mcarterbrown.com  

New To The Sport Just started playing? Been playing for a while, but you have a question you should have asked years ago? Drop a line, we answer

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-31-2008, 12:03 PM   #91 (permalink)
Old gear!
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Dallas

That's not Tommy's patent... he's quoting Sandy Edelman, who popped up over at Doc's "Tinker's Guild" with his two cents. Obviously, Edelman's patent was not listed as prior art... Thus the Smart Parts patent is fraud, and punishable as such. Notarized federal document, fraud... does that make it perjury, and a federal offense? Cuz that could be fun.
flyweightnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2008, 12:06 PM   #92 (permalink)
Rec Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bellingham, Wa

That patent was submitted as prior art from SP for their electro gun patent. There must have been enough differences in their eyes to grant SP's.
LeopoldStotch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2008, 12:07 PM   #93 (permalink)
Old gear!
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Dallas

You sure? I looked through the patents and saw no mention of the operation and use of solenoid valves in Edelman's.
flyweightnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2008, 12:09 PM   #94 (permalink)
Rec Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bellingham, Wa

Pneumatically operated projectile launching device - Patent 7100593

There is a laundry list of prior art there, included is the patent mentioned.
LeopoldStotch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2008, 12:19 PM   #95 (permalink)
Rec Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bellingham, Wa

I may be mistaken as to the actual SP patent in question. Does someone know the patent number that encompases the electro gun? I would like to may sure I am reading the correct one. They are so vague that it is hard to tell which is which, and I'm not a patent expert.
LeopoldStotch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2008, 12:40 PM   #96 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007

Let me clarify...yes Edelman's patent was mentioned....that's what he can't understand how it was approved.......

https://airsoldier.com/~haveblue/tech...S005967133.pdf

https://airsoldier.com/~haveblue/tech...S006035843.pdf

https://airsoldier.com/~haveblue/tech...S006349711.pdf

https://airsoldier.com/~haveblue/tech...S006474326.pdf

https://airsoldier.com/~haveblue/tech...S006637421.pdf

https://airsoldier.com/~haveblue/tech...S006694963.pdf ......touch activated....how many years seen markers with a switch, board, solenoid and battery?
Prior art if submitted....as I haven't seen any...that would have to be a detailed search....

https://airsoldier.com/~haveblue/tech...S007100593.pdf

Last edited by RealtorTommy; 03-31-2008 at 01:05 PM.
RealtorTommy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2008, 12:43 PM   #97 (permalink)
Old gear!
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Dallas

Huh, no joke... somehow I missed that last time I looked for it.

I think I'm more perplexed by the patent scheme now than I was before.
flyweightnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2008, 01:35 PM   #98 (permalink)
Rec Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bellingham, Wa

Quote:
Originally Posted by RealtorTommy View Post
Let me clarify...yes Edelman's patent was mentioned....that's what he can't understand how it was approved....

https://airsoldier.com/~haveblue/tech...S005967133.pdf

https://airsoldier.com/~haveblue/tech...S006035843.pdf

https://airsoldier.com/~haveblue/tech...S006349711.pdf
I see the point being made. If this is indicative of the patent office's conduct, granting broad and vague patents, we are at much more risk than our paintbal gear getting pricey and lacking innovation. I see this as similar to granting a patent for any automobile that uses a device to start the engine. Without a way to start the engine, no one can make a functional vehicle, any attemt to create a functional vehicle is therefore an infringement.

I understand the ability to patent a concept and the ability to patent using certain components in a specific manner. It is tough to swallow their patent because, like most consumer products, electronics and the means to activate them are common place. Maybe this is more like patenting the operation of a vehicle by means of a circut board. With the advent of electronics and the circut board the vast majority of mechanical devices have progressed to being electronically controlled. Allowing common knowledge of a circut board's ability to control a mechanical device, to be patentable concept/design is irresponsible. If the first person to apply electronics as a means to control a mechanical funtion were granted a patent for it, where would our cars, appliances, home entertainment, manufacturing capabilities, airplanes, boats, and construction industry be today? Would we be where we were in 1988? Would we even be talking about SP? Would paintball just be getting some attention?

The idea to use electronics to operate a paintball marker is not a ground breaking idea. When any function reaches, or nears, it's mechanical limits the next step is to apply electronics to it for better accuracy and efficiency. This is further evident by the fact that many others produced comparable devices before, during, and after SP was granted this patent. Applying this to paintball is no different to applying it to any other facet.
LeopoldStotch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2008, 01:35 PM   #99 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
brycelarson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Minnesota

I spent some time with my wife (who's an attorney), her Patents and Trademarks books and the good ol' internet lat night. Here's what we came up with.

