General

[stevedavidson]

Daiba, thanks - now I don't have to go find it (again)

Meph,

PLEASE remember that we are talking about two essentially separate things here: one is what the law says and allows, the other is how individuals have chosen to implement and/or take advantage of those laws.

Merely discussing what can be done does not necessarily mean the person discussing it is going to do that thing.

But, as was pointed out by Daiba in the quote from the USPTO, they list MAKE, USE and SELL as three separate activities because EACH of those things is enforceable under a patent grant.

They cover each of those activities because not giving the patent holder the right to enforce would provide loopholes to exploit otherwise.

Make - so that the commercial version won't be undercut by hundreds/thousands of people making their own

USE, so you can't get away with buying an illicit version and dodging the law that way

SELL is fairly obvious.

The general idea is this: the patent holder spent a lot of time and money (arguably at least 10K for the patent itself, plus anywhere from another 10K to several millions for R&D) to invent the thing. NOw they have a 21 year period of time to enjoy the fruits of their labor - after which everyone gets to make, use, sell the invention for their own benefit.

As it has gotten easier to get a patent, and as the internet and computers have accelerated virtually every other technology, so too will it aid those who are trying to enforce their patent rights. RIAA obtained electronic records of downloads and served notices on hundreds of thousands of individuals. Its not outside the realm of possibility that this could happen with patents also.

In the plainest language possible, those who make a working copy of a patented item are guilty of intellectual property theft. Whether they get caught and held accountable is up to the ability of the patent holder - but they have committed an illegal act, at this point much like going over the speed limit.

There are other ways for a patent holder to make noise about this kind of thing. Suppose that a patent holder issued an information letter to event holders/promoters - that threatened legal action if they allowed the use of infringing products at their event? Event holders have more money than individual players and are easier to target. Walt Disney does this at every World Cup, putting an IP clause in their vendor contracts that all vendors must sign before opening up their booths.

You (event promoter) must now issue a statement to every player that if their marker has infringing product or is an infringing product, etc; they'd have difficulty shielding themselves unless they hired a crew to examine every single piece of equipment walking in the door and/or getting every player to indemnify them prior to the event...(I think)

That might be fun, actually; shut down every single event... might even find some corporate partners in making that happen - plenty of folks have product out there that gets infringed - board makers, trigger makers, eye makers, gun makers, reg makers...

theoretically speaking of course.

After you read the above - please go back and read the opening paragraphs once more

[stevedavidson]

HPL -

I was there at the time.

The exclusive distribution deal was done by AP with NPS-East in order to fund the manufacture of the product.

Bad product was delivered (as in the sense of many many many of the original run coming back)

NPS could make a legitimate claim that they were unable to market the 'new version' - but its generally true that initial manufacturing flaws, along with an ill-advised distribution agreement is what killed that gun.

[going_home]

The thread he was referring to on Automags.org does post pics of very old prior art on the pnue trigger frame and the clamping feedneck. Without a doubt a smoking gun, proof these items existed long before the patents were applied for.

If you have the money to waste go ahead and challenge the trigger frame. But both PTP and Smart Parts have patents on clamping feednecks. Which one has the most money to win a long drawn out patent infringement lawsuit ? I think we know the answer to that one.

Honestly I dont think much will change in the feedneck catagory.
Business as usual, those who sell them now will still be selling them.

But to all you pnue modders out there, mod to your hearts content.
Theres no money to be made prosecuting individuals.
Thats what all this nonsense is about, money.
And in one year from today there still wont be anyone of the 3 pnue trigger patent holders producing and selling any of them.

Yes I know about the thread on AO where G-Force says its going to make them......uh huh......I'll believe it when I hold one in my formerly nicotine stained fingers. Yeah, not holding my breath on that one. Same applies to Deadlywind and PTP.

Thats whats torques me off about all this.
The threats to people that they are breaking the law if they mod one themselves but the patent holders arent going to make them.

So make one if you want one, they arent going to do anything about it.

Opinions are like feet, most people have them, and most of them stink. But thats my opinion.

[stevedavidson]

going-home,

you talk of smoking guns - there are none.

There is proof that there was technology similar to that claimed in the pneu-trigger patents - but nothing that damages the claims in those patents.

NEITHER smart parts or PTP have gotten a patent for a clamping feedneck - yet. At least one will be granted relatively soon.

There have been no "threats" from me or the PTP side. Patent law clearly states that the patent holder has the right to prevent others from making copies.

That is a fact of the law - not a threat. If those pneu-triggers built by individuals are copies of the patented material(s), then those individuals are infringing on the patent, regardless of whether it is enforced or not. That is a fact also.

