General

[CamoDeafie]

interesting. i recall the tippmann RT being introduced around 2001, 2002 at the earliest. wonder if this would basically make the pneumag an illegal trigger now? or is it exempt due to prior-existence?

what im referring to is, once a patent gets granted at a certain date, does it become retroactive for the same design, OR is it applicable only after the granted date?

[DarkStar]

Originally Posted by shartley

But who knows, maybe someone else will put out a similar trigger.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that WGP was a licensee. But I have absolutely nothing to back that up

-MR

[DarkStar]

Originally Posted by CamoDeafie

interesting. i recall the tippmann RT being introduced around 2001, 2002 at the earliest. wonder if this would basically make the pneumag an illegal trigger now? or is it exempt due to prior-existence?

what im referring to is, once a patent gets granted at a certain date, does it become retroactive for the same design, OR is it applicable only after the granted date?

United States Patent Law is based on the idea of "First to invent". This means that even if you patent something, if someone else can prove that they invented it first then the patent is either un-enforceable or invalid depending on the exact circumstances.

The Auto-Mag design is in no danger from this patent. (Regardless of whether the patent applies to the mag design or not.)

-MR

[HP_Lovecraft]

I remember when the issue first came up years ago, the attitude from PTP was "Whats a Vector? and who cares?"

Clearly there is endless prior art for pneumatic triggers.

The PTP claim seems to be limited to SPECIFICALLY as an upgrade.

Its interesting though when you consider the infamous "Omega Patent". It has been the center of many lawsuits involving Dye, NPS, SP, and others. The Omega was the original version of the Matrix that had a fully pneumatic trigger back in 1999.

Clearly it also predates the PTP patent.

nick

[going_home]

While I am a PTP Micromag fan, and I think Forest is a really nice guy,
it will be very disappointing to me if they have no intention of producing
trigger frames. I want to see some product. I am hoping the years of hoops they had to jump thru to get the patent was not for lawsuits but to build the actual product.

In my opinion the feedneck patent is useless.
I dont see how they will be able to enforce it without alienating the whole paintball community.
There are so many companies making clamping feednecks now.

[russc]

Even my Wintec thunderbolt has a clamping feedneck.

[HP_Lovecraft]

Heck, most Tippmanns have a type of clamping feedneck.

nick

[stevedavidson]

like many of the folks over on AO, some of you are confusing "ideas" with "patents" and twisting the whole concept of prior art around. There are additionally some apparently incorrect assumptions.

The HAIR trigger patent was offered to AGD, who was considering it for a while, when PTP shared what it had had in application for several years with AGD as well. Discussions (that did not violate confidentiality agreements) were engaged in. These discussions led AGD to determine that the PTP patent would pre-date the hair trigger when the PTP patent granted. Furthermore, they noted that the PTP design was easier to manufacture and had fewer parts, as well as being a potentially less liability-risky design.

PTP then engaged in a strategy for bringing the designs to market which involved a licensing agreement to one major paintball company that still left the door open for others to license. The third party company had only elected to license certain specifica gun design applications. This would have left mags and other designs wide open.

Deadly Wind was offered an opportunity to license under what I would consider to be relatively favorable conditions. For their own reasons, they chose not to do so.

In seeking to enforce its patent rights, PTP was protecting their licensing agreement with the third party and, if their strategy had been allowed to be executed in the manner intended, would have made it possible for others, including DW, to license and remain competitive, in the future. The general idea was that since the large third party company would share in enforcement and would be manufacturing a large quantity of product, PTP would NOT have to receive enormous royalties from anyone else licensing. I actually made inquiries to license for limited applications to blow-back semi-autos myself.

I was asked to wait until the third party got their ducks lined up.

I did, as did PTP. We now know that the licensing contract was not honored by the third party. You can speculate all you want to about the reasons for their doing this, but regardless of what their actual motivations, the end result was that they were responsible for the product never getting to market, despite having spent large sums of their own money for additional development work, despite the fact that they agreed that it was a viable, marketable product, despite the fact that they were potentially saving huge sums by no longer having to pay for electronic marker licensing fees, etc., etc. They are now in arbitration with PTP over these issues. We'll have to wait longer to see if this is yet more stalling or not...

I personally think that they believed that for one reason or another, PTP was going to go away and that they would then be left alone to take advantage of the technologies in any way they wanted to.

Having seen this tech in conceptualization and development, and being familiar with the Vector, reflex,etc (I actually tested the second incarnation of the Vector for NPS way back when and, here's an historical note: my verdict was, pretty cool gun but no player migrating from high-performance pump guns was going to believe the statement that the hiss you heard was actually part of the design...) I can say that these designs do not represent prior art so far as the claims in the PTP patents are concerned. It has to do with how the PTP design is physically put together and the areas of coverage set out in the claims.

Same with the clamping feed neck.

You CAN get a patent for improvements to an existing design; if the new version contributes something substantial - such as improvement in performance, reduction in manufacturing cost, etc., it represents a significant enough change to warrant a patent grant. You may see the substitution of a levered cam for a threaded cup and believe its prior art, while the patent office sees an improvement that reduces the force required to operate, increases the speed of operation and reduces the manufacturing costs.

[Painthappy]

Originally Posted by stevedavidson

pretty cool gun but no player migrating from high-performance pump guns was going to believe the statement that the hiss you heard was actually part of the design...

Now that is funny.

It's not a bug... It's a feature!

[HP_Lovecraft]

Having seen this tech in conceptualization and development, and being familiar with the Vector, reflex,etc ... I can say that these designs do not represent prior art so far as the claims in the PTP patents are concerned

The PTP actually lists the Reflex patent in its references.

But looking at the PTP patent, NOWHERE does it claim to be an IMPROVEMENT of previous pneumatic triggers. Instead, the PTP is very broad:

the trigger assistance mechanism replaces the mechanical linkage between the trigger and the cocking/firing mechanism of the paintball gun such that a pneumatic actuating ram is used to initiate the cocking/firing sequence.

The Vector uses a "pneumatic actuating ram to initiate the cocking/firing sequence", as do all the other guns in the 90s that had purely pneumatic triggers.

Again, no where does the patent claim to "improve" on the previous established designs. Instead, it seems to only apply to guns that are "upgrade" to have pneumatic triggers, but did not come with them originally.

SO, you could re-release the Vector today without problems. But it would violate the PTP patent to offer a retrograde kit for the Rainmaker?

Or even swap the hoses on a cocker, remove the trigger, and add an autotrigger? As done in the early 90s? That might also violate the PTP patent?

nick