formulate and produce powders than prepolymer resins, so it just didn't become an issue before among their resin customers.

Marshall Burns

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Jim Williams
  To: RP Mail List (E-mail)
  Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 09:12
  Subject: U.S. v. 3D Systems Corporation and DTM Corporation

  To those RP'rs interested in SLS materials and information germane to our industry: A recent 3D Systems' press release proclaimed 3D has filed suit against one of their customers for using EOS supplied LS materials. For those wishing to learn more about our DOJ's decision and how it may, or may not, have impacted this action by 3D I have attached a direct link to the DOJ's Antitrust case against 3D Systems and DTM Corp. For the entire DOJ Antitrust Case Filing:


  I found it applaudable and interesting that ATI (Accelerated Technologies) had the vision to join EOS over concerns regarding LS materials. The following is an excerpt from the DOJ's Plaintiff's Response to Public Comments (02/15/2002)

  (iii) LS materials monopoly
  EOS is joined by Accelerated Technologies, Advanced Manufacturing and Advanced Prototyping in asserting that, if the selected Acquirer uses SL technology, then 3D will retain its monopoly over the sale of LS materials in the United States. LS materials are the sinterable powders used by LS machines. Prior to the merger of DTM and 3D, DTM was the only U.S. supplier of LS materials. 3D succeeded to that sole supplier position through its acquisition of DTM. The Complaint in this case sought no relief with respect to LS materials, because the merger did not lessen competition with respect to LS materials; rather, it left the status quo unchanged. As the comments point out, if EOS is selected as the Acquirer, then there will be a second supplier of LS materials in the United States, and competition will have been created where none existed before. However, since 3D and DTM did not compete in the provision of LS materials, those materials cannot properly be addressed in the context of a remedy designed to resolve the competitive harm arising out of the merger of competing RP systems firms.


  Jim Williams, President and CEO
  Paramount Industries, Inc.

For more information about the rp-ml, see

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 20:13:43 EET