Oh my Gosh...someone got SP darn good..

[DiRTyBuNNy]

check it out kids...somebody got really royally screwed legally..

http://www.68caliber.com/news/industry/story04594.php

[skinnyfatguy]

just beat me to it. for those of you too lazy here it is straight for wdp's site.

PRESS RELEASE FROM WDP LTD 14 December 2005
On December 9, 2004, a jury in Madison, Wisconsin, found on behalf of NPF Ltd. in its patent
infringement lawsuit against Smart Parts, Inc. The trial began on December 6, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, before the Honorable John C. Shabaz.

The jury found that the asserted claims of NPF's U.S. patent number 6,615,814 were valid. Earlier, on November 17, Judge John Shabaz found that the patent was infringed, as a matter of law, by Smart Parts' Impulse, Shocker and Nerve markers. Following the jury trial, the court granted NPF's motion for a permanent injunction, preventing Smart Parts from selling any infringing markers from December 9, 2004, forward. This injunction will last for the life of the patent, until October 14, 2019.

The jury verdict has reaffirmed NPF's decision to protect its intellectual property rights. NPF has a licensing program for the technology protected by this patent, and for the technology protected by its other patents. Those manufacturers interested in incorporating reprogrammable microprocessors into their electro-pneumatic markers, or incorporating other intellectual property protected by NPF's patents into their markers, should contact:Jon Green of WDP, Ltd., at jgreen@wdp.tv for further information.

[yakitori]

:bounce: :dance: :clap: :headbang:

right on! Karma is a biootch eh! :shooting:

[Vanced]

:headbang: RAWK on...

Tool Bad it's :ninja: appeal time... so don't get too exited yet... SP still has plenty of money and lawyers...

and now WDP has the patient protection ? does that really change anything ?

[Muzikman]

Wow...that came down hard. It wasn't even a nice little, let's share the patent. It was, you guys suck now go away.

[Muzikman]

Now...the question is. Will WDP go after other gun mfg's and want money?

[Lohman446]

WDP nothing - who is NPF?? Or is that some legal speak for the plantiff

[Dayspring]

Tom retired 1 week too early... :cuss: :cry:

[DiRTyBuNNy]

Tom retired 1 week too early... :cuss: :cry:

I can just imagine Tom calling Dave and saying "I swear I haven't deposited the check yet" hahahaha..

[frop]

I'll hold back my celebration till we hear what WDP is gonna do w/ licensing. Until then, who knows if they'll become SP Jr.?

[personman]

LOL
I just hope WDP is doing this for the good of the sport and not profit. :)
But then again, I'd rather the paintball industry be monopolized by a company that actually makes decent guns than a company that doesn't care for quality. Either way, SP = pwnt.

[DiRTyBuNNy]

WDP nothing - who is NPF?? Or is that some legal speak for the plantiff

NPF is the parent company of WDP..

[hardr0ck68]

wow, that is awsome...well im now lookin buy an angel. SCREW YOU SP eat your own poo

i just hope WDP is nicer than SP...it would be really amusing if they licenssed their pattent to other companys for like $1.00 a marker or something small like that. (just not SP let those two jack-hole brothers go back to making pumps and selling belsales autocockers...)

[BronzeDarkAngel2]

WDP nothing - who is NPF?? Or is that some legal speak for the plantiff

I didn't take time to read it all... Somone might have already answered.... NPF is the parent company of WDP... Which means its a HUGE company agenst SP... Not some little thing... Personaly I hope WDP destroys SP.... And... SP doesn't have too much money, From what I heard they took out a $1million loan for the lawsuits they did....

[magmanl337]

Watch SP make spyder-clones after all of this just to stay in business...

[luke]

Those manufacturers interested in incorporating reprogrammable microprocessors into their electro-pneumatic markers,

It doesn't mean that they can't sell electronic markers does it?
It just sounds like they cant use a "re-programmable microprocessor".

I'll admit I know nothing about electronics, but to me it doesn't sound like the end of the world for SP. Can someone explain exactly how this will affect them?

[Muzikman]

Well, it depends on what they are considering a "reprogamable" chip. They they count that as any chip that you can place code on...then SP is screwed as how do you make an electro marker without a brain.

If they consider the "reprogramable" chip as one that once it's in the gun, it can not be rewritten (ie. upgraded). All SP has to do is make a firmware upgrade an entire new chip and just put a socket on the board that the chip goes into.

I think you would have to sit down and read the patent to find out what the "Reprogramable" part means.

[hardr0ck68]

so SP is either gonna hafta pay for the right to use a "reporgamable" board OR they will have to take all the boards out of their infactory markers, replace them with a new non-reprogramable board and then market this new board as making you shoot more accuratly, farther, flatter, more efficently and so on.....

[Muzikman]

Well, that would depend on the def of "reprogramable"

[luke]

Hey thanks, that makes more sense..

[Chris42050]

I doubt NPF is doing this for the good of the sport. I think they are doing this for the good of WDP. But, it's still really cool that SP got beat at it's own game.

[Muzikman]

Now...what is interesting is this.

In August 2004, WDP (NPF) won against SP in Oregon. The ruling there was that the patent for the "electronic" marker was not held solely by SP but should also be granted to both WDP and SP (Both names on the patent). U.S. Patent No. 6,474,326

http://www.paintballchannel.com/news/industry/story04341.php

Now, in December 2004 the Wisconsin courts say that WDP holds the patent for the "reprogrammable microprocessors" use in paintball guns. U.S. patent number 6,615,814

http://www.68caliber.com/news/industry/story04594.php

This puts WDP in a very powerful position. Now I am sure these two court battles were not cheap for WDP, so how are they going to get their money back? Is it going to be by lowering the price of their guns and trying to sell more of them? Is it going to be by charging a $1 per gun licensing fee to other companies for the use of the "electro" gun and any gun that uses the "reprogrammable microprocessors" (Since they do hold rights to both patents). My guess is that they will charge companies a decent fee...not a small fee...but we can hope.

On the other side of this. SP still holds the patent on the "electro" gun. So they can still require a license fee. What I am not sure about, and maybe if there is a patent lawyer in the house they can answer it. If WDP makes a license agreement with company 'A' in regards to U.S. Patent No. 6,474,326 can Smart Parts turn around and require a license fee also?

All this really did was take a sticky and ugly situation and turned it into tar.

What I would have rather seen was the Oregon courts throw out the validity of the patent totally, not give WDP the rights to it as well.


