Page 21 of 24 FirstFirst ... 111718192021222324 LastLast
Results 601 to 630 of 692

Thread: Smart Parts Patent Will Destroy Paintball! - Read!

  1. #601
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    wyo
    Posts
    1,713
    600
    www.theangelguy.com for all your angel needs
    BEER HELPING WHITE PEOPLE DANCE SINCE 1841
    BEER HELPING UGLY PEOPLE HAVE SEX SINCE 1841
    PARTY TILL SHES PRETTY
    BEAUTY IS ONLY A LIGHT SWITCH AWAY
    SAVE A TREE EAT A BEAVER
    REMEMBER FAT UGLY GIRLS HAVE HOTT FRIENDS
    nitro duck for sale

    nu nu nu nu nu nu nu nu nu nu nu nu nu nu nu nu nu bat man

  2. #602
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    1,247
    TY doc... i read your whole page on it... now i understand it ALOT better... i was just a little hyped up on caffine and adrenalin when i posted earlier
    Proud Member Of The AO Cesspool Since 08-24-2002

  3. #603
    Originally posted by Doc Nickel
    And again, I agree Drew might have been a little- okay, a LOT- hyperbolic in saying this suit and it's ramifications will "destroy" paintball.
    Quiet possibly so, but it did get your attention a hell of a lot faster than something labeled as "smart parts patent issues" or something to that extent.

    As you stated there is alot of products in had now, but in a bigger picture, IF they do win and the royalties happen to be unjust and greedy, then it not only affects bigger companies and players but also the small business owners basing their stores on low range markers such as kingman. If kingman is affected, and by the broad claim they are, it will kill a lot of small businesses. I know for one running my store i sold a lot of e-spyders as opposed to any other marker. If I hadn't already sold my business late last year, this would affect me. That pending the actual royalty fees and etc. As you said in one of your statements\posts with the economics and figures of possibilities of the pricing. Maybe its just me looking at how it would have personally affected my business, but i guarantee it would have ran me out within a year due to the amount of markers and gear (along with accessories and paint) that i sold, though paint was probably the main seller, the markers made a healthy portion of my sells. I know i could not have survived long with the sales of paint. If it was a small scale and prices went up 10 bucks, not that much but 50 buck jumps in a spyder style marker is alot for their quality of product. It won't destroy it, but it will put a dent in alot of the less fortunates out there such as myself, and as well as the consumer. but that lies in the actual closing stating what royalties\fees will be done, which we can only speculate upon<< just my opinions not anyone elses just to let u know i for one don't make 100s of thousands a year i'm lucky just squeezing by which is why it would affect me as there is alot of others in the same boat

    Originally posted by pbzmag


    Ok. They expanded to the IDEA of using electronics in the marker, which was erlier this year. Now they need to show that there is no prior art. That will be their problem.
    Prior art and prior patents are stated in the shocker patent\revisions etc, yet with the ruling that ICD was infact in violation of SP's patent seems to make it feel like that wasnt worth a damn. Prior art and patents have been shown and will continue to be shown, but it will only as good as it is inturpreted by the judge and what-not as to its validity. prior art exists we know this to be fact, yet it hasnt put a halt to it yet.
    Last edited by icegod; 07-25-2003 at 02:20 AM.

  4. #604
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Far North
    Posts
    460
    Originally posted by pbzmag
    Ok. They expanded to the IDEA of using electronics in the marker, which was erlier this year. Now they need to show that there is no prior art. That will be their problem. There has been many electronic markers since 1999. (snip)
    -That's the problem. In filing their "continuance"- the 'extension' everyone's been talking about- they've essentially set the filing date back to January of '96, when the original Shocker patent was submitted.

    And near as anyone's been able to tell so far, that could well be the earliest electronic marker patent. The RM patents came afterward, it appears most WDP patents came afterward.

    This is what has people in an uproar. SP could get away with it.

    The "underhanded" part of it is the continuance- the original patent was for the Shocker: the patent described an "electrically-operated pneumatic paintball launching device" and was intended to cover that particular gun- a twin-solenoid, dump-chamber closed bolt.

