PTP and Smart Parts in a race for the patent to the Quick-Release feedneck

[RogueFactor]

Smart Parts:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20060032488&OS=20060032488&RS=20060032488

PTP:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20050284457&OS=20050284457&RS=20050284457

If PTP is successful, and can enforce their patent, it will have a priority date that precedes Smart Parts.

Read the good stuff, and post your thoughts.

[MANN]

How is a clamping feedneck patientable?

Patients should be used for real inventions, not just everyday upgrades.

/introducing the new and improved threaded hopper. This hopper allows your marker to work without a feedneck.

[RogueFactor]

How is a clamping feedneck patientable?

How is using electricity in a paintball gun patentable? Dont know, but Smart Parts did it.

Soon, even thinking about paintball will require you to pay a royalty. :rofl:

[AgntOrnge]

Check out the technology industry. They patent things like method of clicking on a URL or device that stores MP3s. Our patent system is horribly broken/outdated.

[BigEvil]

How is using electricity in a paintball gun patentable? Dont know, but Smart Parts did it.

Soon, even thinking about paintball will require you to pay a royalty. :rofl:


Im glad no one knows what im thinking right now :ninja:

[MANN]

How is using electricity in a paintball gun patentable? Dont know, but Smart Parts did it.

Soon, even thinking about paintball will require you to pay a royalty. :rofl:

Couldnt agree more.

[Chronobreak]

Im glad no one knows what im thinking right now :ninja:

mind paintballs?

:p


--subscribing to make a comment after i read and see what rabid says as im sure he will chime in

[AirAssault]

introducing the new and improved threaded hopper. This hopper allows your marker to work without a feedneck.


There ya go, the next "new" thing. Works for me.

[MANN]

There ya go, the next "new" thing. Works for me.

I would have alum hoppers first. Unfortuently you would only sell one to everyone, instead of 10s. Business wise it is not a good invention/investment. One day I will do it tho. Assuming someone doesnt beat me to it.

[flyingpootang]

Im glad no one knows what im thinking right now :ninja:

Betcha it's "Dang Flyingpootang's PumpMag is going to win Julys MOTM" :rofl:

[cyrus-the-virus]

I would have alum hoppers first. Unfortuently you would only sell one to everyone, instead of 10s. Business wise it is not a good invention/investment. One day I will do it tho. Assuming someone doesnt beat me to it.

still, it would make those pre-BE revy owners somthing to scratch their chins

[BigEvil]

Betcha it's "Dang Flyingpootang's PumpMag is going to win Julys MOTM" :rofl:


HAHA But I heard that someone patented blue pump mags. Be prepared for your 'cease and desist" (SP) letter.

Also keep your eyes out for a press release on 68 cal regarding the situation.

:D

[craltal]

if i'm reading it correctly, they both could patents. ptp's is for the type with the screw down collar while sp is going for the lever style...

[RogueFactor]

if i'm reading it correctly, they both could patents. ptp's is for the type with the screw down collar while sp is going for the lever style...

PTP already received their patent for the screw down collar. This Application is a Continuation in Part to include the "lever".

[spectre184]

Also keep your eyes out for a press release on 68 cal regarding the situation.

:D
You mean this? (http://www.68caliber.com/news/industry/story042563.php)

[craltal]

PTP already received their patent for the screw down collar. This Application is a Continuation in Part to include the "lever".


ah.... then I'd say given their earlier filing date and the fact that it's an addendum to an existing patent, they stand a better chance of getting this one approved.

I, for one, hope they do get it, if for no other reason than SP won't have it...

[RogueFactor]

You mean this? (http://www.68caliber.com/news/industry/story042563.php)

No, their first one was even before that.


ah.... then I'd say given their earlier filing date and the fact that it's an addendum to an existing patent, they stand a better chance of getting this one approved.

I, for one, hope they do get it, if for no other reason than SP won't have it...

I hope neither are granted. Nothing new about the quick release clamp.

[MANN]

You mean this? (http://www.68caliber.com/news/industry/story042563.php)

REMOVE THAT IMMEADEATLY we wont have coprighted material on these interwebs.

/Going to get another. :cheers:

[craltal]

I hope neither are granted. Nothing new about the quick release clamp.


I agree that more patents are not needed, but since we all know the patent office is not smart enough to realize basic logic, I'd just be glad if SP didn't get it

[Lohman446]

How is a clamping feedneck patientable?

