DIY PneuMags & PTP [Archive] - Automags.Org Online Forums

Shingo

08-28-2006, 04:01 PM

IMO, whoever comes out with a complete Pneuframe would make a profit for several reasons:

1- Mags do have a following. Those who want to do something different with their mags will find this upgrade appealing.
2- Mags are highly reliable. Therefore, old mags that are sitting in the bottom of someone's closet should still work. And since the PneuFrame can be installed onto virtually every Mag, old users may want to dust off their mech markers and bring back the glory days of paintball with a little extra kick. :shooting:
3- The idea of having a marker perform as well as an electro without the concern of having to keep your batteries charged will bring in more buyers.
4- This would breath new life into the mag community meaning there will be more people buying mags and will be looking into upgrading their new marker. PneuFrames would definitly be an upgrade that any mag user would consider.
5- A lot of people can't do the DIY mod (due to lack of material, tools, skills and/or time). It would far easier to just buy the frame built and bolt it onto their mag(s).
6- Coolness Factor :cool:

Doesn't matter who comes out with these frames... DW, PTP, Pneumagger, Me or Joe-Bob... there will be a profit. The number of DIY PneuMags that have been built and the amount of Downloads I'm seeing from MY LINK (http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?t=201012) prooves it. The demand for PneuMags is out there, someone just needs to fill it.

~Shingo~

mobsterboy

08-28-2006, 05:44 PM

im not discouraging the work of pneumags, im just saying they missed the window LONG AGO.

tyrion2323

08-29-2006, 01:52 AM

im not discouraging the work of pneumags, im just saying they missed the window LONG AGO.
qft

tyrion2323

08-29-2006, 01:53 AM

But will DW's frame perform as well as PTP's frame? According to Jay, his design takes the Pneumatics to it's peak potential. No other PneuMags can compare to PTP's design. Is this just talk from the designer pumping up his ego? or is there some truth to it?

We may never know :cry:

~Shingo~
what evidence did he put forth to support these claims? I'm truly interested.

Shingo

08-29-2006, 03:36 AM

what evidence did he put forth to support these claims? I'm truly interested.

Last year when more talk about PTP's PneuMags was still going strong and very few even considered doing the DIY version, the forum had a lot of threads about PTP's frame. With the few DIY version that were available, people wondered is PTP's better...

RRfireblade (jay) who was the designer of the PTP Pneuframe was very secretive about it but simply said that the DIY PneuMags that was currently out there can't hold a candle to PTP's version (his version). He also states in another thread that the higher the input pressure for the pneumatics, the lighter the trigger pull becomes. also there is no need for ULT or an RT ON/OFF to let the frame work.

Proof... really there isn't any snce it's only talk from the designer. Very few have actually seen ptp's frame, so we really don;t know if anything jay says is true... however, if you are one of the few that have been waiting for so long for ptp to release there frame and closely read what Jay wrote on the threads, you'll have have a sense of respect for the guy. so there is no actual proof... which is why i refer to ptp's pneumag as a myth.

Jay has not said anything about the frame in a while. mainly because he's pretty fed up with the delays in the release himself and hated being pushed by AO and other people for something he had no control over.

To eaze the wait on the Pneumag frams, people started doing the DIY version. As you can see, the Pneumag Clan is growing steadily... you tell me if there is a demand for these frames?

~Shingo~

Pneumagger

08-29-2006, 05:48 AM

RRfireblade (jay) who was the designer of the PTP Pneuframe was very secretive about it but simply said that the DIY PneuMags that was currently out there can't hold a candle to PTP's version (his version). He also states in another thread that the higher the input pressure for the pneumatics, the lighter the trigger pull becomes. also there is no need for ULT or an RT ON/OFF to let the frame work.

~Shingo~

So the frame doesn't use an on/off? No offense, but the frames have gotten significantly better in the last two months. The ones now can have a 1mm <1oz pull, don't require a ULT, work with any valve, etc. Any lighter and the trigger return would be too weak. True, in jay's eyes the pneumatics may be inferior, but if they deliver results that that the users can't outshoot...why pay more for hype and a name? However, from here on out all I feel DW or PTP's frame would offer over a DIY Frame would be reliability and a good manufacturers name behind the product...well that and bolt on capapbility for non DIYers.

Personally I would buy DW's frame in a heartbeat if available.

mobsterboy

08-29-2006, 06:29 AM

So the frame doesn't use an on/off? No offense, but the frames have gotten significantly better in the last two months. The ones now can have a 1mm <1oz pull, don't require a ULT, work with any valve, etc. Any lighter and the trigger return would be too weak. True, in jay's eyes the pneumatics may be inferior, but if they deliver results that that the users can't outshoot...why pay more for hype and a name? However, from here on out all I feel DW or PTP's frame would offer over a DIY Frame would be reliability and a good manufacturers name behind the product...well that and bolt on capapbility for non DIYers.

Personally I would buy DW's frame in a heartbeat if available.

very good and valid point. Jay was prob talking about certain parts available to him that im sure a) the company had a hold on and b)that wasnt well known for pneumag conversions

As would I pneumagger, As would I. But I dont feel like getting my hopes up

RRfireblade

08-29-2006, 07:52 AM

1) PTP is still planning on doing a small run...in theory. I don't know when , I don't really care all that much.

2) The PTP version functions on a different principle and the performance blows the do it yourselfers out of the water. From what I've seen and heard the DYIers have VERY wide ranging performance results from decent to poor , hit and miss reliability , short stroking and recock issues and a host of other less then ideal results. Even pnuemagger himself has commented around the Forum that his results are like 50/50 at best (Or something , don't quote me ) and no disrepect intended.

Most of them seem to end up in Buy/Sell/Ebay only weeks after completion. Why's that? ;)

3) PTPs will not 'likely' void any warranty. We have always been authorized to make aftermarket Mags parts and I expect this to be no different.

4) Of course the PTP version will be a highly 'finished' , manufacturerd production product. Including frame , internal LPR , ASA and all associated parts. It requires no modification to any of the marker in basic terms will require very little if any tuning by the user.Think about how much the DYIer REALLY cost. All the parts and time/labor....REALLY. I hear all kinds of numbers that never include the whole picture.

Just ballpark it has to be something like this

Frame ~$100 new
Pnues ~$75
LPR ~$25
Labor ~$25 if you can order all the parts , build the whole thing , assemble it and tune it to perfection in an hour ?

That alone is $225 , which is probably minimum cost for minimum performce and so so quality of parts and construction. You even have to mod the purchased parts to get them to work. PTP was 'hoping' to be in the 200-250 range including the ASA.

There's a reason why Punishers version posted here like 3-4 years ago didn't create the stir DW's and PTPs did. It just wasn't good enough. It's not the theory , it's the execution.

Ya'll have seen the vids. Both mine and Nicads , besides subjective numbers on paper and bias over self accomplishment can anyone say theirs shoots with the ease and function of the vids?

I've yet to see anything even close to this very rough original proto and we've gotten better since ....

Insanity :) (http://premium1.uploadit.org/rrfireblade/Paintball/PnueMag1.WMV)

Even that one , you can't short stroke it and it's so easy to shoot people claimed the vid was bouncing like an electro. Come on , that is purly insane for a mech. :)

5) Yeah , the market for this product was about 5 years ago IMO. 5 years ago it would have put Emags back on the shelf. Possibly would have changed the whole industry as we know it. With all the electro controversy forcing Pro Tournys to completely fold up shop and let the manufactureres make the rules, Mech markers 'may' have been the answer to the whole issue of cheating in the Pro scene.

Today ....I wouldn't expect to sell more than 1-200 total.

6) Other than that , it is what it is. The DIYers have done an admirable job. Kudos. And PTP and DWs attempts to bring this to market have sucked. DW never had the means or finances, Tom never had the balls or stomach and PTP never had Mag market motivation.That's why I stopped making any comments to people doing thier own. If that works for you and your happy with , I'm glad. Enjoy.

So I don't know , I guess it's an internet thing why people have to beat dead horses to death over and over and over. It's cool though , no biggie. If you can build and it's good enough then build one.

Right now there is NO other possible alternative and there may never be. Until there is an alternative to even compare , these discussion are kinda silly. ;)

Guess that's it. :dance:

BigEvil

08-29-2006, 08:15 AM

RRfireblade

08-29-2006, 08:16 AM

NOW before PTP tells me to take the link off the web :ninja:

Oh , and to hopefully clear this up too.

"PTP" has never told anyone anywhere EVER to stop anything related to this product.

I've made comments to like 1-2 people informally on the net and even DW was only questioned as to his designs similarity.

Cow hunter

08-29-2006, 08:28 AM

Well put Jay :hail:

It is tough to control the 'dwell' on a purely mech pnuematic ram. The 'fire' isnt the issue, its the 'return'. So if you hold the trigger a little too long that can create a short-stroke.
would it be possible to have some sort of delay valve? like a ven that would prevent firing the same as dwell would?

BigEvil

08-29-2006, 10:06 AM

would it be possible to have some sort of delay valve? like a ven that would prevent firing the same as dwell would?

Im not sure. You really wouldnt want a 'delay'.. you want the valve to open, push the hammer forwards and back regardless if you are still holding the trigger or not.

Whats great about my Electro-Pneumatic frame is, dwell is controled electronically. Its basically a pneu-frame with a noid and board instead of a msv1. I dont have short stroke issues, probably because the ram opens and closes properly.

Pneumagger

08-29-2006, 12:37 PM

Carbon Blue

08-29-2006, 01:26 PM

i cant wait :D

RRfireblade

08-29-2006, 04:24 PM

Bigevil: that's why I prefer the use of the QEV...it allows the ram to vent pretty much instantaneously.

Jay: well put and perfectly reasonable. However...

Tommorrow when I'm taking vids of my new Xmod :headbang: , I'll get a vid of me emptying 100rnds timed through the pneumag ... we'll see how fast a DIY frame shoots. :cool:

I'm sure you can shoot it fast.

It's kinda like saying a Chevette with a SBC is the same as a Corvette since they both run 13 second 1/4s.

In this case though , your Chevette cost the same to make yourself as my Corvette. ;)

RRfireblade

08-29-2006, 04:31 PM

Not sure if anyone over here has seen this yet....

PneuCocker (http://premium1.uploadit.org/rrfireblade/Paintball/P-Bladed-3A.WMV)

This is my system on an Autococker. (I know the Vid sucks) I also have a version that removes the entire front block pneus and automates the entire firing cycle.

You'd never get the DYI to work like that on an A/C , it exploits every single flaw in the design. I''m just using that as an example at how much more precise and reliable my design is that's all. Putting on the Mag is a no brainer , I've had to design dwell into to slow it down on the Mag. Everyone who's ever shot mine swears it's electronic somewhere in there. ;)

etjoyride

08-29-2006, 05:22 PM

^WOW^ i'm not sure how i missed that one jay

Pneumagger

08-29-2006, 05:45 PM

I'm sure you can shoot it fast.

It's kinda like saying a Chevette with a SBC is the same as a Corvette since they both run 13 second 1/4s.

In this case though , your Chevette cost the same to make yourself as my Corvette. ;)

good analysis. But how many people would buid their chevette AND then Buy the Corvette. I would :D

Chronobreak

08-29-2006, 05:45 PM

jay, i believe the pneu cocker was posted here

however i dont recall anything about the front pneumatic automation...

could you make a post of that please? im sure others are interested, i kno i am and always thought it was an overcomplicated and unncesary system.

or link fi you already posted it elsewhere

RRfireblade

08-29-2006, 08:20 PM

I don't have a vid or anything. It was done on a Karnivore but WGP (Back when Bud still had some clout ) said they'd never go sans front pneus. Course they also said they'd never go sans back block back when we invented the half block/turtle design. ;)

I think the marker is still at the Palm Coast shop tho. Next time I'm over there I'll see if it;s pic worthy.

But how many people would buid their chevette AND then Buy the Corvette. I would

I know you would. We'll see what happens. If for nothing else I'd like to at least one make it to retail. ( Don't PM me Chrono , I know you have dibs :D )

mobsterboy

08-29-2006, 09:50 PM

good ANALOGY . But how many people would buid their chevette AND then Buy the Corvette. I would :D
but analysis would work within the context, up until you explain what you were talking about

Pneumagger

08-30-2006, 11:01 AM

but analysis would work within the context, up until you explain what you were talking about
BAH... The Literary Patrol :argh:

Engineers use analysis...not analogies. They only use analogies when their audience can't grap the situation mentally. We atempt to generally refrain from blowing people's heads up. Sorry if gave you headache :rofl:

^^^find the split infinitive to get E-Points^^^

CaliMagFan

08-30-2006, 06:35 PM

BAH... The Literary Patrol :argh:

Engineers use analysis...not analogies. They only use analogies when their audience can't grap the situation mentally. We atempt to generally refrain from blowing people's heads up. Sorry if gave you headache :rofl:

^^^find the split infinitive to get E-Points^^^

" We atempt to generally refrain from ..."

do i get more points for noticing that you ended your sentence in a preposition?

"...blowing people's heads up. " "[...blowing up peoples' heads.]"

I'm not a grammar Nazi... just screwing around. <--- haha (prep.)

I am just now trolling the AO boards for the first time in several months. I m very interested in making my own pneumag at some time. Threads like this are hitting the spot. Can anyone point me to "the definative" thread on this topic?

One more thing- Why is there a dwell issue with the pneu setups at all? doesnt the pneu part just replace what you would being doing with the standard mechanical sear assembly?.

I would love more info.

-kr

RRfireblade

08-30-2006, 08:41 PM

One more thing- Why is there a dwell issue with the pneu setups at all? doesnt the pneu part just replace what you would being doing with the standard mechanical sear assembly?.

I would love more info.

-kr

Yeah, if you normally pull the trigger in 10-15 ms. ;)

NoForts4Me

08-30-2006, 10:58 PM

Jay, I know you said you "don't care" much about this anymore, but that is obviously not true just based on some of the posts I've seen you make over time. I'm sure it's hard not to be frustrated in developing something that just gets dropped, especially when it appears (from the video evidence you have presented) that it is so effective. You've obviously designed something that could have been revolutionary.

I think you see posts like this, and people doing it themselves, because of the success you had, and people are just frustrated with seeing something they will never have (possibly). I know it is something I would love to have, and would buy if it ever became available. I still don't understand why there isn't a market for this, especially with the Scenario crowd. I would think a mechanical, super-fast marker would be ideal for that demographic. I could be wrong, though (and probably am). I don't think it would sell like an ION, but I think it could make a successful run as a niche product.

Anyway, I think you should take the continued interest in this as a compliment to the brief glimpses of what could have been you gave us in your short teaser vids (and I'll give credit to Nicad as well for his vid/product).

Now, if you could just hook me up with one of those sweet pumps... ;)

RRfireblade

08-31-2006, 06:51 AM

Anyway, I think you should take the continued interest in this as a compliment to the brief glimpses of what could have been you gave us in your short teaser vids (and I'll give credit to Nicad as well for his vid/product).

I do , and your right to some degree. I just don't have enough control over the outcome to make a difference so I HAVE to be able to step back and let it go. You know, I design alot of product for alot of people , most of the time I do my part and off it goes. I rarely get to see what happens till far down the road if ever. Funny thing is some of the time it surfaces in completely different places by completely different people. That's a real kicker. :)

What makes this hard was the personal attachment I had to the product and it's intended market. Both those things being the reason I wanted to have so much inclusion. Sometimes things just don't work out the way you hope and in this case , so much negativity had surrounded this thing that it get's hard to come here and read it over and over again and stay out of it. Especially when most of the 'info' is incorrect , incomplete or outright mi-s truthes.

Anywho....

I am glad that people are finding ways to get a taste of the product with the DIYer. I really am. But on the other hand I do get defensive to some degree when it's posted and then assumed that you can DIY for nearly no cost and get equal performance when both of that is far from the case. The 'total' costs are nearly identical to proposed retail and the performce is a long way from ideal , borderline acceptable in most cases. In addition , many of the assemblers don't even know why that is. It all potentially puts more bad 'press' around the whole thing and hurts what little chances this thing has even more.

IMO

That's pretty much it from my side.

Pneumagger

08-31-2006, 09:14 AM

as far as the DIYers go, sure they work nice...but we'll never have a "professional" product at the end of the day. I guess you can we're doing what we can to get by with a solution that works

And to say that a price to performance comparison of a DIY frame to a retial frame is similar is indeed loony :tard: Sure, you can get pneumatics to your doorstep for $40...but if you dont have the tools, time, and know-how you could be looking at another $150 PLUS labor. Personally, it takes 1-2 hours a night for 2-3 nights to finish/install/tune a frame...and that's if everything goes smoothly with no problems.