    But they expanded the patent where it said "electrically operated" and are now saying the patent covered not just the gun itself, but the very idea of using electricity to control and fire a paintball gun.

    This 'expansion' is the recent part, and it's hard to see them filing such an expansion within the last few years, when electros of all shapes are a huge, fast-growing segment of the sport, without the ulterior motive of retroactively licensing and collecting royalties on them.

    If you know of a patent showing an "electrically operated paintball gun" with a filing date prior to January of '96, you'd do well to let ICD or AKA (who is helping ICD) know about it.

    Oh, and non-patent "prior art" doesn't usually matter; some guy with a picture of an electric potato cannon on IRC isn't necessarily "prior art".

    originally posted by M-a-s-sDriver
    As much as I respect Doc Nickel and his work, I get a little chuckle when I read some designs are not patented for the sole reason of "furthering" the sport of paintball.
    -Actually, I've heard most of those tidbits from either the source or a reliable informant.

    Bob Gurnsey states quite plainly that he intentionally refused to patent the sport, in a magazine article in, I believe it was the original version of Paintball Magazine back in '92 or '93.

    I have the issue somewhere, and I'll post a scan if I can find it (though I have some three hundred PB magazines and about 1,500 more of other titles.)

    Glenn, as I recall, makes his statement about the patenting of "pneumatic automation" in WARPIG's "hot seat" section, in an interview made by IRC chat in about '94 or '95.

    In fact, that same chat talks about the guy that actually developed pneumatic automation, a fellow by name of Steve, as I recall, though it's been a while since I read the Hot Seat. This fellow made the first clunky KP conversion and eventually turned it over to Glenn when he couldn't make it work reliably.

    Glenn solved a few of the problems, made it reasonably reliable, and made the suggestion to the other fellow that they market it. The fellow had, apparently, no interest in the idea or the marketing, and semi-officially turned the whole thing over to Glenn to do with as he will.

    This was '86 or so. Think of if that fellow, or Glenn himself, had decided to patent it. Or anything else that was new and "up for grabs" at the time- like direct feed, or removable barrels.

    At that point, somebody could have patented a lot of things- the pin valve, the bottomline (Colin at LAPCO made the first one, probably could have patented it) the use of regulated HPA....

    Yes, it's likely past time that industry greats will pass up a lucrative idea for the good of the sport as a whole, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened in the past.

    Doc.

  5. #605
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    kenosha, WI/mad-town, WI
    Posts
    1,296

    sp patent claims

    i have written emails to every email address i could find on the smart parts web site, i encourage everyone to do the same. maybe the jerks at smart parts will wake up and see how much opposition there is to them becoming the microsoft of paintball.

    here is the email i sent:
    you guys are idiots, you are trying to run people out of business in a sport that needs all the help it can get. i am outraged at what you are trying to do. i may have some smart parts products, but from this day forth, i am
    personnal boycotting your company and will urge anyone that i know that plays paintball to do the same.
    President Of the UW-Madison Badger Ballers

    AO Feedback

    1 of 35 SFL Emags VV02746
    Silver Karta/Logic RT Winner:GOTM Most Bling for December VV04971
    Sydarm SY00715
    Nelspot (under restoration)


  6. #606

    Re: sp patent claims

    Originally posted by mag/cocker lover
    i have written emails to every email address i could find on the smart parts web site, i encourage everyone to do the same. maybe the jerks at smart parts will wake up and see how much opposition there is to them becoming the microsoft of paintball.

    here is the email i sent:
    you guys are idiots, you are trying to run people out of business in a sport that needs all the help it can get. i am outraged at what you are trying to do. i may have some smart parts products, but from this day forth, i am
    personnal boycotting your company and will urge anyone that i know that plays paintball to do the same.
    Expressing your desires and rage is one thing, but resulting to immature name calling makes you no better than them. Approach it in a more mature manor. Also e-mailing them with complaints and cussing and name calling means nothing, they've seemed to show no care for the communities thoughts as it is, so what would this email accomplish other than a waste of time? If you email them to express anger do it in a mannerable fashion and keep it clean. They're doing what they *Feel* is right, even though everyone else does not. Greed is a powerful thing and they are being controlled by it. Its bad enough we have flame wars going on, but to directly flame them is worse. They could infact sue you on the basis of you emailing them, though its doubtful they would, but they could if they wanted.