Patients should be used for real inventions, not just everyday upgrades.

/introducing the new and improved threaded hopper. This hopper allows your marker to work without a feedneck.

So, what's the line of patentable and not? If it did not exist before it was put out how is it not new? The fact of the matter is, at oen time, adjustable, quick release feednecks were not an "everyday" upgrade. I remember fooling with o-rings and all other sorts of ideas that were supposed to fill the void these feednecks did. Electrical tape and sanding paper were a staple of making hoppers fit markers.

That threaded hopper concept is not that bad of an idea.

[MANN]

So, what's the line of patentable and not? If it did not exist before it was put out how is it not new? The fact of the matter is, at oen time, adjustable, quick release feednecks were not an "everyday" upgrade. I remember fooling with o-rings and all other sorts of ideas that were supposed to fill the void these feednecks did. Electrical tape and sanding paper were a staple of making hoppers fit markers.

That threaded hopper concept is not that bad of an idea.

I agree with the trying everything in the world to get a hopper to stay on the marker. in te early 90s my favorite was cutting a slit into the elbo, and using radiator hose clamps.

We always thought it would be cool to make metal ones, but never had the means/tools to do so.

My problem with patienting everything is it is going to hurt the industry. Simple upgrades such as a clamping feedneck just does not cut it in my book. I am not sure where to draw the line, but it just seems like always arguing over the subject does nothing but waste time, and hurt paintball as a sport.

[DaFin]

I'm going to patent the *round* paintball.......


I agree with Mann, these patents are hurting the industry.

[Lohman446]

There are three reasons that I can come up with that normally cause people to invent something

1) Monetary gain
2) A true love for what you are doing
3) Neccessity

When TK invented face shields for paintball it was out of a true love for the game first, and monetary gain second (we assume). When he brought in HPA it was out of a necessity (mags and CO2 were just not cutting it).

However, with the "big business" mindset coming in. Monetary gain becomes more and more important. You will not see a lot of innovation if there is not some monetary gain behind it. Paintball has evolved to a "big money" sport, and thats one of the things that came along with it. Its no longer Adam and Billy drilling holes in barrels in a garage because it might help. Its looking over numbers and patent law to see if this new idea is protectable and worth producing.

The introduction of paintball as big business hurt the sport to some degree. Those who were doing it (the manufacturing, running, etc) for the love of the game first, and money second are getting less and less. However, paint prices are at record lows, "high end" equipment is attainable to nearly everyone, until recently more and more people were playing. However, the game I loved for instance is gone . I would gladly see $100 a case and $700 classic mags to get it back...

Patents are not what is hurting the game... is the migration and evolution of the business around it.

[MANN]

Patents are not what is hurting the game... *it* is the migration and evolution of the business around it.

I believe that the patents are included with the buisness, and after that QFT. Paintball is being run by people who have never actually played/ dont care about the game.

[Lohman446]

I believe that the patents are included with the buisness, and after that QFT. Paintball is being run by people who have never actually played/ dont care about the game.

I'll go with that. It was better when the game was $100 a case of paint, incredible paintball markers, and the little kids were the exception.

[RRfireblade]

Funny thing is , the majority of people against patents typically don't have any or have never been ripped off. :D

[RogueFactor]

So, what's the line of patentable and not? If it did not exist before it was put out how is it not new?

Read 35 USC 103 (a). That is one 'line' of what is not patentable.

[rabidchihauhau]

that's the obviousness doctrine.

However, the issuance of a patent for a field of invention is itself proof that the subject matter was not "obvious".

And for those talking about threaded hoppers, take a look at the drawings for the two PTP patents in question; got ya covered...

lol

BTW its also called earliest filing date, which someone mentioned previously. Pro-Team's initial filing date was 2000 - and we were working on the darned thing probably as far back as 3 or 4 years before that...

[MANN]

It was better when the game was $100 a case of paint, incredible paintball markers, and the little kids were the exception.

Sad but true.

[RogueFactor]

However, the issuance of a patent for a field of invention is itself proof that the subject matter was not "obvious".
That would be for a judge to decide. Prior art not submitted/reviewed in evaluation of a patent, is one example to disprove this statement. Another would be documented Transaction History of the patent itself.

