It looks like Stratasys wants to differentiate FDM from FFF.
Hold on, aren’t they the same thing? Well, not really.
The concept of extruding softened filament from a moving toolhead was invented by the founder of Stratasys, Scott Crump, back in the 1980s. To commercialize it, they needed a name for the process, which they decided would be “FDM”, for “Fused Deposition Modeling”.
FDM is a trademarked term, owned by Stratasys. In theory, only they can use that terminology for describing their devices. Legally, no other company can produce an FDM device. Or at least call it an FDM device.
After 20 years, Stratasys’ original patent expired, and that led to new startups making use of the now public domain process. Companies such as MakerBot, UltiMaker, and others started back then. However, they could not call their machines “FDM” because of the trademark.
Eventually, the term “FFF” emerged, which stands for Fused Filament Fabrication. It’s very similar to FDM: a filament is softened in a toolhead and then deposited layer by layer.
This publication has always referred to non-Stratasys filament machines as “FFF”, and uses “FDM” only for Stratasys equipment.
While we’ve followed clear rules for use of these two terms, it seems that many makers of filament machines do not. It’s very common to see, for example, a low-cost Asian desktop machine labelled as “FDM”. In fact, they cannot legally do so, as they are really “FFF”, the generic public term.
It does not have anything to do with the size or purpose of the machine; it has everything to do with the process being used.
In most scenarios, it doesn’t really make much difference; everyone knows what you’re trying to describe.
Stratasys has also taken a quiet approach to this issue. They have not, for example, sent legal demands to 3D printer manufacturers asking them to not use “FDM” terminology.
This has been the case for many years. But this week, I saw something that might hint that Stratasys could be on a different strategy.
They sent out a notice for a webinar to take place later this month. The title of the webinar is “FFF ≠ FDM: Why It’s Not Just a Bigger FFF Printer”.
They write:
”In-house FFF printing is great for quick concept validation and basic prototypes. But when your parts need to perform — not just fit — the differences between desktop extrusion and industrial FDM start to matter. It’s not just size— it’s the materials, process control, and expertise that deliver reliable results.”
And:
“We will explore the real distinctions between consumer FFF systems and the industrial-grade FDM pioneered by Stratasys—and trusted in critical applications across industries.”
I have not seen Stratasys directly mention FFF publicly before. It seems that they want to position FDM as a process for industrial applications, rather than the more casual uses seen with FFF systems.
I suspect this is a reaction to the burgeoning manufacturers of increasingly powerful desktop FFF systems. Those systems are being sold at unheard-of rates and being used for not only prototyping, but also for production uses. It may be that Stratasys wants to differentiate between the two terms and solidify their spot in the production market.
I’m wondering whether this strategy could eventually lead to a crackdown on the use of the term “FDM” by other companies. If Stratasys is successful in positioning the term FDM as a production value, then they will likely want to protect its use as well.
Via Stratasys