  7. #607
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    kenosha, WI/mad-town, WI
    Posts
    1,296

    Re: Re: sp patent claims

    Originally posted by icegod


    Expressing your desires and rage is one thing, but resulting to immature name calling makes you no better than them.
    i do understand where you are coming from for the name calling, i wrote it in rage, something i dont like to do, but it happens sometimes. i did get a reply on that email though, and the writer used harsh language, even resorting to cursing. i only used idiots. but i do see where you are coming from. i do alot of writting against my school policies, so i usually keep it clean so that i look better.

  8. #608
    a more professional look and tone will make a better impact than something not thought out, but in SP's case its not going to matter one bit. They've released 2 emails, i've gotten both from emailing. Both which someone posted previously here, so it just seems to be a copy and paste email they're sending or an autoreply.

  9. #609
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    320
    rediculous, and in this day in age, they can succeed in killing the compitition, Just like wal-mart and microsoft lol.

    Well, i hope sp burns in hell, i never bought anything from them anyway so atleast i dont feel guilty at all. I think it will fall through, i hope it will anyway. But everyday my confidence in society drops more it seems.

    I bet they lose
    Level 10 Centerfeed polished Emag With J&J 2 peice.
    Level 7 Powerfeed left 68 Mag' With J&J ceramic barrel.

  10. #610
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Chino
    Posts
    1,469
    Originally posted by Doc Nickel
    -That's the problem. In filing their "continuance"- the 'extension' everyone's been talking about- they've essentially set the filing date back to January of '96, when the original Shocker patent was submitted.
    I was just thinking that after making my post. So if they decide to sue other companys, that can argue that their newest patent has a retroactive date of 1996, the original patent date of the shocker. SOunds like a legal loophole.

  11. #611
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Far North
    Posts
    460
    Originally posted by pbzmag
    I was just thinking that after making my post. So if they decide to sue other companys, that can argue that their newest patent has a retroactive date of 1996, the original patent date of the shocker. SOunds like a legal loophole.
    -Exactly. That's why it was filed as a continuance, not as a new application. It gives an earlier priority date, makes it easier to claim products that came later as infringing on the patent.

    And since nearly every electro out there came afterwards, SP could legitimately claim every one falls under their patent- if they can ideed patent the concept of using electrical control of paintball guns.

    And that puts us back to trying to guess how much SP will demand- and be awarded by the courts- as a royalty and how much they'll charge for the license to manufacture.

    Doc.

  12. #612
    Doc (or anyone really),

    I'm no "expert" in the fields of the legals and what-not but this was brought to my attention. Though it may have already been stated or shown somewhere else, as i haven't read the documents and such FULLY and unsure it if was mentioned but Would this be any help.

    On the site it states :

    This launcher is a pneumatic operated, air logic controlled launcher for producing bullet hit effects for motion picture and television productions. It's predecessor was designed in 1984 by Matt Sweeney and Lucinda Strub.

    The Capsule launcher received an Academy Technical Achievement Award in 1987. The current version, which has been in production for the last 10 years, is capable of full automatic or semiautomatic fire.

    At full force, the launcher is capable of shooting a ball bearing through a television screen. The launcher fires 11/16" (.6875") plastic capsules, 11/16" ground glass balls, or 11/16" ball bearings. Capsules may be loaded with various fillers, including dust of different colors, zirconium for spark hits, lead shot for breakaway, black grease for hits on steel, et cetera. The launcher is constructed mostly from black anodized aluminum and black oxided steel, with wood grips and front stock. It weighs 13 pounds and is 39 5/8" long. We also offer a JB model, which weighs 10 pounds, is 27" long and has a 9 shot capacity.

    The air logic and pneumatic fittings and valves are high quality industrial components designed for long life and low maintenance. The launcher is a handsome and impressive piece of equipment, easily justifying a good rental price.
    Granted it does not specifically state paintballs, but it does say capsules may be loaded with various fillers. Which could include paint. Just a thought from someone and thought i'd pass it along if it has nothing to do with anything then sorry

    The Website that i got it from, its under sweeny guns.


