Is PTP wrong in what they've done regarding a pneumatic trigger?

[teufelhunden]

As it says; do you believe that PTP is wrong in its protection of its patent regarding pneumatically assisted triggers?

For those who are out of the loop, here's a nutshell;

Earlier this year, Deadlywind released a video of a mechanical frame with the pull of an electro. It's viewed as the way to make guns go fast without having to deal with the SP patents. Deadlywind says that legal protection needs to be put into place and then it will be released. Then, in October, RRFireblade releases a video of a mechanical trigger rocking really hard on a mechanical autococker. He works for PTP, who, since 2000, had been waiting for patents to go through for their own pneumatic trigger. Deadlywind speaks of legal troubles, and the waiting begins. Then, recently, Deadlywing announced that they will not be producing the hAir trigger because PTP owns the patent and the two could not reach an agreement.

Gather what else you would like from the million other threads on the topic, but do you think that PTP was "wrong" in protecting their patent? Use your own interpretation of the word wrong.

[SAW]

If the patent is indeed valid, than I see no problem with PTP's actions. As "wrong" as they may seem, it's legal: thus the move is "right".

[Lohman446]

I don't see how the vast majority of people on this board have enough knowledge of PTPs internal workings, Deadlywinds internal workings, patent law, intellectual property rights, or the host of other factors that contributed to various decisions to be qualified to answer that question.

[shartley]

If the patent is indeed valid, than I see no problem with PTP's actions. As "wrong" as they may seem, it's legal: thus the move is "right".
I would add though that they don’t even “seem” wrong. What PTP is doing can in no way be considered wrong on legal, moral, nor any other issue.

[DiSoRdeR]

I do not see how protecting their own product is considered "wrong", look around every company is basicly doing the same exact thing. Sure the hAir will not be produced and is put on the shelf, but how will all these threads about it change any of that?

[Deltree]

Well it is really about whether the patent is valid. The hAir may or may not fall under PTP's patent. PTP does have a right to protect their patent if it is valid in this situation.

[WenULiVeUdiE]

They had every right to. DW is a smaller company than PTP so they knew it wouldnt have been hard to beat them. Just because he tempted us does not mean PTP should not protect their patents. Although it would have been nice to see DW succeed, that's business.

[SAW]

Shartley: In my opinion, PTP has done NOTHING wrong. It was used for effect. ;)

[teufelhunden]

I guess I was more or less looking for an opinion about what little we know about the negotiations.. that they didn't work out. Should PTP have lowered their terms to the point that DW could produce a hAir? I work off the assumption that the licensing cost would've been too high, as Colin said the money to produce the hAir did not exist.

[Chronobreak]

colin made a pneu trigger

he didnt know ptp was working on a patent for a similar one he had no way of knwing

thy have prior art

as for as ptp owning a pneu trigger patent i find kinda fo unfair since there has been previous pneu tiggers for years. itd kinda be like patenting an autococker

but ptp has the rights know end of convo

if they want to share with dw then thats upto them

they shouldbnt be bashed becasue they did things right.

[j.storm]

I'll just say that it's too bad that it's come to the point where you just can't make a cool toy for you marker without someone saying "wait, you can't do that, we did it first" (which may not technically apply here) instead of "Hey, you're making the game better. Welcome aboard". The days of innocence are gone :(

[Magaman]

There is nothing wrong with what PTP did... It sucks that they aren't willing to play with competition, but they didn't do anything wrong. Had PTP been a member of AO and ran all the stuff that Colin did, then nobody would be asking these questions today...

I would rather see someone like Colin and DW have a chance to compete with PTP, at least with the Automag, but I'm not going to blame PTP for choosing to lock this product from competition.

I still feel that PTP would NOT have thought about creating a Frame for the Automag had it not been for DW drawing there attention to it. I mean, how many big companies are there that are all that concerned on wether the Automag Owners are being properly serviced and attended to. The majority of the companies making products for the Automags are local AO guys, small businesses, and Mag Owners...

$10.00 says that PTP would have never even thought about developing an Automag Frame if they weren't for them dealing with DW on the patent issue...

[Eric Cartman]

I don't see how the vast majority of people on this board have enough knowledge of PTPs internal workings, Deadlywinds internal workings, patent law, intellectual property rights, or the host of other factors that contributed to various decisions to be qualified to answer that question.

Exactly! Why is it that people can't seem to understand this?

I'm assuming that PTP did nothing wrong and that this is just a timing issue - they got the patent first. What if it had been the other way? What if DW's protection had gone through first? Would they be the bad guys?

Were the licensing fees that PTP wanted unreasonable? No one but PTP and DW know that answer to that!
Are the two frames very similar in design? Again, no one but PTP and DW know!

Now here's a question. Let's say for the sake of argument that PTP chooses to ignore DW's hAir trigger and DW goes ahead and markets it. Then another large company comes along with a similar frame that infringes on PTP's patent. Has PTP weakened their position by not going after DW? I know nothing about patent issues, so that's just an honest question.

[lbonettosd]

................

[BD_Paintball]

The only reason people became mad about it is because DW showed us a vid and all this other stuff hyping the product. Lots of people got excited about it but they didn’t know that PTP already made one but didn’t release a vid or anything. PTP did the right thing by looking out for the company and they are not wrong in any way. If they made a vid when they started the trigger I don’t think people would be mad because then DW might of not made there trigger. Or people would know that another version is going to come out. PTP did nothing wrong at all.

EDIT: its funny how th person who voted yes does not respond. hmm osustevie

[TheDuelist]

Again, we apologize for keeping everyone waiting on this. We do hope to revive this in the future, either when we can again justify allocating resources, or once we form partnerships that enable us to do so.

Can we give this a rest people.

[Automaggot68]

Can we give this a rest people.

Yeah. I'm tired of these threads.

[SlartyBartFast]

PTP’s actions aren't "wrong" in any way, shape, or form.

What's wrong and deeply putrefied is the patent system.

It used to be that only the substantial and functional could be patented. Ideas were not. Indeed, until they ran out of storage space, the patent office required a working example of each and every object or mechanism that was applied for a patent.

Now many, if not most, of the patents issued are based solely on abstract ideas. It used to be that you had to work feverishly to produce a working item and you were then rewarded for your ingenuity by being granted a limited monopoly to stop others from stealing your hard effort and labour.

Now, those that can work the patent system can instead patent the absract idea of something and then punish the person or persons who actually put all the hard effort into making it work. Even Tom Kaye’s patent for the motorised loader is questionable under classic patent definitions. If it was really worthy of a patent there would be a working prototype. Is there one? Same goes for the patents held by other AO members that are usually held in high regard. Or for the many other fictitious and imaginary paintball loader systems and markers that seem to have been patented not to protect an actual product but instead to place a legal road block in front of anyone more ingenious who might succeed in producing it.

These types of patent effectively slow the competition down until the concept is actually made to work by the holder of the patent or to simply try and benefit from someone else’s labour.

I’m not saying that PTP “worked” the system. But, unless the internals of both pneumatic triggers are identical the patent should not cover both. The traditional interpretation of patents covered the implementation, not the outcome. So, as the “idea” of pneumatically operating a trigger could not be patented, only the specific use/arrangement of components or specific component designs could be patented.

But, while I cannot say that PTP’s actions are “wrong”, I do submit a strong challenge to show us the proof. Let’s see a working prototype. Heck show the world a detailed picture/drawing of the working internals. After all it’s protected by patent.

Patents should be protecting honest businesses from having in production products from being copied. Not hindering the introduction of production ready products (and I’m not convinced that’s the case for either the hAir or the Pneutrigger) by a competitor who was faster.

Patent Offices, lawyers, and judges all suck. As do the characters of those who want to play the system to benefit from the labours of others or can’t accept others arriving at the same conclusions as they do by different paths . Note that I’m not saying “by the SAME path”. If it was by the same path, then tough. First to the finish line wins the spoils.

In this case, the parties should sit down, compare designs, and determine if they want to proceed. The owners of the patent need to see if the new design is an exact copy and decide if they will pursue, the challenger needs to see if they can effectively prove that their components/arrangement is sufficiently unique, that their implementation uses unique principles or components, or that both are sufficiently “obvious” implementations of the same concepts.

But, legally and financially, the first person with a patent has a HUGE advantage over the challenger. If only ONE thing was to change in the patent process it would be probably best that patents be cheaper to invalidate. Say that the callenger must pay all costs if they fail to invalidate a patent, but the patent holder pays all costs associated with invalidate all or part of a patent.

Read the following (if you haven’t already) and substitute the idea of piecing together common hardware components instead of programming code to arrive at similar (or identical) outcomes. Most paintball patents are as absurd as the software ones and for the same reasons.

http://www.around.com/patent.html

But all that said, discussions here on AO or anywhere else are a waste of time. If you want a real change you need to take it to the next level and mobilise your political representatives.

[Muzikman]

^^^^

Agree 110%.

[than205]

My belief is that they won't deliver.
Certainly, not for the Mag. Particularly, now that Tom is no longer in the picture.
If PTP cannot license the idea reasonably to someone (DW) who is willing to make one for the mag, what makes anyone think that PTP will bother to tool up for the Mag?

The bottom line is that it's a shame. There is no other marker more deserving than the Mag for this upgrade.

[tony3]

EDIT: its funny how th person who voted yes does not respond. hmm osustevie

LudavicoSoldier, Muzikman, nirvana1234, osustevie, than205, tony3, UThomas

Theres all the people just so you know.

IMO, what they did legally was right. They didn't do anything wrong at all. Then again, this could of helped the growth of the sport and mechanical guns a lot. We would have 2 great mechanical frames on the market instead of just 1. How many electros do you see? Just 1, no tons. I guess I would like to see the DW frame come out and do good. I think they would of ran with the idea of it. PTP from past experiences will make a half good product and it will turn into nothing and be in the closeout section of pbgear.com for 5 months.

[WARPED1]

That's just business what PTP did, it's how democracy works. Last time I checked, PTP was a business, so is Deadlywind, they just beat them :).

[SlartyBartFast]

Anybody have a link to the PTP patent?

Thanks.

[Flossabe]

That is the whole reason for having patents, to keep what you invented yours, if the secondcoming trigger setup infringes on the patent than i see no reason in protecting it. Not to say that PTP should go and sue for $10,000,000 or any thing.

[BD_Paintball]

LudavicoSoldier, Muzikman, nirvana1234, osustevie, than205, tony3, UThomas

Theres all the people just so you know.

IMO, what they did legally was right. They didn't do anything wrong at all. Then again, this could of helped the growth of the sport and mechanical guns a lot. We would have 2 great mechanical frames on the market instead of just 1. How many electros do you see? Just 1, no tons. I guess I would like to see the DW frame come out and do good. I think they would of ran with the idea of it. PTP from past experiences will make a half good product and it will turn into nothing and be in the closeout section of pbgear.com for 5 months.


so you voted they are wrong b/c they wont make the frame as good. PTP will still have a new frame come out. and how do you know that DW's frame will be so much better then the PTP frame. I bet you have never held/shot ect. the DW frame. and you said they didnt do anything wrong at all but you still voted they were wrong. that does not make sence. he asked if they were wrong in protecting the trigger. you have to look out for your buisness befor you look out for some other company.

[SlartyBartFast]

That is the whole reason for having patents, to keep what you invented yours,

Which I don't think ANYONE has a problem with.

My overall problem is that in so many cases these days there's no "invention" being protected.

Alexander Graham Bell didn't get to patent the IDEA of talking over a wire and then take his sweet time getting around to building it and making it work. Nor did Edisson get to patent the IDEA of an incandescent lightbulb.

Both had to work nonstop and feverously to build a working prototype before someone else suceeded.

Indeed Bell only successfully PATENTED his invention first. Another inventor is claimed to be the first to have a working prototype. But the important fact is that a WORKING prototype was required. In that regard PTP has undoubtably a valid case and a good patent.

Then the other problem with modern patents. Many are similar to claiming a separate patent for the use of lightbulbs in different applications. Nothing new invented, just applying someone else's invention to an obvious application. Pneumatics or electronics for triggers for example. :p

And on those grounds I question PTP's grounds for a patent. Unless there is something far more astute than a three way and cylinder being used.

[JoshK]

No. Even though it royally sucks for us all. PTP Did it first, and made a patent first. They hopfully will eventually release it and we will (for the most part) be happy. This also leaves time for DW to work on this other "project" hes planning.

[WARPED1]

Alexander Graham Bell didn't get to patent the IDEA of talking over a wire and then take his sweet time getting around to building it and making it work. Nor did Edisson get to patent the IDEA of an incandescent lightbulb.

They should have and could have patented them..

[bunker17]

teufelhunden: truthfully i don't know how much did you ask for licensing from DW but i think you guys should had work something out because like fireblade said in another thread they are a 2 person operation and selling 50 frames would have done them real good. Maybe just licensing them for the mag and keeping the other markers for yourself or something like that. but has a business move it was okay. As fellow paintballers maybe there should had been some further negotiation.

[WARPED1]

See, problem on these forums is everybody thibks anyone can use everyone elses ideas. Thats called communism. See, we live in a democracy where you can protect your intelectual property. Unfortunately, the way the system works now, you don't need to be the inventor, just the guy/company who filed for the patent first. If you don't like it, tough bullets, move to Taiwan, where patents don't hold sway as far as I knowm

[tony3]

Well I'm moving to cuba ;)

[teufelhunden]

Warped, I believe the comparison you want to make is capitalism to communism, not democracy to communism.

And bunker17, I do not work for PTP. I simply feel that PTP is getting dicked around on AO because of what happened, and that they don't deserve it.

[teufelhunden]

Tom, I see you voted yes; as someone who was on the inside of the DW side of this, at least for some time, I'd like to hear why you feel this way.

[WARPED1]

Another thing I've noticed, nearly every poster here wants ONLY AGD, Deadlywind, Rouge, and Tuna to do anything involved in paintball! Diversity is good guys. I mean, look at cockers. Nearly every company makes cocker parts or accessories.

[Muzikman]

Another thing I've noticed, nearly every poster here wants ONLY AGD, Deadlywind, Rouge, and Tuna to do anything involved in paintball! Diversity is good guys. I mean, look at cockers. Nearly every company makes cocker parts or accessories.

I don't think anyone cares who makes them, as long as the parts are made. Think about it, where would the cocker be today if one company said, we have the right to the automation system used and would not let any other company make items for this system without paying high licensing fees?

[peewee]

Well I'm a freak because in the past all my double triggers have been benchmarks. They "work " for me. I voted No , I dont believe that they are wrong in protecting thier interest. Its sad that DW & PTP couldnt come to an agreement or work together as a team to get this product out to the consumer. I think that working together & combining together on the project would have given them a great mix & probably a great product that would have been more cost effective for us. :cheers: Dont know if what I just wrote makes sence only had 1.5 hours sleep in the last 48.

[WARPED1]

I don't think anyone cares who makes them, as long as the parts are made. Think about it, where would the cocker be today if one company said, we have the right to the automation system used and would not let any other company make items for this system without paying high licensing fees?
Exactly, but most here want only those I mentioned to make stuff. If the tolerences were easily available to aftermarket companies, mags would fly off the shelf! As far as I know, AGD keeps thier tolerences of thier products top secret. Thats why the ANS valves failed IMO. And why nearly no company makes mag stuff, which sucks, because the mag is a solid marker. The Emag could probably keep up with most guns out there.

[bunker17]

what i said is not to just give that it should had been negotiaed so both business could work out their things
teufelhunden: what i meant to say is that they are not doing anything wrong but that, at least i wouldn't have mind if they have found a way to make a deal and yeah they are getting the tough in the forum

[Eric Cartman]

Tom, I see you voted yes; as someone who was on the inside of the DW side of this, at least for some time, I'd like to hear why you feel this way.

As would a great many of us. Care to shed a little light Tom?

[SlartyBartFast]

They should have and could have patented them..

You clearly paid no attention to what I wrote and don't understand the fundamental change in patenting philosophy since Bell and Edison's time.

They could NOT have patented the ideas. No more than Jules Verne could have patented the submarine or rocket ship. Arthur C. Clark and Issacc Asimov could have been much richer men if they patented the ideas from their imagination instead of writing Sci-Fi. And that's the fundamental sickness of the aptent office. The people verifying the patents have no idea whether what they are reading is fiction or not.

An idea is easy to have. Dime a dozen. The REAL effort is actually getting something to work and to then put it into production.

Previously, the patent office required a fully operational prototype before a patent was issued. So only the first person to successfully build a working device could claim to be the inventor. Not just someone with an overactive imagination and a desire to get rich on other people's efforts.

[rabidchihauhau]

Slarty,

there are issues with the PTO, but you are focusing on something that is not the problem:

You cited A.C. Clarke and his communications satellite. What Clarke wrote up was not "hey, stick a ball in geosynch and bounce signals off of it" (idea), but all of the necessary orbital mechanics, signal reflection methods, using geosynchronous orbit, wavelength data, loss of signal data, etc., etc., etc. (prototype). BIG difference between the two.

Likewise, the PTP patent is not an 'idea' application (hey, use gas to return the trigger and assist in the pull), but a detailed explanation of several different PHYSICAL methods by which those goals are achieved. Not only that, but PTP (as long as I was there) BUILT PROTOTYPES before writing up the patent app. We did it that way for two very good reasons: one, as you said, a truly VALID patent is built and exists and two, doing so allowed us to find alternative methods for accomplishing the same thing and thereby strengthen the scope of the claims.

The PTP patent is completely valid as, among other things, it doesn't just cover one implementation, but utilizes THE SAME SYSTEM for blowback guns, blow-forward guns and autococking guns - quite a feat of UNIQUE engineering.

The article you quoted is, obviously, from somone who shares your views about patents, and they are off on a tangent as well. The article itself said this " "The wise people, with good patent lawyers, patent a whole system," says Thomas P. Hughes." That 'system' STILL has to go through the process of meeting ALL of the requirments for a patent (uniqueness, no prior art, non-obviousness) - whether it covers a single described application (method for pouring water from a cup into a bucket) or a 'system' (method for transferring fluids from a resevoir to a larger resevoir). The 'scope' of the application does not in itself confer invalidity.

Furthermore, the issues with program based applications and business method applications are far enough removed from physically embodied applications to not really apply; a program can't get enough protection from copyright (for example) to confer control on the developer - they need to describe the individual actions of their code (broadening the scope, perhaps too far) in order to protect their 'idea'. Doing the same thing in a different programming language would get right around a copyright.

I agree that there are problems at the PTO, but they are ones of scale, not fundamental problems with the whole system.

[SlartyBartFast]

Likewise, the PTP patent is not an 'idea' application (hey, use gas to return the trigger and assist in the pull), but a detailed explanation of several different PHYSICAL methods by which those goals are achieved. Not only that, but PTP (as long as I was there) BUILT PROTOTYPES before writing up the patent app. We did it that way for two very good reasons: one, as you said, a truly VALID patent is built and exists and two, doing so allowed us to find alternative methods for accomplishing the same thing and thereby strengthen the scope of the claims.

Hey, cool down. I didn't mean to infer the PTP patent was just an idea. SO, cool, you made prototypes. So did a great number of people. Does each PTP claim predate all the various tinker built and other pneumatic triggers?

But, I have a big issue with "several different PHYSICAL methods by which those goals are achieved". If you come up with an idea (hey, use gas to return the trigger and assist in the pull) and then brainstorm all the possible ways and put them in a patent, you have defacto patented the idea. And whether you made prototypes of each type is really not important. The simple fact that you then choose to market only one type of the device really shows that the purpose of the patent is not to protect your intellectual proerty rights on one device but to stiffle all possible competition from differing devices. Indeed the marketing and production of a single varient should be used to invalidate all the extraneous claims as your abandonment and non-intent to produce the varients is obvious and self declaired.

IMO, and my understanding of the classical interpretation of patent law and applicability, EACH "physical" method should be a SEPARATE patent. AND, each patent holder should be held to produce and market their product within a very short period of time. Only, then could there would be true competition and the patent office could really live up to their claims of encouraging competition and development.

The "non-physical" should not be patented nor should patents be allowed to cover all physical variations so as to effectively patent the basic idea (WDP patenting ALL different uses of screens and outside programming, for lack of a better example as I find those claims must be invalid on other grounds).

[WARPED1]

what i said is not to just give that it should had been negotiaed so both business could work out their things
teufelhunden: what i meant to say is that they are not doing anything wrong but that, at least i wouldn't have mind if they have found a way to make a deal and yeah they are getting the tough in the forum
That would have been good. But since DW is only like 2 guys in thier garage, they probably couldn't afford the licensing fees, too bad :(.
But, my opinion is, if you want the trigger pull of an electro, buy an electro!!!


Slarty,

there are issues with the PTO, but you are focusing on something that is not the problem:

You cited A.C. Clarke and his communications satellite. What Clarke wrote up was not "hey, stick a ball in geosynch and bounce signals off of it" (idea), but all of the necessary orbital mechanics, signal reflection methods, using geosynchronous orbit, wavelength data, loss of signal data, etc., etc., etc. (prototype). BIG difference between the two.

Likewise, the PTP patent is not an 'idea' application (hey, use gas to return the trigger and assist in the pull), but a detailed explanation of several different PHYSICAL methods by which those goals are achieved. Not only that, but PTP (as long as I was there) BUILT PROTOTYPES before writing up the patent app. We did it that way for two very good reasons: one, as you said, a truly VALID patent is built and exists and two, doing so allowed us to find alternative methods for accomplishing the same thing and thereby strengthen the scope of the claims.

The PTP patent is completely valid as, among other things, it doesn't just cover one implementation, but utilizes THE SAME SYSTEM for blowback guns, blow-forward guns and autococking guns - quite a feat of UNIQUE engineering.

The article you quoted is, obviously, from somone who shares your views about patents, and they are off on a tangent as well. The article itself said this " "The wise people, with good patent lawyers, patent a whole system," says Thomas P. Hughes." That 'system' STILL has to go through the process of meeting ALL of the requirments for a patent (uniqueness, no prior art, non-obviousness) - whether it covers a single described application (method for pouring water from a cup into a bucket) or a 'system' (method for transferring fluids from a resevoir to a larger resevoir). The 'scope' of the application does not in itself confer invalidity.

Furthermore, the issues with program based applications and business method applications are far enough removed from physically embodied applications to not really apply; a program can't get enough protection from copyright (for example) to confer control on the developer - they need to describe the individual actions of their code (broadening the scope, perhaps too far) in order to protect their 'idea'. Doing the same thing in a different programming language would get right around a copyright.

I agree that there are problems at the PTO, but they are ones of scale, not fundamental problems with the whole system.
FINALLY! Someone who actually knows stuff about patents!

[Muzikman]

http://www.m-cam.com/~watsonj/usptohistory.html

That is a great paper on the history of the US Patent Office and how the problems we are having today could have been solved in the 1700's

[cphilip]

Exactly, but most here want only those I mentioned to make stuff. If the tolerences were easily available to aftermarket companies, mags would fly off the shelf! As far as I know, AGD keeps thier tolerences of thier products top secret. Thats why the ANS valves failed IMO. And why nearly no company makes mag stuff, which sucks, because the mag is a solid marker. The Emag could probably keep up with most guns out there.


Wrong.... in several ways....

The tolerances are no secret. The specs are easily measured on an exisiting marker. No one can keep that a secret. It never has been a secret. Anyone with lick of sense and some patiences can determine what they are. And in the Past Tom has feely given some of the CADs away for others to use if they wish.

The fact is that the Mags design Requires close adherance to certain tolerances. Not that its a secret. The marker has very little room for error and adjustment. If its built right it works. And works for a long long time! So its highly important to build every part within a very narrow spectrum of tolerances. It's the markers "timing" if you will. And many manufacturers do not wish to spend the time and money to build to those tight tolerances. For instance a Cocker can be made badly out of tolerance from one to another. Most of them in fact are. And eventualy with the right rods and such you can tweek all that out of it for the most part and make it shoot. But with the mag, if its badly off, it will just have to be remade. Nothing to adjust outside the small narrow window of shim/PT spacers and on off pin lengths. All those things working together have to match up in a very narrow window. When made correctly, They stay there for a long long time. But in the example of the cocker they keep moving around and wearing down and changing ... so you end up retiming it... over and over again...not so with the Mag. You make it right first and foremost and then leave it alone.

There is no secret kept that keeps anyone from making them. THey can make them. But they have to make them right. And then they have to make them over and over again exactly the same. Not many people can get cheap Chinese importers to do that. So anyone else that wants to do it can but its not realy gonna be done with cheap import parts. Most of those would end up in the scrap metal bin.

[bunker17]

That would have been good. But since DW is only like 2 guys in thier garage, they probably couldn't afford the licensing fees, too bad :(.
But, my opinion is, if you want the trigger pull of an electro, buy an electro!!!
!
Yeah thats why i won three but this would be cool to have 2

[Lohman446]

Wrong.... in several ways....

The tolerances are no secret. The specs are easily measured on an exisiting marker.

The fact is that the Mags design Requires close adherance to certain tolerances. Not that its a secret. The marker has very little room for error and adjustment. If its built right it works. .

Easily to what degree? I mean I can measure to within an inch pretty cheap. I can measure to within a 1/4 inch pretty cheap - but the tolerances are very tight (I don't know how tight) and measuring down to hundredths of an inch, accurately, can get expensive.

[cphilip]

Yes... its in the thousandths.... Take a look at the old PT spacers. Thats the range of adjustment. And how close the tolerances all need to be is within that. After its all assembled they all combined need to be nor more than that range. Pretty dang tight.

[shartley]

Wrong.... in several ways....

The tolerances are no secret. The specs are easily measured on an exisiting marker. No one can keep that a secret. It never has been a secret. Anyone with lick of sense and some patiences can determine what they are. And in the Past Tom has feely given some of the CADs away for others to use if they wish.

The fact is that the Mags design Requires close adherance to certain tolerances. Not that its a secret. The marker has very little room for error and adjustment. If its built right it works. And works for a long long time! So its highly important to build every part within a very narrow spectrum of tolerances. It's the markers "timing" if you will. And many manufacturers do not wish to spend the time and money to build to those tight tolerances. For instance a Cocker can be made badly out of tolerance from one to another. Most of them in fact are. And eventualy with the right rods and such you can tweek all that out of it for the most part and make it shoot. But with the mag, if its badly off, it will just have to be remade. Nothing to adjust outside the small narrow window of shim/PT spacers and on off pin lengths. All those things working together have to match up in a very narrow window. When made correctly, They stay there for a long long time. But in the example of the cocker they keep moving around and wearing down and changing ... so you end up retiming it... over and over again...not so with the Mag. You make it right first and foremost and then leave it alone.

There is no secret kept that keeps anyone from making them. THey can make them. But they have to make them right. And then they have to make them over and over again exactly the same. Not many people can get cheap Chinese importers to do that. So anyone else that wants to do it can but its not realy gonna be done with cheap import parts. Most of those would end up in the scrap metal bin.
And while some would argue that this makes Mags superior to other markers, I would suggest that it is their Achilles heel. I have seen this in the firearms world as well. By making a gun so precise and to such close tolerances, you make a gun that has no room for error of any type…. And when that error is seen, it fails to work.

I have said this time and again over the years about Mags. But no one seemed to want to hear it.

So again, while some may consider all the other marker makers lazy or somehow inferior….. they all seem to have plenty of aftermarket parts, and are in no real danger of going under. And they DO work, rather well in fact.

Please don’t misunderstand me though, I am NOT saying Mags are not great markers. In fact I am saying quite the opposite. I am just taking a realistic look at how that really has affected AGD.

[Toxic Dave]

Measuring to the thousandth is not expensive or hard, in fact you can usually get a Mitutoyo Digital Caliper for about a hundred bucks and a micrometer for about the same. Making parts to +/- .001 isn't too hard either if the shop doesn't suck, even in China or Vietnam, Canada, etc.

It would take more than one part of the same type to check tolerances.

dave

[cphilip]

And while some would argue that this makes Mags superior to other markers, I would suggest that it is their Achilles heel.

That is indeed one way to look at it Sam. It can indeed be the achillies heel. But if its right it can be the longivity of the Marker. There is some room for adjustment. Just not as much. The problem is that if its a tad off in one place... and then a tad off in another... and then another tad here and there... it magnifies itself in the end. One part being a Tad off can be managable. All of them off can be unmanagable. In this case the rail, Valve alignment and on off hole as well as its main field strip hole alignment, Grip and sear placement and Sear rod lenght as well as on off pin all add to the places things can be off or spot on. So inherent in the design for consistency is very close control of all of those things. Not as easy to pull off as some other markers can be. So yea... you could say its a liability of the design if you want. But its also its strength as you point out as well. Good analagy really.

And yes Toxic Dave, they can.... for a price. One must pay the price and pass it on to the consumer. And one must be willing to figure out who that shop is...and deal with that shop long distance...and the headaches of mistakes and long range language and potential fraud difficulties. Sometimes that costs a lot in losses trying to get consistency and not get screwed in the process and all that. But it can be done. Most other Markers don't demand it. So they can cheap out easily. As they are not trying to build something thats spot on and therefore bound to last out of the box forever. Most of them build something for short term and assume you will rebuild it all at some point or have abandoned the sport by the time it needs it.

[rabidchihauhau]

slarty,

I wasn't 'heated up' so there's no need to cool down. We're just talking the merits (or not) of the patent system as it relates to the current situation.

You can't have separate applications for each different embodiment of a design (for example, one that uses gas to assist in the return of a trigger and a magnet to assist in the pull, versus one that uses gas to assist in the return and the pull) because the second application would see the first application as 'prior art' and would not make it through the examination process.

There are very fine lines here, and its really a question of agreeing or disagreeing on where those lines actually are. For example, what is your opinion of the validity of the following:

an application for an internal combustion engine "that can utilize one of several different types of combustible fuel supplied in liquid or gaseous form"

versus

an application for an internal combustion engine "that utilizes a selector system to automatically change timing, compression and other related factors so that the engine can operate efficiently on one of several fuels, including but not limited to JP, gasoline, diesel and liquified natural gas".

In my opinion, the two are illustrative of the point you are trying to make. One is a vague reference to the idea of using multiple fuels, while the other has been engineered (and demonstrates so in the drawings and detailed description) to specifically be 'multi-fuel'.

In other words, one is an application in which the inventor is just 'trying to cover the bases', while the other is a useful, unique invention.

I'd submit that the PTP patent is of the latter kind. Everything within the application consists of RELATED embodiments of the basic concept; methods of pneumatically accomplishing the goal, magnetically accomplishing the goal, electro-magnetically accomplishing the goal, mechanical-pneumatic...

NOT just the 'idea' of using 'a means to', but a detailed description of how to go about building one that identifies the UNIQUE engineering issues and shows how to solve them.

[WARPED1]

And the knowledgable Mr. Davidson does it again. Show off! :p

[Lohman446]

Measuring to the thousandth is not expensive or hard, in fact you can usually get a Mitutoyo Digital Caliper for about a hundred bucks and a micrometer for about the same. Making parts to +/- .001 isn't too hard either if the shop doesn't suck, even in China or Vietnam, Canada, etc.

It would take more than one part of the same type to check tolerances.

dave

Let me rephrase, do you know how expensive it is to measure accureatly to the thousandth. yes I can get a set of calipers and do it, but the accuracy may or may not be to what I need, most have some margin of error in them as will my method of measuring

[Cougar]

I'll just say that it's too bad that it's come to the point where you just can't make a cool toy for you marker without someone saying "wait, you can't do that, we did it first" (which may not technically apply here) instead of "Hey, you're making the game better. Welcome aboard". The days of innocence are gone :(

It's much different when the person also wants to manufacture the product and sell it to the masses, therefore infringing on PTP's patent and buisness.

[j.storm]

Solution--Wait until PTP makes their final decision on release. If they don't release a Mag version on their product, give...and mean literally give...DW or AGD their blessing to manufacture pneumatic frames for whatever guns they choose not too. THAT would be a neighborly thing to do. Why let a good product sit and collect dust, right?

[shartley]

Solution--Wait until PTP makes their final decision on release. If they don't release a Mag version on their product, give...and mean literally give...DW or AGD their blessing to manufacture pneumatic frames for whatever guns they choose not too. THAT would be a neighborly thing to do. Why let a good product sit and collect dust, right?
Never going to happen. Sorry. It may be a good “neighborly” thing to do, but an incredibly stupid business thing to do.

The good business thing to do would be to work out a deal where everyone benefits, to include PTP. But that is not simply letting someone make money off of something you have the rights to without you seeing a single penny. That would be stupid…

But what I see happening is that if DW or AGD don’t WANT to pay or are UNABLE to pay what PTP considers fair, folks will act like PTP is the one at fault and holding everything up….. which would be untrue.

[rabidchihauhau]

shartley,

not to mention the legal ramifications of letting one company 'have' the rights, while another is being held up for a licensing fee.

While its true that a patent confers a 'limited monopoly' on the owner, such things as anti-trust, fair business practices and etc., can still come into play.

[shartley]

shartley,

not to mention the legal ramifications of letting one company 'have' the rights, while another is being held up for a licensing fee.

While its true that a patent confers a 'limited monopoly' on the owner, such things as anti-trust, fair business practices and etc., can still come into play.
Correct.

And unfortunately for some players, what is “fair” is not dictated by what THEY think but instead what the business world thinks. Sometimes businesses just can’t afford to play. And if DW and AGD fall into that category, so be it.

Heck, paintball is a wonderful game and I wish EVERYONE could play it. But I know plenty of folks who can’t afford to play. The same is true for business.

[rabidchihauhau]

I realize that many (most?) of the people posting here are of an age which would indicate little to no experience with 'the real world', but I would normally expect that to mean no commentary, as opposed to pontificating about what should be done.

But then that's paintball, isn't it?

[shartley]

Yes. To some (too much) extent.

[teufelhunden]

I realize that many (most?) of the people posting here are of an age which would indicate little to no experience with 'the real world', but I would normally expect that to mean no commentary, as opposed to pontificating about what should be done.

But then that's paintball, isn't it?

Damn, I didn't realize you were just a few months younger than my mother
:p

However, you're absolutley correct. I'm a part of that age group, but I like to think that I'm at least a bit removed from their irrational and emotional thinking regarding issues such as this due to my degree-in-progress in business as well as watching my father run a business for however many years; while I've never been involved in a patent battle, the business decisions don't change.

And hell, we're a bunch of kids who have been babied by our parents since before we left the womb and we've been brought up on the internet where everybody cares what we think! :ninja:


Rabid, I'm sure you probably can't/won't answer this question, but what type of terms was PTP trying to get for a licensing deal? DW indicated that they couldn't afford it; was it a lump sum before any production was allowed? I'd think that they could surely afford any per-frame licensing fee, seeing as everybody *says* they'd pay anything for the hAir and DW hasn't announced a price. But then that goes back to what Jay said about 50 frames not even making his payroll for the week..

[rabidchihauhau]

teufel,

you're right, I can't say anything about the terms that were asked, other than - they were extremely reasonable; There are two types of licensing agreements: those that are designed to make LOTS of money and/or to keep other people out of the marketplace (I can think of one company that engages in that kind of licensing practice and I think they make holy barrels or something) and those that are designed to encourage as many people as possible to license a product.

PTP engages in the latter philosophy. I'd love to put various hints in here - but anything I might say - other than 'read between the lines' - would give away too much info and might piss some folks off.

PS: I'm probably older than your GRANDmother - lol

[Thordic]

Did PTP ever intend on manufacturing this product or are you guys just sitting on the patent till someone pays you to make it?

[teufelhunden]

Thordic, less ignorance on this one. Ever since Jay released his video on AIR back in September, he's been talking about production... Which just so happens to be the same thing DW did.. release a video and then leave you guys hanging for months.

[Thordic]

Yet at the same time its been stated they've been working on this for YEARS.

The concept behind a pneumatic trigger isn't exactly groundbreaking cutting-edge technology. Every post about this I see "It won't be out for a while" and "If you want to license it from us, please let us know".

You add one and one together and you can make an assumption about their intent.

[cledford]

I'm cross posting this in this thread since it seem the more lively on the issue...

It *appears* that PTP and DW were developing similar products at about the same time. I even remember seeing posts from both in the workshop thread about the concept. At the time I'm willing to bet nothing was patented, at least not as it relates to the mag. Somehow PTP got the patent first and good on them for being quicker on the draw - but that shouldn’t and doesn't absolve them of what I personally call standards of moral decency, or “forward looking business practices.”

The fact is that PTP has GREATLY over the years benefited by the good graces of AGD. Anyone who knows anything about either company can attest to this. On the other hand AGD has always been saddled with PTPs less then stellar attention to detail and tolerances which has made the AGDs life a lot more complicated from the support aspect. In the end, AGD producing the mag made PTP successful, PTP did not make the mag successful because they produced bolt on parts and production "customish" versions of the AGD markers. I don’t think PTP would exist as a company today if it hadn’t been for their association with AGD back when.

Now we come to a time where IMHO the very life of Airgun Designs hangs on by a thread – with that thread being the pnu-trigger. I fully expect that with Tom gone and the HAIR now a rapidly fading memory Airgun's last coffin nail has been set. I can't over emphasize how important I personally feel that the pnu-trigger was to ANY hope of long-term viability for AGD – and now due to PTP exerting their LEGALLY available rights -PTP has signed the death warrant for AGD. That is a sorry way to repay a company that has contributed to their very existence.

I personally believe that PTP WILL NEVER produce the pnu-trigger for the mag - there just won't be enough interest in a year to make that a viable business decision. Mags are dying and needed a breath of fresh air now - every day that goes by at this point is critical. By the time PTP gets the bandwidth to work on it the critical period in which it already needed to be to market will be gone and so will mags. Don’t get me wrong I will never put down my AGD marker – but the writing is on the wall. With no electro, no “super mech,” a very cool but VERY expensive (compared to the leading competition) scenario marker, AGD has no legs under it at all.

I believe PTP is screwing AGD and all of the mag owners of whom many were also PTP customers. They could license the “pnu-trigger” patent FOR MAGS ONLY to AGD for a dollar - IF THEY CHOSE. They could even license it for a set period of time (say a year) and allow AGD or DW to run with (and assume the fincial risk) of finding out if the market for a mag pnu-trigger really is even viable. Instead I see PTP saying:

"We've got the patent so if you don't want the product and the future of AGD to die on the vine you need to pay us a lot now."

For all of the "pro-business" types out there - I don't need an economics lesson on how businesses work. PTP is well with in there rights to do what they're doing and frankly looking at immediate gain, basic business practices they are doing things fine. The catch is that there are a lot of other longer term things they are missing on and what ever financial lose they *might* incur by loosing up on the patent with regard to AGD they could EASILY mitigate such factors if they chose. Such efforts I think would pay huge dividends in the future - but PTP is being short sighted - both forward looking and to the past. PTP wouldn’t even be in business (again IMHO) had the association they had with AGD not existed. To forget that is lame, to kill a potential market that could be easily retapped later is even worse.

In the end PTP is making a calculated decision to kill AGD and it is not one that I see from any business (past or present) perspective as a good one.

-Calvin

[Lohman446]

"We've got the patent so if you don't want the product and the future of AGD to die on the vine you need to pay us a lot now."
-Calvin

Not discussing the rest of your thread, which would take internal knowledge of AGD's and PTPs present and past financials, research projects, and various other items I'm assuming you have seen the terms that PTP offered in order to make this judgement and statement?

[Thordic]

They could license the “pnu-trigger” patent FOR MAGS ONLY to AGD for a dollar - IF THEY CHOSE. They could even license it for a set period of time (say a year) and allow AGD or DW to run with (and assume the fincial risk) of finding out if the market for a mag pnu-trigger really is even viable.

This is a viable point. PTP could license out Colin or AGD (not for a dollar, but for a fairly cheap rate) to test the market. If Colin or AGD doesn't get very good sales, then PTP can say ok, we'll keep our agreement. If sales soar, then PTP can renegotiate their agreement, or take over production themselves.

It would serve to show whether or not there is a valid Mag market, at little or no loss to them. They could set a fairly short period of time on the agreement (6 months maybe?) or perhaps even a set number of units.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know if this is feasible, but it seems like it might work.

If sales go slowly, a small number of fans stay happy, and a couple people make a little money.

If sales go well, PTP realizes their product has value, and makes more money.

I can understand why Colin wouldn't want to get involved in an agreement like this, but what if PTP licensed their design to AGD perhaps?

Good idea, Cledford.

[Eric Cartman]

Cledford & Thordic both make a good point here. As far as I can see what RRFireblade said here backs it up:

K, here we go:

1) DW is a 1-2 man operation, to them 50 sales is a big deal. (Same goes for Tunaman a RogueFactor BTW) They can and afford to cater directly to AO, in fact AO is they're primary market and possibly only market.They would likely never had existed in thier current form without AO.

To me, 50 sales mean I don't even make payroll that week.



So yeah, limit it to 50 / 100 units and let's see if it flies. If it doesn't - no harm, no foul, if it does, then perhaps this will put DW or AGD in a better finacial position to negotiate a longer license.

[WARPED1]

In the end PTP is making a calculated decision to kill AGD and it is not one that I see from any business (past or present) perspective as a good one.

-Calvin
200% wrong as a fact, but as your opinion you're entitled to think it.

[SlartyBartFast]

PTP could license out Colin or AGD (not for a dollar, but for a fairly cheap rate) to test the market.

And THAT is where the business arguments don't hold water. PTP could indeed give away the liscence to AGD or DW if they so choose. Or simply say X$ per frame sold.

Any agreement would be completely confidential and not open to public scrutiney. So to say that being cheep with one manufacturer would jepordize the patent with others is completely bogus. :rolleyes:

Noone knows the details of any of the deals SP made with the vaious manufacturers and distributers. FOr all we know some of those may have indeed been for a "dollar".

It's a simple fact they MUST be either wanting some giant lump sum payment or want some other extortionate amount upfront. Otherwise, it makes little sense that DW or AGD couldn't come to an agreemet with them.

[WARPED1]

And THAT is where the business arguments don't hold water. PTP could indeed give away the liscence to AGD or DW if they so choose. Or simply say X$ per frame sold.

Any agreement would be completely confidential and not open to public scrutiney. So to say that being cheep with one manufacturer would jepordize the patent with others is completely bogus. :rolleyes:

Noone knows the details of any of the deals SP made with the vaious manufacturers and distributers. FOr all we know some of those may have indeed been for a "dollar".

It's a simple fact they MUST be either wanting some giant lump sum payment or want some other extortionate amount upfront. Otherwise, it makes little sense that DW or AGD couldn't come to an agreemet with them.
No. The patent office checks on these things I believe, to make sure fair and balanced business practices are being used. Places get patents and offer lisencing to make money. That's business, if you don't like it, move to China.

[SlartyBartFast]

No. The patent office checks on these things I believe, to make sure fair and balanced business practices are being used.

As far as I understand it, once the patent office issues the patent they have NO involvement unless someone contests the patent. Even then they only look at the patentability.

Infringement and liscencing disputes are resolved through the courts.

If it's otherwise, please point me to the correct documetation.

[WARPED1]

As far as I understand it, once the patent office issues the patent they have NO involvement unless someone contests the patent. Even then they only look at the patentability.

Infringement and liscencing disputes are resolved through the courts.

If it's otherwise, please point me to the correct documetation.
See, my statement of "I believe" meant I wasn't positive, only assuming! :)

[rabidchihauhau]

slarty,

the patent is a 'limited' monopoly.

Courts have ruled that while a patent holder is allowed to license one person and not another, or charge one fee to one and another to another, those agreements are still subject to other business law. Within the context of case law for what is allowed and what isn't allowed, standard 'fair' business practices still apply.

For example; You can license A for a dollar a unit and 15% of gross sales and B for ten dollars a unit and no sales % and C for five thousand a year and no royalty payments and, so long as those are reasonably fair for the market place, you're ok. You can grant an exclusive, and you're ok. You can't weild it in such a manner as to establish a monopoly or gain unfair advantange - all of which is determined on a complicated, case by case basis.

[nippinout]

For all of the "pro-business" types out there - I don't need an economics lesson on how businesses work. PTP is well with in there rights to do what they're doing and frankly looking at immediate gain, basic business practices they are doing things fine. The catch is that there are a lot of other longer term things they are missing on and what ever financial lose they *might* incur by loosing up on the patent with regard to AGD they could EASILY mitigate such factors if they chose. Such efforts I think would pay huge dividends in the future - but PTP is being short sighted - both forward looking and to the past. PTP wouldn’t even be in business (again IMHO) had the association they had with AGD not existed. To forget that is lame, to kill a potential market that could be easily retapped later is even worse.

They are blind the the great potential here. There could very well be a pneuMag explosion, but PTP doesn't have the balls to lead the way. They don't think the market is there. They want us, the mag owners to buy more mags. How about this, CREATE the demand. PTP is using circular reasoning to satisfy your excuses for inaction.

[Thordic]

Yes but DW / AGD could be granted a limited license for mags only and it wouldn't have any legal problems as long as it was an exclusive license.

[SlartyBartFast]

Courts have ruled that while a patent holder is allowed to license one person and not another, or charge one fee to one and another to another, those agreements are still subject to other business law. Within the context of case law for what is allowed and what isn't allowed, standard 'fair' business practices still apply.

So how's another company to know? Nobody can know except the two contracted parties.

Certainly nobody but SP and their partners know what the liscencing for the 'electro' patent involves.

http://www.zeromillion.com/entrepreneurship/patent-licensing.html

It seems the only time equal treatment of licensees becomes an issue is with exclusive patents.

Can you point me to a single piece of case law that shows that it wouldn't be possible to liscence for nothing with only royalty payments per items sold?

Otherwise it all just sounds like a way to make a leagal excuse as a bargaining tool. (Honestly, we're not being greedy, we don't want to have to give it away to others. :rolleyes: )

[shartley]

All of this makes me think to myself…. Who is NOT greedy in the arrangement?

Okay, PTP wants other companies to PAY to produce a product they have the legal rights to and folks act like PTP is the greedy one. How about those companies that don’t want to pay the rightful owner of the patent to produce the product? Are they any LESS greedy than PTP? I am sure PTP didn’t ask for so much that each party (DW/AGD) would make NO money. I can not think of a valid reason why PTP would rather NO product be made and thus NO profit for anyone, to include themselves.

It comes down to them not liking the split of profits then, right? They (any company who wants to produce the product) have to determine if the licensing fees and possible royalties are worth paying given what will be left after making the product. And if they determine that it is NOT worth it financially, they don’t make the product.

But then again that happens for all aspects of production. All costs are factored in and often times the simple cost of materials can knock a product out of serious consideration for a company.

I have a novel idea… why not turn the tables… Why don’t DW and AGD simply pay whatever is asked and make the product for their beloved customers? I say if they don’t, THEY are being greedy and should be publicly chastised for their selfishness.

:headbang:

;)

[SlartyBartFast]

All of this makes me think to myself…. Who is NOT greedy in the arrangement?

I think it's a case of who wants to take the risk.

Seems for such a low volume item, there's shared risk that needs to be taken. But not knowing the specifics of the demand or the offer no-one can judge greed or fairness.

Seeing as AGD is the only one to have expressed intrest and as much as publically committed themselves to production until "patent" issues entered the picture, in this case it's difficult to see anything other than patent siting profiteering going on.

Unless AGD production was more than a year away and PTP was certain of producing the item. But have they even demonstrated a Mag product themselves? I'm still more incredulous with the patent system than PTP's behaviour. Look at how I voted for cripes sake. But how a device for firing cockers and a device for firing mags could be close enough design wise to qualify for one patent is beyond me.

Still waiting for a link to the patent please. Or any other link beside the "I know what I'm talking about, truct me" talk.

But, PTP seems so non-committal as to be admitting they have no plans of manufacturing it for Mags. If they haven't demonstrated a product specifically for Mags, ANY money they might make from a limited agreement Mag-only liscence would be better than their current prospects.

[Muzikman]

Still waiting for a link to the patent please. Or any other link beside the "I know what I'm talking about, truct me" talk.




If you ask enough, one of us might actually go and look:)

Here ya go:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=7&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=paintball&OS=paintball&RS=paintball

[SlartyBartFast]

A mechanical, pneumatic, magnetic and/or electronic method for assisting the user operation of a trigger and/or actively and rapidly returning the trigger mechanism to its firing position at the completion of a firing sequence in a paintball gun. The trigger assistance mechanism reduces the amount of force required by the user to move the trigger to begin the firing sequence. After the firing sequence has been completed, the trigger assistance mechanism provides assistance to the trigger to move it to its pre-firing resting position. Alternatively, the trigger assistance mechanism replaces the mechanical linkage between the trigger and the cocking/firing mechanism of the paintball gun such that a pneumatic actuating ram is used to initiate the cocking/firing sequence.

That's even worse than the all encompassing crap that was granted to SP (and partially struckdown). :rolleyes:

Any and every trigger assist device is covered by that verbage. :mad:

It's broad enough in its claims to try and claim the RT effect in the XValve and the magnetic trigger from the Emag.

Claim 11 "the assistance mechanism comprising a force element positioned behind the trigger" could try and claim a trigger spring is covered it's so broad. :rolleyes:

But is that really it? That patent is focused on an electronic method. Not a fully pneumatic one.

I'd say just produce the hAir if that's the patent they'd have to fight.

But, I can't see the images on this computer...

[Muzikman]

I only assume that is it as it's file date was 2001 and granted in 2004 and everyone keeps talking about how long it took to get the patent.

[SlartyBartFast]

I only assume that is it as it's file date was 2001 and granted in 2004 and everyone keeps talking about how long it took to get the patent.

Come-on then Rabid. Post the link.

Or, behind all the posturing defending patent language and the process, are you too embarrassed to have to defend the actual wording of the patent in question?

[spantol]

A little hearsay never hurt anybody, right?

I've heard (on the Guild, IIRC), and I'm sure someone will be around to correct me shortly, that that's really only half of what was intended to be patented. The USPTO deemed the original application too broad for one patent, so only the first half was granted. An application for the second half, the one that really covers the hAir stuff, is pending, and has retained the original priority date.

Edit: Here's (http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=9013&messageid=1098051378)a link to that post...

[WARPED1]

I think it's a case of who wants to take the risk.

Seems for such a low volume item, there's shared risk that needs to be taken. But not knowing the specifics of the demand or the offer no-one can judge greed or fairness.

Seeing as AGD is the only one to have expressed intrest and as much as publically committed themselves to production until "patent" issues entered the picture, in this case it's difficult to see anything other than patent siting profiteering going on.

Unless AGD production was more than a year away and PTP was certain of producing the item. But have they even demonstrated a Mag product themselves? I'm still more incredulous with the patent system than PTP's behaviour. Look at how I voted for cripes sake. But how a device for firing cockers and a device for firing mags could be close enough design wise to qualify for one patent is beyond me.

Still waiting for a link to the patent please. Or any other link beside the "I know what I'm talking about, truct me" talk.

But, PTP seems so non-committal as to be admitting they have no plans of manufacturing it for Mags. If they haven't demonstrated a product specifically for Mags, ANY money they might make from a limited agreement Mag-only liscence would be better than their current prospects.
For the love of God and all thats holy, Slarty, stop the whining! PTP has said they will make one for mags if economicaly feasible! The few thousand on AO who want one, is not a big enough market share though...........

[Muzikman]

For the love of God and all thats holy, Slarty, stop the whining! PTP has said they will make one for mags if economicaly feasible! The few thousand on AO who want one, is not a big enough market share though...........


After reading that patent (if that is the correct one), I don't think that is the issue right now. Now I see why Colin said that they (DW) do not beleive that the hAir infringes on the PTP patent. So if that is really the case, it's a matter of threat of legal action knowing that DW doesn't have the money to go to court. To me, this sounds like SP all over again.

[nippinout]

After reading that patent (if that is the correct one), I don't think that is the issue right now. Now I see why Colin said that they (DW) do not beleive that the hAir infringes on the PTP patent. So if that is really the case, it's a matter of threat of legal action knowing that DW doesn't have the money to go to court. To me, this sounds like SP all over again.


The threat of a lawsuit with the goal to burn money in hopes that the other company caves financially is one of the most disgusting business practices.

[Muzikman]

The threat of a lawsuit with the goal to burn money in hopes that the other company caves financially is one of the most disgusting business practices.


And it happens every day.

[bunker17]

okay there is nothing better to talk in AO so im coming back into the fight i was just wondering is there anyone rich in the AO community who could just invest in this and work the deal with PTP

[rabidchihauhau]

slarty,

I'm not embarrassed about that language at all. In fact, I'm pretty proud of this patent - both its broad scope and the specificity of each of the individual embodiments.

The broadest claim, which you find most objectionable, was re-worded to its current form at the request of and with the assistance of the PTO.

A trigger return spring is well known in the art and would most definately not be covered by this application.

Sorry, but there are still things out there that I can't discuss (I am beholden to certain obligations to PTP despite the fact that I am no longer working there.)

You will find, over time, despite what you have read, that this patent deals with solid, working embodiments and is far from the vagueness of some of the SP grants.

Being hamstrung as I am by not being able to tell the whole story, I will go back to my original statement that I am no longer commenting on this subject.