I'd like to think that I do as professional a job as I can...but that is with retail pneumatics and home shop tools. Unless a we DIYers can improve somehow, A retail frame would indeed offer more for the same price...not even a question about it.

However...
I have been thinking of trying a fixed size dump chamber and using combination of QEVs and an oddly arranged 4way valve to created a limited flow pulse (dwell more or less). But great performance seems hopeful at best unless I stumble on to some sweet 4way valves as i don't have the tooling to make my valves and pistons :(

Lohman446

08-31-2006, 09:27 AM

I think your underestimating the DIYers. My mag that you did looks very professionally done.

BigEvil

08-31-2006, 09:46 AM

However...
I have been thinking of trying a fixed size dump chamber......

/Butthead voice on

"hu-hu hu hu, HE said, 'DUMP'"

rabidchihauhau

08-31-2006, 10:06 AM

Jay's probably going to beat me up once again over being too provocative, or blunt or whatever, but, sorry, I'm blunt and I don't really care if the internet people like me or not...

I can't believe this is still going on.

First of all this project at PTP was generated after the following questions were asked during design and future project meetings: can a mech marker be made that will compete effectively with electros? can we design/create all of the features of an electro without electronics? what is the IP history of such devices? is there a market? what will the appeal be?

initial answers were 'yes' and 'yes' (non-electro eyes, non-electro dwell, non-electro firing modes, all 'yes'); the IP research (my job) showed an awful lot of opportunity.

is there a market? at the time (this is now almost a DECADE old) it was - maybe. we 'felt' that we could make those features less expensively, we 'felt' that getting freedom from batteries was a plus and we 'felt' that electros were not yet 'solid' enough that there was a chance to make a non-electro competitor.

the appeal was - no electronics. hey, I can fix EVERYTHING in the field. the appeal was 'no batteries' (save X per year running your marker) and the appeal was "the industry will like it because it represents an alternative to the current patent issues going on with electros".

that last was perhaps the most important and note that it had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether players would want it or not. It was a STRATEGIC business plan to offer alternative licensing options to people who wanted to make high ROF markers.

because of that aspect, we spent a LOT of time developing all of the possible alternative methods for accomplishing those goals and putting them into the patent app.

Jay came into this thing at that stage. he took the working concepts and developed them into actual working models, created several really cool doohickeys to solve various engineering problems and helped create even more alternative methods for accomplishing the goal(s). I will note that while I was of the opinion that Jay's development work was the correct way to go, upper mgt did not always agree.

Jay's final working prototypes rocked. They were sleek, elegant, robust and reliable. They were developed for blow forwards, autococking and stacked blow forward markers. We had them on mags, cockers and the gun we designed for JT - the Maxis (spyder clone); the tech was transportable to any style of marker.

The patent office screwed us - plain and simple, first denying the app, then relenting, making us submit multiple apps (they failed to understand the transportability aspect) and delayed us 4+ years.

In the meantime, AGD went through its stuff and was no longer really a partner; WGP went through its stuff and was no longer really a partner, the electro market moved on 4-5 years and etc., etc.

And you people are still talking about it.

For what its worth - and I won't argue this, I'll just state it - whether someone wants to go after you or not, DIY of a patented design is not legal. Encouraging others to do it and providing them the means to do so is even more not legal.

For the record: Jay's 'final' design worked so well that everyone almost saw it on every autococker made, and several other companies were going to bring out markers based on it. It didn't happen, so - oh well. There were frustrations with it (it was fun though to think up all of the possible ways it could be done and working them into the patent app, knowing that it was going to frustrate all kinds of people who were going to say 'but I thought of that too' or 'too late, we have the patent and now you're gonna pay!' - that's me talking, not PTP or Jay - and the people those thoughts were directed at were NOT people who appear on this forum and if things had been done a little differently, the landscape of the marker industry might be vastly different today, but such is not to be and nothing is going to change the cultural/industrial/marketing conditions wer're under now that will bring it back. Its kind of like cars; internal combustion, steam and several other techs were vying to become the technology; 100+ years later, nothing is going to bring back the stanley steamer, even if it is more efficient, cleaner and cheaper. Beta max and VHS... the list goes on.

Unfortunately, the IP is still a viable product in and of itself and there are still corporate obligations of various kinds on various individuals, Jay and myself included, and so, no matter what happens, there are lots of things neither of us can talk about, show and etc. - things that would back up Jay's claims for having 'the best' design out there blah blah blah. You'll all just have to be content with the following facts:

the PTP pneumag, courtesy of Jay's development and design work, represents the epitome of pneumatic-mechanical marker development and nothing anyone else creates will surpass it; furthermore, there isn't a design possibility - with the exception of perhaps using nanotechnology - that isn't covered by the design methods we developed

it will never come to market unless something catastrophically drastic happens within the industry

you can't build one in the basement because its illegal

rant ends

UThomas

08-31-2006, 10:27 AM

What sort of licensing terms would be availabe for the the technology then that would give access to the IP?

UltraMag527

08-31-2006, 10:50 AM

So is serving alcohol too minors, but it happens.... :cheers:

NoForts4Me

08-31-2006, 11:08 AM

So basically, rabidchihauhau, what you are saying is, licensing this technology and making the product will be almost impossible because too many people have too many claims to it and you could never unsort that tangled mess and make everyone happy. Right?

What you are seeing here is the same thing you see with people making "fan films" or writing books or scripts of movies, tv shows, etc. that are no longer available because they want to see it continued or be part of it. That is also probably illegal, but it happens. I still think it's a compliment to what was developed, and not malicious.

Pneumagger

08-31-2006, 11:10 AM

... ... ...
That's some Pwnage :cry:

/rebuttal :cool: -
An Apache that can't keep up (http://youtube.com/watch?v=lCZ5oXkEv5A)
Dry Fire (can't shoot lefty) (http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g45/jrm33/Black%20Widow/?action=view&current=Video43.flv)

rabidchihauhau

08-31-2006, 11:16 AM

Yes, it is kind of the same thing and I hope that you are aware of the fact that companies like Paramount have launched major legal campaigns in the past to reign that kind of thing in.

Licensing is one of those subjects that I am not at liberty to discuss.

No, I'm not saying what you summarized. What I'm saying is:

the market is no longer the same and it is very unlikely that market conditions will ever be favorable for the introduction of such a product.

what I'm saying is that just because you haven't driven the porsche that's under two inches of dust in the garage for ten years, doesn't somehow remove your property rights to the porsche: no one can just walk into your house, take the keys and drive it off because 'you aren't doing anything with it' - and the analogy is perfectly apt and spot on target: IP IS PROPERTY and you can't just 'use it'.

The proper thing to do in this case is to either figure out a non-patented way to accomplish the design goal (highly unlikely), try and obtain a legal version from the owners (highly unlikely) or forget about it and move on.

So basically, rabidchihauhau, what you are saying is, licensing this technology and making the product will be almost impossible because too many people have too many claims to it and you could never unsort that tangled mess and make everyone happy. Right?

What you are seeing here is the same thing you see with people making "fan films" or writing books or scripts of movies, tv shows, etc. that are no longer available because they want to see it continued or be part of it. That is also probably illegal, but it happens. I still think it's a compliment to what was developed, and not malicious.

UThomas

08-31-2006, 11:19 AM

For those interested in Colin's actual patent, you can check it out here:

http://airsoldier.com/~haveblue/tech/patents/US006990971.pdf

Bear in mind, knowing you're infringing a patent gives them the right to 3x the damages. What would be 3x the "but if" sales of a product not going to market? :)

But I am curious about licensing options... AND the autococker adaptation. (edit - just saw not going to talk about licensing. Is that because its a public forum? I'll discuss offline)

Pneumagger

08-31-2006, 11:42 AM

...

So making something for myself that I can never have is illegal? How about all the people who see something, cant afford it and "make one"...for example, homeade go karts. If I wanted a go kart and built one, that is illegal? (I'm assuming there's got to be a ton of go kart patent/designs)

Poor example, just kinda a first thought thing...but you get the Idea.

650HP

08-31-2006, 11:45 AM

Until the "professionals" do put a product to market the DIYers are the pros.

craltal

08-31-2006, 12:40 PM

So making something for myself that I can never have is illegal? How about all the people who see something, cant afford it and "make one"...for example, homeade go karts. If I wanted a go kart and built one, that is illegal? (I'm assuming there's got to be a ton of go kart patent/designs)

Poor example, just kinda a first thought thing...but you get the Idea.

technically, yes.

Carbon Blue

08-31-2006, 12:46 PM

Until the "professionals" do put a product to market the DIYers are the pros.

:cheers:

Shingo

08-31-2006, 01:41 PM

So if PTP does not come out with it then by law no one is suppose to have a Pneumag. Or any Pneumatic assisted trigger frame. Totally sucks.

For the record... old link is for "educational purposes" only. Mainly for people who want to learn more about how the DIY is done. I'm not forcing or encouraging anyone to make their own PneuMag. You can show people how to make a patent protected go-kart but it's upto that person to know that it's not legal to build it themselves.

I can be wrong.

~Shingo~

Pneumagger

08-31-2006, 01:59 PM

...
I can be wrong.

~Shingo~

Famous last words

egb groupie

08-31-2006, 03:21 PM

What I don't understand is the fact that PTP is keeping there design such a secret, how would anyone know if they were violating a patent in the first place. It's not like PTP could say, well you are violating one of ours patents and/or designs...DIY'er says prove it.....PTP say well, it's a secret, but yeah you are wrong....I just don't see how it works...

Pneumagger

08-31-2006, 03:37 PM

A valid point inndeed. Based on the fact that all we've heard from PTP/DW is how much better and different thier pneuframes are than a DIY frame, that would suggest that a Home DIY frame would be DIFFERENT and OK to persue on your own. I mean, if the DIY frame uses such inferior compnents and design concepts...then whats the big deal of making our own?

That would be like coke sueing pepsi and every other soft drink maker because they had the first can of soda.

UThomas

08-31-2006, 03:46 PM

I already posted a link to one of the patents - check it out - it has detailed diagrams. A bit more sophisticated then the DIY models - pretty cool actually.

pump

08-31-2006, 03:49 PM

Insanity :) (http://premium1.uploadit.org/rrfireblade/Paintball/PnueMag1.WMV)

PneuCocker (http://premium1.uploadit.org/rrfireblade/Paintball/P-Bladed-3A.WMV)
I want one so bad :cry:

craltal

08-31-2006, 03:53 PM

then explain why smart parts gets money for every gun that includes an electronic switch and dye get money for spool valves?

the logic and the letter of the law don't always follow the same path. go look up patent law and intelluctual property and then come back and try furthering this discussion.

I'm not directing this at any one in particular. I'm just having flashbacks to when the SP patent came about and all of the comments that ensued

650HP

08-31-2006, 04:04 PM

EDIT: Nevermind, I found it.

craltal

08-31-2006, 04:06 PM

apparently the patent office was satisfied that this was the first. Maybe Pun doesn't care to get involved due to the small size of his shop?

Same argument can be made with 'cockers. Glenn Palmer made the first semi before Bud Orr, but who does everyone believe came up with the first pneumatic semi-automatic paintball gun?

ultralight

08-31-2006, 04:18 PM

The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO.

i found this interesting.

egb groupie

08-31-2006, 04:34 PM

So PTP and DW are forced to go after every DIY PneuMag maker like the RIAA goes after illegal downloaders?

craltal

08-31-2006, 04:35 PM

So PTP and DW are forced to go after every DIY PneuMag maker like the RIAA goes after illegal downloaders?

no, but as patent holders, they have the right to

RogueFactor

08-31-2006, 04:44 PM

Pneumagger

08-31-2006, 05:10 PM

so what happens if you're filing a patent and someone is makinging your idea befor the actual "issue" date of your patent.

robnix

08-31-2006, 05:27 PM

so what happens if you're filing a patent and someone is makinging your idea befor the actual "issue" date of your patent.

Prior art may come into effect, especially if you knew of the existence of the invention beforehand.

RRfireblade

08-31-2006, 06:16 PM

All this, of course, means nothing until a patent is granted to Forest Hatcher(aka PTP) for a pneumatically assisted trigger mechanism.

PTP
At this point, the only patent PTP has been granted is with claims to a magnetically assisted trigger mechanism(US Patent # 6,802,305 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,802,305.PN.&OS=PN/6,802,305&RS=PN/6,802,305) )

Claims 16-27 were required to file separately. These claims, of which at least 2 are pneumatic claims, have twice been non-final rejected requiring revision, and at least 1 is still pending revision due to the most recent non-final rejection(Patent Application # 10/912,269 (http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_CH/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.getBib/.ps/N/.c/6_0_69/.ce/7_0_3AB/.p/5_0_341/.d/8?selectedTab=detailstab&isSubmitted=isSubmitted&dosnum=10912269#7_0_3AB)) ...

DeadlyWind
On the other hand, DeadlyWind/Colin was granted his patent earlier this year, without issue...US Patent # 6,990,971 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,990,971.PN.&OS=PN/6,990,971&RS=PN/6,990,971)

These are the facts. And with these links, anyone can verify this to be true for themselves.

Unless I'm mistaken since I'm not "The Patent guy" , those are two completely seperate applications.

The Granted patent states clearly in the very first paragraph as well as later in the descriptions....

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.

The present invention generally relates to a mechanism for assisting the user in the operation of a trigger in a gun mechanism. More specifically, the present invention relates to a mechanical, pneumatic, magnetic or electronic method for assisting the user in the operation of a trigger and/or actively and rapidly returning the trigger mechanism to its firing position at the completion of a firing sequence for use with a paintball gun.

I'm not quite sure why these two get confused since they were filed like 3 years apart or something.

My 'guess' and 'asumption' on my part is.....

That the second patent was the application that PTP filed to cover thier Emag design that was respectfully given to AGD , in which Tom later deceided to let die. I'm not really sure though other than I belive it was filed under electronic.

As for DW's Patent it seems obvious that thier claims are covered in PTPs Patent and as is often the case ( Sp Anyone? ) the USPTO examiner simply dropped the ball on his part of the research. Only a court case could clear up thier standings at this point.

Chronobreak

08-31-2006, 06:34 PM

:slips jay a note under the table:

"this threads getting good"

:re subscribed:

RRfireblade

08-31-2006, 08:35 PM

Regardless , a division makes them seperate applications.... now. :wow:

And...

Regardless , the granted patent includes all applicable coverage. :eek: :eek:

nicad

08-31-2006, 08:36 PM

Unless I'm mistaken since I'm not "The Patent guy" , those are two completely separate applications. Jay, If you are not the patent guy, why are you stating things with such authority?
You know full well that the USPTO made PTP split out the pneumatic CLAIMS into a divisional. Even rabidchihauhau referred to it:

The patent office screwed us - plain and simple, first denying the app, then relenting, making us submit multiple apps (they failed to understand the transportability aspect) and delayed us 4+ years.

The Granted patent states clearly in the very first paragraph as well as later in the descriptions....You also know full well, if it is not covered in a claim, it is not covered in the patent. Yes, all the other data helps support the claims and make them stronger, but if it is not claimed, it is not covered. Are you a patent guy or not?

I'm not quite sure why these two get confused since they were filed like 3 years apart or something. My 'guess' and 'asumption' on my part is.....
That the second patent was the application that PTP filed to cover thier Emag design that was respectfully given to AGD , in which Tom later deceided to let die. I'm not really sure though other than I belive it was filed under electronic.Do you really believe this?? Look at the continuity data from the USPTO. Some claims(#16 through 27-- the ones talking about pneumatic triggers), from patent #6,802,305 were found to be different enough from the main subject matter at hand (magnetic triggers) that the USPTO forced it to be filed as a separate application, a Divisional. So, application # 10/912,269 was split off from patent #6,802,305. Patent # 6,802,305 was granted, covering magnetic triggers. Application #10/912,269 is not yet granted. If the USPTO felt that the pneumatic triggers was different enough from patent #6,802,305, then clearly patent #6,802,305 does NOT cover pneumatic triggers, no matter what the abstract and supporting text says.

As for DW's Patent it seems obvious that thier claims are covered in PTPs Patent and as is often the case ( Sp Anyone? ) the USPTO examiner simply dropped the ball on his part of the research. Only a court case could clear up thier standings at this point.
Are you a patent guy? Trust me when I say that the USPTO was supplied with ALL of the "research material" they needed when the hAir was filed, and it was still granted.
I am not questioning patent strategies. I am not questioning granted dates. I am questioning you.

nicad

08-31-2006, 08:38 PM

ps- all of the public facts and data can be found here:
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_CH/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.getBib/.ps/N/.c/6_0_69/.ce/7_0_3AB/.p/5_0_341/.d/9?selectedTab=fileHistorytab&isSubmitted=isSubmitted&dosnum=10912269

RRfireblade

08-31-2006, 08:44 PM

I am not questioning granted dates. I am questioning you.