BTW: Here are the two patents in questions:

U.S. Patent No. 6,474,326:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%226%2C474%2C326%22&OS=%226,474,326%22&RS=%226,474,326%22
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%226%2C474%2C326%22&OS=%226,474,326%22&RS=%226,474,326%22


U.S. Patent No. 6,615,814:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%226%2C615%2C814%22&OS=%226,615,814%22&RS=%226,615,814%22

[thecavemankevin]

awh dude, you got owned! I saw it, fking owned!!

meh, round and round we go....i just like it that is say after december 9th they can't sell anymore imps, nerves or shockers......and that is deffinatly good for the sport

[Muzikman]

Ok, I just got done reading most of U.S. Patent No. 6,615,814 and if I understand it right, it doesn't cover all chips. If you make a removable chip that is programable outside of the gun, it looks like you would be safe. At the same time, it also looks as if you have a display (any display) on the gun, that is covered under the patent.

After reading these different patents I am starting to think that in order to be granted a patent, you have to actually make the device before the patent is issued and the patent only covers what you built.

For instance, the above patent covers any paintball that can be connected to a remote terminal via a data link. But the patent covers everything from a physical wire, to IR, to radio waves. It's just shy of mind control. :)

[SlartyBartFast]

Couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of tards. Buy your Shockers before they’re a collectors item! :rotfl:

Just stopping distribution until the appeal goes through will HURT.

But don’t celebrate too quickly.

Those manufacturers interested in incorporating reprogrammable microprocessors into their electro-pneumatic markers, or incorporating other intellectual property protected by NPF’s patents into their markers,
“Reprogrammable Microprocessors”?!? :rolleyes:

The holders of one illegitimate patent trump the owners of another illegitimate patent.

You can’t patent the combination of off-the-shelf parts being used in a manner in which they designed to be used. :mad:

Nothing about the use of electronics, switches, valves, or solenoids is really patentable. Open up any pneumatics equipment or process automation catalogue, and combining parts won’t get you a unique or patentable marker that isn’t simply “state-of-the-art”.

But, now you have a brain dead judge believing the spin-doctor lawyers and giving justcause to such a patent. How can you legitimately uphold a patent that tries to declare using a control device designed to control ANY electronic circuit/mechanism for one specific task? It would be similar to getting a patent for using a paperclip to join two transparencies or specific type of paper and then going after every company that sells or distributes material that is delivered using a paperclip. :rolleyes:

Or if you don’t like the simplistic analogy, compare the situation to the early IBM computers and the first clone chipsets. Given a set of expected outputs and specifications, it wasn’t patent infringement for the first clones to create blackbox reverse-engineered copies of IBM chips, chipsets, or boards.

If the blackbox requirement is that based on a switch input (can’t patent switch use no matter what the SP patents claim) there’s an output movement and burst of air, well any pneumatics and electronics designer can pull up a catalog from Festo, Clippard, MAC, Microchip, Atmel, or any other electronic or pneumatic component manufacturer and build a control board and mechanism that wouldn’t infringe on any legitimate patents. I know that it’s not quite as simple as that and there are SOME patentable concepts that might bite someone doing concurrent development and who arrives at an IDENTICAL implementation, but close enough.

But, I suppose that if the courtroom arguments were simply on the basis of which of two wrongs was the most right the judge may have had no further choice. But making that further choice would have saved the next victim of the “I can pay my lawyers more than you can” game from having to buckle to legal bullying.

The best case scenario as far as I see it is that SP smartens up and changes their attack not to appeal the invalidation of their patent but to argue that the WDP/NPF patent is ALSO illegitimate. Hopefully SP will lose enough money to make it hurt but not so much as to leave the industry at the whim of another illegitimate master.

[WARPED1]

I am an SP supporter, from a products point of view. I never cared for the legal crapola they pulled.
More importantly, who is NPF? And will AGD and AKA start making thier e guns once all the smoke clears?

[Muzikman]

NPF is WDP's parent company. This was a fight between SP and WDP.

EDIT: In my early paintball career I sis a lot of shopping at SP. They are only 45 mins away. I have been to their old warehouse a ton of times, I had delt with them a lot and even played at the same field as the AA Am team back in the mid 90's (was even asked to join the team). At that time I thought they were good guys. As time went on and as the dealings with SP got harder and I started to realize they did not care for their customers I started to dis like them. It finally came down to where I was buying my gear else where as i did not want to deal with them at all.

I guess this story is to show, that once a layal customer even started to hate Smart Parts because of the way they went about to make more money.

BTW: I am starting to feel the same way about NPS. They are not sitting real well with me at the moment.

[Mr. Mouse]

good thing i got my shocker and all the upgrades before this happened ^.^

[Lohman446]

LMAO.. watch Microsoft get word of this reprogramable microchip and sue the crap out of everyone... then all markers will have a dysfunctional windows program.... wait for about 3K shots and the inevitable reboot and then make your move.

[hitech]

Well, it depends on what they are considering a "reprogamable" chip. They they count that as any chip that you can place code on...then SP is screwed as how do you make an electro marker without a brain.


You could use a 555 timer chip. It won't give you many features, but it would work.


Anyone know where we can read the patent involved or the ruling?

[Mister Sinister]

No way did WDP do this just for the greater good of the sport... It wouldnt make good business sense to just squash SP... If they do that then they really have to go after everybody much in the same was a SP was doing. Their best move would be to charge a per marker liescen fee on the patent. You cant deny that SP doesnt sell markers I know way too many guys with impys and shockers. So what could be better for WDP than to just let SP keep selling them yet they make 10 bucks or whatever off each marker. Money that they are getting for something that they have no development, manfucturing,marketing money wrapped up in. Thats what I think you will see...

[Muzikman]

Hitech, take a look at the bottom of my long post. It shows both patents.

After reading over the "Programmable chip" patent, it looks like they are more concerend about being able to link directly to the gun with a device that is able to transfer data to and from the chip. I couldn't find any place in there where it said you couldn't remove the chip, reprogram it and put it back in the gun.

[SlartyBartFast]

For instance, the above patent covers any paintball that can be connected to a remote terminal via a data link. But the patent covers everything from a physical wire, to IR, to radio waves. It's just shy of mind control. :)

You mean that Jim Drew doesn't hold the Mind Control Patent?!? :rofl:

There is NOTHING special, unique, or patentable about links, onboard programming, or using a dispaly. All of that is just state-of-the-art/run-of-the-mill electronics.