    Like i said this may be in some of the documents or filings, links, etc i am unsure as i have not fully searched or read them to find out. also its Just a thought if i'm wrong or anything again sorry just passing along info.

  13. #613
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    WWW.INCEPTIONDESIGNS.COM
    Posts
    3,817

  14. #614
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Wells, ME, USA
    Posts
    92
    I thought the Sweeney gun was purely pneumatic, not electro-pneumatic?
    If it is electro, then that might be the "holy grail" because it was a "production" paintball gun, not just a vaporware patent or prototype.

    The guy from Baccipaintball has a sweeney gun.

    Nick

    Don't Support Paintball Nazis

    Boycott Smart Parts

  15. #615
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    WWW.INCEPTIONDESIGNS.COM
    Posts
    3,817
    We need more details, but it appears to have a switch to select FA or semi...

    Maybe it's electronic? That was my first assumption but it may also be to control the 'air logic'?

    Not sure

  16. #616
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Wells, ME, USA
    Posts
    92
    I know HELLBORE made an adjustable pneumatic full-auto with no electronics, so its possible that the Sweeney gun uses the same setup.

    Worth investigating!

    Nick

  17. #617
    Just curious, Has anyone tried emailing him?

    Andrew

  18. #618
    WickedAirSportz Guest
    -That's the problem. In filing their "continuance"- the 'extension' everyone's been talking about- they've essentially set the filing date back to January of '96, when the original Shocker patent was submitted.
    The Ellis patent pre-dates this as a electro-pneumatic pellet gun. If you look closely, the pellets are actually "balls" with no specifics to size. The diagrams show them to be large... like a paintball. This patent was referenced 3 times in the first 3 patent submissions by Smart Parts, which were declined BECAUSE of this patent (according to the patent accessor's notes). Amazing that they leave the reference to this patent out, and they get their patent granted. Later on, they put a reference to this patent in an attachment (not as a reference in the reference section)... nice, eh?

  19. #619
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Tejas, American Union
    Posts
    1,707
    I think this will all work out just fine, it will be more a matter of educating the Patent Office and courts on the paintball industry. Just as each design of a semi-automatic firearm mechanism is patented (there is no one patent for all semi-autos), the same should be true in the paintball industry.

    AGD X-Mag #XT00187
    AGD Tac-One
    WGP 2003
    Marker Pics

  20. #620
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    126

    Question A quick question

    I have ask this question on otherr fourms before, but what is a paintball gun real considered? Is it a form of a gun/handgun or something else? They basically work off the same principles, right? If that is the case, correctly me if I am wrong here, they have used electronics, switches, and selonids before in weapons, right? Or is it the case that they are being specific about guns being only used to fire paintballs only, while using 4-way, with electronics? I am just trying to get at the bottom of using electronics in a gun. Anyone see what I am getting at?

  21. #621
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    4,772
    Originally posted by Doc Nickel
    Yes, it's likely past time that industry greats will pass up a lucrative idea for the good of the sport as a whole, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened in the past.
    As I remember from a conversation with Bud Orr, he holds patents on commonly used paintball "parts". He does not inforce these patents. He only got them to keep someone else from patenting them and slowing the groth of the sport. I don't remember the specifics. The conversation took place in the late '80s.


    Hey Hitech your starting to sound like me! - AGD
    Hitech is the man.... - Blennidae
    The only Hitech Lubricant

  22. #622
    Originally posted by jinxed
    I thought the Sweeney gun was purely pneumatic, not electro-pneumatic?
    If it is electro, then that might be the "holy grail" because it was a "production" paintball gun, not just a vaporware patent or prototype.

    The guy from Baccipaintball has a sweeney gun.

    Nick
    Like i said i don't know, thats what i was hoping you guys would know . From looking at some of the pictures they appear to be similar to the solenoid electropneumatic launchers used by alot of senario users, which run off of a battery supply. But again i am unsure, Guess its time to actually e-mail\call them, just figured SOMEONE might have already knew since it has been around for quite some time.