Fine question me , I said I'm not "The Patent guy".

I also said I'm only guessing and can only make an assumption cause I "don't really know".

Rabid 'was' PTPs patent guy , I can only go by things I've been told while under PTP/K2s employ. I'm sure he can expain any questions to the validity of PTPs patent.

All I do know is K2 purchased it's rights for the sole purpose of the pneumatic content and spent months and many thousands of dollars making sure the patent was secure.I/We were told there were no questions , loop holes or flaws in the Granted patent the purchase went thru unquestioned at that point.

With all do respect , I'll put my eggs in their basket on that one over a handfull of open ended posts on a paintball forum. ;) I've said on a number of occasion I'm no Patent attorney or expert.

I'm not sure what difference it makes anyway?

RRfireblade

08-31-2006, 08:49 PM

Jay, If you are not the patent guy, why are you stating things with such authority?

Unless I'm mistaken since I'm not "The Patent guy"

My 'guess' and 'assumption' on my part is.....

Excuse me?

You also know full well, if it is not covered in a claim, it is not covered in the patent. Yes, all the other data helps support the claims and make them stronger, but if it is not claimed, it is not covered. Are you a patent guy or not?

Unless I'm mistaken since I'm not "The Patent guy"

Not sure how much clear that can be. :)

RRfireblade

08-31-2006, 08:53 PM

Oh , and lastly....

I've been asked about those two Patent listings in past and ask anyone who has asked me about them if I didn't say I'm not really sure what's going on there.

From now on I'll defer Patent questions to K2 if that'll make you feel better. ;)

Still not sure why it even really matters.

RRfireblade

08-31-2006, 08:56 PM

In closing , I'll summize with this.....

.................because of that aspect, we spent a LOT of time developing all of the possible alternative methods for accomplishing those goals and putting them into the patent app.

.............Jay came into this thing at that stage.

:D

nicad

08-31-2006, 09:04 PM

...
I'm not sure what difference it makes anyway?

You are right. It would not make much difference, except you have gained a bit of respect from many thousands of users on here and elsewhere.. So what you say is held in high regard and typically not questioned. Again, that is fine, except the times in there were a few passing swipes were made at me and my company. They were assumptions on your part, but read as truth from others. Those posts, comments, and remarks have since been removed. I usually do not get involved with online confrontations. I stick to business as usual. But I feel I have to simply point out here that you do not know everything about DW, AGD, and behind the scenes involving patents and agreements regarding the hAir. I do not think PTP would like for AO to hear my side of the story. I do not know everything as well, but the point is I kept my mouth shut.

I think it is great that K2 paid a lot for PTP's IP. I too would like to eventually license out for real money.
However, a story comes to mind about a comment Dave made shortly after Dye paid out 7 digits $$$ for the Matrix spool valve IP: "So, what is this about a SP electro patent?".
Moral of the story- big $$ does not always mean smart $$.

CaliMagFan

08-31-2006, 09:20 PM

I just spent the last 20 minutes reading over the patent paperwork from the USPTO for Colin's pneu trigger... I'm impressed, interested and now more curious. This design is BEYOND my ability to make, and I hope that the patent's presence gives someone with that ability the legal right to produce it.

So, I'm curious, who can legally build this right this very moment?

I think that we have all come to the point of "put up and/or shut up."

There are a couple of people who have the patents, papers, and laws on their sides, the rest should shut up about what they developed and allow the people with the right to go to business to do so.

If nobody builds this then I'm going to build my own copy of the patented one on Sept 7, 2019.

-kr

RRfireblade

08-31-2006, 09:24 PM

You are right. It would not make much difference, except you have gained a bit of respect from many thousands of users on here and elsewhere.. So what you say is held in high regard and typically not questioned. Again, that is fine, except the times in there were a few passing swipes were made at me and my company. They were assumptions on your part, but read as truth from others. Those posts, comments, and remarks have since been removed. I usually do not get involved with online confrontations. I stick to business as usual. But I feel I have to simply point out here that you do not know everything about DW, AGD, and behind the scenes involving patents and agreements regarding the hAir. I do not think PTP would like for AO to hear my side of the story. I do not know everything as well, but the point is I kept my mouth shut.

For the record , I have 'earned' the respect of many....ask them. Thank you very much.

And my assumptions are clearly stated as such , there's little more I can do than that.

However....

I have NEVER slammed , tainted or negitively commented on you or company ANYWHERE , EVER. In fact I've recommended your products to at least hundreds if not perhaps thousands of people from Barrels to bodies of all makes.

I've always held you in high regard and critically claimed you on your qualtiy of work. I Also commonly reference the hAir and DW when speaking of or responding to Pneumag questions and such. I beleive I've even done so in this thread somewhere.

As for the Patent , like I said , I / We waited through a LONGGGGGG and extenddddeddd period while K2 explored every inch of the Patent. As is now apparent fact - they purchased licensing with the full intent of exploiting the pneumatic portions ,having complete confidense in it's claims and covereage , and had begun doing so some time ago.

With the obvious similarities between the 2 pnuematic triggers , anyone would have to take the edjucated guess that your claims have been covered prior in the PTP patent. That is the 'only' thing I've ever said about the whole connection between the 2. You would have to agree that that would seem to have to been the case.

I've also never questioned the validity of your Patent , my only response again to the connection has been that only a court case could possibly make that distintion now.

I believe I've been quite clear on that both now and in the past and I do appologize if somehow you've come to undertstand otherwise.

I honestly have no care or interest in the Patent side of the product and never really have. I have never seen where it really matters given the full course of the product. I've only done the best I can to answer the seemingly relentless line of questioning that comes evertime the subject comes up , to be honest it's hard to keep track of everything that's been discussed all over the net and I'm quite sure you are aware of how quickly things get twisted around to suit 'certain' peoples needs or egos. When I don't I ask and can only go by what our 'pros' tell me.

Anyway....

I'v been pretty over the whole thing for while , done dozens ( at least ) of contract/R&D work since and have more left to do than I care to think about a day before labor day weekend. :) Not to mention customs , personal work , my new fiance' ( did I mention I got engaged this week !! :dance: ) and....oh yeah , my day job. :D

So again , I appologize if you felt I wronged you in some way. There was no intent I promise. Other that I think I'll Rabid take over from here. :ninja:

Rudz

08-31-2006, 09:27 PM

now shake on it and call truce

MANN

08-31-2006, 09:39 PM

WOW that was alot of info. Congrats on the new fiance. :clap: , and thanks for clearing up the patient info. :hail:

RRfireblade

08-31-2006, 09:57 PM

WOW that was alot of info. Congrats on the new fiance. :clap: , and thanks for clearing up the patient info. :hail:

Thanks a bunch , believe it or not there are a couple of things more important than paintball. :)

nicad

08-31-2006, 10:57 PM

For the record , I have 'earned' the respect of many....ask them. Thank you very much.
Granted! :)

I have NEVER slammed , tainted or negitively commented on you or company ANYWHERE , EVER. Well, Jay, you did remove quite a few of your posts and threads, right?
I did happen to keep a few of the more memorable quotes that you (and rabidchihauhau) have made:
"we (Deadlywind) didn't have the finances to make the product"
"we (Deadlywind) folded because Tom bailed on us"
"we (Deadlywind) do not have the capacity to make volume product"
"our (Deadlywind) design was inferior and that is why AGD 'rejected' it".
Do you think I am making this up? Perhaps some AO'ers here remember some of these. :)

And even now, a few posts back in this thread, suggesting that the examiner of our patent (who is the same one on the PTP applications) "simply dropped the ball" to have granted our IP. Seriously, why would you say that?

With the obvious similarities between the 2 pneumatic triggers , anyone would have to take the edjucated guess that your claims have been covered prior in the PTP patent.How would this be an educated guess when PTP does not even have a granted claim covering pneumatic triggers?

What people know about PTP and pneumatic triggers is what has been told to them from you and rabidchihauhau. I am saying that what they have been told is not true.
I challenge anyone to show me a claim # in any granted patent where PTP covers pneumatic triggers.

mobsterboy

08-31-2006, 11:54 PM

Jay, while you have quite a bit of power on these forums, you never earned my respect, and i think its the same with most people on here. Sure, you've done some good deals, you've made some nice products, but I think its the situation with most that we just came into the scene, seeing that you demanded respect with the way you talk, as if you could do no wrong. and the fear most new users have towards you and the unwillingness to just figure out your logic when you spew out bs from the mouth, especially about this patent stuff, gets seen as respect to you. Its not, it never will be. Fear is something everyone has and can get. Respect is knowing i can read your posts without thinking,"hmm, so what is jay gonna flipflop about today? is he really serious with where he says he stands on a topic? and when can i openly back him on something i believe in without him switching teams just cuz we were down by 10." Im really tired of all this patent talk...not from everyone else, just from you. You know whats funny? It just makes me loathe you that you can be so cocky even now. "Im not the patent guy....BUT" and then you make an *** of yourself. and the whole "these might just be assumptions....BUT i dont mind if i state them with confidence and truth"

Nicad and Rogue, Ive grown to have a great deal of respect for you two. You guys seem to not look for what products to create, but rather you guys blazed your own trails in the industry, and you guys werent half-***ed. You bothered to stick to the standards of "do it once, do it right"
You both seem to know that "it is better to be silent and look wise rather than to talk and prove yourself ignorant." I respect that because it allows the dust to settle before you take your side and you dont just come out runnin and gunnin at the mouth. It takes a lot of self control to know what you want to say, and be able to wait for the right moment to say it.
It takes a lot to keep integrity in business, and never once have i heard you badmouth a competitors product, the competitor is a totally different story, but you stay fair, and seem to see that your stuff is unique and there really is no competition with your class of products

RRfireblade

09-01-2006, 12:40 AM

Granted! :)
Well, Jay, you did remove quite a few of your posts and threads, right?
I did happen to keep a few of the more memorable quotes that you (and rabidchihauhau) have made:
"we (Deadlywind) didn't have the finances to make the product"
"we (Deadlywind) folded because Tom bailed on us"
"we (Deadlywind) do not have the capacity to make volume product"
"our (Deadlywind) design was inferior and that is why AGD 'rejected' it".
Do you think I am making this up? Perhaps some AO'ers here remember some of these. :)

And even now, a few posts back in this thread, suggesting that the examiner of our patent (who is the same one on the PTP applications) "simply dropped the ball" to have granted our IP. Seriously, why would you say that?

How would this be an educated guess when PTP does not even have a granted claim covering pneumatic triggers?

What people know about PTP and pneumatic triggers is what has been told to them from you and rabidchihauhau. I am saying that what they have been told is not true.
I challenge anyone to show me a claim # in any granted patent where PTP covers pneumatic triggers.

I can only comment on my comments you refered to , I believe all of which are things you've stated , Tom has stated or eluded to.

You've stated clearly at some time that you didn't have the finances to continue the project. I also seem to remember you saying you may only off some kind of kit or assembly instead of complete frames.

I did say Tom bailed on you and he did , did he not? I didn't say 'you' folded on anything only that you weren't prepared to go it alone at that time... as per your statements.

You stated you were not able to produce the product in volume , that if you did go at it alone it would be in small numbers and people would have to be prepared to wait.

I've never commented on the design at all , infact I've stated on a number of occasions that I've never seen it so I have no knowledge of the design. Now Tom did say that it was very complex and he wasn't sure if he was going to be able to manufacture it in it's current form , wasn't even sure at one time if he could even come up with a safety he was comfortable with. Did he not?

Besides the inferior comment which I never made , where is the lack of truth ?

Or did I miss something and have you and AGD already released the frame in high volume numbers? :D

RRfireblade

09-01-2006, 12:47 AM

So don't read my posts. ;) There , all better now ? Perhaps you'll be a happier person.

Maybe this will help. :bounce:

or this. :dance:

Jay, while you have quite a bit of power on these forums, you never earned my respect, and i think its the same with most people on here. Sure, you've done some good deals, you've made some nice products, but I think its the situation with most that we just came into the scene, seeing that you demanded respect with the way you talk, as if you could do no wrong. and the fear most new users have towards you and the unwillingness to just figure out your logic when you spew out bs from the mouth, especially about this patent stuff, gets seen as respect to you. Its not, it never will be. Fear is something everyone has and can get. Respect is knowing i can read your posts without thinking,"hmm, so what is jay gonna flipflop about today? is he really serious with where he says he stands on a topic? and when can i openly back him on something i believe in without him switching teams just cuz we were down by 10." Im really tired of all this patent talk...not from everyone else, just from you. You know whats funny? It just makes me loathe you that you can be so cocky even now. "Im not the patent guy....BUT" and then you make an *** of yourself. and the whole "these might just be assumptions....BUT i dont mind if i state them with confidence and truth"

Nicad and Rogue, Ive grown to have a great deal of respect for you two. You guys seem to not look for what products to create, but rather you guys blazed your own trails in the industry, and you guys werent half-***ed. You bothered to stick to the standards of "do it once, do it right"
You both seem to know that "it is better to be silent and look wise rather than to talk and prove yourself ignorant." I respect that because it allows the dust to settle before you take your side and you dont just come out runnin and gunnin at the mouth. It takes a lot of self control to know what you want to say, and be able to wait for the right moment to say it.
It takes a lot to keep integrity in business, and never once have i heard you badmouth a competitors product, the competitor is a totally different story, but you stay fair, and seem to see that your stuff is unique and there really is no competition with your class of products

RRfireblade

09-01-2006, 12:52 AM

And even now, a few posts back in this thread, suggesting that the examiner of our patent (who is the same one on the PTP applications) "simply dropped the ball" to have granted our IP. Seriously, why would you say that?

How would this be an educated guess when PTP does not even have a granted claim covering pneumatic triggers?

Oh missed that one but then I guess you did too. It was back in the part where I spoke of K2 licensing , or at least told us that was why they did , the pnuematic portion (along with other things) of the patent. If I was to believe that was true and why would I not , then the other assumptions would be quite logical. Wouldn't you think ?

And to the examiner , it's been said by people on our side that he did a very poor job. I would have to think that perhaps that's not the first time. :)

RRfireblade

09-01-2006, 12:57 AM

Showing your true colors. Youre a class act, as always :rolleyes:

That would solve everything. Yet, this is always sidestepped, isnt it? Only 1 reason to sidestep ...it doesnt currently exist. :wow:

Actually Nicad called that statement a lie. I guess if I didn't respond then it would be a side step?

Talk about class.

RRfireblade

09-01-2006, 01:03 AM

7. A method of assisting the movement of a trigger between a resting position and a firing position to increase the rate at which paintballs can be fired from a paintball gun, the method comprising the steps of: positioning a force element behind the trigger of the paintball gun; sensing the movement of the trigger from the resting position to the firing position; and activating the force element to assist the movement of the trigger from the resting position to the firing position.

8. The method of claim 7 further comprising: positioning a second force element in front of the trigger of the paintball gun; sensing the movement of the trigger from the firing position to the resting position; and activating the second force element to assist the return movement of the trigger from the firing position to the resting position.

11. A mechanism for assisting the movement of a trigger between a resting position and a firing position to increase the rate at which paintballs can be fired from a paintball gun, the assistance mechanism comprising a force element positioned behind the trigger, the force element being operable to assist movement of the trigger between the resting position and the firing position.

Could a ram and/or trigger switch , pneumatic or otherwise not be an element of force ?

Maybe the Patent experts can chime in , does it have to specify pneumatic or is simply a device capable of generating force not qualify regardless of what you use?

RRfireblade

09-01-2006, 01:05 AM

Gimmie a second to type, geez.

You know it's 2 o clock in the morning here?

RRfireblade

09-01-2006, 01:09 AM

And we've already shown pnuematic to be stated in the abstract so it seems it should have relevence here as a force element , especially considering pneumatic rams are commonly used in paintball markers.

RRfireblade

09-01-2006, 01:19 AM

Alright , I got some more...

Page 10 of the actual patent docs. I guess you'll have to go read it since I don't know how to C/P from a PDF but at like the 3rd or 4th paragraph on that page decribes the pneumatic trigger mechanism is pretty precise detail.

On the right track? or no?

RRfireblade

09-01-2006, 01:21 AM

There's more references to that in the right side of the page in the middle-ish paragraphs.

RRfireblade

09-01-2006, 01:25 AM

Looks like Fig 7 and Fig 8 cover that type of set up , as well as other variations.

Do the pics and thier descriptions carry any weight ?

Honestly asking. No sarcasm.