Now, placement of a screen in a SPECIFIC configuration or a SPECIFIC user interface may be defendable under trademark or "trade dress".

[ej_y4]

Im glad to see smart parts lose, but this may make things alot worse.

[hitech]

The holders of one illegitimate patent trump the owners of another illegitimate patent.

You can’t patent the combination of off-the-shelf parts being used in a manner in which they designed to be used. :mad:

Nothing about the use of electronics, switches, valves, or solenoids is really patentable. Open up any pneumatics equipment or process automation catalogue, and combining parts won’t get you a unique or patentable marker that isn’t simply “state-of-the-art”.

But, now you have a brain dead judge believing the spin-doctor lawyers and giving just cause to such a patent.

That sums up my feelings and beliefs as well (thanks for saving me the typing time ;) ). The patent system is out of control... :mad:

[Muzikman]

You mean that Jim Drew doesn't hold the Mind Control Patent?!? :rofl:

There is NOTHING special, unique, or patentable about links, onboard programming, or using a dispaly. All of that is just state-of-the-art/run-of-the-mill electronics.

Now, placement of a screen in a SPECIFIC configuration or a SPECIFIC user interface may be defendable under trademark or "trade dress".


Well, I'll agree with what they got should not be patentable...but the fact is they have the patent.

What ever happened to Jim any way? He take a long walk off a short pier?

[hitech]

Patent 20040134476 (thanks Muzik) does NOT apply to an eMag. Following is claim 1. All other claims refer back to claim 1 either directly or indirectly. I sure wish there was a patent attorney here that could either challenge my interpretations (or agree with them ;) ).



1. A pneumatically operated projectile launching device, comprising: an electro-pneumatic flow distribution device configured to transfer compressed gas through the electro-pneumatic flow distribution device to a pneumatic mechanism to open a bolt.

[Muzikman]

Nor would it cover sear trippers (ie. spyders) if that is correct.

[68magOwner]

good thing i got my shocker and all the upgrades before this happened ^.^

or not, when it breaks (trust me, it will) who can you run to if SP is dead

[Mr. Mouse]

Ydna...

[FallNAngel]

I pulled this from the Shocker forum on PBN:



JURY REACHES VERDICT IN NPF v. SMART PARTS PATENT CASE

A four-day jury trial on NPF's allegations of patent infringement against Smart Parts concluded Thursday, December 9, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The jury found claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,311,682 (the '682 patent) invalid for obviousness. Claims 21 and 39 of U.S. Patent No. 6,615,814 (the '814 patent) were not found to be invalid for obviousness. All three claims had previously been found to be infringed in a November 17, 2004 Memorandum and Order. Several post-trial issues remain pending and Smart Parts is preserving all of its legal rights.

Damages in the amount of $109,070 were awarded to NPF as a reasonable royalty for Smart Parts' infringement and an injunction prohibiting Smart Parts from future infringement of claims 21 and 39 of the '814 patent was entered following the jury verdict on damages.
_______________

This does NOT affect Smart Parts' ability to market, sell, and distribute its Shocker, Impulse, and Nerve paintball guns and will not detrimentally affect the quality or performance of its markers in any way.
_______________

Smart Parts has already taken all the necessary steps to comply with the terms of the injunction. Smart Parts' dealers and distributors therefore do not need take any action with respect to their continued sales of Smart Parts' products. The injunction does not apply to markers sold by Smart Parts before December 9, 2004.

Any dealer inquiries should be directed to Smart Parts at (724) 539-2660.

[Magaman]

Yup... It's all here in this Post... ;)

Edit: this was for Hitech... I hadn't refreshed in a while... :p






Now...what is interesting is this.

In August 2004, WDP (NPF) won against SP in Oregon. The ruling there was that the patent for the "electronic" marker was not held solely by SP but should also be granted to both WDP and SP (Both names on the patent). U.S. Patent No. 6,474,326

http://www.paintballchannel.com/news/industry/story04341.php

Now, in December 2004 the Wisconsin courts say that WDP holds the patent for the "reprogrammable microprocessors" use in paintball guns. U.S. patent number 6,615,814

http://www.68caliber.com/news/industry/story04594.php

This puts WDP in a very powerful position. Now I am sure these two court battles were not cheap for WDP, so how are they going to get their money back? Is it going to be by lowering the price of their guns and trying to sell more of them? Is it going to be by charging a $1 per gun licensing fee to other companies for the use of the "electro" gun and any gun that uses the "reprogrammable microprocessors" (Since they do hold rights to both patents). My guess is that they will charge companies a decent fee...not a small fee...but we can hope.

On the other side of this. SP still holds the patent on the "electro" gun. So they can still require a license fee. What I am not sure about, and maybe if there is a patent lawyer in the house they can answer it. If WDP makes a license agreement with company 'A' in regards to U.S. Patent No. 6,474,326 can Smart Parts turn around and require a license fee also?

All this really did was take a sticky and ugly situation and turned it into tar.

What I would have rather seen was the Oregon courts throw out the validity of the patent totally, not give WDP the rights to it as well.


BTW: Here are the two patents in questions:

U.S. Patent No. 6,474,326:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%226%2C474%2C326%22&OS=%226,474,326%22&RS=%226,474,326%22
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%226%2C474%2C326%22&OS=%226,474,326%22&RS=%226,474,326%22


U.S. Patent No. 6,615,814:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%226%2C615%2C814%22&OS=%226,615,814%22&RS=%226,615,814%22

[Muzikman]

I pulled this from the Shocker forum on PBN:


Well damn, that doesn't seem like all that much money.

The saga continues...

[rabidchihauhau]

those of you having an issue with the reprogrammable chip thing don't understand patent claims.

It is perfectly acceptable to apply an existing technology (chips) to a new and novel application (paintball gun control) and receive a patent for it.

They did not get a patent on the chip.

Geez.

[Muzikman]

No, they got a patent on the ability to reprogram/retrieve data from that chip while it is still in the gun.

ie. You can not have a datalink cable any more with out paying a license fee to WDP. You also can not have an LCD (and maybe even an LED) screen on your gun without paying license fees to WDP.

[Magaman]

Reprogramming a chip off of a Marker is no different than reprogramming while on the Marker... The fact is, as long as there is a Programed Chip that works to fire the Marker programmed before or after being placed on the Marker, SP is SOL...

My question is, what if SP uses a single burn programmed chip? i.e. Non-Reprogrammable...