For example, the original application had independent claims Rejected based upon adding the word "lever" to what is substantially identical to the original---called obviousness "double-patenting", documented and described here:

http://www.roguesportz.com/images/gallery/obviousnessdetails.jpg


BTW its also called earliest filing date, which someone mentioned previously. Pro-Team's initial filing date was 2000 - and we were working on the darned thing probably as far back as 3 or 4 years before that...

Golly...if you were working on "levers" since 1996, and with your legal prowess of writing an all encompassing patent... one has to wonder why you didnt put that in the original patent :rofl:

Shens.

[rabidchihauhau]

Rogue,

If you want to start pulling special cases in - fine. From now on my posts will be 12 times as long so I can anticipate every possible objection in advance...

If someone wants to claim prior art after a grant - that's great. If they can prove it, great. That's a long and involved and expensive process that is usually raised when someone claims infringement and brought out as a defense.

On the other issue - you'll note that they stated that the matter was anticipated by the earlier claims.

Office actions go on all the time - with the examiner statting a contention regarding the claims and then the applicant having (multiple) opportunities to deal with it.

There was no delibverate attempt to 'double patent' in this case, it was merely a situation of covering the bases too thoroughly.

Obviousness is also a lot more complicated of an issue than just something similar having previously existed. Ultimately, the examiner decides what is and what isn't, (unless it gets thrown into a legal battle).

Pro-Team has been granted two applications on locking feednecks already, has the earliest filing date, overcame overly zealous examination that resulted in someone who copied its design being granted a patent for the exact same things covered by PTP's - and before PTP got issued their first one (all of which is getting straightened out) and is operating on the principle - like the patent office - that "paintball" is its own field of invention; therefore, even if you've seen prior art locking collar systems in some other application, the PTO has determined that inventing one for paintball is "new" enough.

I'll tell you, I fought that concept tooth and nail for about five years; a gun is a gun, a switch behind a trigger/lever is a switch behind a lever, etc., etc. so far as I'm concerned, and any idiot can walk into a hardware store or electronics shop and find 12 million things that can be adapted for paintball applications and they haven't invented anything 'new' - but thats not the way the folks in Virginia have defined the game and its an idiot in business that doesn't accept the rules and work with in them if they want to be successfull.

Sorry - but you can quote office actions all you want - the result is that most of the claims got granted as they were originally written and the remainder were either unnecessary (as in your example) or re-written in a manner that was acceptable to the examiner. That's part of the process and one of the things that makes getting a patent take so long. There's nothing 'illegal' or wrong with that, its the process.

[RogueFactor]

Rogue,

If you want to start pulling special cases in - fine. From now on my posts will be 12 times as long so I can anticipate every possible objection in advance...

If someone wants to claim prior art after a grant - that's great. If they can prove it, great. That's a long and involved and expensive process that is usually raised when someone claims infringement and brought out as a defense.

On the other issue - you'll note that they stated that the matter was anticipated by the earlier claims.

Office actions go on all the time - with the examiner statting a contention regarding the claims and then the applicant having (multiple) opportunities to deal with it.

There was no delibverate attempt to 'double patent' in this case, it was merely a situation of covering the bases too thoroughly.

Obviousness is also a lot more complicated of an issue than just something similar having previously existed. Ultimately, the examiner decides what is and what isn't, (unless it gets thrown into a legal battle).
#1 - the quote provided wasnt a special case. It was an office action of Non-Final Rejection for PTP's pending application linked above, date 8-30-2006.

#2 - Im glad youve admitted Patent law is not as cut and dry as you make it sound. That I can agree with.


Sorry - but you can quote office actions all you want - the result is that most of the claims got granted as they were originally written and the remainder were either unnecessary (as in your example) or re-written in a manner that was acceptable to the examiner. That's part of the process and one of the things that makes getting a patent take so long. There's nothing 'illegal' or wrong with that, its the process.

They were required to be re-written for a reason. As listed in the office actions.

I am fully aware there is nothing 'illegal' in re-writing them. However, if a patent's validity is contested, these actions can be used successfully to do so. Its the very reason why they are documented. So that a patent holder cannot 'twist' the facts as they see fit after-the-fact as to the reasons why they required being re-written in the first place.

And from what Ive read in this Application, there are only 3 claims. If all 3 were rejected, whats your definition of 'most'?