RRfireblade

09-01-2006, 01:28 AM

Now it's bed time, I gotta be up in 4 hrs. :eek:

Nighty night. :)

Lenny

09-01-2006, 02:12 AM

I've been following this thread since the beginning, and I truly find it all very fascinating and unwittingly intelligent (did that make sense?).

But, I have a couple of questions of my own to ask.

1. After looking at the patents, breifly reading them, and studying the diagrams, I notice the designs are incredibly sophisticated, but very different from the homebrew mods. I understand mildly what you mean saying it is much more advanced, but I must ask; is the current method used in the DIY mods legal? Would the patents cover the mechanic process of the pneumatics within a common DIY frame? The diagrams look very different from internal pics of a few frames I have seen posted here done by Pneumagger and others.

2. Where did CMI play into this? I realize they had nothing to do with the issue being currently argued, but they did produce a blow-forward style marker with a pneumatic trigger assembly (although it was very poor). What happened with that? Legal? Illegal? What were the differences?

3. I must ask, how hasn't RRfireblade earned his respect? I believe it was mobsterboy who said RR earned it by "fear" or something like that, but I have to protest. RR has made it VERY clear that he is not a legal whiz and has only explained the patent legalities to the best of his knowlege (much like everyone else who has posted anything legalistic about patents here). He has admited on numerous occaisions that he is no expert, but for the sake of proving his point, he explains what he understands. Is it his fault he is not a legal expert? Theoretically, yes, but then, we all can't be experts of everything, can we? I know for sure I am no expert in various law, but I do understand some of it and, though possibly not entirely correct, am allowed to state my understandings of it when brought up in debate similar to this one.

I say RR has made some great contributions, as well as keeping a less-hastely attitude while arguing here (and I must commend his common arguers also for this same feat). I say he should have our respect, and has gained mine through intelligent post; much the same as NiCad, rabid, and many others. And I also must comment on this as well: I have never heard such lowly speech of Tom. Everytime someone posts something about him, he is held in very high regards. Now, nothing is outrageously demeaning, and is quite possibly true for all I know, but he still has my respect as an inventor and as an intellect. Assuming this is Tom Kaye you're all talking about. If not, belay my last.

I should also note, with the last comments made, I honestly meant no hostilities and pray nothing stated was taken that way.

**Just thought of something. I had a video saved on my computer once of a man shooting a singe triggered frame (Benchmark?) on a yellow MiniMag pretty fast. The footage seemed older, and there was an LPR mounted on the vert ASA. Is this video related to any of these projects discussed? May I also have some more information on it and the eary developments shown?

Pneumagger

09-01-2006, 08:51 AM

Jay, A septuple (SP?) post. :wow: I think that's an AO first.

Shaweet!!! :cheers:

rabidchihauhau

09-01-2006, 08:53 AM

Granted! :)
"we (Deadlywind) didn't have the finances to make the product"
"we (Deadlywind) folded because Tom bailed on us"
"we (Deadlywind) do not have the capacity to make volume product"
"our (Deadlywind) design was inferior and that is why AGD 'rejected' it".
Do you think I am making this up? Perhaps some AO'ers here remember some of these. :)

let's do this one at a time:

finances - I don't remember saying anything on this subject, but if I did it was most likely speculation - but again, I don't think I said anything like that
Tom bailed - again, I don't recall commenting on this
volume production - same as the above
product quality - no mention of inferiority was made: what was suggested and - sorry if I'm breaking confidences here but I'm fed up - was that the design submitted to AGD was 'way too complicated' 'had far too many parts' and 'would be extremely expensive to mfg': that's quote and verbatim from the parties involved. Designs have to be 'new' - they also have to be economically practical, and the above stated reasons were what I understood AGD's primary concerns to be - nice concept, well executed, too expensive to put into mass production.

Jay's design got us down to one complicated part to manufacture, and fortunately, that part could be made from existing product with some modification.

Here's more from the fed-up department. The examiner you speak of Ricci, has been solely responsible for the vast majority of paintball patent screwups over the past 7-10 years. He's the one who granted someone other than Tom the powerfeed patent, he's the one who granted smart part's original patent (need I say more?)

Also, for your edification: the 'claims' are perhaps "the most important part" of a patent, but ALL of a patent's application comes into play in determining the intent of the designer. ALL of the parts of the application that you are so quick to dismiss have been used in patent dispute cases as the DECIDING factor.

If we had had the money and the time when the original split of the patent came up, we would have fought the split because the concept was the same, just modified for different existing platforms. Ricci chose to take a different point of view. We did not have the time or $ to fool around - they'd already delayed us 2 years at that time.

The DW patent is NOT the only patent to be granted on a subject while another application covering the exact same design WITH AN EARLIER PRIORITY DATE was in delay for some reason or another, only to be granted and causing the invalidation of the other granted patent.

In fact, the above scenario is one of the points of discussion between SP and WDP...

You can look at a divisional two ways. first - the way you are choosing to - negatively - ooo, they were FORCED to have to resubmit the claims oooo, they must have done something BAD, or you can look at it positively - hey, two patents for the price of one. Boy won't this screw things up when the second one is finally granted...

Your 'objections' on this score, as you pointed out, don't amount to a hill of beans unless the patent is granted - right? You can choose to believe that your grant will remain good and hope the second PTP app gets canned for some reason and under those circumstances you have nothing to worry about, do you? Or, you can choose to believe, as I do, that the patent will grant, because I did my homework and I'm VERY familiar with Ricci and the process. Its annoying, expensive but in the final analysis, the PTO WANTS those fees.... and at that point someone other than myself will have to jump in and make a decision.

People can go two ways when it comes to pending grants and potentially infringing competitor product. They can keep their mouths shut and then slam those other people with a C&D followed by a lawsuit, or they can give due notification, discharge their responsibility in a friendly way (hey, I think what you're working on may already be covered by a patent) and hope that the other guy makes the right decision.

Finally, for what its worth; when lawyers play the 'infringing' game, they NEVER send along the claims - never. Most don't even site the patent number. All they say is 'you are stepping on our toes, stop or else' and leave it up to the supposed offender to figure out where, how and why. Make that OTHER guy do the homework. So then the other guy writes back and says 'show me the claims you think I'm stepping on' and they get a letter back saying something like 'hey, that's not our responsibility, but you better get off our toes right now!"

That's the way the game is played. Directing the offending party to the specifics is giving them a roadmap on how to get around it and the objective of the original party is not to help a competitor but to get them to stop.

Go read the claims in the pending application. Assume for a moment its going to grant. (Assume also that there are many factors contributing to this story that have little to do with patents) and then see where that puts you.

rabidchihauhau

09-01-2006, 09:26 AM

'force element' was deliberately used to represent ALL of the different methods we had researched - springs, magnets, electromagnets, pneumatic plungers, solenoid valves, teeny tiny hamsters running on a teeny tiny wheel, party-favor noisemakers, etc.

here's claims 7, 8 and 9 from the GRANTED applications (with priority date of 11/21/2000)

7. A method of assisting the movement of a trigger between a resting position and a firing position to increase the rate at which paintballs can be fired from a paintball gun, the method comprising the steps of: positioning a force element behind the trigger of the paintball gun; sensing the movement of the trigger from the resting position to the firing position; and activating the force element to assist the movement of the trigger from the resting position to the firing position.

8. The method of claim 7 further comprising: positioning a second force element in front of the trigger of the paintball gun; sensing the movement of the trigger from the firing position to the resting position; and activating the second force element to assist the return movement of the trigger from the firing position to the resting position.

9. The method of claim 7 wherein the first force element and the second force element are electromagnets

PLEASE NOTICE that claim 7 does NOT cite any previous claims. this means claim 7 is an INDEPENDANT CLAIM

(def - In a patent or patent application, the claim is the precise legal definition of the invention, identifying the specific elements of the invention for which the inventor is claiming rights and seeking protection. There are two types of claims. One is an independent claim, which is a claim that doesn’t rely upon or refer to any other claims in a patent. For example, in a patent for a pencil, an independent claim might start out, in legalese, as “a device comprising a cylindrical piece of wood with a piece of lead inserted into the center of the wood….” from quizlaw.com)

therefore does not utilize any of the definitions from previous claims and most specifically INCLUDES electro magnets as earlier referenced but does not EXCLUDE any other method. Note that claim 8 is dependent on claim 7 and claim 9 goes on to describe one particular type of force element.

please note the following phrase: "Various alternatives and embodiments are contemplated as being within the scope of the following claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter regarded as the invention." and, from the description itself:

"Although not shown in the drawings, in another alternate embodiment of the invention, a pneumatic on/off valve is positioned behind the trigger such that when the trigger is depressed far enough to actuate the sear of the paintball gun, the pneumatic on/off valve is opened. When the pneumatic on/off valve is opened, a ram is pressurized. As the ram is pressurized, an actuation rod extends to aid in moving the trigger back to its resting position."

"In the embodiment of the invention described in FIGS. 1-6, the active trigger mechanism is used to aid in the depression and return of the trigger between its two operating positions. The mechanisms allow for the trigger to be depressed and released at a higher rate of speed to aid in increasing the number of paintballs that can be fired by the operator. However, in each embodiment, the active trigger mechanism is used to move the trigger itself, while the trigger is part of a cocking/firing mechanism used to operate the sear of the paintball gun."

Folks, in this granted application, the examiner chose to go with the magnetic versions of the design. However, he specifically retained the above quotes in that app because he was familiar with the subject matter in the divisional application.

It would be up to a court of law to render a finding on whether 'force element', coupled with the drawings, specifications and teachings in the patent covered 'pneumatics'. I think it does.

Finally, if nothing else, the above paragraphs, coupled with the initial filing date of the provisional and final priority date of the grant (the SAME dates enjoyed by the divisional) represent PRIOR ART; an abandoned or non-granted patent becomes a reference for prior art - so when it comes to other grants for applications filed in september of '04, well, they represent prior art too...

Jimbud

09-01-2006, 10:00 AM

rabidchihauhau

09-01-2006, 11:07 AM

I am by no means a legal expert.

But the way I read claims 7,8, 9 they are for assisting trigger movement.

Nicads Patent seams to have nothing to do with assisting the trigger but with amplifying trigger movement and assisting Sear movement via the ram.

No?

please define the difference between 'assistance' and 'amplification'....

and usually the diagrams and methodology are used to make that determination.

The main issue is lack of education and knowledge on the patent office's part. They have VERY limited access to prior art in paintball, seem to be very unwilling to obtain such and often contradict themselves.

I have no doubt I could get a grant for a 'stickfeed'; how about the grant for the 'sports mask' that incorporates a 'face shield' as an integral part of the goggle? That one slipped through a few months ago.

Even (most) granted patents aren't enforceable in the long run; you've got to have the 'unique idea' - PLUS you've got to demonstrate the physical method of bringing it into reality. There are tons of grants that demonstrate the 'idea' but turn out to be non-working.

There's also the differentiation between 'same method, different means' and a truly different approach. You get a patent for a 'device for attaching two boards together' (the nail) and I put in an app for 'a device for temporarily conjoining planks of wood' (the 'screw'; sometimes the examiners say 'that's the same as the nail thing' and other times they say 'its different' - and often they have not a clue but are satisfied to collect their annual fees and let inventors waste their money in court.

We got initially denied for another patent based on the examiners claim of prior art from 1933. The device quoted to us was a method of connecting two same-sized metal pipes with a permanent seal between them. Our application was a device for TEMPORARILY holding two objects of different diameters and materials together and being easily removable. The '33 pipe connector was intended to be buried underground as a permanent fixture. Ours was intended to be used repeatedly, etc., etc. Took almost a year to get the examiner (Ricci, again) to recognize that the pipe patent had no bearing as prior art. He actually went WAY outside the 'recommended searches', based on field of invention, from the patent examiner's search manual. So much so that we suspected that he was deliberately trying to invalidate the patent for some reason we couldn't fathom.

How about smart part's patents - think things went smooth there? How about having TWO divisionals grant BEFORE the original application granted and how about the original patent was abandoned and then re-instated? Not to mention the fact that almost anyone who knows patents who has been asked to look at those grants has described them as either 'ridiculous', 'no idea why they granted' and 'those are VERY weak' - but hey, they're patents now so they must have invented it...

I will certainly grant that colin has created some good technology over the years and I will definately state that it is quite possible for two (or more) people to come up with essentially the same concept while being totally independent of each other, but I will also state that the method in our society for laying claim to an idea is the patent, no matter how screwed up the PTO is and, for those who want to argue patents, the filing date and the finding by the court(s) are how things are worked out; no amount of speculation on the publics part affects that - nor does 'rightness' or 'wrongness'. We know Bells' name because he got the application for the phone in first - supposedly only by a day; many have argued that the other guy's invention was better and more thought out, but the billion dollar company has Bell's name on it. Not right, not wrong, just the facts maam.

luke

09-01-2006, 11:31 AM

I do not think PTP would like for AO to hear my side of the story. I do not know everything as well, but the point is I kept my mouth shut.

OK, now you've gone too far, you have to tell use what really happened. :spit_take

(please) :)

Pneumagger

09-01-2006, 11:51 AM

please define the difference between 'assistance' and 'amplification'.....

what he's saying is that colin's design strictly deals with lightening the trigger and decreasing the amplitude of the distance/weight by using a ram which in turn assists the Mag valve. The assistence in his frame comes from the air assisting the sear pull, not the trigger return or pull. You have an air assist trigger and he has a sear assist frame...quite a legal difference I feel.

However, you could say that collin's frame "assists by decreasing amplitude" - then what?

And if your patenting "forces" assisting trigger movement...that's pretty general and lame. (right up there with SP patenting electronics) Every trigger on every gun has a constant or varying force to reset it, other wise everyone would manually have to pull their triggers forward. Hell, the Emag has both mech and magnetic trigger returns. I personally think that your patent steps on AGD's RT toes. I believe that AGD technology would fall under the category of "a trigger force designed to help the marker fire faster"
\/\/\/

...7. A method of assisting the movement of a trigger between a resting position and a firing position to increase the rate at which paintballs can be fired from a paintball gun, the method comprising the steps of: positioning a force element behind the trigger of the paintball gun; sensing the movement of the trigger from the resting position to the firing position; and activating the force element to assist the movement of the trigger from the resting position to the firing position....

rabidchihauhau

09-01-2006, 12:29 PM

[QUOTE=Pneumagger]what he's saying is that colin's design strictly deals with lightening the trigger and decreasing the amplitude of the distance/weight by using a ram which in turn assists the Mag valve. The assistence in his frame comes from the air assisting the sear pull, not the trigger return or pull. You have an air assist trigger and he has a sear assist frame...quite a legal difference I feel.

and the E-Mag patent application was based on creating an 'electronic SEAR' for which there was NO prior art, but that got bogged down and dunned by others with existing patents.

sorry to disappoint, but we worked in lock-step with AGD on the e-mag; in fact, the initial patent application came out of pro-team and was based on earlier discussions.

you will also note that other claims in the PTP patent assist not just in the 'activation' but in the 'return'.

when it comes to a 'mag, show me the line of demarkation that separates the 'trigger' from the 'sear' - and don't cop out with they're not 'mechanically' connected. You can fire a mag with a pair of needle nose pliers by pulling on the clevis rod.

Colin 'point of influence' is different than the PTP version, but it does the same thing, in my opinion.

I'll make absolutely no apologies for my 'smart part' ways when it comes to patent apps. (Someone on the white board even accused me of being WORSE than they are); I studied the process and was employed to do the best job I could for PTP - not for everyone on the planet. Had I been writing a patent app for you, I would have employed the same methods. I do, however, pride myself on the fact that while I played the SP patent app game, my claims were solid claims for working designs, not fantasy...

rkjunior303

09-01-2006, 12:32 PM

I'll make absolutely no apologies for my 'smart part' ways when it comes to patent apps. (Someone on the white board even accused me of being WORSE than they are); I studied the process and was employed to do the best job I could for PTP - not for everyone on the planet. Had I been writing a patent app for you, I would have employed the same methods. I do, however, pride myself on the fact that while I played the SP patent app game, my claims were solid claims for working designs, not fantasy...

Business is Business for a reason.

StygShore

09-01-2006, 12:41 PM

Wow....the paintball world has become so stagnant that we are bringing this up again :)

I am impressed at how much more "alluded too" information has come out in this discussion than in the past.

I guess those that are in the know are finally just bursting at the seems to tell someone the truth and all they really know - but don't for fear "big brother" will come down on them.

Styg

oh well, at least its a topic that people are writing loooong responses too, so it gives me something to read at my desk waiting for the work day to end....

robnix

09-01-2006, 12:58 PM

You can fire a mag with a pair of needle nose pliers by pulling on the clevis rod.