Hitech, take a look at the bottom of my long post. It shows both patents.

After reading over the "Programmable chip" patent, it looks like they are more concerend about being able to link directly to the gun with a device that is able to transfer data to and from the chip. I couldn't find any place in there where it said you couldn't remove the chip, reprogram it and put it back in the gun.

[rabidchihauhau]

those damages probably aren't the 'punative' part of the final decision.

claims 21 and 39 of the '814 WDP patent obviate the need for claim 10 in the other patent (the one that was found by the jury to be invalid - so SP's web site says);

if you want to have an electronic paintball gun that can have an electronically controlled dwell time and that can be analyzed and programmed remotely, you step on these claims.

The SP press release puts about the best face they can on the situation, although it is directly contradictory to the WDP press release.

[m-98]

I'm not familiar with patent law so I won't spectulate, but what does this mean for AGD?

Edit

This may be a stupid question, but what is meant by reprogramable? Does this mean that SP guns will no longer have Rebound or other modes of fire that can be changed? I'm probably wrong but I just felt that it was best to ask.

[SlartyBartFast]

claims 21 and 39 of the '814 WDP patent obviate the need for claim 10 in the other patent (the one that was found by the jury to be invalid - so SP's web site says);

if you want to have an electronic paintball gun that can have an electronically controlled dwell time and that can be analyzed and programmed remotely, you step on these claims.


So, what I want to know is this:

If someone markets a marker that has the BLATENTLY OBVIOUS functionality of having a reprogrammable chip with an external link and a display screen what are the chances of WDP managing to win in court?

I mean come on. :mad:

Serial, USB, IR connections on anything and everything electronic are OBVIOUS. Chips are designed specifically for dozens of different input/ouput options and reprogramming options.

If Jim Drew can get all excited about whatever he called his four wires and two connectors it can't be all THAT special. :rofl:

Fine. There may be no prior art of using some of these blatently obvious applications in paintball markers prior to the WDP patent, but there are HUNDREDs of cases of prior art in all kinds of pneumatics and electronic control systems.

Trademark violation for size placement and shape of the screen I can understand. But if you slap an industry standard USB, serial, or Firewire connector on the bottom of the grip frame, what's patentable? If you use EXACTLY the pinout for reprogramming a chip as per the manufacturers product data sheet. What the :cuss: is patentable?

If only I had patented using a solenoid in a marker back in the late 80's when I was arguing with the TWIBS on rec.sport.paintball, or later when I was being laughed at for suggesting that a 555 timer could make the original shocker into a selectfire automatic..... :cuss:

[FallNAngel]

M-98: If in doubt, ask :)

It means that the chip can't be reprogrammable. You could mess with dwell electronicall through a variable resistor to extend the dwell time (think old Angel LED's). It won't be as precise as digital, but it'll work.

As for AGD, as far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with the electronic gun patent... From what I gather, things haven't changed for AGD. I'm not a lawyer or anything, so I can't say for sure.


*edit*
Thinking again, I'm not sure they'd really even have to go so far as to use a variable resistor. Just use a chip that can only be burned once. Using the chips own memory should suffice in storing the dwell / rebound settings. This basically means the chips can't be reprogrammed is all... they'll just have to do chip or board swaps to update the firmware.

[SlartyBartFast]

It means that the chip can't be reprogrammable. You could mess with dwell electronically through a variable resistor to extend the dwell time (think old Angel LED's). It won't be as precise as digital, but it'll work.

Microsoft really screwed up huh? They could have dominated the computer world by patenting user controlled variables in programs. :rofl:

These paintball patents make about as much sense as that. :tard:

Honestly. If these patents made any sense don’t you think that all the various digital equipment manufacturers would be rushing to do the same each time a new technology comes out?

Patent and LCD screen on the back of a digital camera, or adding a computer standard connector to download images...

Maybe such stupidities ARE patented in other industries, but good-god that’s retarded.

Just had an idea. I wonder how Atmels lawyers would react if a manufacturer called them up and pointed out the fact that the NPF/WDP patent is infringing on sales of their various communication components and circuits?

I think they'd take a VERY dim view of some manufactuer in a fringe industry telling them how they can use and market their very own patented technologies. :nono:

Maybe that's where all the paintball manufacturers went wrong. They should have signed on some REAL heavy hitters to go up against SP in the first place. A little lawyers letter demanding that the restriction for sales to the paintball industry should be included in the switch and circuit product data sheets. :p

It would certainly result in a quick ?WTF? response and some very high powered lawyers opinions.

[Muzikman]

Hmm..reading that post makes me wonder. Could you try and get the component mfg's to get involved? By one company holding a patent that will not let other companies use things such as off the shelf switches, chips, LCD screens, etc....could you convince the mfg's to get involved to increase their sales?

[hitech]

Just had an idea. I wonder how Atmels lawyers would react if a manufacturer called them up and pointed out the fact that the NPF/WDP patent is infringing on sales of their various communication components and circuits?


Now there is a very interesting idea. :headbang:

Anyone have contacts?

[jekyll]

On the other side of this. SP still holds the patent on the "electro" gun. So they can still require a license fee. What I am not sure about, and maybe if there is a patent lawyer in the house they can answer it. If WDP makes a license agreement with company 'A' in regards to U.S. Patent No. 6,474,326 can Smart Parts turn around and require a license fee also?



I doubt either of them can use that patent anymore. If SP tries to sell the rights to the patent to a company NPF can sell it to them for much cheaper so that SP does not get any profit and vice versa. (I could be wrong though, I don't know much about law.)

[ScatterPlot]

[QUOTE=hitech]You could use a 555 timer chip. It won't give you many features, but it would work.
QUOTE]

There was a thread on this a little while ago over in the Workshop I think, and someone said that a 555 would be a bad idea because of some deal with temperature affecting it's capacitance and hence screwing up the time. But that's just what I heard.

[Muzikman]

There was a thread on this a little while ago over in the Workshop I think, and someone said that a 555 would be a bad idea because of some deal with temperature affecting it's capacitance and hence screwing up the time. But that's just what I heard.

The idea is that it can be done. Would it be the best solution is not really the point.

