PTP gets patent granted - Page 3

russc · 08-29-2007, 05:00 PM

Great post steve

Meph · 08-30-2007, 09:41 PM

Maybe somebody can clear this up.

Patents generally are enforced over the consumer's market. You have your company patent a product, another company can not make a knock-off. That's the deal. Right?

But what about simply the information. IIRC you can not produce an item to sell, however if you make it for your own personal use then there is no Patent infringement. Afterall, how could they enforce that?

stevedavidson · 08-31-2007, 07:30 AM

In the interest of full disclosure, Colin, from DW, replied to a post on this subject on AO, where he said that he did not consider the licensing agreement to be in line with what he needed/wanted.

I'll discuss what I did, what I think happened and what I think the PTP patents cover; what I won't discuss is how or why something else might or might not be prior art. In other words, I'm not going to assist others in finding potential ways around the PTP patent or comment on why something isn't prior art, since that information could lead to others finding work-arounds.

That previous statement should also not be read as an admission that I think something is prior art or that there might be a work around. I'll use an analogy I've used before:

"Please, Mr. Coca-Cola Bottler, could you tell me the differences between your formula and the Pepsi formula? - I don't want to know the coke formula - just the differences..."

With that said: patents give you the right to 'prevent others from'.

The "others" is not specified and is all inclusive. Individuals, companies, one copy, hundreds of copies.

Impossible to enforce? generally speaking, yes. If you want to be nasty about it, you find one or two highly visible individuals who have made and exhibited such, spend the money in court, take their product away from them and then publicly destroy them. Then you hope that the others wise up and quietly pack their illegal copies away in the closet.

(Or, better yet, you inspire those others to come up with their own inventions that don't infringe.)

From past history and experience, I doubt very much that PTP would engage in such an activity. (Please note that to date - and I've checked - PTP has not issued a single C&D notice to anyone in regards to these patents.) On the other hand, they might end up licensing those patents to someone who would. So you never know.

Know what I'd like to see? A patent consortium for the industry, like several other industries have created. They realized they were spending way too much money beating each other up over IP, so they pooled their patents, hired someone to track usage and hired someone else to enforce, and hired a third someone to market their tech outside their industry. Internal royalties are off-set against each other, those get paid down by outside licensing and no one has to spend a dime on taking someone else in their industry to court over infringement.

Or maybe someone should do an 'open-source' paintball gun...

HP_Lovecraft · 08-31-2007, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevedavidson

Or maybe someone should do an 'open-source' paintball gun...

AKA "Stacked Tube Blowback".

nick

stevedavidson · 08-31-2007, 07:47 AM

Painthappy,

the vector had that pressure relief valve; this allowed the gun to be up to pressure for rapid firing, but it 'relieved' itself all the time.

my first reaction on being handed the gun at an event was - hey buddy, this one is leaking - at which point the mechanism was explained to me. OK - I know enough to understand that and realize that its not sales hype for a poor design.

But every single other pump player I showed the gun to said the exact same thing "its leaking". All Air Power really had to do was figure out a muffler, but they poo-pooed this objection and to this day I really believe it had a lot to do with the poor sales of the gun.

Its also not a 'good thing' to point out that you can clear a jam by working the safety. Rather than being seen as a feature, old nelspot users saw a nightmarish return to the bad old days of pinching balls with their bolt.

Remember - FIRST you show them how fast if fires flawlessly. THEN you point out the other, (virtually completely unnecessary) features - not the other way around.

Good gun and they had every reason to expect that it would ride on the coattails of their pump efforts, but they got into financial straits with it and then ran into those marketing problems (like the first iteration got a bad rep...change the name silly...)

Painthappy · 08-31-2007, 07:58 AM

Or you can do what I did...

evector.jpg

Give it to a qualified airsmith (done by Rainman229 who has a section on this board), let him convert it with an Angel grip frame, morlock board, etc, etc.

Yeah.. it's loud, and fast. Always a hoot to play with at a large game.

I used it once at an indoor field just for fun, and all the refs really got a kick out of it.

Shooting a gun that was made in 1993 and still tearing up the field is quite satisfying actually....

WSCopic · 08-31-2007, 08:09 AM

That is actually a really sweet looking Vector......hmmm....

HP_Lovecraft · 08-31-2007, 10:13 AM

The Vector LPR could even run full liquid. It was really an amazing LPR considering how poor the LPR was on a Cocker at the time. Even the much lauded Palmer Stab can only handle the liquid in small amounts.

That cocker LPR was maddening. You would have to adjust at the begining of every game. Turn in, then fire while turning out until the gun functions. Repeat hourly.

NPS had a big part in the failure of the Vector. NPS was contracted as the sole distributor, and after the bugs of the 1st one, refused to market it.

nic

Meph · 08-31-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevedavidson

With that said: patents give you the right to 'prevent others from'.

The "others" is not specified and is all inclusive. Individuals, companies, one copy, hundreds of copies....

But that's only for people with intent to sell and turn a profit. Even if it is only 1, yes. That is true. Quantity doesn't matter at that point. One or one million, if it's being sold then they can put out the C&D.

However NOT for those that plan to make it for personal use. You can not tell people they can't make something with their own spare time and parts if it is similar to a patented item, simply because "it's patented."

I would honestly like to be shown otherwise that this is not the case.

*And Painthappy. That's one sweet Vector! You by any chance coming to Fall Castle? If so could you bring that?

Daiba · 08-31-2007, 03:12 PM

From:
35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent. - Appendix L*****Patent Laws

Quote:

Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

But since patent (and copyright) infringement is a civil offense, and:

Quote:

In the US, for example, an inventor must budget $1 million or more in order to initiate patent litigation.

