iPhone 4 Combo Tripod and Stand

by PrintTo3D, published

iPhone 4 Combo Tripod and Stand by PrintTo3D Oct 6, 2010

Featured Thing!


Use This Project

Give a Shout Out

If you print this Thing and display it in public proudly give attribution by printing and displaying this tag.

Print Thing Tag

Thing Statistics

6410Views 1170Downloads


Design was inspired by "The Glif" tripod and stand.

A new design has been uploaded as of 10-07-10.
Also as second design has been uploaded to fit with the Griffin Reveal Etch Graphite case. It should also work with other cases 1/2 inch in thickness.

Some dimensions have changed and the overall design has been modified.

The original file has been removed and the photos delete because they did not link directly back to where they should have...


Print the part and then you will need a 1/4"-20 tap to hand thread the hole so you can mount it on a tripod.

All Apps

This App connects Thingiverse with Makeprintable, a cloud-based mesh repair service that analyzes, validates and repairs most common mesh errors that can occur when preparing a 3D design file for p...

App Info Launch App

Kiri:Moto is an integrated cloud-based slicer and tool-path generator for 3D Printing, CAM / CNC and Laser cutting. *** 3D printing mode provides model slicing and GCode output using built-in...

App Info Launch App
KiriMoto Thing App

With 3D Slash, you can edit 3d models like a stonecutter. A unique interface: as fun as a building game! The perfect tool for non-designers and children to create in 3D.

App Info Launch App

Where i can find model for iPhone 5??

any chance of doing a iphone 5 version?

I was able to use an actual tripod to "tap" the hole by pressing down reeeeeally hard and turning reeeeally slowly.

I am new to 3-D printing.

How do I correctly configure stuff so It will print out support material? I don't have any 'actual' support plastic but how do I replicate what others have done?

I just realized there was an error with the Griffin version of the stand. I just uploaded a new version. The old version did not have the length of the slot completely extruded.

A few changes have just been made to the name of this posting as well as changes to the design.

A second design as also been uploaded to fit my case which is 1/2 inch in thickness.

I think that is a much better description and was considerate that you removed http://www.theglif.com/http://www.theglif.com/ product shots from your thing. I am glad you made another version as I am not brave enough to use my iPhone with no protection, no matter how beautiful it is.

Would you please upload the source file for this?

Not at this time.

This is awesome but I am fuzzy on this kind of "cloning" Didn't you just rip-off a US company because you didn't want to suppor them on KickStarter for $20? Now don't get me wrong, I am printing it right now! I just don't see where the licenses come into play with respect to a company's IP.

I knew this would probably be mentioned at some point or another. Cloning has been done since the dawn of time. Everything from weaponry to iPhones.

Also you don't know if I have supported them or not...

I personally have had my own products cloned by China so I know what it is like first hand.

The difference here is this product clone ISN'T and NEVER will be for sale. Obviously I can't stop other members on here from printing these and sel
ling these to their friends, but that is their choice.

Also as far as I know they make no mention of "patent pending" on their product or website.

If they have applied for a patent then the line is basically crossed when you start selling the "clones".

I agree that this is dubious, but it is different. Their design has built in threading for the tripod mount. Yours seems to just have a hole in the same location.

Since you are using their photos on your thing it would be fair to have the photos labeled with the original site.

The photos are directly linked to their website. I did not upload them, just copied the link to Thingiverse.

Trebuchet03 has it exactly right. The item in question couldn't make specific patent claims based on functionality, but can be registered based on it's "look and feel", and specific design elements that can be considered unique. Another good example of this is car companies that regularly register the industrial design of the grilles and bumper bars on the front of their cars. The function is standard, but each has a unique and distinctive appearance.

As for infringements, if the original designer has made any claims to copyright (copyright is considered reserved and perpetual by default in some limited cases) then you are definitely in breach. To the best of my knowledge, copyright law makes no provisions for 'individual use' of copyright infr
ingements, and certainly wouldn't extend to public distribution through thingiverse. The fact that you outright claim the source of the design and link to photos from their website above is enough to state a claim on their part.

If they listed their design under an open or non-commercial license li
ke GNU or similar, then sure, no problem. Philosophically speaking, this is where the concept of intellectual property having value comes into play - these guys have obviously spent time and effort in design. They had an idea and developed it with the intention of making some money. Time spent worki
ng. That time could have been equally spent flipping burgers at macca's or something else for a guaranteed wage. So, by adapting or cloning or copying (or whatever you want to call it) their idea without consent and rereleasing it freehold under a creative commons license, you've actually denied the
m the opportunity of making the cash that they've invested time and effort to get. Whether in whole or part, you've damaged their enterprise and may have made yourself liable under copyright law.