[thomas]

Would patent reform make it easier or harder to steal designs from CCM? :ninja:

[RogueFactor]

Would patent reform make it easier or harder to steal designs from CCM? :ninja:

Neither. CCM was denied a patent to their design. :ninja:

You can find CCM's denied Patent Application here:

CCM Denied Application (http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4gPMATJgFieAfqRqC LGpugijnCBIH1vfV-P_NxU_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAtkbpAA!!/delta/base64xml/L0lDU0lKQ1RPN29na21DU1Evb0tvUUFBSVFnakZJQUFRaENFSV FqR0VKemdBIS80SkZpQ28wZWgxaWNvblFWR2hkLXNJZDJFQSEh LzdfMF8xOEwvMS9zYS5nZXRCaWI!#7_0_18L)

[raehl]

If there is one thing I know about patents, it is that rabidchihauhau does not understand how patents work, and will grossly overstate their significance, especially when the patent involved is his or one of his friend's.

The first basic thing you have to understand about patents is a patent is a LEGAL PRESUMPTION that the person granted the patent is the actual inventor, that the invention is patentable, and that the patent holder thus has a limited-term exclusive right to manufacture and sell the patented invention.

The granting of the patent is a hurdle which gives the patent the 'benefit of the doubt', but is in no way final. Virtually *EVERY* facet of a patent grant can be challenged after issuance, both administratively and judicially.

You can argue that a patent should be invalidated because the invention is obvious and the original patent examiner erred in granting it. You can argue that the person named as the inventor isn't the actual inventor. You can argue that you invented the same invention before the person who filed the patent. This is a specific case where rabidchihauhauis in error - having an earlier filing date does NOT mean that your patent is valid and the other guy's isn't - it just means the other guy is going to have to prove that they actually invented the invention first. You can also argue that someone else invented the same thing first. You can argue that the description of the patented invention is not sufficient to allow someone else to produce the same invention.

It used to be that if you had to argue one of these things, the party with the patent would still almost certainly be able to prevent you, via an injunction, from making or using the patented invention until the patent is actually invalidated, a process that could shut you down for years or lead to paying a massive settlement. But even that isn't true any more - US Supreme Court rulings this year have significantly reduced a patentholder's ability to get such an injunction.


Now, I am not an attorney. I am especially not a patent attorney. But, rabidchihauhau isn't either.


To the not-really-topic at hand....

Patents are not a problem for the paintball industry - they are a problem for almost every industry. Too many people have figured out how easy it is to get the USPTO to issue patents, and too many people are taking advantage of that to get patents issued that do not meet the legal requirements, and then using those patents to bully other companies that make useful products into paying licensing fees because it's just plain cheaper than the legal fight they'd have to engage in to get the patent invalidated.



- Chris

[Lenny]

Ha ha! I so called it back in '06! What did I tell ya'll.

http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?t=200940&highlight=feedneck+patent

Rogue was dead on, too.

Go us!

/The whole ordeal is still stupid, though.
//But hey, I win!

[rabidchihauhau]

Raehl,

wtf is your problem?

Of course patents can be challenged and of course money has a lot to do with it.

I think the fact that I've gotten a bunch issued and was paid for writing them is some small indication that I do have a clue as to what they are all about.

You seem to be confusing the ability to prosecute a patent and enforce it (which takes lots of cash), with the validity of the patent itself.

[dave p]

shimano should sue em both. levers to lock collars have been on bicycles for how long?

this game and this industry has turned so freakin GAY its unbelievable. its a big Fn joke. im done until this industry finally burns itself to the ground. we will will see what comes up from the ashes.

[rabidchihauhau]

That's why, either in this or the thread on copyrights, I referenced the fact that the USPTO had decided to interpret paintball as a separate field of invention.

This is a determination that we fought with the PTO for quite some time - unsuccessfully. It isn't right that you can walk into a hardware store, adapt some existing technology and get a patent for it - but that's the way things are.

The PTO has determined that the requirements for inventing something for paintball are sufficiently different from other areas of invention that such adaptations deserve a patent.

My personal joke is that someday I'm going to submit an application for the "paintball paperclip" and see what happens...

[raehl]

Raehl,

wtf is your problem?

I was cranky and it had been a few years since I stirred your pot. ;)


I do think the determination that "an already existing whatchamacallit adapted FOR PAINTBALL" as an unobvious invention may end up getting reevaluated in terms of obviousness in light of a lot of other court rulings going on recently. Seems the judicial is pretty bent on reigning in patent scope, as they well should be.

[RRfireblade]

shimano should sue em both. levers to lock collars have been on bicycles for how long?