[hitech]

Everyone has been focusing on paintball markers (guns) as the only prior art. Well, in an effort to include everything possible the writers of these patents define a paintball marker as a "pneumatic projectile launching device". The machine that makes Perfect Circle Paintballs is a pneumatic projectile launching device. It just doesn't launch them very far. ;) Tom even referred to it as such (he called it a pneumatic delivery device). However, I believe that it COMPLETELY fits the definition used in patent '814. Now, if it was controlled by any sort of computer prior to the filing of the '814 patent, it would indeed be prior art.

Wouldn't it be nice if their own attempt to be vague were their undoing? :D

[BeaverEater]

This battle will go on for a long time. To bad we've already lost some companies along the way.

[MindJob]

LMAO.. watch Microsoft get word of this reprogramable microchip and sue the crap out of everyone... then all markers will have a dysfunctional windows program.... wait for about 3K shots and the inevitable reboot and then make your move.


Yeah, then you get the blue screen of death on you LCD screen

[Chris42050]

This battle will go on for a long time. To bad we've already lost some companies along the way.
Aint that the truth.

Also everyone wants paintball to get bigger and have recognition and stuff like that. I have been playing on and off for 12 years. I think paintball was a lot better when almost no one knew about it. This is what happens when you get an activity or sport big and recognized. It gets taken over by big crappy companies looking for money.

[B.A.M.]

... It wouldnt make good business sense to just squash SP...
R u serious. Less competition means that there will be less options so more sales for Wdp.
Also i hope that this will allow a window for agd to create a new electro gun. I just wish that all of this sueing stops cuz it way out of control.`

[Glickman]

Im glad to see smart parts lose, but this may make things alot worse.

wdp is doing exactly what "everyone" hated sp for

wdp is just getting a better base case before they take on other companies, and they WILL take on other companies.

"No way did WDP do this just for the greater good of the sport... It wouldnt make good business sense to just squash SP... If they do that then they really have to go after everybody much in the same was a SP was doing. Their best move would be to charge a per marker liescen fee on the patent. You cant deny that SP doesnt sell markers I know way too many guys with impys and shockers. So what could be better for WDP than to just let SP keep selling them yet they make 10 bucks or whatever off each marker. Money that they are getting for something that they have no development, manfucturing,marketing money wrapped up in. Thats what I think you will see..."

i agree exactly, this isnt to better paintball, its to better themselves, which was the argument ive heard from numerous other people, including wdp fans.

smart parts charged a royalty, leaving the possibility to continue business, while wdp has screwed over a whole company without the real chance of continueing for quite a bit after legal battles....


now everyone will go senario and everyone will be happy! :D

[hitech]

wdp is doing exactly what "everyone" hated sp for

wdp is just getting a better base case before they take on other companies, and they WILL take on other companies.

Do you know this for a fact? Or are you just posting a WAG?

They very well may be doing that. However, we won't know until it happens...

[Glickman]

Do you know this for a fact? Or are you just posting a WAG?

They very well may be doing that. However, we won't know until it happens...

dunno what WAG is, but yes, i am assuming (*** outta you. and o you get the point :D )

yes, it is just waiting for now, but from what they are doing right now, it seems what is most likely (opinion, take it or leave it :p )

[hitech]

WAG = Wild Arsed Guess... And you know what they say about opinions... ;)

I, too, figure that is what they will probably do. However, Tom and Jon Rice were friends. So, there is a little hope yet... :D

:cheers:

[Lohman446]

Did anyone consider this, as bitterly divided as this court case was we are left with the idea that SP may have the rights to market an electronic marker - that WDP also holds that right. SP has taken out a lot of loans (supposedly) to cover the lawyer fees. Anyone see a marketing agreement - like SP + Dye, or SP + NPS that makes both companies come out ahead. Who "owns" PSP right now... I see SP offering WDP a foothold here, perhaps a chance to "juggle" a combination of Angels into the SP teams and getting a right to whatever they need.... once they have there rights settled in court perhaps they will both calm down and do what is in the best interest of both their businesses. I don't know how much hositility exists between them...

[NewMagMan21]

I didnt read through all the posts so tell me if this has been said.
But isnt it funny that Smart Parts " Kings of all Patents" got got screwed up the.... anyway because of a patent. Even the old slogan was "Winning, We Got A Patent On That Too"

[Gunther_mag_user]

Smartparts press release regarding the above.

A four-day jury trial on NPF's allegations of patent infringement against Smart Parts concluded Thursday, December 9, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The jury found claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,311,682 (the '682 patent) invalid for obviousness. Claims 21 and 39 of U.S. Patent No. 6,615,814 (the '814 patent) were not found to be invalid for obviousness. All three claims had previously been found to be infringed in a November 17, 2004 Memorandum and Order. Several post-trial issues remain pending and Smart Parts is preserving all of its legal rights.

Damages in the amount of $109,070 were awarded to NPF as a reasonable royalty for Smart Parts' infringement and an injunction prohibiting Smart Parts from future infringement of claims 21 and 39 of the '814 patent was entered following the jury verdict on damages.
_______________

This does NOT affect Smart Parts' ability to market, sell, and distribute its Shocker, Impulse, and Nerve paintball guns and will not detrimentally affect the quality or performance of its markers in any way.
_______________

Smart Parts has already taken all the necessary steps to comply with the terms of the injunction. Smart Parts' dealers and distributors therefore do not need take any action with respect to their continued sales of Smart Parts' products. The injunction does not apply to markers sold by Smart Parts before December 9, 2004.

Any dealer inquiries should be directed to Smart Parts at (724) 539-2660.

AS OF DECEMBER 10TH, 2004,

SMART PARTS COMPLIED WITH THE INJUNCTION BY MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES TO NERVE, SHOCKER AND IMPULSE MARKERS.

SMART PARTS IS CONTINUING TO SHIP ITS NERVE, SHOCKER AND IMPULSE MARKERS. NO MARKERS SOLD SINCE DECEMBER 10TH INFRINGE.

DEALERS NEED NOT WORRYABOUT PAST OR FUTURE SALES OF ANY SMART PARTS MARKERS.

THE DAMAGES COVER ALL INDIVIDUALS AND DEALERS WHO PURCHASED NERVES, SHOCKERS AND IMPULSES PRIOR TO DECEMBER 10, 2004.

[personman]

Looks mighty familiar ;)
http://www.automags.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1724170&postcount=41
A few posts up :)

Anyway I'd like to see what becomes of this...

[phelix]

yes, yes it does, and dumb****s still fail to read the very important and visible portion set off by underscores:

This does NOT affect Smart Parts' ability to market, sell, and distribute its Shocker, Impulse, and Nerve paintball guns and will not detrimentally affect the quality or performance of its markers in any way.