Sorry for the wall of text. For full disclosure, in my professional life I'm a mechatronic design engin
eer. My knowledge of copyright law extends only to my managerial studies at university. As a person who spends all day generating intellectual property from which I make my living, I cannot support the idea of cloning or appropriation of designs, particularly without express consent from the origina
l designer.

In the vein of SketchyFletchy's full disclosure :p I'm a mechanical engineer - not an IP attorney... For anyone interested in patent type information the nolo book titled "Patent it Yourself" which is an excellent resource. I also recommend you do not, yourself, patent your IP - if it's truely valuble, a profesional is worth it.

Further Disclosure: I support open source... and patents... These need not be mutually exclusive (it's up to the patent holder, much like in open source it's up to the licence holder). Patent, by definition, is exclusive rights IN EXCHANGE for public disclosure. Without some sort of patent system,
plenty of technology would remain secret sauce (trade secret). Where I work - we have patents, secret sauce and etc (and we're a literal handful of people in number). Without the secret sauce, rip offs will be garbage.

All of that said - it's a shame the Glif guys don't get funded immediatly....
26 days is a long time.... 26 days is literally enough time to make a family mold from hardned steel tooling and start production - the design a super nice straight pull part. A proto house could start chunking these things out even sooner with soft tooling. A clever person could beat these guys to
market as they've publically proven an eager market before they've financially secured their supply chain/distribution. I'm excited to see what happens (I don't even own an iPhone).

Lastly, @SketchtyFletchy - mechatronics design you say - what kind? Everyone likes robots :p

I don't know the legal repercussions, but I'd probably choose a non-comercial version of the CC license if I'd copy a comercial design. In a perfect world, we should be free to make anything we want for personal use.

I think that copyright law has exceptions for personal use of intellectual data. But posting it on Thingiverse breaks those laws because its no longer just for personal use. Its a very gray area of copyright law, but since you're not even taking any actual designs from them it probably isn't even protected by copyright law. I'm thinking that thats the kind of thing that would have to be protected by a trademark. Like the Coke bottle is trademarked because otherwise it wouldn't be protected by any laws.

I'm definitely no expert in this subject so if anything I said is wrong just point that out... :-P

Copyright doesn't exactly apply to devices - unless this were claimed as a piece of art (which it's not - I imagine a judge wouldn't think so either given the advertised use).

A coke bottle is a good example of exceptions to typical trademark (in this case, aka trade dress)... The coke bottle is a recognizable feature associated with the brand - which affords it protection. Pink fiberglass (owns corning) is similarly protected. That doesn't mean that color pink can't b
e used elsewhere - just not in the trade of insulating products.

This product falls more under a design patent (patent on the shape). A utility patent (basically said, a patent on concept/use) might be a little tricky as there already exists designs for iPhone tripods...

You don't need to directly
take the design from someone to infringe on a design patent.... Example - the knock off iPhones available for sale ;) I'm sure they didn't have access to Apple's drawings and design... They're not perfect replicas, but they serve to look alike. If someone on the street would confuse the two (based
on shape, not function), you likely have an infringement.

Related.... In Shenzhen at a few of the electronics market... you can buy a dual sim "kPhone 4" for a little over $100. You can also buy an "iRobot" (iPad knock off) for what I assume is cheap. Both of these are infringements - but you gene
rally don't go to SEG for legit finished goods....

The proverbial line is crossed when you make an infringing "clone." Cite: Article 33 of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects on Intellectual Property Rights.

But that said, unless you're on the Scale of Apple - it generally does not make financial sense to sue someone that makes it for themselves - that doesn't mean there's no risk, the patent holder has the right to do so... But, if you're being copied that probably means you did something right : )

I don't see a patent pending indication anywhere either - but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Plus, given the amount of time they claim to be working on it - it will be years and probably at least 1 iPhone generation before they are issued the right to defend against infringement (assuming the p
atent issues)...

I'm no patent attorney so feel free to chime in if you know more on the subject.

I am a patent attorney in the united states but I am not your patent attorney. This is not legal advice and you are not my client. I am not addressing the current situation. I am only going to address a very small portion of patent law (when the damage period starts) and I am not going to touch on any other type of IP law (e.g. Copyright or TM). To force someone not to do something, you have to have a patent. In order to enforce patent rights, you have to have a valid issued patent that is infringed according to its claims. In order to have someone infringe they must practice a claim of the patent. If there is no patent pending, and the designer does not file a patent before they would be barred from doing so (See 35 USC 102), then there is no patent issue. If the designer has filed for a patent before they were barred from doing so their patent application will likely publish 18 months from their filing date (pre grant publication). At that point, they will have a published application that will give them provisional damages under 35 USC 154(d) but only if (1) they put any infringer (someone who makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, or imports the infringing item according to 35 USC 271) on notice of the published application (e.g. wrote the infringer a letter) and (2) only if their patent ultimately issues with substantially similar claims as it published with. If the patent issues in the same form as it publishes, they can only get a reasonable royalty from an infringer going back to the date of actual notice to the infringer after the publication of their patent. Furthermore, they will only be able to do this after their patent issues. If their patent issues in a different form than it published, they can only get damages as of the date the patent issued. There are many many other issues and if the designer ultimately gets a patent someone who printed something and continues to use it can be infringing. Its important to respect patent and other IP rights. However, where a designer has no patent protection, then they have no right to stop someone from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the design absent other IP rights (trademark or copyright - both of which do not apply to functional aspects of objects - but would apply if there is a non functional TM incorporated into an object). Anyway hopefully this is helpful, even though I wrote this quickly and not directed at the situation here.

