As a product designer, I am responsible for creating products for the current needs of end users.  However, far too often products are designed for needs relevant for the next 3-5 years without regard for larger trends at play, trends that will shape the landscape of products 5-10 years into the future.  Bresslergroup's Ryan Chen calls these socio-cultural trends "megatrends."

​

Over the course of several months, I worked with cryptography researcher Dr. Matt Blaze to understand how product consumption might change in a world with pervasive use of 3D printing technology.  In particular, I studied the potential problems arising as this technology outpaces a 250-year-old legal system.  By drawing comparisons to previous "disruptive" technologies including Napster (music digitalization) and human genomics, I proposed alterations to the US intellectual property law that might thwart a great potential quandary.  

​

Below is the abstract from that work:

​

In this explosively developing age, "disruptive technology" is a term casually used to describe innovations that change the way we approach science and transcend the policies that govern the use of technological products.  Yet few technologies fit the description as perfectly as 3D printers.  With a 3D printer, the user can print a metal replacement part for an old car or a plastic phone case.  A consumer can fabricate a pencil sharpener or an edible pizza.  A scientist can manufacture a drug or a fully functioning human organ.  And with every improvement to the speed and functionality of the 3D printer, it becomes easier to inadvertently infringe the intellectual property rights of the person who designed that phone case, developed that drug, or patented that car part.  The U.S. legal system is likely unprepared for the sheer amount of consumer 3D printers to reach the market in the coming years and the vast cases of infringement to result from this influx.  By studying the technical and legal considerations in regards to 3D printing and applying the lessons learned from other disruptive technologies, we can formulate a solution to this challenging and nuanced question of technology and policy.