Who needs pliers? I can fire my mag by jumping up and down. :D

Jimbud

09-01-2006, 12:59 PM

RRfireblade

09-01-2006, 01:58 PM

Pretty much what Pneumagger said.

Your patent is about assisting the the movement of the Trigger. But relative to What?

Most markers have a semi fixed trigger input force.

Many markers "amplify" this force to fire marker.

Colin's patent takes a semi fixed trigger input force and moves the Sear.

He simply uses pnuematic to do this. Just as a means to an end.

The argument that his use of Pnuematics to do this lightens the pull and therefor "assists" trigger movement is ridiculous.

So does using a microswitch and electronics. You going to go after Smart Parts too?

If I adjust the spring return of my EGO trigger to lighten the pull am I now in violation of your patent?

How about if I switch out the single trigger frame of my Mag to a Duel trigger Intelli there by incresing my leverage and lighting my pull, another violation?

Not to mention that as Pnuemagger pointed out that the RT valve patent may already cover
Pnuematicaly assited triggers.

I think in your attemt to be as broad as possible in your patent app. you may have made it so broad as to be pointless.

The patent decribes mechanisms to do so.

Here's the exact paragraph that covers Pneumags...

In addition to aiding in the actuation of the trigger itself, an alternate embodiment of the invention contemplates replacing the mechanical linkage between the trigger and the cocking/firing mechanism with a pneumatic operating system. In this embodiment of the invention, rearward movement of the trigger opens a pneumatic air valve. As the pneumatic air valve is opened, air pressure is supplied to an actuating ram coupled to the cocking ram of the paintball gun. When the actuating ram is pressurized, the air pressure of the actuating ram operates the cocking/firing mechanism to cause a paintball to be fired. In this manner, the air pressure of the actuating ram causes the mechanical movement of the cocking/firing mechanism, rather than a mechanical linkage between the trigger and the cocking/firing mechanism. The use of air pressure rather than the mechanical linkage allows for a faster and less physically demanding movement by the user on the trigger. After the firing sequence has been initiated, the residual pressure within the pneumatic valve aids in returning the trigger to its pre-firing position.

rabidchihauhau

09-01-2006, 02:25 PM

The patent decribes mechanisms to do so.

Here's the exact paragraph that covers Pneumags...

YAH. What he said!

Look, I'm going to come across as a monumental jerk right now, but - if you've never worked on a patent and haven't had to deal with the idiocy from the PTO, it is virtually pointless to discuss the issue with you.

Language in patent apps is not the same as conversational/forum english. My posts are waaaay too long to begin with and much of what I put in here is seriously watered down for brevity's sake - with meaning lost and with an ever-increasing chance that people will pick on a word or phrase and start barking up that tree.

'trigger assist' is just the name of the damn patent; the teachings, claims, diagrams and summary are what describes the invention. the invention described in PTP's patents is, with the exception of different engineering choices, the same type of invention as is described in the DW patent. (I even had hydraulics in an original draft of the thing...); it does not matter what word you want to use to describe it. both concepts use pneumatic/mechanical systems to (here's a new word) 'enhance' the action of a trigger on a paintball gun, attempting to achieve the end result of very short trigger pull, very light trigger pull, very fast return to battery and the ability to use the same mechanisms to create mechanical bounce/rapid trigger actuation.

You could automate the on/off assembly in a mag valve and do the same thing...

the real question for the PTO in granting the patent is whether it is a new idea and whether the device as described can be made functional by someone familiar with the field of invention. A further question would be - is one or the other devices sufficiently DIFFERENT from the other that a patent will grant DESPITE the fact that they achieve the same things.

The examiner did not use the claims/descriptions in the PTP pneumatic app to decide whether DW's would grant - they only used the first 'half' which was electro/magnetic/mechanical in nature.

They can't use pending apps to make these kinds of decisions because if they did, no patent would ever grant - they'd be waiting forever to see the new pendings...

"My claims were too broad". Well sorry, chum, but that's the job. You want to write your claims to be substantiated by the design, but you want them to cover as MUCH territory as you can possibly get away with - and these days, the vaguer they are, the better.

Yes, absolutely, that gives the patent holder the right to say to anyone else 'you're infringing' when they very well might not be, but, guess what - we'll take you to court and attempt to prove our case: oh, so sorry you can't afford legal battles, well, then, you better settle. ...and we NEVER get to find out if there was actual infringement or not.

Its like drawing a property line with a BIG sharpie instead of a fine pointed pencil. If you;ve got the dollars and the map in your hand, you can point to any portion of that 1/4 inch wide line and say 'this is my property', sorry the river is all on my side and no, you can't water your sheep. Time to call the sherriff. Ooops, better get John Wayne, the sherriff is owned by the evil cattle baron.....with all the money.....and all the paperwork.

Look, this is not 'me' - the fair, open-minded, open-hearted guy who's fond of inventing cool things for paintballers and then giving them away so some other company can claim originality and make millions, this is the evil, partisan, play the game by the rules on the table 'me'.

That 'me' says, when working under contract for someone else, that my job is to get them as big a bang for their buck as possible. If the rules say, write claims as broad as you can and let the PTO chop them back, then that's what I do. If being broad means laying claim to the invention of the wheel, wonder bread and the safety pin, its not my job to get all moralistic about it. Its my job to make a reasonable case for throwing them in there. If the PTO comes back and says, you can have the wheel and wonder bread, but the safety pin is out - WOO HOO, we win.

Pneumagger

09-01-2006, 02:47 PM

RRfireblade

09-01-2006, 03:31 PM

Alright, I guess I can see how everyone sorta gets screwed here. :cry: Man, I hate regulations. I work on government jobs all the time now, and the red tape everywhere is rediculous. I cant even rearrange mu office w/out asking.

So, is there anyway that when the dust settles (soon hopefully), that somebody can come out with 1-2 hundred frames using these great designs? Just for the niche market, not a continueing product. I mean, they'd only be in the $250 range hopefully.

Not trying to be offensive, but is there a risk in either DW or PTP using their designs and manufacturing their frames while waiting for stuff to be Granted? Why can't this happen?

I know no one believes it but it is true that PTP had 'Sllooooowwwlllyyy' been working in thiers. Most of the parts have been machined and most of the pieces have been manufactured and/or sourced. There are just a coulple of items yet to go , some final assembly and testing of the final product and basically that't it.

No I don't have an ETA.

No I don't have a price.

Yes I have lost most of the good parts of my mind over this.

Shingo

09-01-2006, 03:36 PM

Who needs pliers? I can fire my mag by jumping up and down. :D

Careful... someone may have a patent on that. :spit_take

~Shingo~

Pneumagger

09-01-2006, 03:37 PM

Yes I have lost most of the good parts of my mind over this.

LOL :rofl:

This is the kind of news that brightens my day. Being a mech-e, I love acuiring technical things. I guess that why I love the automag. To me, an automag is a mechanical masterpiece: no frilly electronics, great design, good tolerences... what more could ask for :) This all mech frame will make it so much better...someday

Shingo

09-01-2006, 03:54 PM

I know no one believes it but it is true that PTP had 'Sllooooowwwlllyyy' been working in thiers. Most of the parts have been machined and most of the pieces have been manufactured and/or sourced. There are just a coulple of items yet to go , some final assembly and testing of the final product and basically that't it.

THERE IS HOPE!!! :bounce:

I better start saving up :D

~Shingo~

rabidchihauhau

09-01-2006, 04:00 PM

there are as many strategies for how to work with IP in the marketplace as there are individuals with patents.

there is no 'law' that prevents you from filing an app and then starting to make and market the product - hoping the IP gets granted.

some folks will mfg and then have the product sit until the grant. some don't do jack until the patent is granted.

some put in a patent that is 'crafted' to not get granted the first time around (no patent is granted without at least one office action) so that they can see what their competitors are going to do; as long as they file a divisional prior to the granting, they get to 'steal' their competitors stuff.

some get a patent granted and sit on it (like the interruptable windshield washer motor guy), sending out vague C&Ds designed to get the receivers to poo poo it, and then hit people with a major lawsuit seeking treble damages...

the danger in not waiting is two-fold: you might not get the grant and then have to remove 'patent pending' from everything; or, similar, your final granted claims may not be for what you are actually making. the other is that what is finally granted requires reengineering and you've just wasted all that money.

the danger in not mfg while waiting is - giving up the market to a similar product, watching the market for your design disappear, etc., having someone much bigger than you copy it and poo poo your C&D

the best overall IP strategy is to hold it for one of two non-mutually exclusive purposes: 1 is licensing it (let others worry about mfg, mktg, etc) and the other is preventing your competitors from making/marketing something. You are granted the next best thing to a monopoly over the technology and preventing someone from using it until they "see reason" is a very powerful business tool. You can also go the route of patenting 'improvements' to others designs, etc., etc.

Most folks in the paintball industry seem to make before they get a grant.

***

Hey, I love mags too, but the industry is not focused on cool tech, its focused on flashy stuff they can get the kids to buy - whether it works or not. there are, no doubt, many cool designs out there for things that will never see the light of day, if only because it is not marketable. great idea - yes. makes oodles of money and screws with competitors - not. oh well, shove it to the bottom of the closet. now let's get back to the gold plated triggers shaped like religious icons cause they're selling. who's next - buddha?

robnix

09-01-2006, 04:01 PM

Careful... someone may have a patent on that. :spit_take

~Shingo~

:ninja: :ninja: :ninja:

Jimbud

09-01-2006, 04:10 PM

NoForts4Me

09-01-2006, 06:56 PM

Look, I'm going to come across as a monumental jerk right now, but - Actually, rabidchihauhau, if you wouldn't call posters chums, you wouldn't. Your posts can be informative, notwithstanding their haughty nature.

Despite my inferior intellect, it appears to me that at this point and time, both PTP and Nicad have claims to part or all of a similar product. This may change in the future, depending on the Patent Office or the court system (if it ever went that far), but as of now, there doesn't appear to be exclusive rights to it by either party. Again, I'm just a simple paintball player posting on the interwebs, but that is how it appears by what has been posted. So my previous point that for someone to license this technology it would be difficult due to multiple claims of ownership is valid.

Also, to my layman's mind, it appears that these patents are on improvements of pre-existing technology, as rudimentary forms of assisted triggers have been around for a while, even though they weren't patented.

I hope the posts here haven't skewed people one way or the other as to the respectablity of some of the posters, namely RRfireblade, Nicad, and Rogue. In my dealings with them, which has been limited to web board postings, pm's, and admiring their work, they all appear to be great guys. Despite their differences, all of them are worthy of respect and peoples' continued business.

RRfireblade

09-02-2006, 08:05 AM

The problem is my post was in reference to claims 7-8 and 9 of the issued Patent only. As rabidchihauhau seemed to imply that they alone were enought to invalidate the DW Patent.

The paragraph you are quoting here is I assume from a patent application that may or may not ever be granted. You speak of the two as if they are one and the same. They are not.

If that Patent ever gets granted then that will be another issue.

What about the other points and questions in my post? Any comment on those as the relate to the "issued" Patent?
Not really trying to be argumentive here, just curious.

No. Right off the first page of grant #6,802,305 , in the "SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION " and then later again in the "Detailed Description Of The Invention" is paragraphed this....

In the second type of system, as illustrated in FIGS. 7 and 8, a mechanical linkage between the trigger and the cocking/firing mechanism for the paintball gun is eliminated and a pressurized actuating ram is used. In this system, the trigger closes an air valve, which begins the firing sequence. Once again, since the user does not need to actuate the mechanical linkage between the trigger and the cocking/firing mechanism, the rate at which the trigger can be pulled and released is increased, thus increasing the number of paintballs that can be fired during a given time period. In each of the two embodiments illustrated, assistance is given to the user during the trigger cycle such that the speed of the trigger cycle can be increased, effectively increasing the number of paintballs fired by a semi-automatic paintball gun.

Nicads contention apparently , is that since the actual term "Pneumatic" wasn't singled out in the upper portion of the 'Claims' and only assumed to be as one of many possible methods of actuation , then some how all the later drawings, descriptions and teachings and references to "Pneumatic" uses are invalid.

Personally I disagree.

rabidchihauhau

09-02-2006, 08:45 AM

I guess I'm just gun shy and have taken to apologizing in advance just to cover the bases...

INDEPENDANT CLAIMS STAND ALONE.

Claim 7 of the ISSUED patent references a 'FORCE ELEMENT'.

The claim that was GRANTED covers a 'force element' for assisting in the pull of the trigger and another for the return of the trigger.

The drawings illustrate how that can be accomplished, as do the specification.

Show me a method of doing the above that does not use a 'force element' ("force element....we don't need no stinkin force element")

Herein lies the 'contention'; some, as RR has pointed out, contend that because the initial claim in the granted patent references one particular type of 'force element' (electro-magnets) that this somehow invalidates the later claim 7 which only references the generic 'force element'.

However, it does not. The examiner (our friend Ricci) did a good one for PTP this particular time around by leaving those claims in - DESPITE the subject matter contained in the first 6 claims.

Had the claims language referenced claims 1 through 6 in some manner, than the 'force element' of claim 7 would be tied into those claims and would be defined as an 'electromagnetic force element' for purposes of the claims. They DO NOT reference earlier claims and therefore DO NOT 'borrow' the definition of force element from those earlier claims. Claim 7 remains standing on its own.

Therefore, PTP has acquired the patent rights to whatever is covered by claim 7. In this case the generic and oh-so-vaguely defined 'force element'.

Now, its true that others who are concerned will attack the validity of this claim as we have seen; they will point to the earlier subject matter (electromagnets); they will state that the 'preferred embodiment' specification is for the device described in the first 6 claims; they will bring the smoke in and refer to the 'unissued' divisional application (in a negative manner designed to make it sound like PTP did something 'wrong'); they will state that 'force element' is too vague - BUT

first - they can't get away from the drawings which show the 'force element' - pneumatic version. second, they can't get away from the description language. third, they can't deny that claim 7 is an independant claim. fourth, they can't get past the fact that the patent examiner ACCEPTED 'force element' as a definition in the claims. And finally, it can not be denied that 'force element' covers pneumatic technologies.

Here's where the rub occurs: a person owning such a patent will, justifiably, claim that 'force element' references ANYTHING THEY SAY IT REFERENCES. Rubberbands, springs, pneumatic rams, solenoid valves, air motors, etc., etc., etc. The entity owning the patent carries a fair amount of weight because they have the grant in their hands.

A party not having the patent will claim that their particular device either does not utilize a 'force element' -or- (very important distinction here) does not utilize something that can be defined as a 'force element' in the MANNER DESCRIBED IN THE PATENT.

We've already seen one argument along those lines: the DW patent operates on the 'sear', not the trigger.

Maybe, maybe not. In a mag, the sear and the trigger are essentially one component and I would argue that applying the force element to the trigger IS applying the force element to the sear. That's an 'argument' - not a settled fact.

Unfortunately, giving greater weight to the PTP side, is the fact that the PTP GRANT (and application) cover the same device for other types of paintball guns where it is clearly demonstrated and taught that a 'trigger assisting device' must necessarily involve, at a minimum, improvements to the trigger AND the sear in all cases. If the 'trigger' is not linked to the 'sear' in some manner that causes operation of one to affect the action of the other, you can play all day with a really fast trigger and not fire a single ball.

Finally; arguments over what is in a claim and what is defined by language used in a claim are possible, but the holding of a granted patent with earlier filing date lends weight to the holder's argument over and above a 'he said, she said' fest.

There IS plenty of room for discussion here and the current situation DOES leave the possibility for people to take a contrary position on the subject, although in my considered opinion, and given the current rulings and findings in court and elsewhere involving equally 'mushy' claim language, I strongly believe that the 'force element' would stand as a valid claim covering pneumatic technologies.

RRfireblade

09-02-2006, 08:50 AM

Despite my inferior intellect, it appears to me that at this point and time, both PTP and Nicad have claims to part or all of a similar product. This may change in the future, depending on the Patent Office or the court system (if it ever went that far), but as of now, there doesn't appear to be exclusive rights to it by either party.

Also, to my layman's mind, it appears that these patents are on improvements of pre-existing technology, as rudimentary forms of assisted triggers have been around for a while, even though they weren't patented.

1) True , the diffference between the 2 'should' fall back the earlier filing in which PTP retains by a few years.

2) True again , as 'improvements' on not only un-patented invention but previously Patented inventions are not only accepted by USPTO but a fairly common occourance. This is one of the primary purposes (as I understand it ;)) of the "Back Ground" portions of an invention applicatoin so you can show why yours differs or improves on previous designs.

Jimbud

09-02-2006, 12:43 PM

Well again I must repeat I am no legal expert. :D

But I would argue that seems that when the Patent was split some language, descriptions and drawings were allowed to remain that should not have.