In the court papers for WDP vs. SP - they are arguing over the patent 6,474,326 - referred to at the beginning of the papers by it's whole number - then just called 326.

This patent covers a "Pneumatically operated projectile launching device" comprised of three things:
1. "a body which houses and interconnects all of the pneumatic components and also houses the electrical power source"

2. "a grip mounted to the body which includes an electrical switch that activates a launching sequence"

3. "an electrical control unit housed within both the body and the grip which directs flow between the pneumatic components to load, cock and fire the gun"

All three of these have to be present for the patent to apply - but as we all know, those are pretty much the parts of any e-gun.

The case against pretty much every other electronic gun manufacturer was based on this patent. They've got plenty of other ones - including low pressure electronic guns and other variants. Most companies folded, paid the requested royalties or just stopped making electric guns. WDP fought it in court for one very specific reason - they bough rights from a guy who's name should have been on the patent. This is where Sandy Edelman comes in.

Edelman was working for Pneu-Ventures (another company that the Gardners were involved in). Edelman was given a contract to sign - so that he would receive shares in return for the work he was doing. HE DIDN'T SIGN IT (remember this part later). Pneu-Ventures gave him some stock and in return he started working at his own house on the board to run the solenoid to make the electronic gun feasible. He was on the board of directors - but wasn't under contract and wasn't a majority share holder of the company. He succeeded in making the circuit work - apparently after months of very carefully documented work - and after consulting with several other people.

The case that WDP made was that Edelman's name should have been on the patent since he never signed the papers that would give his work to the company and due to the fact (which the judge agreed with) that the Gardners didn't have the knowledge to have made the circuit that Edelman created. The Gardners couldn't show any evidence that they actually had the working prototype that they claim they had in '93. WDP paid Edelman $50,000 to buy whatever rights he theoretically had to patent 326 - even though his name isn't on it.

Pneu Ventures folded and SP bought the patent - so SP owned it in whole. WDP bought the rights that were not granted to Edelman - and the judge believed that Edelman SHOULD have been on the patent - therefore he threw out SP's case.

What this means for the rest of the industry - well, it doesn't exactly invalidate the patent - but it makes that particular patent really hard to enforce. All of the companies other than WDP signed some sort of agreement before the conclusion of the WDP case - if they had not, it seems likely that they would have just told SP to screw off - the legal precedence is very clear now that that particular potent isn't enforceable. Once WDP won - the other companies could have easily fought this particular patent.

However, SP owns lots of patents - including the low pressure electronic gun - which, since the low pressure is new, would be enforceable.

As to all of the various claims that SP hasn't listed prior art - that seems pretty unlikely. If you look at the patents on PatFT, AppFT
all of the SP patents seem to list correct previous art.

So, what this comes down to is the Gardners not giving credit to the correct inventor for a particular patent. Edelman claimed that they mentioned filing for a patent - but he didn't know about it. SP claimed that the window for him disputing the patent was missed - the judge disagreed - saying that the date of file wasn't important - instead the date when he LEARNED that it had been filed was. This calls into question many of the other patents they hold - are they the real inventors - or is someone else?

However, this doesn't mean that the other patents they hold aren't valid. like this one: 6,349,711 for a low pressure electronic gun.
__________________
-Bryce Larson
brycecollinlarson@gmail.com
Feedback
brycelarson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2008, 10:00 PM   #100 (permalink)
Not Popular
 
Cockerpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006

well what it amounts to is that anyone with enough money to take the case as far as it needs to go against SP's money, has no reason to.

dye has the spool valve patent, so they traded out if you will with SP on that one. WDP as you noted picked up edelmans rights. the only other company i would bet that could take them on is eclipse, but with the sucess of the ego, and the way ego owners are, they have little reason to enter that character debate and drag there own name though the dirt to take the 30 bucks or whatever per ego that most ego owners dont care about anyway off there profit margins. KEE comes to mind, but i think there plan is simply to diversify enough that they can never actually get sued because they are such a large umbrella.

so, now that SP knocked out those who had a motive to counter sue (AGD, AKA, ICD ....), and had evidence to, they are safe and can claim that "since no one has disproved our patent, then it must be legal"

which is just terrible logic BTW.
Cockerpunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  mcarterbrown.com » Paintball » New To The Sport

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO
© MCB Network LLC