Ernesto Colnago actually , Italian bicycle biulder . . . like in the 20's or 30's I believe. :)

The lever lock design actually goes back before the turn of the century tho , in other applications.

[rabidchihauhau]

Chris,

well, thanks for the attention.

You never responded to my email regarding the paintball wiki...

INteresting what you say regarding the judiciary, since that subject came up about two weeks ago in a discussion with attorneys.

The mess is quite a mess; so many conflicting patents have been granted at this point in time (just that class of thing - not even getting to the scope issues yet) that its going to be impossible to rectify in any kind of a fair manner. About the only solid solution we could all come up with (and it will never happen) is to void anything granted after a particular date and allow those who were issued patents to re-apply. Of course, that ignores all the follow-on stuff and opens its own can of worms.

Tough to sue the gov - but I can see class action suits in future when the solution is to recognize this guys patent but not that guys...

You start talking scope issues, its going to be a cascade, because if patent A get's knocked back, its going to affect patent B and so on down the chain; not to mention the folks who were faithfully paying royalties and now it turns out they shouldn't have been...

The day WILL come - probably not in our lifetimes - when a different system will be in place for all of IP. Cracks are appearing all over the place (URLs vs trademarks, people's given names as trademarks to name just a couple non-patent cracks that have already appeared.)

[KC]

I agree with the trying everything in the world to get a hopper to stay on the marker. in te early 90s my favorite was cutting a slit into the elbo, and using radiator hose clamps.

Now those were the days. Autocockers, mags and hose clamps. :)

[txaggie08]

I don't see hwo either will be granted a patent for technology that has been in production for several years prior to the filing of there patents, or is patent law a bit fuzzy?

[rabidchihauhau]

the filing for the PTP application is not after the introduction of the clamp; the filing took place in late 1999 or early 2000.

[RogueFactor]

the filing for the PTP application is not after the introduction of the clamp; the filing took place in late 1999 or early 2000.

Ive read the PTP Patent(6,591,824) for the collet feedneck, which I havent found uses a 'clamp', but a collet. Distinctly different.

I must have missed the claim claiming a 'clamp' in Patent 6,591,824. With you being more familiar with the patent you filed in 1999/2000, and having been a part of writing it, can you list that claim # in the original patent claiming a clamp(one that isnt externally threaded and uses a collet)?

Please refrain from referring to the current Application, which was not filed in 1999/2000. It may claim Priority(if granted), but was not filed in 1999/2000.

[rabidchihauhau]

Rogue,

I can refrain from referring to the original application all you want, but your request does not change the fact that when the most recent application issues, it will have the same priority date as the original filing.


6,591,824 WAS filed in 2000. Here it is.

The present application is based on and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/200,143 filed on Apr. 27, 2000.

Lever patent priority dates - then see above:
This application hereby claims priority to and is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/617,913, filed on Jul. 11, 2003, which is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/842,351, filed Apr. 25, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,591,824.

You want to change the rules at the PTO, you're welcome to try...

As for the claims for levers - they look pretty straight forward to me.

If you'll go and read the section on provisional applications at the PTO site, you will find that so long as you follow it up with a formal app within a year, it is considered the original filing date for your application, confers the same protection as any application in process and entitles you to say "patent pending" on your invention.

[hitech]

That threaded hopper concept is not that bad of an idea.

It has technically already been done, my original phantom had a threaded feel neck...

:cheers:

[rabidchihauhau]

once again, you guys are mixing up what you've seen, ideas and what has been granted in a patent application.

I don't know if this example will help, but I'll give it a try:

a company invented some new circuitry for car radios - something to do with the fidelity of the sound reproduced.

Radio existed well prior to this invention. The idea of wireless transmission of signals probably followed the invention of the telegraph by about 3 seconds...

So these guys get a patent for their new circuit. One of their claims is the use of a resistor in part of the circuit that's key to both making their invention work and to their patent application.

They get a grant. One of their competitors de-engineers their device and comes up with an elegant work-around. They place a lightbulb in the circuit instead of a resistor.

Now, this story may be apocryphal, and exactly why their lightbulb wasn't stopped cold by the 'different means, same functionality' test I'm not sure, but it does serve to illustrate that a particular design can be given a patent even though something similar existed before and that even when someone has a patent, their rights only extend to the device that is described in the application - not the whole idea.

So whether or not your feedneck had threads on it (it did, I'm just saying) has no bearing on the prior art business if a locking system of some kind improves on that and is sufficiently different to warrant getting a patent grant.