Claims 7,8.9 describe "assisting trigger movement".
And even the description of how they work in the "Claims" portion of the Patent do not match the Descriptions supported by Figures 7 and 8.

There seems to be no "Claim" that covers:
"the second type of system, as illustrated in FIGS. 7 and 8, a mechanical linkage between the trigger and the cocking/firing mechanism for the paintball gun is eliminated and a pressurized actuating ram is used. In this system, the trigger closes an air valve, which begins the firing sequence. Once again, since the user does not need to actuate the mechanical linkage between the trigger and the cocking/firing mechanism, the rate at which the trigger can be pulled and released is increased, thus increasing the number of paintballs that can be fired during a given time period. In each of the two embodiments illustrated, assistance is given to the user during the trigger cycle such that the speed of the trigger cycle can be increased, effectively increasing the number of paintballs fired by a semi-automatic paintball gun.

This is all covered however in the Claims of the split second App.

I think the only thing we can all agree on is that there is room for argument here and this will have to settled in Court.

rabidchihauhau

09-02-2006, 02:20 PM

all of which is rendered virtually moot by the fact that 'THEY'RE IN THERE'.

Do not forget that SUCCESSFULL patent infringement cases have been brought against the "original inventor", have been brought against those responsible for prior art and etc.

Let's also not forget that opportunities to license from PTP were presented - licensing that was not (imo) draconian in nature and some companies exercised that opportunity while others chose to decline.

In an infringement case - and/or an invalidation case - the fact that both parties had previously engaged in negotiations regarding licensing carries some weight as well. If DW's legal advisors recommended against licensing because they felt they had competing technology about to be patented - good for them, they were doing their job, because a licensing agreement in hand would have been a virtual defacto acknowledgement of potential infringement. Fortunately for them, they did not go quite that far (for whatever reason).

What this means for future pneu-mags may be nothing; however, I suggest that people think long and hard about the market consequences of the prevailing situation: companies that pay for IP usually prosecute their rights. usually, the 'little' guy loses (we're not discussing 'fairness' here, just reality). furthermore, consider the marketing strategy of the company that has licensed the PTP design.

RRfireblade

09-02-2006, 04:10 PM

Well again I must repeat I am no legal expert. :D

But I would argue that seems that when the Patent was split some language, descriptions and drawings were allowed to remain that should not have.

My only response to that is the SOB-ing examiner spent 5 years tearing the application apart , breaking it up into seperate and fully patentable inventions. Don't forget the second App in question still has the potential to grant. (Then PTP would have 2 :D)

One would have to assume that everything left in the original application after all that intense molecular dissection was intended to be left in there. ;) This sure as heck wasn't a weekender examination where anything could have possibly slipped by on Monday morning. :D

Jimbud

09-02-2006, 04:36 PM

Pneumagger

09-02-2006, 05:03 PM

He knows plenty about patents, i thought you weren't a legal expert. Patents commony take time and money to pull through.

http://i.pbase.com/v3/91/507091/2/49935188.DSC0s0156.jpg

Jimbud

09-02-2006, 05:18 PM

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :D

RRfireblade

09-02-2006, 07:10 PM

All I am saying is that there are some huge holes in your patent.

And that despite your arguments to the contrary the Issued Patent is nowhere near airtight in regard to Pneumatic Sear actuation.

Just because you have a patent does not mean it is a good patent.

But I will concede that the winner in this type of situation is usually the one with the deeper pockets rather than the one who is "in the right".
And I feel that it is fairly obvious from your arguments here that this is what you are banking on.

In the end you may be "in the right " after all, if you did file first and your second app. gets granted this really will be rendered moot. :)

I am not arguing who did what when, only that the Issued Patent and your aguments in support of it invalidating the DW Patent are problematic at best.

Basically we agree only that we are looking at it from different sides.

You see holes , I see room intentionally left for interpretation that allow 'us' to cover attempts by people to get around the Patent. If PTP stated outright (which was originally the case in addition to what you see granted) pneumatic , then someone biulds the same mechanics without pneumatics and says they'r in the clear. The compromise was to allow the use of "Force Element" on that point , which a pneumatic ram is without question, and a number of other devices.

I see it as even better protection but that is purely point of view.

In regards to Patent 'quality' we ultimately agree again only that I see it and it has been proven an endless number of times , that there are no 'good' patents only good trial laywers. We/PTP have been on both sides and in the end the paper and dates win until proven otherwise.

On the last item we again agree on. :) Is that the origin of the invention as it applies here is proven , documented fact in not only Grant 1 but in highly detailed application 2 that is yet to be granted....submitted almost 6 years ago. No one here , especially not myself , is trying to invalidate DWs patent. On the contrary I stated like 2 dozen pages ago ;) that at this point only a court case could effect any possible decision. The issue on the forums inevitably comes when people (not directed at anyone) who don't like being backed in a corner with no way out try to climb the walls to give them another angle to try and fight from.

So....

Given that the entire application and all it contains is what covers the invention and it's protection , along with all paragraphs reposted here for clarity , the detailed drawings , the teachings that 'specifically' cover the pneumatic use as it applies to the Mag , the filing date , granted part 1 and application part 2 (an even greater detailed application whose date will fall back to 2000) I really don't see any thing other than opinion and bias perception left to discuss.

At this point I'm going to go ahead and call myself out of it from here and leave anyone who prefers to argue the opinion side to have the floor to do so.

Thanks everyone who contributed and good manner and behavior.

Jay. :)

Jimbud

09-02-2006, 08:43 PM

Well I think the only things that we entirely agree upon is that we are looking at it from different sides. And that only a court case could settle this. :)

I have to say though I do love this line coming from you.
"The issue on the forums inevitably comes when people (not directed at anyone) who don't like being backed in a corner with no way out try to climb the walls to give them another angle to try and fight from." :rofl:
Something about a pot and a kettle comes to mind. ;)

It has been an interesting discussion. And I will say this no matter who wins, if the PTP version is as good as its billed I do hope that it will eventually see the light of day. :cheers:

Beemer

09-02-2006, 10:57 PM

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :D :spit_take :ninja: :headbang:

Hey so did I. But I could get :shooting: if I opened mouth after a few :cheers: :cheers:

RRfireblade

09-03-2006, 12:18 AM

Something about a pot and a kettle comes to mind. ;)

Not suprising , bias is often black and white. ;)

Nighty night. :)

Beemer

09-03-2006, 12:52 AM

Not suprising , bias is often black and white. ;)

Nighty night. :)

:rofl: Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night to? :ninja: :spit_take

Lenny

09-03-2006, 02:43 AM

...And I just love how everyone skipped over my post...

I'll revise them and cut to the chase here:

1. I respect RRfireblade. This was brought up many posts ago, but I find it still valid.

2. What was up with CMI's gun with a pneumatic trigger and how did this fall into place? (I believe it was CMI. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

(More recently thought of)
3. Patents expire. What'll happen then? When does it expire?

Loguzzzzzz

09-03-2006, 05:48 PM

(More recently thought of)
3. Patents expire. What'll happen then? When does it expire?I was waiting to see if any one was going to mention this. I could be wrong but I think patents are good for 7 years. If this is the case and the patent was granted in 2000 then we have about 1 year left.

Then it should be fair game. :clap:

I am saddened by the fact that we have this technology available and can't use / buy it. :(

:mad::cuss::mad::cuss::mad:

BigEvil

09-03-2006, 07:04 PM

I am saddened by the fact that we have this technology available and can't use / buy it. :(

:mad::cuss::mad::cuss::mad:

There are other, better technologies out there that are available and we cannot use either.. :cuss:

kruger

09-03-2006, 07:13 PM

If I am not mistaken, Patents run for 17 years, not seven.

craltal

09-03-2006, 08:43 PM

I was waiting to see if any one was going to mention this. I could be wrong but I think patents are good for 7 years. If this is the case and the patent was granted in 2000 then we have about 1 year left.

Then it should be fair game. :clap:

I am saddened by the fact that we have this technology available and can't use / buy it. :(

:mad::cuss::mad::cuss::mad:

the patent wasn't granted in 2000, that's probably a filing date. the clock doesn't start ticking until it is actually granted, however it is retro-active back to the filing date

Loguzzzzzz

09-03-2006, 11:23 PM

I looked into it a little further, US patents are now granted for 20 years from the date of filing, a design patent will only last 14 years.... :(

I guess we will have to wait another 7-1/2 years since this sounds like a design patent.

Oh Well!! :mad: :cuss:

rabidchihauhau

09-04-2006, 07:38 AM

21 years AND given the amount of time that the application has been in review, it would be well within PTP's interests to request an 'extension' and I believe strongly that it would be gtranted.

RR - no one here is really using their noggins when it comes to the analysis of the claims; they're not realizing that those 'holes' can be most readily exploited by the original patent holder...

RRfireblade

09-04-2006, 07:58 AM

RR - no one here is really using their noggins when it comes to the analysis of the claims; they're not realizing that those 'holes' can be most readily exploited by the original patent holder...

Yeah I see that. It's cool though, at least I learned a bunch during the discussion. :D Got pretty quiet in here pretty fast huh ? :ninja:

rabidchihauhau

09-04-2006, 08:36 AM

yep...too quiet...

Jimbud

09-04-2006, 10:50 AM

Yeah I see that. It's cool though, at least I learned a bunch during the discussion. :D Got pretty quiet in here pretty fast huh ? :ninja:

Why keep going over the same points?

You have your opinions I have mine.

And that's all that the are...opinions.

We could discuss this forever, but to what end?

Too bad that this didn't get settled years ago. We could all be shooting Pnue frames and arguing about the validity of the Smart Parts patent. :D

RRfireblade

09-04-2006, 02:21 PM

Why keep going over the same points?

You have your opinions I have mine.

And that's all that the are...opinions.

We could discuss this forever, but to what end?

Too bad that this didn't get settled years ago. We could all be shooting Pnue frames and arguing about the validity of the Smart Parts patent. :D

Uh , think that's what I said back there somewhere.

Wasn't refering to you anyway , mostly to the barrage of info , details and supporting statements I was asked to provide.....and did. ;)

Lenny

09-04-2006, 05:11 PM

And now for the THIRD time...

What's the deal with CMI's pneu-framed gun? Where did this fall and how similar were they to "modern" pneu concepts?

Also, that ugly yellow MiniMag with the LPR video that looks ancient; was that all part of the inital Pneumag hype? Or was that an indie project?

warbeak2099

09-04-2006, 05:46 PM

You talkin bout this?

G-Force 68-Super (http://www.gforcepb.com/securestore/c215403.2.html)

They look stupid and no one bought them. That's what happened. Actually everything except for that disgusting looking frame looks very sleek. Different frame and maybe some more wild milling and it would have sold more. They really didn't market it very well either. Or who knows, maybe PTP stopped them.

Pneumagger

09-04-2006, 06:40 PM

That is the worst CNC designing I've EVER seen. I could do better in 15 mins with g codes and a sherline Minimill.

RRfireblade

09-04-2006, 07:07 PM

Lenny

09-04-2006, 07:11 PM

No, 'm talking about the Feildmaster.

Here it is on PBR: http://www.pbreview.com/products/reviews/427/

or this one: http://www.pbreview.com/products/reviews/428/

kruger

09-04-2006, 08:15 PM

I havent chimed in on this at all, until now. I have a patent in the works, am looking to get it issued in about six months. NOT paintball related. And, having worked with a patent lawyer trying to get all the leagalese worked out, I discovered, that in the claims, you want to be a indirect as possible in your description. The reason for this, as has been stated, is to be able to cover as much intelectual real-estate as possible. Coupla reasons for this, first, you dont want anybody else taking your idea and making money, and second, you want exclusivity to the market that you are aiming for. The broader the description, the less wiggle room that any potential competitor has. And, the perfect example is the Smart Parts patent. Using their patent, you would think that Smart parts invented the switch and circuit board for paintball guns. Even tho everybody knows that that is not the case, they have goverment certified paperwork to enforce their claim. And, even tho we all know it, I'm gonna say it out loud. The only reason that smart parts, PTP, Dye, ect. ect. is in business, is to "make money" They are not in it to make the players happy, or to make you feel good. They are in it for the money. If these companies dont make a profit, they dont make paintball stuff. PERIOD. And, the only way that they can ensure that they protect their income, investors, and bank debts is to make the patents as broad and far reaching as possible. That is what lawers are for.

It seems that the DW patent and the PTP patent has the pneu-market pretty tied up right now. And it also seems that there is some overlap between the two. That is the patent examiners fault. And there lies the problem. Until the overlap disagreements are clearly resolved (lawers, court) then it is in the best interest of both patent holders to NOT produce anything. Else, one party will have to pay the other party a lic. fee.

Does this sit well with the paintball community? No. Is there anything that we can do about it? No. It does not matter what points are argued and won on this forum, or lost, it is up to the lawers to sort all this out.

But, I must say that this has been one of the most intellectual threads that I have read on any forum. I do look forward to see what happens tho.......

rabidchihauhau

09-06-2006, 07:50 AM

actually, I don't think that either company is holding back because of a potential infringement case. I think they're holding back for market reasons.

Here's a glimpse at the future:

so-called "High-end" electronic markers are soon going to be retailing for the following price-points: $750, $500, $250.

Not that we don't have some of that already, but I am here to tell you that the days of the $1200 'must have' electro are gone.

Just as paint eventually found its 'supportable' price point (roughly 2-3 cents per ball), so too will markers find their supportable price point and its not much over $250, which is where we're heading.

The Ion proved that there is a ready market for 'high end' markers at the 250 price point. Other companies - notably WDP and Eclipse - have recently introed their $750 offerings (Angel 1, Etek) and of course, markers like Alien, Promaster, etc alreayd occupy the $500 price point.

See the trend? Sure, there will still be room for super custom versions of name-brand markers, but in less than five years from now, the majority of tournament players and scenario gamers who purchase high-end product will be using a marker that retailed for around $250.

These offering will have all the bells and whistles - high rof, programmable boards, nice styling, aftermarket upgrades.

Where does that leave a pneu-based marker? Basically, without a market.

If the industry can get the 'cost of entry' for paintball down below $500, we'll see a lot of new players. (True, you can do it for that right now, but not if you are a discriminating buyer.)

marker - 250, tank 150, mask, pack, 75, misc - 25

that's where we're heading...

BigEvil

09-06-2006, 08:01 AM

Best post ive read in a long time. :cheers:

NoForts4Me

09-06-2006, 01:17 PM

Classic post, rabid. You've nailed the market. The Promaster you mentioned is already in the $250 range, and is a decent gun. I could see it being tough to sell a frame that is $250+ when you can pickup a good gun for that.

AGD

09-06-2006, 10:57 PM

Listen to Rabid, the voice of knowledge. The only thing i will add is that minimum price point products also tend have minimum variation. Its darn hard to stand out with a stock Ion.

AGD

Lenny

09-07-2006, 12:35 AM

Listen to Rabid, the voice of knowledge. The only thing i will add is that minimum price point products also tend have minimum variation. Its darn hard to stand out with a stock Ion.

AGD
Damn right!

So, does ANYONE know ANYTHING about the Feildmasters?

Any legal info on the G-Force Super 68 would be cool too.

I've only been asking forever... Someone's gotta know something!

rabidchihauhau

09-07-2006, 08:56 AM

The Prez speaks...(thanks)

True, minimum variation, but I believe that there is already a very strong support base to ummm 'minimize' that impact: players can readily change barrel, grip panels, loader (& loader color) and tank mounting system. That's basically changing everything except the body shape/color, and I expect that the 'sleeve' market will find its way to the fore. That metal decal company might come back and the smaller mfgs will do well for themselves by setting up short-run mfg of a body style or two and will do REALLY well for themselves if they figure out a way to license the right to make authorized aftermarket bodies (the gun mfg will do well for themselves if they keep those licensing fees within range of multiple small mfgs).

I can easily see a company buiying the rights to all the NXL teams or all the NPPL Pro teams and doing a run that offers, at a minimum, 16 different two-color body schemes; kind of like the NPS 'Team Colors' paintballs.

But the nice thing about the above is that the infrastructure for it is already well in place and none of it affects the price of entry for a new player.