Your desire to own such a product, and your personal level of "being torqued off" have little to nothing to do with the law or the economics of bringing such a thing to market. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of patented items held off the market that you would no doubt be interested in if you became aware of them.

Your recommendations to others to go ahead and make infringing copies is, at the least, irresponsible.

[Brewtt]

And I say it's "irresponsible" to the paintball community to try and patent things that have been made already by others elsewhere when the idea WASN'T PATENTED and then try and tell them to stop doing something they've been doing previous to said patent.

[going_home]

Originally Posted by stevedavidson

going-home,

you talk of smoking guns - there are none.

There is proof that there was technology similar to that claimed in the pneu-trigger patents - but nothing that damages the claims in those patents.

NEITHER smart parts or PTP have gotten a patent for a clamping feedneck - yet. At least one will be granted relatively soon.

There have been no "threats" from me or the PTP side. Patent law clearly states that the patent holder has the right to prevent others from making copies.

That is a fact of the law - not a threat. If those pneu-triggers built by individuals are copies of the patented material(s), then those individuals are infringing on the patent, regardless of whether it is enforced or not. That is a fact also.

Your desire to own such a product, and your personal level of "being torqued off" have little to nothing to do with the law or the economics of bringing such a thing to market. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of patented items held off the market that you would no doubt be interested in if you became aware of them.

Your recommendations to others to go ahead and make infringing copies is, at the least, irresponsible.

Here you go bubba, time for some crow :

Automags.Org Online Forums - View Single Post - PnueMag Mod HowTo Link! HERE>>>

1993 was before the pnue trigger patent date, and what about the SL68 clamping feedneck ? No matter what your response, your hand of cards has been trumped bud. Period. In court, maybe not. In the court of public opinion, definitely, without one doubt.

Personally I dont need a pnue trigger but if I did I would make one, because you arent going to.
The better part of a decade now shows that thats the truth.

I personally like Forest, from correspondence, but the whole "as the stomach turns" pnue trigger saga is just over the top. Not just PTP but all 3 patent holders. The whole debacle is just mind numbingly surreal. And then add the feedneck thing, its just gone way way way past ridiculous.

The paintball community has been watching all this, and they have long memories. Doubtful you can change many minds to your opinion.
The paintball community could care less what the patents/laws/lawyers say.
Too much water has gone under the bridge now.
Make a pnue trigger available for sale to paintballers or go away.
No more hollow words and threats. No more sir, no more.

[B]

clamping feed neck patent that is one funny joke too bad it is totally unenforceable as it is an obvious improvement on prior work. I even had one with a quick release in the early 90's on my Tippmann. I did it with a broken quick release from a bicycle. I hope PTP is paying a license fee to Campagnolo.


Do not worry soon there will be a streamlined and low fee process for obvious,broad, and pryor art patents to be disloved.

[Robertsr]

Originally Posted by B

Do not worry soon there will be a streamlined and low fee process for obvious,broad, and pryor art patents to be disloved.

You're not saying "Relax, our Government will take care of things and make good decisions," are you???

You drunk or something?

[Robertsr]

Originally Posted by going_home

The paintball community has been watching all this, and they have long memories. Doubtful you can change many minds to your opinion.
The paintball community could care less what the patents/laws/lawyers say.
Too much water has gone under the bridge now.
Make a pnue trigger available for sale to paintballers or go away.
No more hollow words and threats. No more sir, no more.

Ease up dude! Steve has be quietly and rationally explaining the legal side of the issue. I don't think that he's threatened anyone. He has just explained the legal side of the issue, and given us a bit of insider insight that we wouldn't have had access to without him. Cut the man some slack! He's handing out good info. Don't take it personally.

[HP_Lovecraft]

Originally Posted by Robertsr

Ease up dude! Steve has be quietly and rationally explaining the legal side of the issue. I don't think that he's threatened anyone.

I think for many of us, its a "knee jerk" reaction after the whole Smart Parts mess.

Most of us here have been playing since 80s and early 90s, and the fact is that paintball was different then. They was a very open atitude among companies. Yes there were disputes, but largely they were "friendly". The only big disputes I can think of back then was between PMI and Sheridan.

Paintball is no longer a niche market. Its a genuine commodity.
I can remember Steve from the old days of Rec/Alt.sport.paintball. He was definetly a stand-up guy, and I appreciate him showing us the alternative viewpoint.

Like I said, I think Smart Parts has made us jump whenever we hear "Patent Violation" in paintball. Clearly there are guns in the 90s that had pneumatic-only triggers. A good example is the infamous "Omega Patent" used to sue Smart Parts with over the ion. The Omega was an early pneumatic-trigger Matrix.
But I can see where the PTP patent could cover guns that did NOT come with a pneumatic trigger originally. Like as an upgrade for Cockers, and Mags, and blowbacks.

nick