[DiRTyBuNNy]

yes, yes it does, and dumb****s still fail to read the very important and visible portion set off by underscores:

This does NOT affect Smart Parts' ability to market, sell, and distribute its Shocker, Impulse, and Nerve paintball guns and will not detrimentally affect the quality or performance of its markers in any way.

But Smart Parts has not yet released what exactly they did to said markers to get around the injunction imposed by the court..that I would like to know...

EDIT:
After looking on PBN I found out that a person reportedly working for SP stated that they just locked all boards after 12/10 so they can't be reprogrammed.

[FallNAngel]

After looking on PBN I found out that a person reportedly working for SP stated that they just locked all boards after 12/10 so they can't be reprogrammed.

I guessed something very simliar to that, which was that they'd just switch chips that are one time flash.

[LaW]

Just skimmed over some of the responses. Just want to comment on people that are concerned about WDP doing what SP has done. Its just a part of any growing industry. The bigger companies eat up the smaller companies. The industry of the past was built on friendships and the good of the sport, but now the industry is actually developing into any other industry where they are after money first. Does this suck? Sure but its where most growing industries end up. Now we have to stop letting industries control our sport and take control of it ourselves.

[Jackel411]

I got that email from WDP today at my work email... made me giggle....

Let me make a few points if they were already made.. then sucks for me :) Im to lazy to read three pages :)

1) Whats going to happen with the companies that already paid SP.. isnt that grounds for a counter suit on the basis of wrongly accusing a company for infringing a patent you do acutally have..

2) Think of all the private label " customs " Sp does.. how many companies got screwed there.. isnt that a law suit waiting to happen too?? Shocktech , Freeflow , Toxic ( Cousins bleh ) . Adrenalin , Eclipse to name some of the big boys.

3) SP id a major sponsor and supporter of the NXL , now if they are forced to bail on there contract do to money issues couldnt Ole Dick "Stroke Boy" Clark sue SP on default of contract.. hmmm..

4) Not a legal issue thing of all the teams they will probally cut loose now because of lack of funds to cover them.. Dynasty , Miami Effect , Strange , and Ton Tons.

5) One more... now.. if SP does go under.. who would want to buy it , I bet WDP.. a facility and a staff in the US to manufacture there guns on US turf. Thusly loosing the import tax on the current angels.. I may be wrong but I still belive there all made in England.


Glad to see that Smart Parts will probally get there proverbial skirt screwed off.. bout time.

[NewMagMan21]

Just for me too know (CUZ iM DUMB) .
Why would SP go under I mean really what were the actual damages to there company. I just skimmed through all this and saw a $100,000 fine would that damage a company like SP to breaking??

[Jackel411]

Newmagman21.. Taken directly to the email sent out to the industry and stores...

"Following the jury trial, the court granted NPF’s
motion for a permanent injunction, preventing Smart Parts from selling any infringing markers from
December 9, 2004, forward. This injunction will last for the life of the patent, until October 14, 2019.
The jury verdict has reaffirmed NPF’s decision to protect its intellectual property rights. NPF has "

Now from what I heard from through my connections and lines , is that this isnt going to bode to well with the kiddies.. Trust me even if they change one thong to get past it , SP guns may be looked upon as being a white elephant.

Ive seen this happen before in the WGP vs. AKA lawsuit ,

[OmniM]

This wont touch SP a bit...sadly...

... they will just lock the chips.

... but if you change the ROf or Dwell or sth like that, are you re-programming?

[Jackel411]

Kinda sorta yes..

[rabidchihauhau]

Slarty and others:

you're forgetting about 'field of invention' when you all spout off about things like 'they don't deserve it', 'this kind of thing has been used for years by computers, etc'.

The field of invention in this case is firearms (class 24) - not computers (or anything else). The linking, reprogrammability and etc - as applied to pneumatic projectile launching devices - IS unique and WDP has laid claim to all of that - and gotten it.

Is it obvious that once you have a chip in a paintball gun that you could re-program that chip from an external device? Yes, probably. However, the METHOD for accomplishing that, within the unique environment of paintball guns, is not obvious, and therefore patentable.

Muzikman,

the '814 patent starts with claim 1 which says:

A paintball gun (having)
communication with a remote terminal
an input
a pneumatic system for firing a paintball (that communicates with the input)

and so forth

the key here is that the gun has certain functionality that is covered by the patent as well as the remote terminal, programmability stuff.

In other words, if you combine a pneumatic launching device with the chip/remote terminal/programmability, you are infringing.

[MindJob]

Hopefully, all of this BS and the cost involved to pursue all of these lawsuits will come to an end on their own. Smart Parts and WDP cant keep suing one another into oblivion. I bet soon this will all just come to an end.

[SlartyBartFast]

you're forgetting about 'field of invention' when you all spout off about things like 'they don't deserve it', 'this kind of thing has been used for years by computers, etc'.

The field of invention in this case is firearms (class 24) - not computers (or anything else). The linking, reprogrammability and etc - as applied to pneumatic projectile launching devices - IS unique and WDP has laid claim to all of that - and gotten it.

The fact that they got patents based on such claims doesn't validate them. The Patent process is screwed up. You can get a patent for virtually ANYTHING as long as you pay the money, fill in the paper work, and write in confusing enough legalese that the patent office yawns and decides to leave it all up to the courts. Then, the poor buggers you try to screw have to come up with tons of cash to overturn the patent or amass a war chest full of cash to defend themselves in court.

The value of patents these days has little to do with the value of the items being patented. The value of a patent these days is purely as a legal weapon. It’s cheaper for the victims of patent bullies to pay a licence fee than it is to fight the patent in court. Burden of proof is on the wrong side IMO.

Regardless of the invention "class" picking up the specification sheets for any of the components clearly spells out exactly how to accomplish all the "unique" paintball applications. How to attach and drive a display device, how to attach an IR transceiver, where to wire the connectors on standard connectors to connect to external devices...

If you take an electronics control systems course, a robotics course, or any automation course, does the course talk about "fields" of use? Damn no. They teach you how to use basic microcontrollers to control and monitor everything from washing machines, to toasters, to rocket systems.

Additionally, how can a manufacturer in some industry ban the use of a common component’s basic functions? EVERY microprocessor comes with instructions and diagrams on how to permit in-circuit programming. The equipment to perform reprogramming with the chip removed or in-circuit is readily available from a plethora of third party vendors as well as the microcontoller manufacturers.