Patent infringement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're probably safe if you produce for personal use only...

08-29-2007, 05:00 PM	#21 (permalink)
russc Newbie Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 4,103	Great post steve __________________ YouTube Channel / Raincouver! / Gallery / Feedback / Blackleaf Outfitters -Russ Last edited by russc; 08-31-2007 at 03:17 PM.

08-30-2007, 09:41 PM	#22 (permalink)
Meph MCB Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: New York Posts: 624	Maybe somebody can clear this up. Patents generally are enforced over the consumer's market. You have your company patent a product, another company can not make a knock-off. That's the deal. Right? But what about simply the information. IIRC you can not produce an item to sell, however if you make it for your own personal use then there is no Patent infringement. Afterall, how could they enforce that? __________________ MCB Cold *** Game. Feb 11, 2007. Watch the Freezing Fun!

08-31-2007, 07:58 AM	#26 (permalink)
Painthappy I Am The Admin Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: New Boston, NH Posts: 5,291	Or you can do what I did... evector.jpg Give it to a qualified airsmith (done by Rainman229 who has a section on this board), let him convert it with an Angel grip frame, morlock board, etc, etc. Yeah.. it's loud, and fast. Always a hoot to play with at a large game. I used it once at an indoor field just for fun, and all the refs really got a kick out of it. Shooting a gun that was made in 1993 and still tearing up the field is quite satisfying actually.... __________________ I'm a man... But I can change... If I have to... I guess. MCB Rules - Please Read them MySpace.com/painthappy - MySpace Blog Twitter.com/mcarterbrown - Twitter Updates

08-31-2007, 08:09 AM	#27 (permalink)
WSCopic MCB Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Des Moines, IA Posts: 396	That is actually a really sweet looking Vector......hmmm.... __________________ I have become one of the "Old Paintball Guys" at my field. Not sure if I am sad or proud.

08-31-2007, 10:13 AM	#28 (permalink)
HP_Lovecraft Post Whore Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Southern Maine Posts: 2,735	The Vector LPR could even run full liquid. It was really an amazing LPR considering how poor the LPR was on a Cocker at the time. Even the much lauded Palmer Stab can only handle the liquid in small amounts. That cocker LPR was maddening. You would have to adjust at the begining of every game. Turn in, then fire while turning out until the gun functions. Repeat hourly. NPS had a big part in the failure of the Vector. NPS was contracted as the sole distributor, and after the bugs of the 1st one, refused to market it. nic __________________ www.montneel.com My Myspace nonsense "the evidence strongly suggests that neither Billy nor Adam (Smart Parts) could have invented the electronic paintgun" -Garr M. King, U.S. Judge

08-31-2007, 07:30 AM	#23 (permalink)
stevedavidson Active Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 372	In the interest of full disclosure, Colin, from DW, replied to a post on this subject on AO, where he said that he did not consider the licensing agreement to be in line with what he needed/wanted. I'll discuss what I did, what I think happened and what I think the PTP patents cover; what I won't discuss is how or why something else might or might not be prior art. In other words, I'm not going to assist others in finding potential ways around the PTP patent or comment on why something isn't prior art, since that information could lead to others finding work-arounds. That previous statement should also not be read as an admission that I think something is prior art or that there might be a work around. I'll use an analogy I've used before: "Please, Mr. Coca-Cola Bottler, could you tell me the differences between your formula and the Pepsi formula? - I don't want to know the coke formula - just the differences..." With that said: patents give you the right to 'prevent others from'. The "others" is not specified and is all inclusive. Individuals, companies, one copy, hundreds of copies. Impossible to enforce? generally speaking, yes. If you want to be nasty about it, you find one or two highly visible individuals who have made and exhibited such, spend the money in court, take their product away from them and then publicly destroy them. Then you hope that the others wise up and quietly pack their illegal copies away in the closet. (Or, better yet, you inspire those others to come up with their own inventions that don't infringe.) From past history and experience, I doubt very much that PTP would engage in such an activity. (Please note that to date - and I've checked - PTP has not issued a single C&D notice to anyone in regards to these patents.) On the other hand, they might end up licensing those patents to someone who would. So you never know. Know what I'd like to see? A patent consortium for the industry, like several other industries have created. They realized they were spending way too much money beating each other up over IP, so they pooled their patents, hired someone to track usage and hired someone else to enforce, and hired a third someone to market their tech outside their industry. Internal royalties are off-set against each other, those get paid down by outside licensing and no one has to spend a dime on taking someone else in their industry to court over infringement. Or maybe someone should do an 'open-source' paintball gun...

08-31-2007, 07:47 AM	#25 (permalink)
stevedavidson Active Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 372	Painthappy, the vector had that pressure relief valve; this allowed the gun to be up to pressure for rapid firing, but it 'relieved' itself all the time. my first reaction on being handed the gun at an event was - hey buddy, this one is leaking - at which point the mechanism was explained to me. OK - I know enough to understand that and realize that its not sales hype for a poor design. But every single other pump player I showed the gun to said the exact same thing "its leaking". All Air Power really had to do was figure out a muffler, but they poo-pooed this objection and to this day I really believe it had a lot to do with the poor sales of the gun. Its also not a 'good thing' to point out that you can clear a jam by working the safety. Rather than being seen as a feature, old nelspot users saw a nightmarish return to the bad old days of pinching balls with their bolt. Remember - FIRST you show them how fast if fires flawlessly. THEN you point out the other, (virtually completely unnecessary) features - not the other way around. Good gun and they had every reason to expect that it would ride on the coattails of their pump efforts, but they got into financial straits with it and then ran into those marketing problems (like the first iteration got a bad rep...change the name silly...)