Chronobreak

09-22-2006, 10:33 AM

so....

when i can i buy one ? :D

:ninja:

Pneumagger

09-22-2006, 11:03 AM

G@@@@@HHHHHH

Let it die in peace. If it come out... trust me you'll know...and you wont be the first to know either. That's life.

cledford

09-22-2006, 01:15 PM

Not having a background in patents and freely acknowledging how naive my following comments may be, this situation is offensive to me and has been from the start. 2 people I once had a great deal of respect for (Jay & Rabid) openly defend, no elevate almost to a level of religious zealotry, a perversion of a system never intended (AFIK) to be manipulated in such a fashion. That it may happen across the board, that it may have always happened, isn’t the point to me – just because you took advantage of a situation (i.e. filing an overly broad patent) and came out a winner doesn’t make it right in principal – even if others do it as well or you got away with it. So while I acknowledge that they might just have a case (guess we’ll never know until someone challenges it) I’ve no respect left for either. The fact is that from a personal perspective they should have never entered in the public discussion on this – legally right or wrong – because neither is ever going to look good moving forward. Publicity admitting that you whored yourself out to a business, skirted the letter of the law, while flagrantly pissing all over the *spirit* of the law – then openly admitting such practices in a public manner is low in my opinion – not that my opinions matters much as I don’t pay their salaries. However it just burns me that something like a “sharpie” approach would be noted as a good thing in a public forum. To me that’s like admitting to cheating after the big game but defending it by saying “everyone does it, and the ref didn’t catch it – so that makes it OK – we won, right? That proof enough we deserved it.” Rabid may be secure in his belief that he was doing right by his employers (he may very well have been in a very narrow view of the matter) – but I don’t feel that relieves moral and ethical obligations.

Furthermore, I am appalled (speaks to my nativity) that anyone would patent an idea with no working prototype – which I’ve only just learned about now was the case in this situation. I didn’t even know this was legal. It further stinks that having following all of these threads since this matter has come up, 2 things are quit obvious to me:

1) Rabid is quite impressed with his patent authoring ability (or should I say obtusifying even if it isn’t a word) – never mind that fact that one moment he’s lauding the wisdom of the USPTO in granting his application, while the next castigating the same guy for perceived lapses of judgment for things that didn’t go his way.

2) This case is not the slightest bit about an invention – it is about a game of hide the real invention in a maze of barely specific words so as to steal from the public forum as much “ground” for innovation as possible – all in the name of making more $$$. While this may be the reality of the patent game – it doesn’t make it right to sacrifice personal ethics to “do what everybody else is doing” but I guess people have always been for sale, which is nothing new either – so I’m not even sure why I’m disappointed by all of this.

-Calvin

Pneumagger

09-22-2006, 01:33 PM

I was under the impression that several PTP frames were prototyped (very sucessfully) for many different platforms as well as DW having the Mag prototype.

Furthermore...in many walks of life the end justifies the means, especially in business. Both companies were just fighting to produce a product with some exclusivity. A patent isn't about the alltruist protection and dichotomy of the“ground” for innovation. It it about money... plain and simple.

cledford

09-22-2006, 01:44 PM

Both companies were just fighting to produce a product with some exclusivity.

I don't think so - as I read posts within this very thread, protecting a product with "exclusivity" was only part of the intent. Covering as much intellectual ground as possible, to essentially control an entire industry was a second, yet possibly more important goal. As I read things they patented virtually every means of returning a trigger to its initial position - hence the micro-switch argument. No effort was made to protect only the IP they developed (via specificity); every effort was made to cover all existing unpaptented IP (what I would call public domain IP - even if ther eisn't such a thing) and any future ideas as well. Big difference to me.

-Calvin

rabidchihauhau

09-22-2006, 02:25 PM

[cut for brevities sake] To me that’s like admitting to cheating after the big game but defending it by saying “everyone does it, and the ref didn’t catch it – so that makes it OK – we won, right? That proof enough we deserved it.” Rabid may be secure in his belief that he was doing right by his employers (he may very well have been in a very narrow view of the matter) – but I don’t feel that relieves moral and ethical obligations.

Furthermore, I am appalled (speaks to my nativity) that anyone would patent an idea with no working prototype – which I’ve only just learned about now was the case in this situation. I didn’t even know this was legal. It further stinks that having following all of these threads since this matter has come up, 2 things are quit obvious to me:

1) Rabid is quite impressed with his patent authoring ability (or should I say obtusifying even if it isn’t a word) – never mind that fact that one moment he’s lauding the wisdom of the USPTO in granting his application, while the next castigating the same guy for perceived lapses of judgment for things that didn’t go his way.

2) This case is not the slightest bit about an invention – it is about a game of hide the real invention in a maze of barely specific words so as to steal from the public forum as much “ground” for innovation as possible – all in the name of making more $$$. While this may be the reality of the patent game – it doesn’t make it right to sacrifice personal ethics to “do what everybody else is doing” but I guess people have always been for sale, which is nothing new either – so I’m not even sure why I’m disappointed by all of this.

-Calvin

OY VEY!!!

Okay, I'll try to take this one step at a time.

first - you're railing against me and I've done absolutely nothing wrong - legally, morally or ethically. Coke built an empire on a trade secret; everyone could have been drinking cheaper soda for years, but no, those bastards had to keep the flavor formula secret! Damn them! Damn them to hell! Hoffman-LaRoche held the patent for VALIUM and for all related anti-depressants. Other drug companies had to wait for the expiry to have seriously competitive products on the market. BAD! BAD ZOOT. Keeping all those wonderful, non-addictive drugs that have helped so many millions to yourselves! BAD!
Don't you think the telegraph companies wanted to kill Alex G. Bell? Why didn't he just turn over the patent to them? Bad Alex. Making us all pay the phone company. Bad!

Your position as it relates to the claims in patents is unfounded at best and detrimentally ignorant at worst. I did not grant the patent from a vacuum - a PTO examiner went over it with a fine-toothed comb, we haggled over language and then HE granted the final version. If the definitions used and the territory claimed were 'unidentifiable', he would not have granted those claims.

What I take pride in is my ability to discern the multitude of different engineering approaches that could be substituted for the prototypical design as originally envisioned and to encapsulate all of them into single, broad-ranging definitions. IF ANYTHING, what I did/do is akin to maxing out the legal letter of the rules - but absolutely, I did not play in the gray and never have. What moral and ethical obligations do I have when it comes to writing a patent? Let's enumerate them:

1. working efficiently
2. completing the assignement within budget and on time (it 'was' a last minute rush to the post office, I admit, but it was finished on time. If I were a meanie, I'd deduct a quarter point for the anxiety...)
3. creating a work product that ultimately resulted in the achievement of the goal - that of getting a patent grant
4. knowing the rules and regulations and the inner-workings so that the work would be efficient
5. limiting myself to a single 'embodiment' of the design so that others could create non-infringing variations. Nope, sorry - I didn't do that
6. limiting myself to the least cost-effective version of the design so that others could obtain improvement patents. nope - didn't do that either
7. writing a crappy application that wouldn't get granted, allowing competitors an opportunity. No, so sorry, that wasn't done either
8. leaving holes for other variations to sneak through. nope
9. failing to put in a divisional application on time that would extend the reach of the design - nope
10. delaying the application so that a competitor could get their own in with a prior date. nope

What are my moral and ethical oblications to you, the company I worked for, the industry? Giving things away for free? Giving competitors a heads up? Strongly adivising against applying in the first place?

I'm not being hypocritical about the examiner; he's an idiot. I've never 'lauded' him, I was grateful that they finally granted the patent and still pissed off that it took him so long and still disagree with his splitting of the app. If you want to call heaving a sigh of relief that he actually did his job and followed SOME of the examiner's guidelines in doing so, then I guess you're right.

Perhaps you're referring to comments I made vis-a-vis some other companies grants versus my own - and that might seem contradictory, until you realize that the issue I'm addressing is one of substantivness. That other company got grants based on recursive definitions (it is what I say it is when I say it is), and THAT is improper. My definitions are not of the 'its what I mean when I say X' type - they are self-contained and defined specifically within the application. I'm allowed to do that.

Bud, if I were for sale, I'd be the head potentate in charge of everything paintball by now. You obviously are not familiar with my history of rabidly-stupid independance, dis-respect for authority and I can't even begin to tell you how many noses I've lost to windmill blades over the past 23+ years. Suffice it to say that if I sold out, I wouldn't be on here wasting time, I'd be enjoying the beach on my private island and waiting for the likes of J.B. B.G., R.I. and cronies to arrive with the mai tais.

And, umm, dude, I don't know where you get your tattle tales, but there were numerous prototypes and many, many, many man-hours devoted to that project - some of which were developments that took place over the previous 20 years and others were created specifically for this invention, but to say there's no prototype is a base canard.

I believe 'obfuscatory' was the word you were looking for.

RRfireblade

09-22-2006, 03:32 PM

Hey Calvin ,

Let me sum it up in as short and quick answers as I can. I'm not getting into this whole thing all over again.

1) I agree with you , the way these things are done today suck and go against everything that the USPTO was originally intended for. Unfortunatley you simply have no choice , big companies and especially import suppliers (manufactureres) eat this stuff up all day long. They have people who's only job is to scour the USPTO for products/ideas they can exploit , many times putting and getting grated redundant applications themselves. Once they do your done. Guess why the era of small US business is nearly extinct. Look at Walmart for goodness sake , it wasn't that long ago that they ONLY sold US based/made product and gladly advertised as such. Ever see anything in there US made now besides the employees :) ?

2) Having the Patent means nothing. Enforcing it and how you do so is where opinion of 'good' intent can only be based. PTP Patented and has applications in on very specific parts of this product. Some have granted , some are still in process. Regardless , they have NOT gone after anyone outside the realm of the intended purpose of the the granted Patent or the Pending Apps. (Unlike others in the industry) The simple truth is a Mag based pneumatic trigger system was in the works (yes there was proof of function way back , just no where as good as mine :) ) since before any of the original applications were submitted. The amount of time the USPTO took to grant and insome cases is still in process was beyond there control. What are you going to do ?

3) Uh... now I forgot what 3 was was....hang on.

Oh , I guess it was just that this really had/has nothing to do with competition between anyone. DW has claimed since the begining that they do not infringe and have thier own application in. Beyond that , and in the light of Colins recent Grant there's nothing left to discuss on that front. Right now either party has and apparently has always had the full go ahead to build a Mag frame. why each hasn't at this point is irrelevant to the Patent discussion.

What's obvious , or should be to most is this product sits dead square in the middle a greatly declining market , an increasing low rate of return based on current product values (thank Sp and the ION again) and a lack of motivation to continue.

In a nut shell you have to look at this whole thing in a bigger picture. No one , I promise you , is relishing in the dirty parts of the process. What Rabid relishes in , is trying to outwit or simply stay one step ahead of the thousands of leaches and dirtbags sitting in the shadows waiting to steal our lunch money. Paper work is just that , it's paper work needed to keep you around till lunch time. It's has little or no indication of how you handle yourself proffesionally and personally. That's a whole other issue. In regards to PTP , sure not everything they ever built or sold was perfection. Not everthing was groundbreaking change the world technology but what PTP is and always has been is good people doing thier best for the betterment of the industry and thier customers. They've alway stood behind everything they've ever sold 100% or more , regularly given back to the community , taken active part in all aspects of industry safety (ASTM) and IMO , just doing good business. I'm proud to say I was/am a small part of that.

That's 'should' be where the judgement is made overall.

SlartyBartFast

09-22-2006, 05:15 PM

What are you going to do ?

That used to be why you'd release product "Patent Pending".

Not dream up a million ways to lock others out of producing similar products or simply trying to lock up a design you never even had the intention to build yourself (not saying the last applies to PTP).

The situation will remain unpalateable IMO until there are VERY strict requirements for actual production/use of pattented items within very limited time frames.

One I'd like to see is that if a product goes to market after someone else applied for a patent, but before they went to market, the released product would be considered prior art and the patent null and void.

Only if a product was released first AND the patent applied for first would the patent be enforceable. Then the true entrepreneurs and inventors would be protected.

Pneumagger

09-22-2006, 05:45 PM

That used to be why you'd release product "Patent Pending".

:ninja:

RRfireblade

09-22-2006, 05:46 PM

That used to be why you'd release product "Patent Pending".

Not dream up a million ways to lock others out of producing similar products or simply trying to lock up a design you never even had the intention to build yourself (not saying the last applies to PTP).

The situation will remain unpalateable IMO until there are VERY strict requirements for actual production/use of pattented items within very limited time frames.

One I'd like to see is that if a product goes to market after someone else applied for a patent, but before they went to market, the released product would be considered prior art and the patent null and void.

Only if a product was released first AND the patent applied for first would the patent be enforceable. Then the true entrepreneurs and inventors would be protected.

You 'used' to be able to get away with Pat Pend too. ;) Nowadays it's a huge risk , to big a risk for smaller companies. Not to mention many larger companies will often produce under infringement and take over market share , chalk up the cost future legal to exceptable losses or simply of power (legally) the smaller company.

As I see it , the USPTO will only get more sloppy , grant more open ended applications , allow greater flexability in description and design and ultimately Patents will have less and less legal standing until they are useless.

And then we will never see any big technological break thrus by the little people....at least not as far as 'we' will ever know. :(

robnix

09-22-2006, 06:48 PM

OY VEY!!!

Okay, I'll try to take this one step at a time.

first - you're railing against me and I've done absolutely nothing wrong - legally, morally or ethically. Coke built an empire on a trade secret; everyone could have been drinking cheaper soda for years, but no, those bastards had to keep the flavor formula secret!

You can't patent a recipe. If you're lucky you could patent a cooking method, but that's about it. I could go buy a case of Coke, ingredients that I thought would mimic the flavor, and reverse engineer it until I either got it right or got sick from having ingested too much Coke. If I came up with a formula that was very close, or even the exact same flavor and bubbliness I could compete with Coke if I desired to, or not and give it away free to family and friends.

RRfireblade

09-22-2006, 07:20 PM

You can't patent a recipe. If you're lucky you could patent a cooking method, but that's about it. I could go buy a case of Coke, ingredients that I thought would mimic the flavor, and reverse engineer it until I either got it right or got sick from having ingested too much Coke. If I came up with a formula that was very close, or even the exact same flavor and bubbliness I could compete with Coke if I desired to, or not and give it away free to family and friends.

Then I promise you , Coke would sue you so fast your head would spin since they will 'find' grounds to back them up as having rights to the traditional Coke taste.

Bank it. ;)

Chronobreak

09-22-2006, 07:23 PM

pepsi anyone?

:note to self, dont resurect pneu thread:

:p ,......::looks at jay with sad puppy eyes:: :(

:slips rabid a $20:

RRfireblade

09-22-2006, 08:04 PM

pepsi anyone?

:note to self, dont resurect pneu thread:

:p ,......::looks at jay with sad puppy eyes:: :(

:slips rabid a $20:

Mmm Hmm....

Now your on 2 of my lists , funny boy.

REDRT

09-22-2006, 09:51 PM

RRfireblade

09-22-2006, 10:22 PM

Anyone know why DW's hAir trigger was suggested/needed the standard RT on/off and not the ULT. It has been a while, but I seem to recall it using the standard RT on/off. Now as more and more poeple are DYI the norm is ULT. What was different with the DW set up vs a common set up?

The DIYers use a trigger switch whose activation force increases with LPR pressure which runs in parallel with the force required to trip the sear. ULT=less pressure=Lighter trigger pull.

Neither mine nor DWs has that issue therefore any on/off can be used. Technically the stock RT on/off allows for the highest possible cycle rate.

REDRT

09-22-2006, 10:36 PM

The DIYers use a trigger switch whose activation force increases with LPR pressure which runs in parallel with the force required to trip the sear. ULT=less pressure=Lighter trigger pull.

Neither mine nor DWs has that issue therefore any on/off can be used. Technically the stock RT on/off allows for the highest possible cycle rate.

I may have been snoozing at the wheel, but do you build a drop in frame one can buy?

RRfireblade

09-22-2006, 10:47 PM

I may have been snoozing at the wheel, but do you build a drop in frame one can buy?

:spit_take

Working on it is all Ima say.

:ninja:

robnix

09-23-2006, 02:13 AM

Then I promise you , Coke would sue you so fast your head would spin since they will 'find' grounds to back them up as having rights to the traditional Coke taste.

Bank it. ;)

No they won't. Why do you think a BBQ sauce maker keeps at least portions of his recipe a secret? You can't patent a recipe. Even with copyrights, a list of ingredients doesn't make a copyright.unless it's accompanied by substantial documentation, and even then it's very dificult to make a copyright claim against someone. There's a really good article about stealing recipes in the culinary world here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/story/0,,1738630,00.html

I know it's an english newspaper, but there are references to UK and US law in it.

And, here, make some of your own:

http://inlet.org/adwatch/opencolaformula.htm :D

rabidchihauhau

09-23-2006, 06:33 AM

Excuse me, but you CAN patent a 'recipe'.

Specifically for paintball, Mike Ratko has several 'paintball formulation recipes' patented. It has claims that read something like: "a formulation consisting of a mixture of between .001% and .99% chemical X, .001% and .99% of chemical Y and .001% and .99% of chemical Z"

Wanna talk about 'vague'? (Please note the above is a grave simplification; in the actual patent, there are also listings of alternative chemicals for each of the components, such as ethyleneglycol, polyethyleneglycol, multipolyethyleneglycol, toomuchmultipolyethyleneglycol, etc.)

