Smart Parts Patent Will Destroy Paintball! - Read!

[FutureMagOwner]

heres the way im seeing it right now

does smart parts have the right to defend their patent?- yes

should smart parts defend its patents?- of course

should it even have this patent in the first place?- no

[Surreal]

Originally posted by FutureMagOwner
heres the way im seeing it right now

does smart parts have the right to defend their patent?- yes

should smart parts defend its patents?- of course

should it even have this patent in the first place?- no

you hit the nail right on the head there.

[acecl22]

i always thought that you had to patent something before it is being manufactured by other companies, and shouldnt the patent holder be the people who first came up with the idea

this whole thing is making me appreciate my mech mag a whole lot more

[shartley]

Originally posted by TJ03A
shartley

You've got some good points about patent rights and all but you seem to have missed the point that while the players don't have the right to argue with the patent itself we do have the right to discuss our opinions. We also have the right to not buy anything related to smart parts. These discussions are going to help some people make the decision on whether or not they're going to give smart parts any money. Considering how fast this seems to be taking off on several different forums it looks like smart parts made a serious mistake because there is a large number of people ready to not only never buy any product that sends money to smart parts but they're also willing to tell everyone they encounter to do the same.

Personally I think I'll follow Doc Nickels example. Although if the supposed 1 million fee + $75 per marker goes through I will do as much as I can to further the boycott and awareness of this issue.

[shartley]

Originally posted by FutureMagOwner
heres the way im seeing it right now

does smart parts have the right to defend their patent?- yes

should smart parts defend its patents?- of course

should it even have this patent in the first place?- no

[cockermongol]

Originally posted by shartley

Smart Parts wasn't GIVEN the winning ticket, they went out and GOT it KNOWING THE CONSEQUENCES IT WOULD HAVE ON OTHER ELECTRONIC PAINTBALL GUN PRODUCING COMPANIES. That is why everyone DESPISES Smart Parts now.

[Johnny_Reb]

Smart Parts wasn't GIVEN the winning ticket, they went out and GOT it KNOWING THE CONSEQUENCES IT WOULD HAVE ON OTHER ELECTRONIC PAINTBALL GUN PRODUCING COMPANIES. That is why everyone DESPISES Smart Parts now.

Thats how buisness works man.

[WickedAirSportz]

Smart Parts will argue that they received a patent. ICD will argue that there is prior art AND that Smart Parts deliberately altered their patent after it was granted to include references that were dropped in order to get the patent granted. They will also argue that the additions made to the patent clearly violate common sense, and were done in a backwards way to prevent the patent office from catching it.

To me, the fault here lies with the patent office for not being thorough. This is very similar to the Brass Eagle/Odyssey lawsuit, where both companies were granted a patent for virtually the same thing.

I believe there is in fact prior art (it's in black and white that there is). Its a matter of convincing the judge that there is. It is unfortunate that patent cases are not presented to a panel of judges instead of a single judge.

[auX]

Originally posted by cockermongol


Smart Parts wasn't GIVEN the winning ticket, they went out and GOT it KNOWING THE CONSEQUENCES IT WOULD HAVE ON OTHER ELECTRONIC PAINTBALL GUN PRODUCING COMPANIES. That is why everyone DESPISES Smart Parts now.

Or they were too dumb to think about the reprocussions this would cause, but I really doubt that.

[shartley]

Originally posted by acecl22
i always thought that you had to patent something before it is being manufactured by other companies, and shouldnt the patent holder be the people who first came up with the idea

this whole thing is making me appreciate my mech mag a whole lot more

[shartley]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
Smart Parts will argue that they received a patent. ICD will argue that there is prior art AND that Smart Parts deliberately altered their patent after it was granted to include references that were dropped in order to get the patent granted. They will also argue that the additions made to the patent clearly violate common sense, and were done in a backwards way to prevent the patent office from catching it.