All the communication methods claimed under the NPF/WDP patent are covered in publicly available standards and protocols. Those protocols make NO mention of limiting themselves to any industry or application. If you can ask yourself the question “How can I tell the current setting in my marker?”, find the applicable standard or protocol and then apply it in its intended fashion, then so can anyone else. The use of standards and protocols is simply state-of-the-art, not unique or new.

Or are we to pretend that if you find a use for USB, serial, or parallel communication or that if you find a way to use TCP/IP internally in a process instead of over a computer network that you can make the standard unusable to everyone else in your industry even if it is publicly published? Drawing an imaginary line around the grip frame to disallow the use of standard industry protocols and wiring, while using those very standards inside the control circuit is rediculous.

If the NPF/WDP patents were for a new unique way of communication and reprogramming, I’d be more inclined to believe that they actually did research and were deserving of patent protection. But their “innovation” was little more complex than a noob with a lawyer and enough money thinking “What new device could I stick a display screen on?”

But, there’s another REALLY good point that has been brought up. The plethora of references in these paintball patents to “pneumatic devices” opens up prior art to many if not all the easily copied industry standard applications currently in use by industrial automation designers. Can’t hide behind pathetic argument of “field of invention” when the patents all clearly lend themselves to interpretations covering the whole pneumatics field.

Give the problem of a bolt, the need to reciprocate, the need for a control circuit, the need to monitor and adjust the circuit, and VOILA. Even the worst designer employed by Archer-Bradley, Festo, Clippard, SMC, etc would come up with a pneumatically driven microprocessor controlled system with some sort of user interface and display screen.

The manufacture of certain paintball components is certainly unique. The shocker bolt, the mag blow forward design or lvl10. The placement of LCD screens, much like the angle of the grip frame, are certainly worthy of Trademark protection. But you aren’t going to convince me of the patentability of electronics industry standards and protocols. No matter what field you use electronics in, you’re in the electronics field. Heck, the fact that you have to hire workers from that field to do the design work and NO independent research or development was done outside the electronics and computer field to manufacture or program the control circuits really defeats the “paintball field” argument.

An additional thing puzzles me about the various paintball patents. The ones that are generating the most trouble are the ones that I thought violated a general rule about patents. That is, you can only patent specific implementations not ideas. The claims covering virtually all communication possibilities seem to fail on two grounds. Firstly, they’re trying to patent publicly available standards and protocols, and secondly, they’re aptenting the IDEA of communicating with a paintball marker or the IDEA of using a display sceen or external programming device. The SP patent fails (failed?) on the same grounds. It’s not patenting a specific electropneumatic marker, but the very IDEA of electropneumatic makers.

But this is still all just IMO. Maybe the patent business IS that screwed up though. But, although I’m not a lawyer, I tend to feel that it’s really more a case of “you won’t win unless you try”. If you’ve got the money and moxy, it’s in your best interest to play legal bully to lockout competitors by exploiting a sick system.

I think I’ll send a letter off to the Atmel legal department (Sales contacts for the USA: http://www.atmel.com/dyn/general/contact_list.asp) and also see if there isn’t a developer’s discussion group I could query about this whole mess. See what they have to say about all this stupidity.

Patents USED to be about true advancement (although still with losers and profiteers). The telephone was a true EUREKA moment, even if Bell’s application for a patent squashed another’s hopes as their simultaneous development was rendered useless. The TV was another great invention, the discovery that FM was better suited to transmit the signal noise free. Then of course the inventor was screwed by Westinghouse because the patent specified as specific frequency so Westinghouse copied all the equipment, and submitted a ‘new’ patent that was identical but covered all other (or just different) frequencies.

But this crap over paintball markers is a pathetic squabble of “Nyah, nyah, I plugged it in first. And I got the patent. PThhhpppt.” :rolleyes:

Don’t really know why I care that much. But it does make me glad that I’m a salaried employee.

[Skoad]

can we dance yet?

[Paint-Fool]

No no not just yet...we need to wait a while before dancing. I should have kept my piece of junk impulse I would have set it on fire and danced around it. :D

[hitech]

I think I’ll send a letter off to the Atmel legal department (Sales contacts for the USA: http://www.atmel.com/dyn/general/contact_list.asp) and also see if there isn’t a developer’s discussion group I could query about this whole mess. See what they have to say about all this stupidity.


So, did you do this? I'd be very interested in hearing their responce.

And, thank you, again, for saving me all that typing time. I couldn't have possibly said all that any better. :hail:

:cheers:

[SlartyBartFast]

So, did you do this? I'd be very interested in hearing their responce.

Not yet. I'm recovering from writing that last post. :sleeping:

When i get a reply you can be assured I'll post it here.


And, thank you, again, for saving me all that typing time. I couldn't have possibly said all that any better. :hail:

:cheers:

Thanks for the compliment. And I think I'll have that beer before I do any more...

:cheers:

[rabidchihauhau]

The specification of a patent application lays out (or should) the territory that is being addressed by the invention.

The broadness of the claims (ie, any method available within the electro-magnetic spectrum for transmitting a signal between a transmitter and a receiver) is defined well enough (electro-magnetic) that its valid. They didn't claim 'any transmission medium that will ever be invented. They specificed it. The examiner gave it to them.

The fact that programming protocols exist does not in any way affect the claims - wdp only has their claims within the scope defined by the patent - generally, pneumatic projectile launching device, specifically, a pneumaticlly operated gun that fires frangible projectiles, even more specifically, a paintball gun.

The Rice patents are paragons of specificity when compared to some of the claims in SP patents. More than once I've seen the phrase "a means for" in one of their apps. THAT could literally cover everything anyone ever thinks up.

Any patent attorney will tell you that you must write your claims as broadly as possible. IE

A game involving two teams of 1 or more players
the game of claim one that has a time limit
the game of claime one that has a scoring system
the game of claim one that has an objective

a game involve two teams of 1 or more players that has a time limit of between 3 and 15 minutes
the game of claim x where the scoring system is based on how many players have been tagged

etc., etc

its up to the PTO to determine how broad they're going to allow it to be.

Is there a lack of understanding on the part of the PTO about our field of invention? yes.

Are the WDP patents too broad - no. You want to make a pneumatic launching device that shoots cabbages and that has programmability - go right ahead; there are enough engineering problems to be solved in going to a larger, less uniform, more vegetably projectile that I'm sure you could get a patent issued.

