Zap Cheater Interest Thread

[Tek2974]

I managed to get the CAD files and an interested machinist. Original thread and where it's going to have the interest list is on MCB.

If you don't have a mcb account either make one, or if you're banned for some odd reason, I'll add you manually from here.


This is the link to the original thread.

[BTAutoMag]

i do have interest but id rather have the CAD file, lol

do you have a ballpark price yet? (I know thats asking alot)

[knownothingmags]

i do have interest but id rather have the CAD file, lol

do you have a ballpark price yet? (I know thats asking alot)

i can make you one.
i have all the reference pics

[BTAutoMag]

Too many of us are machinists lol.

[RehKal]

What do these things look like?

[KurtPB]

If there's enough interest to get them to their $100 price, I'd take two.

[Laku]

i can make you one.
i have all the reference pics

I'd be interested on seeing that cad file as well.

[Tek2974]

I'm on my phone now so I don't have the links to the patents but Colin's explicitly says that it must assist trigger return. The cheater doesn't have that at all. If someone could pm me Forrest's contact info it would be greatly appreciated.

[luke]

I found it, thanks.

As far as the DW's design not being an assist, it can't be judged just on the name, you really need to read the patent to see what it covers.

In my mind, if you add any pneumatic system to a mechanical trigger, it is an assist.

[p8ntbal4me]

I'm on my phone now so I don't have the links to the patents but Colin's explicitly says that it must assist trigger return. The cheater doesn't have that at all. If someone could pm me Forrest's contact info it would be greatly appreciated.

I have not seen the hAir setup internally by Colin, so I can not comment as such with accurate knowledge.

I do however have a few years time in studying the PTP version of this application.

I can tell you for CERTAIN that the prior art covers both direct mounted and non-direct mounted trigger assist systems

Explained:

"Direct mounted" - the ram has a linkage of some kind that connects to the AGD OEM sear via the sear arm's hole where the clevis would normally do. This is NOT restricted to the "hole". It covers use of the direct connection of an actuator (ram) to act upon the sear/valve.

"Non-direct mounted" - the ram has no linkage of any kind that connects to the AGD OEM sear/valve. Meaning,.. no direct mechanical connection during the initial phase/state of the action performed by the assisting force (the ram to the sear are separate parts until you drive them mechanically; they make a mechanical connection after that initial phase/state)

Forrest's prior art also covers the use of the assembly in multiple pieces to perform the same action.

I high lighted your original quote because I was curious if you INTENDED on typing it the way you did,.. it was a mistake,.. or thats a part of Colin's patent that I have not seen yet.

Trigger RETURN is a whole slew of other patents. At that point your talking about using a PTP patent and a Boston Paintball Patent (BPS) patent. The BPS patent is a lot more "loose" and has a lot of wiggle room if that type of thing interests you...... Other than myself, there is one other person on this forum I know who can speak about the BPS patents with accurate knowledge of how it works with other parties involved (Tippmann)

You best bet with PTP: "I am interested in using your application in a low volume (sub 100 units), low cost, production so that I can produce a similar product that will spark the interest of a small venue of people still using mechanical markers that do not wish to apply electronics to their markers. What can I do on my end to secure permission from you to proceed?"

Make you statement just as clear as your intention. If you are serious, be prepared to offer them a NDA to give them a "good feeling" that you are in fact, doing what your saying you will be making.

Its business,... treat it as such and Im sure you will be okay.

Edit: If you hit a wall,.. try to "re think" how the patent could be written in the same application. That usually is the way you get your own products made with the same concepts using the same IP but legally not copying someones patented ideas.
Example: Planet Eclipse has a patent on using an optical break beam sensor as a "switch" in place of a actual micro switch on a circuit board in any paintball marker. WDP out right copied this idea and used it for years on their OEM boards without paying a cent to PE. The reason: they added a single piece of metal between the optical switch and the trigger. PE's patent spells out that you can not use an optical trigger to actuate a circuit with a trigger. WDP added the piece of metal (the leaf arm) so they could say "use a optical switch to actuate a circuit by means of an assembly acted upon by a trigger"