To me, the fault here lies with the patent office for not being thorough. This is very similar to the Brass Eagle/Odyssey lawsuit, where both companies were granted a patent for virtually the same thing.

I believe there is in fact prior art (it's in black and white that there is). Its a matter of convincing the judge that there is. It is unfortunate that patent cases are not presented to a panel of judges instead of a single judge.

I agree.

[krafty]

I'm so disappointed in Smart Parts right now. Not only does it look like they're trying to pull a fast one, but they're doing it to the small guy first (ICD, an awesome company). Do they have the balls to take on WGP, WDP or AGD with this suit first? No. They're going after a much smaller company who may not have the financial resources to put up the fight necessary to save itself.

I have bought my last SP product, and I'm letting them know that.

Lets all hope that the Judge in this case has some common sense and puts SP in its place.

[Paintball_Foo]

Alright I'm almost done listening to this crap.

WGP has a patent for a closed bolt marker, becuase they have a patent for a closed bolt marker does that mean everyone else the designs a closed bolt marker to be produced will have to pay a royalty fee or have permission from WGP?... NO!

It works exactly the same way with this patent (if it even exists), by the way has anyone even seen the patent on the patents office website? Nope....

The WAS guy got pissed becuase this patent may rule out him being able to reproduce a board for SP's own marker and to SP's specs so he's obviousley going around like a slander whore to everyone.... Really, get over it.


And I don't even use anything that is SP or plan to for some time.

[FutureMagOwner]

i dont think you quite understand what is going on its not just about jim drew going potentially going outta business but MANY small companies going outta business. heres a copy and paste of something i typed up on the tippmann forum about this based on statements of multiple people.

a boycot cannot work. plain and simple if smart parts wins they can simply live off royalties however they can get even more money, the whole point of this clever scheme thats been in the works since the companies establishment most likely, is plain and simple if they win, bushmasters and other competition in its range will go from the $400 range to $700 or more, and when it comes down to it will you pay 400 for something or 300+ more for the same basic performance of a gun? no you wouldnt that would be dumb. eventually icd would die like most companies in the electro area and then smart parts can crank up the price of electros to 700 or 1000 or whatever they want since there is no competition or the only competition would cost $4000 for the current equal of a $1000 gun. why you may ask? besides the estimated 75 charge you also got to pay off that million dollar tag to produce it in the first place. so companies who havent will scramble to produce mechanical guns(airgun designs is playing it smart and has been working in the ultra light trigger since the patent revision for just this reason), this wont be difficult for companies like dye and their recent matrix because it was originally designed to be mechanical or electronic but they didnt bother with the mechanical version(which was a good move because the matrix wasnt popular for a long while). then what becomes of companies that cant make the conversion(because the conversion would just end up being the equal to a spyder) to mechanical? they go bankrupt and you lose support of your gun. i dont expect for all the companies that could flop as a result of smart parts will get a community to continue support like with the tribal.

with that million dollar price tag to produce an electro you will kill most custom shops. people will not be able to make it in the business because they cannot afford the million dollar tag for their innovative design that could potentially change paintball as we know it.

[jinxed]

Originally posted by Paintball_Foo
Alright I'm almost done listening to this crap.

WGP has a patent for a closed bolt marker, becuase they have a patent for a closed bolt marker does that mean everyone else the designs a closed bolt marker to be produced will have to pay a royalty fee or have permission from WGP?... NO!

WGP recently trademarked the name "autococker". Not exactly a patent for "closed-bolts".
If he did, it would be wothless since he copied the Palmer Hurricane to make his cocker.

Plus, your argument is flawed.
You are saying that nobody should have to pay a royalty fee to WGP because they made an early (not first) closed-bolt semi.
So, then you are saying that Smart Parts has no legitimate claim to force electro-companies to pay a royalty fee? When, that means you agree with most of the people on this thread.

So, how do you deal with the fact that Smart Parts is trying to do just that?

nick