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

From: Jim Williams (
Date: Fri Apr 26 2002 - 22:46:03 EEST

    It's my opinion there is a fundamental flaw in DOJ's dissertation
regarding DTM being the only pre-merger LS material source. Nylon type LS
materials have been available since 2000 from a company in Australia. DTM
most certainly was aware of this product's introduction into the U.S.
market. Albeit a small player it was being positioned as a competitive
product to DTM's polyamide. On another note, are you, or anyone on this
list familiar with the patent 3D references in their 4/18/02 press release
where they assert - use of EOS powders are prohibited by virtue of 3D
Systems' patent? Our research has not found EOS directly mentioned, nor any
company for that manner. If anyone can forward me a link to a 3D patent
that does reference 3D, it would be appreciated.
Best regards,
Jim Williams

-----Original Message-----
From: Marshall Burns []
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 3:28 PM
To: Jim Williams; RP Mail List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: U.S. v. 3D Systems Corporation and DTM Corporation

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 - 20:13:44 EET