Guys, the FIRST thing you have to remember about patents is that you are not granted a right TO DO ANYTHING! You are granted the right to PREVENT OTHERS FROM DOING!!!

That most specifically consists of creating something and then sitting on it.

Coca-Cola did not patent their formula because they believed, after careful strategic analysis, that the patent lifetime was too short for their purposes; they wanted to keep it a secret from everyone, FOREVER, not just 21 years.

Slarty - I'd re-think what you're suggesting. Your plan will cut the vast majority of small inventors, companies entirely out of the mix because most lack the financial wherewithal to bring a product to market. If I were Mr. Big Co, I'd be spending good money on spying on my competitors and bringing out a 'kill their patent product' every single day under your suggested system.

The problems with patents today stems from the ill-considered change to the PTO that took them from being a cost center of the Fed to being a profit center. Now, the PTO has a vested interest in granting as many patents as they can possibly shove out the door, while avoiding any responsibility (take it to court...). Prior to 2000, they had a vested interest in ONLY granting solid patents. It was a matter of pride to be able to say, 'not good enough, re-work the claims'. Their salaries were not linked to the fees collected, but to the rigor with which they reviewed claims.

I believe that the fundamental cultural change that took place was in the area of 'fields of invention' and the definition of 'one skilled in the art'. By narrowing the scope of both of these, they made it possible to divorce firearms technology from paintball technology, allowing someone to get a grant for, say, a switch operated by a trigger - desite the existence of prior art in the firearms industry.

How many of you have walked into the hardware store and said 'hey, that can be adapted for paintball...'? Well, under the old culture, that adaptation would have constituted prior art. Today, it doesn't seem to count.

Its also complicated by the inability of the PTO to keep up with all of the different fields; there's an app in right now that claims that 'no sports goggle has been coupled with a face shield', despite the many years of motocross and paintball 'masks'. Its actually questionable whether the examiner looking at that app will ever be exposed to motocross or paintball masks. If so, the examiner will grant the application, and the guy who put it in will hire a lawyer to write C&Ds to every mask maker out there...

Here's the REAL situation in industry. If you can't dominate a market out of the gate, you need IP. If you don't have the $ to enforce your IP, the bad guys will go merrily along, selling YOUR invention, banking oodles and further increasing their abiiity to ignore you. If you don't have IP and try to bring something to market, the bad guys will copy you and run you off with a less expensive version, all the while advertising how wonderful their new thing is. If you get the IP and successfully market the product, the bad guys will invest in IP themselves and start to surround you, or purchase someone else's prior IP and send YOU C&D letters...

Looking at the above, it ought to be clear that you at least need to try and get the IP, because you're definately no where without it.

(ADDED: Pat No. 6,530,962:

1. A liquid dye composition adapted for use in an impact-rupturable capsule comprising a water-soluble dye and a lipophilic carrier having an oil and an emulsifier, said emulsifier comprising ethoxylated mono- and diglycerides.

2. The liquid dye composition according to claim 1 wherein the impact-rupturable capsule is spherical in shape.

3. The liquid dye composition according to claim 1 wherein the oil is a vegetable oil.

4. The liquid dye composition according to claim 3 wherein the oil is soybean oil.

5. The liquid dye composition according to claim 1 wherein the emulsifier further comprises mono- and diglycerides.

6. The liquid dye composition according to claim 5 wherein the emulsifier comprises a mixture of ethoxylated mono- and diglycerides to mono- and diglycerides in a weight ratio ranging from about 1:10 to about 10:1.

7. The liquid dye composition according to claim 1 wherein the emulsifier is present in an amount ranging from about 2.5% to about 25% by weight of the total composition.

8. The liquid dye composition according to claim 7 wherein the emulsifier is present in an amount ranging from about 5% to about 15% by weight of the total composition.

and THAT'S a recipe!

see pat. no 6,375,981 for more (and worse) of the same

rabidchihauhau

09-23-2006, 11:56 AM

let's talk about 'specificity'.

paten no 6,530,962 starts with the following claims:

1. A liquid dye composition adapted for use in an impact-rupturable capsule comprising a water-soluble dye and a lipophilic carrier having an oil and an emulsifier, said emulsifier comprising ethoxylated mono- and diglycerides.

an 'impact-rupturable capsule'. Hmmm, doesn't say gelatin. Looks like they're trying to grab the ENTIRE WORLD of any material that can make up an impact rupturable capsule. Hmmm, doesn't even say 'spherical'. So, these SOBs are trying to grab ANY material and ANY shape. Looks like the boys working on the cubical paintball can hang up their shoes. Oh heck, look at this: the capsule has to break from some kind of impact. Notice it doesn't say how many foot pounds are required. Heck, it doesn't even identify whether the capsule is doing the impacting or if its being hit by some other object impacting it. These guys sure are slick. If I wanted to come up with a whoopee cushion that stained someone's pants, I guess I'll be using a sponge instead of some type of container...

Of course, I'd be able to get around this claim if I could find some other way of getting the oils used to mix into a colloidal suspension with the other materials...but then, that would be emulsifing by definition. How the HECK did those guys get away without having to specify an emulsion agent. Damn, they can use anything; wait - if there is such a thing as a triglyceride that will get the job done and be non-toxic... or, hey wait, if I use ONLY mono or di glycerides...

2. The liquid dye composition according to claim 1 wherein the impact-rupturable capsule is spherical in shape.

'spherical in shape'. Wow - that could mean anything from an oblate spheroid to a perfect sphere.

3. The liquid dye composition according to claim 1 wherein the oil is a vegetable oil.

vegetable oil. that's ANY vegetable...too bad we can't get oils out of fruits...

4. The liquid dye composition according to claim 3 wherein the oil is soybean oil.

5. The liquid dye composition according to claim 1 wherein the emulsifier further comprises mono- and diglycerides.

6. The liquid dye composition according to claim 5 wherein the emulsifier comprises a mixture of ethoxylated mono- and diglycerides to mono- and diglycerides in a weight ratio ranging from about 1:10 to about 10:1.

don't these guys know what they're making? That's anything from 'about' ten percent to 'about' 90 percent. Guess what - 1 percent is 'about' ten percent. 99 percent is 'about' 90 percent...

7. The liquid dye composition according to claim 1 wherein the emulsifier is present in an amount ranging from about 2.5% to about 25% by weight of the total composition.

pretty big ranger here too, with that smarmy 'about' word thrown in for good measure. You know what? I'll bet than any composition that has less than 2.5% or more than 25% emulsifier just won't get the job done. Bastages!

8. The liquid dye composition according to claim 7 wherein the emulsifier is present in an amount ranging from about 5% to about 15% by weight of the total composition.

And you're hopping all over me for 'force element'?

Chronobreak

09-23-2006, 12:21 PM

this may be news to me only, but i assume that is an actual paint "BALL" patent?

i was unaware of who if anyone had one. or was enforcing it.

lmk if its just some random recipe though :confused:

i guess pwoered paintballs wouldnt fall under that though would they?

rabidchihauhau

09-23-2006, 12:24 PM

yes, it is a paintball formulation patent

Chronobreak

09-23-2006, 12:26 PM

yes, it is a paintball formulation patent

as i said i figured that much, but what paint company does that guy own, if any, and who is he( i dont recall the name)

also is said person enforcing the patent( i was unaware of ANY paint companies paying fees)

robnix

09-23-2006, 12:42 PM

Excuse me, but you CAN patent a 'recipe'.

Paintballs aren't food.

http://www.lib.washington.edu/Engineering/ptdl/faq-answers.html

Recipes

In general, recipes do not meet the usefulness criterion for a patent. That is, the combination of ingredients which make the world's best peach pie is not functionally different from an ordinary peach pie.

Many companies, like Coca-Cola or Kentucky Fried Chicken, have secret recipes. Typically, they protect these recipes as trade secrets rather than patents. Since patents require the inventor to publish the invention, and since patents have a limited life span, any competitor can duplicate the invention after its patent expires. Trade secrets, on the other hand, are secret, and have no pre-set life span.

You may be able to patent a cooking method, but not a recipe for food.

CoolHand

09-23-2006, 01:42 PM

Paintballs aren't food.

http://www.lib.washington.edu/Engineering/ptdl/faq-answers.html

Recipes

In general, recipes do not meet the usefulness criterion for a patent. That is, the combination of ingredients which make the world's best peach pie is not functionally different from an ordinary peach pie.

Many companies, like Coca-Cola or Kentucky Fried Chicken, have secret recipes. Typically, they protect these recipes as trade secrets rather than patents. Since patents require the inventor to publish the invention, and since patents have a limited life span, any competitor can duplicate the invention after its patent expires. Trade secrets, on the other hand, are secret, and have no pre-set life span.

You may be able to patent a cooking method, but not a recipe for food.

You COULD patent it, but you'd only have 21 yrs of protection.

That link doesn't say that it is impossible to get a patent on a recipe, they just said in general, meaning "usually". There's nothing stopping you from sending in an application, and with the way things are now, you're likelyhood of a grant is higher than ever.

y0da900

09-23-2006, 04:58 PM

There's nothing stopping you from sending in an application, and with the way things are now, you're likelyhood of a grant is higher than ever.

Anyone think that the patent office will ever go back to operating the way it was meant to, and or, being held accountable for all of the patents that have been issued that shouldn't have been? It's kind of a joke some of the stuff that's gotten through.

robnix

09-23-2006, 09:47 PM

You COULD patent it, but you'd only have 21 yrs of protection.

That link doesn't say that it is impossible to get a patent on a recipe, they just said in general, meaning "usually". There's nothing stopping you from sending in an application, and with the way things are now, you're likelyhood of a grant is higher than ever.

Read the other article I posted:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/story/0,,1738630,00.html

But can you copyright a recipe? Could Heston Blumenthal register his roast spiced cod with castelluccio lentils? Or St John's Fergus Henderson his roast bone marrow with parsley salad? No, says Alex Papakyriacou, of intellectual property law firm Briffa. "Case law suggests that reproducing a written recipe in the preparation of a dish is not copyright infringement. The same goes for recipes that have been communicated aurally or by a chef deciphering the ingredients and method involved in the preparation of a recipe by sampling a dish prepared to it."

Nor is it possible to patent a recipe, either in the UK or US, because the organic development of food will never constitute an "inventive step". In short: you will never know definitively where your pizza or prawn noodle originated.

rabidchihauhau

09-24-2006, 09:02 AM

well, paintballs are 'food'; considering that ultra-orthodox jews and observant muslims are not allowed to play paintball because they might accidentally ingest non-kosher materials (and just plain coming into contact with them requires all kinds of special cleansing); considering that numerous veterinarians caution against allowing dogs to eat paintballs and considering that all of the contents of a paintball are themselves both edible and utilized in other prepared foods, I'd say it falls under the definition of 'food'.

robnix: the statement you quoted does not really address 'recipe' per se - it addresses the functional equivalents doctrine. The nail is functionally equivalent to the screw in this application, therefore, no patent.

This peach pie recipe is functionally equivalent to other peach pies known to have existed for years, therefore, no patent.

Its not 'RECIPES' - its functional equivalence. Chemical formulations ARE 'recipes' and vice versa; take x amount of this, boil in that, once its set, add these other things...

When cooking, you're 'mixing chemicals' - fructose, lactose, starch, fats, acids, bases, etc.

If you came up with a food recipe that was NOT functionally equivalent to any other existing food preparation method, you most assuredly could receive a patent.

And, I would suggest, the place to find legal opinions on patents is NOT in the press; the reporter who originally wrote that piece probably has less undertanding of patent law than any individual on this site...

If, for example, I came up with a recipe for making apple pie using only kobe beef (near to impossible I know) - you could get a patent for turning beef into fruit.

...and, after just a small amount of research at the PTO, here's one of MANY MANY MANY patented RECIPES for preparing a FOODSTUFF that was GRANTED:

Pat. No. 3,996,390

Based on dry ingredients before adding the liquid ingredients, i.e. juice and milk, the compositions of the present invention typically contain the following range of ingredients expressed in % by weight, the amounts of ingredients being selected so that the total is 100%:

______________________________________ Ingredient % By Weight ______________________________________ Gelatin, type B 15 - 41 CMC 2.5 - 4 Sugar 60 - 81 Acidulent 1.6 - 2.0 ______________________________________

Typically, the finished product to which the acid food juice and milk have been added contains the following range of ingredients expressed in % by weight, the amounts of ingredients being selected so that the total is 100%:

______________________________________ Ingredient % By Weight ______________________________________ Gelatin, type B 1.5 - 4.1 CMC 0.25 - 0.4 Sugar.sup.+ 6 - 10.0 Acidulent 1.6 - 2.0 Milk 40 - 50 Acid food juice 40 - 50 ______________________________________ .sup.+If an artificial sweetener is used, it is present at a level equivalent in sweetening effect to the sugar. As the weight of artificial sweetener will be much less than that of sugar, the relative amounts of

PLEASE note the word INGREDIENTS (not 'chemicals'); please note 'juice and milk', 'sugar', 'gelatin', etc.

Once again - its not enough to read a patent, or even the various rules governing patents (not to mention all of the special findings) without understanding that we are dealing with a very specialized AND complicated area of the law, one which often uses the same words that we do in everyday conversation, but those words don't necessarily have the same common meaning. Unless you really want to get mired in it all, (go read the patent examiners manual - its there for a free download and guaranteed to give many headaches), you're shooting blind when you pull a single paragraph, finding or decision regarding them.

and robnix - here's a quote from the article you provided a link to:

"The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Wednesday March 29 2006

We said in the report below that it was not possible to patent a recipe in the UK or US. In fact it is possible, although it would have to be substantially different from anything that had been done before."

robnix

09-24-2006, 02:01 PM

Agreed, trusting the press to get this right is a bad idea.

If you came up with a food recipe that was NOT functionally equivalent to any other existing food preparation method, you most assuredly could receive a patent.

If, for example, I came up with a recipe for making apple pie using only kobe beef (near to impossible I know) - you could get a patent for turning beef into fruit.

You've just made a beef pot pie.

...and, after just a small amount of research at the PTO, here's one of MANY MANY MANY patented RECIPES for preparing a FOODSTUFF that was GRANTED:

I found 3389 on patentstorm using the word foodstuff. Reading through them is proof of the issues at the USPTO. Ifound patents for using ice to restrict bacteria growth in food, convection ovens, deep fried food, and grease pans for bbq's. Again though, all of these were methods, not one single patent that I read through contained a specific list of ingredients, with a specific amount of each, and with a specific method of prepering those ingredients. When I refer to a recipe, I mean an exact itemization of the ingredients, and an exact preperation method.

But yes, I'll agree, you can get a patent for a foodstuff.

rabidchihauhau

09-25-2006, 07:11 AM

[QUOTE=robnix]Again though, all of these were methods, not one single patent that I read through contained a specific list of ingredients, with a specific amount of each, and with a specific method of prepering those ingredients. When I refer to a recipe, I mean an exact itemization of the ingredients, and an exact preperation method. QUOTE]

...and you won't find such a thing; by its very nature, a patent application for a recipe will include as much wiggle room as is possible. You won't find "remove plastic tray with meal from outer packaging, poke 2 slits approximately 1/2 inch in length in the plastic film cover, microwave on high for 2 minutes in a 5000 wt oven (see time/temp table for other wattage microwaves), stir with a wooden spoon exactly five revolutions, microwave on medium for 5 minutes in a 5000 wt oven, remove from microwave oven and let cool on a heat-resistant surface for precisely 37 seconds, remove plastic film and convey food substances to oral caviity with a spoon and consume"; you'll find "remove from packaging (how?, what?) poke holes in plastic cover (can I just loosen a corner?) microwave on high for 2 minutes (oven temps may vary), stir, microwave on medium for 5 minutes, let cool and serve (to whom? do I leave the plastic film on it?)

Any good 'recipe' patent will offer a full range of mixtures for every ingredient and as many substitutions of ingredients as they can think of: if for apple pie, they'll offer 'seasonings' to include between a pinch and a table spoon of cinnamon, a pinch to a table spoon of salt...the crust can be 'a prepared shell, a graham cracker shell, a traditional pie dough shell, etc., etc.

If for candied yams, it won't specify the 'candy', and will probably note the substitution of sweet potato for yam...

So, to put it another way - there most definately are patents for 'recipes', but as is so often the case, the word 'recipe' in the patent context is not precisely the same thing as a 'recipe' in the cooking context. They're not mutually exclusive, but they do mean slightly different things.