The number of improvement patents are legendary.

[hitech]

So whether or not your feedneck had threads on it (it did, I'm just saying) has no bearing on the prior art business if a locking system of some kind improves on that and is sufficiently different to warrant getting a patent grant.

Hey, I don't know if that was because of my comment or not, but... I wasn't claiming prior art. Only that the idea of a threaded "hopper" wasn't very new.

Carry on. These patent/copyright threads are the most interesting thing I've read here in a LONG while. :D

:cheers:

[RogueFactor]

Rogue,

I can refrain from referring to the original application all you want, but your request does not change the fact that when the most recent application issues, it will have the same priority date as the original filing.

Sure, thats fair. Just show me in the original patent where it claims a clamp. The one that was filed in 1999/2000, as you stated.

I am familiar with how Priority works. Still doesnt change the fact as to when the current Application(linked in the first post) was actually filed---which wasnt in 1999/2000.

[rabidchihauhau]

hitech,

not exactly, but it did give me a chance to address the issue.

Rogue - I'm not playing your game. You go and nitpick at some little issue and try to turn it into a molehill. Then, when you don't get the answer you're looking for, you pick at it like a scab.

The initial application was filed as a provisional in April of 2000. No matter how much you may not like that fact, its a fact, you can't change it by denying it and I am under no obligation to agree with you - especially when you're incorrect.

As for claims analysis - if you're looking for something to challenge, I sure as heck am not going to be the one to help you out. That's not the job of the patent holder, nor the job of someone who worked for the patent holder.

You want to try to spin my refusal to assist you into some big deal about having something to hide, or making it look like that affects the nature of the patent or anything else like that, go ahead, but it will fly in the face of the hard fact that pro-team has been issued two patents on this design already and will be receiving a third one shortly. You can talk all day about what should or should not have been issued, or what the claims in a given patent cover or what they don't, or how someone might be able to challenge a patent - BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER because the patent has been issued and those things are not going to be resolved here on this forum.

[nathanjones008]

hitech,(quote)

not exactly, but it did give me a chance to address the issue.

Rogue - I'm not playing your game. You go and nitpick at some little issue and try to turn it into a molehill. Then, when you don't get the answer you're looking for, you pick at it like a scab.

The initial application was filed as a provisional in April of 2000. No matter how much you may not like that fact, its a fact, you can't change it by denying it and I am under no obligation to agree with you - especially when you're incorrect.

As for claims analysis - if you're looking for something to challenge, I sure as heck am not going to be the one to help you out. That's not the job of the patent holder, nor the job of someone who worked for the patent holder.

You want to try to spin my refusal to assist you into some big deal about having something to hide, or making it look like that affects the nature of the patent or anything else like that, go ahead, but it will fly in the face of the hard fact that pro-team has been issued two patents on this design already and will be receiving a third one shortly. You can talk all day about what should or should not have been issued, or what the claims in a given patent cover or what they don't, or how someone might be able to challenge a patent - BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER because the patent has been issued and those things are not going to be resolved here on this forum.(unquote)
I feel the love in this house :rolleyes:

[RogueFactor]

Rogue - I'm not playing your game. You go and nitpick at some little issue and try to turn it into a molehill. Then, when you don't get the answer you're looking for, you pick at it like a scab.
Go convince someone else that Priority Date and Filing Date are the same. That turd floats the bowl. And attempting to confuse the reader that the Priority and Filing Date are the same is your goal. SPIN SPIN SPIN!

There is a legal difference, and a party contesting a patent can use this difference.

I think raehl stated it best...

If there is one thing I know about patents, it is that rabidchihauhau does not understand how patents work, and will grossly overstate their significance, especially when the patent involved is his or one of his friend's.

The first basic thing you have to understand about patents is a patent is a LEGAL PRESUMPTION that the person granted the patent is the actual inventor, that the invention is patentable, and that the patent holder thus has a limited-term exclusive right to manufacture and sell the patented invention.

The granting of the patent is a hurdle which gives the patent the 'benefit of the doubt', but is in no way final. Virtually *EVERY* facet of a patent grant can be challenged after issuance, both administratively and judicially.