[SlartyBartFast]

Are the WDP patents too broad - no.

Says who? Granted WDP was a little less wide ranging than SP. We'll see what Atmel has to say...

Can anyone find any patent covering basic display functions and use of electronic components in any other industry?

Now reading the 814 patent, the only issue seems to be in the claims:


[/url]http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%226%2C615%2C814%22&OS=%226,615,814%22&RS=%226,615,814%22[/url]
1. A paintball gun including a data link for transferring data to and/or from a remote terminal.
2. A paintball gun as claimed in claim 1, wherein the data link provides a wired connection to a remote terminal.
3. A paintball gun as claimed in claim 1, wherein the data link provides a wireless connection to a remote terminal.
4. A paintball gun as claimed in claim 3, wherein the connection uses radio waves.
5. A paintball gun as claimed in claim 3, wherein the connection uses infrared radiation.
6. A paintball gun as claimed in claim 1, wherein the data link comprises means for transferring data to and/or from a remote data carrier.
7. A paintball gun as claimed in claim 1, wherein the gun does not have an integral display.
8. A paintball gun as claimed in claim 1, wherein the gun has an integral display.
9. A paintball gun as claimed in claim 1, having a display which is removably connected to the gun.
10. Electronic apparatus, comprising a paintball gun, a terminal and means for transferring data and/or communicating between the gun and terminal.
11. Apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the data transfer means uses a wire connection.
12. Apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the data transfer means uses a wireless connection.
13. Apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the data transfer means uses a removable data carrier.
14. Apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the gun has an integral display.
15. Apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the gun does not have an integral display.
16. Apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the gun has a display which is removably connected to it.
17. Apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the terminal is selected from the group comprising: a computer; a hand-held device; a wearable device; a gun component; a gas regulator; or a component mounted on a gun or gas regulator.
18. A paintball gun having a detachable display.
19. A gas regulator including means for transferring data to and/or from a remote terminal.
So, at issue wouldn’t be the “reprogramability” but the idea of a remote data link. Did SP use these?
But from the description, they throw in a lot of VERY standard software and hardware functionality.
You want to tell me the reporting of fault codes is patentable? Which car manufacturer is reaping all the benefits of asimilar patent in the automotive industry?
Why weren't their high priced lawyers not smart enough to apply for a patent in every emerging field that might use computers and fault codes?


The Rice patents are paragons of specificity when compared to some of the claims in SP patents. More than once I've seen the phrase "a means for" in one of their apps. THAT could literally cover everything anyone ever thinks up.

The Rice patents get pretty heavy on the “everything to do with electronics” generalities.
This one: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6003504
Seems to be an “everything with a microswitch” claim.

This one:http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=25&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1='fault+code'&OS="fault+code"&RS="fault+code"
Seems to be an “everything with a microcontroller, display, and fault codes” claim.

But then again the system is pathetic:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=41&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1='fault+code'&OS="fault+code"&RS="fault+code"
That one seems to claim that sticking standard maintenance data into a database is worthy of a patent. :rolleyes:

[AGDlover]

i say AGD should go in for the kill and kill SP for magnets.....SP's guns have magnets right?

[Muzikman]

That is not true. I currently have a patent pending and have had to make quite a few changes to it so that it can get pushed through. I am at the point now where it's probably not worth any more of my money to try.




Any patent attorney will tell you that you must write your claims as broadly as possible. IE

A game involving two teams of 1 or more players
the game of claim one that has a time limit
the game of claime one that has a scoring system
the game of claim one that has an objective

a game involve two teams of 1 or more players that has a time limit of between 3 and 15 minutes
the game of claim x where the scoring system is based on how many players have been tagged

etc., etc

its up to the PTO to determine how broad they're going to allow it to be.

Is there a lack of understanding on the part of the PTO about our field of invention? yes.

Are the WDP patents too broad - no. You want to make a pneumatic launching device that shoots cabbages and that has programmability - go right ahead; there are enough engineering problems to be solved in going to a larger, less uniform, more vegetably projectile that I'm sure you could get a patent issued.

[phantomhitman]

this does nto hurt sp in anyway except for the $100k slap on the wrist. from what info is posted sp has already annoucned they have stoppped shipping their guns with the reprogramable boards and fixed the problem. within a few weeks sp will be back in full throttle with stock boards in their guns.

[DiRTyBuNNy]

Well...I've actually started a thread being discussed by the general public where I'm not completely hated...hahahaha...I'm proud of myself..

[phantomhitman]

after thinking it over, i do indeed hate dirty bunny ;) jk man

wdp won this small case, but ti will be interesting to see if they go after anyone else. There are tons of baords out now that wdp could control if they are still being distributed. hopefully people will wakeup at the paintball companies (aka-agd-icd-dye) and challenge sp to put up or shut up. That will not happen, to much to risk, but oh well :cheers:

[DiRTyBuNNy]

after thinking it over, i do indeed hate dirty bunny ;) jk man

wdp won this small case, but ti will be interesting to see if they go after anyone else. There are tons of baords out now that wdp could control if they are still being distributed. hopefully people will wakeup at the paintball companies (aka-agd-icd-dye) and challenge sp to put up or shut up. That will not happen, to much to risk, but oh well :cheers:

it's ok...I still get heat about the Femmes thread I started a long time ago..(but strangely not from the girls on the team I do know...figure that one out..)

[rabidchihauhau]

SBF -

says me. You're still over-looking the context within which those claims are made, which is specifically for 'paintball guns'. The WDP patents would not give them any claims in any other field of invention; they could not go after someone building electronic coffee makers with displays, or hooking it into a home computer net, or controlling it remotely, as an example.

Muzik -

the fact that you have had to cut back your claims doesn't invalidate what I said. You wrote them as broadly as you could, hoping to get as wide a terrain as possible. Now you're whittling them back to satisfy the PTO. If you hadn't done it, you wouldn't be in the process now of finding out how far they'll let you go.

[wanna-b-ballin']

jeez roguefactor. i thought this was new news, and i had my hopes up that smart parts was in trouble. but then i saw the date on it. you bursted my bubble.

so why did they continue to sell the guns mentioned in the patent, and then produce the ion too?

[KayleAGD]

One thing to remember in all of this is SP is notout in all of the legal fight. They bought patent insurance to cover any fight over their claims. It is the insurance company fighting the fight.

Kayle

[bound for glory]

who cares?