I completely agree that the regulation is protectionary.

While our international business was upwards of 45-50% of our revenue last year, the new EU regulations are not what hurt us this year.

From a practical perspective, if we had to stop shipping to the EU, there would be no further revenue loss because we already lost nearly all of our EU and Canadian customers due to the political environment. We rarely sell anything to a customer in the EU or Canada now.

And the tariffs badly increased our operating costs. 3D printing is arguably a Chinese technology. The machines, resins, repair parts, even the packing materials we use are all manufactured in China. So when a tariff is applied to Chinese goods, our operating costs increase by a percentage very close to the percentage of the tariff. 50% tariff? Operating cost increase by 50%. That's how it works.

Together, those two issues put us close to having to close. Twice in 18 months, right after our best revenue year since 2014.

So effectively, we already lost that 45% revenue this year. Or more accurately, the revenue was taken from us by issues well beyond our control. Fortunately, we predicted those losses based on toxic campaign rhetoric and we were able to take some actions that really helped.

The issue with the PPWR is that we are not in a position to be able to meet the requirements of the new regulation. We have been so damaged by the current political climate that there is no space left to try to meet new requirements and costs imposed on us by other governments.

A few thoughts about your suggestion to find an EU partner. This is a very fair suggestion. Here's how that has worked for us.

For more than 10 years, we have looked hard at finding a European partner but the nature of 3D printing just doesn't support that kind of partnership. At risk of making a gross oversimplification, the majority of the money in aftermarket 3D printing is in printing ones own designs, not finding others to print our designs. Printable designs are not seen as having much value. This means that if we were to have another printer make models from our design somewhere else, they would naturally receive most of the revenue earned from the sale of that model. And even then, margins are so small, the printer wouldn't make enough to make it worthwhile. So those partnership attempts failed on both our end, and the potential printing partner's end.

Printing designs by others was the old Shapeways business model which worked for a short while when 3D-printers were unaffordable to most people. But ultimately that business model began to fail as printers became more affordable and the market and technology changed.

Additionally is the problem of protecting a digital file from be pirated. The way digital files work, once one of our digital CAD files is released to anyone, it is effectively lost. The file would be freely traded and it's value would collapse.

Once enough of our files were compromised, the value of the whole business becomes compromised. In the event we wanted to sell the company, any potential buyer would want to know how many of our designs had been released. Those designs would have zero value to a potential buyer. There would literally be no company value to buy. This is why our *.stl files are aggressively protected and not released.

Location also matters. For example, we see that 3D printing vendors in Asia and Eastern Europe are apparently doing well while those in the US are doing less well. It helps that 3D printing is largely a Chinese technology and legally and culturally, copyright and trademark have very different meanings there.

This means that a person or vendor with a 3D printer in China can take advantage of designs made by others such as gaming files, convert those files to be 3D printable, and print models from those files without the burden of having to license the design or actually design the model. No costly research effort necessary.

Similarly, here in the US, there are subjects that are not burdened by copyright and trademark issues. For example, it is legally permissible for me to make a model of a US Navy warship that was designed largely by a US Navy yard or bureau or designed under a US government contract. The ship design is legally a US asset. In other words, the design belongs to the US taxpayer and thus no copyright or trademark protections apply.

The same is true of objects and machines designed under the direction of Nazi Germany. Generally, under US law, anything Nazi is not protected by copyright or trademark with few exceptions.

But here in the US, that is not generally true of aircraft and certain proprietary ship fittings.

For example, the P-51 Mustang was designed and built by North American Aviation (NAA) as a private venture. NAA's legal successor is Boeing. Being a design made by a non-governmental company, US copyright and trademark protections do indeed apply. So, if I want to make and sell a P-51 Mustang model, I have to license the model from Boeing.

Here's the link to Boeing's active trademark for P-51 Mustang models:
https://trademarks.justia.com/782/36/p-51-78236262.html

There are some model aircraft exceptions, such as certain features, and with coordination from the aircraft manufacturer's legal department I am permitted to offer those features but not a model of the whole aircraft without a license to do so.

Engines are similar. I have designed a spiffy model of a Pratt & Whitney R2800 engine (Hellcat, Corsair, Thunderbolt, etc.). I don't sell models made from it because I have not yet received a license from Pratt & Whitney to do so.

Licenses can be outrageously expensive, far exceeding the revenue expected from sales. It is widely known that Revell's bankruptcy was in large part due to unpaid licensing fees owed to Disney for Star Wars models.

So just some thoughts.

Thanks so much for sharing yours. I really appreciate it.