It&#x27;s odd that a CAD file is made to seem equivalent to the actual physical object.<p>A CAD file should, under the current system, be copyrightable, which it is. However, it is nothing more than a description of an object. A patent is also a description of an object, with the only difference that the former is interpreted by computers (or humans with the aid of computers) and the latter is interpreted by lawyers.<p>As mentioned in another comment, patents should contain relevant CAD files to better describe the invention, instead of obfuscated legalese prose that nobody understands. Patents are supposed to create a legal monopoly for the price of disclosing the invention. If the inventor does not wish to disclose details, the invention can remain a trade secret instead, but granting both secrecy and a monopoly does nothing for innovation.<p>Clearly, 3D printing makes it easier to replicate physical objects, but as the patent system&#x27;s stated objective is to further innovation, maybe it&#x27;s time to relax patent licensing instead, as 3D printing giving the ability to tinker and create to &quot;the masses&quot;, and will undoubtedly produce a lot more innovation than locking down patent law.