  23. #623
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Far North
    Posts
    460
    Sorry, cool as it is, the Sweeney Gun is entirely pneumatic. The "switches" you see are Clippard valves- they have the same chrome, round toggle as an electrical switch, as they're designed to panel-mount and do the same function.

    They even have the same types of switches- center-off (on-off-on) and momentary, etc- as the electrical counterpart.

    ROF and force adjustments are done through versions of what are essentially "Rock" type LP regs.

    Doc.

  24. #624
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    24
    As I remember from a conversation with Bud Orr, he holds patents on commonly used paintball "parts". He does not inforce these patents. He only got them to keep someone else from patenting them and slowing the groth of the sport. I don't remember the specifics. The conversation took place in the late '80s.

    That's the first question that came to mind when I first learned of the issue at my local shop...why didn't anyone think to patent the idea and not inforce them? I would have guessed that one of the industry's "pure" developers might have thought to do this just in case a problem like this ever came into being.

    Oh well, I guess it is no good to wonder why someone didn't do this or that at the time. Who knew Smartparts would pull such a, pardon my french, ******* move.


    Cheers,
    J.

  25. #625
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    4,772
    Maybe Bud got tired of spending money on patents.

  26. #626
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Wells, ME, USA
    Posts
    92

    Re: A quick question

    Originally posted by SLICEnDICE
    I have ask this question on otherr fourms before, but what is a paintball gun real considered? Is it a form of a gun/handgun or something else? They basically work off the same principles, right?
    Thats a good question, and I suspect that it is something that the ICD lawyers are currently researching.

    The shocker patents state that it is designed for paintball. Actually, it really says its designed to "shoot paintballs" farther then a conventional gun. Yes, it claims it as fact in the patent!

    So I'm not sure what kind of impact electro-BB/Pellet/airsoft/waterguns/firearms will have.
    I guess the problem is that there WERE electro-paintgun patents and prototypes before the shocker, but nothing really in production?
    WHile electro-bb/pellet/airsoft/etc definetly were in production, but may not invalidate the shocker patent?

    nick

  27. #627
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Chino
    Posts
    1,469
    I think that paintball markers are classified as an air-powered rifle under the gun contol laws. That's why there is an age minimum to be able to buy them.

  28. #628
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    2,940
    I've only been reading up to now, but I've got a question for the patent savvy members.

    Why are we (and the defendants) seemingly concentrating exclusively on paintball and paintball patents for prior art?

    Seems to me that you approach absolutely any automation engineer, industrail process technician, or any one in the pneumatics and/or electronics field and ANYTHING in paintball pantents concerning pneumatics or electronics is covered by prior art.

    I mean a switch to activate, sense, or power a device is patentable?
    Using an IR sensor to detect a component in a flow?
    Using batteries to power something wirelessly?

    You'd get laughed off the planet if you tried to make those claims in any other industry.

  29. #629
    Originally posted by Doc Nickel
    Sorry, cool as it is, the Sweeney Gun is entirely pneumatic. The "switches" you see are Clippard valves- they have the same chrome, round toggle as an electrical switch, as they're designed to panel-mount and do the same function.

    They even have the same types of switches- center-off (on-off-on) and momentary, etc- as the electrical counterpart.

    ROF and force adjustments are done through versions of what are essentially "Rock" type LP regs.

    Doc.
    Thanks, i wasnt for sure thats why i asked, as i said i am not familiar with them, also i did direct my initial statement towards you because i figured you'd be the one to know since i for sure didn't and when posting it was about 2-3am my time so i couldnt have made calls and theres no email on thier site that i found but ok that cuts that one.... so now to find something else

  30. #630
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Jose, Ca
    Posts
    613
    Oh well, I guess it is no good to wonder why someone didn't do this or that at the time. Who knew Smartparts would pull such a, pardon my french, ******* move.
    The owners of SP are suffering from inadequacy issues stemming from the fact that they know that their markers and other products were not developed by themselves, but were either bought or copied off of other people. By filing for patents, they can claim originality for their "inventions". If it goes through, they get a significant ego boost ( and financial) knowing that they can 'officially' say that they have actually invented something, because the court system said they did. OK, thats my rant for today.
    *Puts on flame suit just in case*

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •