Possible Legal Issue

[MadPSIence]

Does anyone else notice both the future PTP Pneumatic frame and the current GForce 68Super have extremely similar specs and operation? Both fully pneumatic.. no batteries.. 1mm pull.. LPR assisted pneumatics..

I just have an odd feeling they could be almost one and the same.. thus maybe some future legal issues.

I could be wrong.. but they seem identical in some ways.

[Lohman446]

Does anyone else notice both the future PTP Pneumatic frame and the current GForce 68Super have extremely similar specs and operation? Both fully pneumatic.. no batteries.. 1mm pull.. LPR assisted pneumatics..

I just have an odd feeling they could be almost one and the same.. thus maybe some future legal issues.

I could be wrong.. but they seem identical in some ways.


That could be interesting to see, do you have the schematics of both systems method of operation? I assume you have looked at both of them side by side to make that determination right?

http://home.comcast.net/~allfor114all/AOIAO.jpg

[yakitori]

that has been discussed already over on PBN, but I guess since you think the site is good for nothing, you dont go there. It is not the exact same operation. Nobody knows if it will turn into a lawsuit or not, that will have to be seen at a later date. You can read up on the pnuematics in this thread.

http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1034079

I think it uses 2 lprs instead of one, so it is not the exact same design. But how it triggers the gun to fire is the point in question.

And Its made by a canadian company. Do US patents apply to canada? Im not sure. Maybe the do if you selling a product IN america. But, we will wait and see.

heres more on the gun. There are some good points in there. http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=945610&perpage=21&highlight=&pagenumber=1

[MadPSIence]

i have a feeling there must be something unique about it. this gun has been in R&D for about 5 years.. long before PTP's idea existed so the only way they could have a problem is if they didn't bother patenting it.. and now PTP has the patent.

it would be awfully low to sue them though... seeing as how they couldn't possibly be infringing and actually have a working product.

[yakitori]

why? ptp did the same thing to deadlywind w/ the hAir trigger. What makes you think they wont call the lawyers now. esp. since BE is invovled. Look at the financial power thats there now.

I also edited the posts above w/ some more info. But this is a Canadien company. I dont know how strong US patents are in canada? Maybe they could sue.

Also, you have to realize that there was already a lot of R&D before info was released on both PTPs and DWs parts in producing it.

Its Dual LPR (unlike ptp)
it has a different firing pnuematics than a mag. I dont see how someone who created a "trigger frame" can sue someone who made a totally unique "gun". If they do its thier bad, but will ppl bash ptp for making a mag frame here? No. They do however bash SP for suing.

I say let the companies do what they do, and I shoot whatever shoots good and what I can afford to shoot. It looks like this 68 is gonna cost about a grand. ouch.

[chairman_mao]

it would be awfully low to sue them though... seeing as how they couldn't possibly be infringing and actually have a working product.
Where do you get off making a statement like this? From your previous post you don't have a mechanical working knowledge of the two systems. I'll take the liberty to say you don't have schematics of either system nevermind both. I'll also venture the guess that you are not currently or soon to be a patent attorney. So how can you claim that the patent was not violated? Also IIRC the patent applicaction for PTP's frame was filed 3 years ago (or so) what is to say that their prior art and R&D doesn't extend back considerably farther than that.

Truth is we are all (well a very great majority) ignorant of how long PTP has been working on this and none of us know the operating system that is in the frrame. Thus we can at best speculate and in speculation there must be some line of thought to any conclusion and you sir have not shown any clear line of thought or any investigation into the matter at hand.

Finally I cannot fathom how it would be "awefully low" for PTP to sue for infringement. If the product is covered under a patent there should be copensation.

[magman007]

ptp doesnt care, because the 68 super wont sell. trust me, its a POS