I should also mention that if it weren't for Stratasys NONE of you guys would have Makerbots. Yes their technology was cloned right into your Makerbot. Too bad the patent expired... If you noticed in the last two years these "hobby" printers using FDM technology have become available FOR SALE because of that.

Not entirely the same thing, I think. The reprap/makerbot was designed from scratch. While some of the principles of FDM might have been derived from a stratasys patent, most of the practical knowledge that makes the makerbot/reprap work was produced through experimentation.

As a for-profit company I think its very forward thinking of you to participate in Thingiverse as you can contribute your obvious design skills and generate possible sales leads. This economy needs more entrepreneurs like you! I have enjoyed and downloaded just about every model you've graciously shared. Maybe they were inspired by your iPhone tripod mount, http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3506)http://www.thingiverse.com/thi....

Having said that, it's obvious that EVERY small form factor 3d printing machine is about bringing commercial machines to everyone's home. You'll have to ask Makerbot about their inspiration, personally I thought it was a RepRap they burnt up? At least that's what I assumed from Bre's talks at NYC

I'm not really sure why you bring up Stratasys with respect to recreating the GILF product. "Too bad the patent expired" huh? I wasn't aware that the entire "hobby" printer world was born out of their patents. I think the Makerbot, Thing-o-matic, RepRap, [email protected], Shapercube, Rapman, Ul
timaker etc. projects all represent more than just a hobby. I can't really tell if you have true respect for any other machine or not? I've demo'd a uPrint for three weeks and loved it so I know the obvious difference in quality and ease of use. This revolution is very real and happening. Stratasys
will see the light and release their own "Makerbot clone" someday and the circle will be complete, I am sure of that. Corporations follow where the markets lead them even if they don't know it's there at first. The recent acquisition of Bits from Bytes is evidence of that. (http://www.bitsfrombytes.

Judging by the dialog on this page it's a very necessary discussion. Thank you for having it. I plan to ask a wider audience their thoughts. I do apologize for assuming you didn't support Glif on Kickstarter, I haven't yet. I do see you modified your post and removed Glif's product shots. I do en
joy creating my own "things" instead of consuming them I just feel wrong when it's because someone didn't put a patent pending on their kickstarter page.

In full disclosure I printed two during the course of testing an Up! printer. Now that is some guilt! My Makerbot was disappointed in me. I used
that guilt to get my automated build platform tuned up. I love my wooden robot!

iPhone 4 Tripod Mount

Thanks for the compliments!

I'm pretty sure Makerbot borrowed a lot of concepts from the RepRap. The only difference is here is that they didn't follow the "printer prints itself" concept.

Take a look at the patent for FDM:

At one time I did consider purchasing a Makerbot because I like to build thing, so I do respect what these guys are doing. I also almost purchased a UP! printer just to see what it could do. Back in Jan 09 I visited Desktop Factory before they got gobbled up by 3D systems.

Also concerning 3D sy
stems purchases... I truly think that they are just buying up these smaller companies and sitting them on the shelf under a cover. for the time being.

The reason why the photos were removed was strictly because Thingiverse "made them their own" when I felt they should have linked directly back to
Glif's website. I did not upload them to Thingiverse I simply linked the URL to this part listing.
The only reason I uploaded them in the first place was to show how the Glif product was used because I did not have my own photos and still don't as I'm too busy. ;)

Also I have yet to see any clic
k the "I made one" button and post a picture!

PLEASE do so if you have made one!

Awesome! Saw this on kickstarter and heard the words 3D printer prototype...immediately thought of modeling and printing it out on the MakerBot. Thanks for saving me one steo. 18 minutes until we see if it works or not.

i saw it on their also and thought the same thing.. nice!

I'm thinking maybe a plasti-dip coating would be in order to get a good grip on the phone.

I will print this out shortly on my Dimension. ;)

Had some issues with the slight overhang. I was printing it on its side. Also, those that load this stl, you must first rescale it. It loads up in RepG really, really tiny. Select mm==
gt;inches and you should be good to go.

Zaggo - in reply to Guest

When opening with Pleasant3D, enter 25,4 into the "Dimension: Factor" field. This also takes care of the sizing. Just re-save the stl after changing the factor field.