You can argue that a patent should be invalidated because the invention is obvious and the original patent examiner erred in granting it. You can argue that the person named as the inventor isn't the actual inventor. You can argue that you invented the same invention before the person who filed the patent. This is a specific case where rabidchihauhauis in error - having an earlier filing date does NOT mean that your patent is valid and the other guy's isn't - it just means the other guy is going to have to prove that they actually invented the invention first. You can also argue that someone else invented the same thing first. You can argue that the description of the patented invention is not sufficient to allow someone else to produce the same invention.

It used to be that if you had to argue one of these things, the party with the patent would still almost certainly be able to prevent you, via an injunction, from making or using the patented invention until the patent is actually invalidated, a process that could shut you down for years or lead to paying a massive settlement. But even that isn't true any more - US Supreme Court rulings this year have significantly reduced a patentholder's ability to get such an injunction.


Now, I am not an attorney. I am especially not a patent attorney. But, rabidchihauhau isn't either.


To the not-really-topic at hand....

Patents are not a problem for the paintball industry - they are a problem for almost every industry. Too many people have figured out how easy it is to get the USPTO to issue patents, and too many people are taking advantage of that to get patents issued that do not meet the legal requirements, and then using those patents to bully other companies that make useful products into paying licensing fees because it's just plain cheaper than the legal fight they'd have to engage in to get the patent invalidated.



- Chris

[Furby]

Like we care what Raehl says?

Sorry Chris, couldn't resist...

[raehl]

Like we care what Raehl says?

That's probably not an entirely bad perspective to take....

A priority date is the effective date for evaluating whether prior art invalidates a patent or patent application.

However, the purpose of a priority date is not generally to provide protection to two patent applications in the same country, but is instead designed to give a priority date to an application in, say, France, base on when that application was filed in the US. But a similar concept is the basis for provisional patent applications in the US.

In either case, the ORIGINAL application must describe the actual invention claimed in the later application if it is to be used as a basis for claiming an earlier priority date than the application date of the subsequent application.

So, whether an application for a collet can give an earlier priority date to an application for a clamp depends on the determination of the patent office, followed by the determination of any later judicial proceeding where the guy who filed his own clamp application between the collet application and the follow-on clamp application claiming priority sues the guy trying to shanaggle an earlier filing date by claiming priority on a potentially non-qualifying earlier patent application.


The key is, the first application has to claim THE SAME INVENTION as the second application, or it doesn't count, and sliding it by the patent office is just postponing the patent getting invalidated in court later.

Only a year ago, you might not care, as you still might get significant profit by enforcing your not-really-valid patent through threat of injunction, but that gravy train seems to have come to an end.


So, it seems pretty clear to me here that one of the following things is true:

- The application for the collet covers clamps, and the second application is frivilous.
- The application for the collet doesn't cover clamps, in which case the clamp is a different invention, and you can't use an application for a collet to get an earlier priority date for an application for a clamp if the invention is different.

But, in the interests of full disclosure, I don't even know what a collet is, so YMMV.

- Chris

[raehl]

You never responded to my email regarding the paintball wiki...


I have 2,661 emails I have not responded to. Assuming yours is in 'the pile', I'll get to it some day. ;) It's also quite possible it got lost in the spam folder so if it was important try sending it to me again.

- Chris

[rabidchihauhau]

Rogue,

you sound like a wshing machine on agitating cycle.

Once again from USPTO:

Applicants are entitled to claim the benefit of a provisional application in a corresponding non-provisional application filed not later than 12 months after the provisional application filing date. Under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 119(e), the corresponding non-provisional application would benefit in three ways: (1) patentability would be evaluated as though filed on the earlier provisional application filing date, (2) the resulting publication or patent would be treated as a reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as of the earlier provisional application filing date, and (3) the twenty-year patent term would be measured from the later non-provisional application filing date. Thus, domestic applicants are placed on equal footing with foreign applicants with respect to the patent term

The later-filed non-provisional application claiming the benefit of the provisional application must include at least one claim particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter, which the applicant regards as the invention

Although a claim is not required in a provisional application, the written description and any drawing(s) of the provisional application must adequately support the subject matter claimed in the later-filed non-provisional application in order for the later-filed non-provisional application to benefit from the provisional application filing date

And, from a source other than the PTO (in this case NOrthwestern University)

"An original patent application has its own filing date as its priority date. A continuation application benefits from the filing date of a "parent" application, which may be an original application or may be another continuation application claiming priority from the original application.

A particular type of original patent application is the "provisional" patent application. A provisional application may only be an original patent application because it cannot be a continuation or continuation-in-part application based on a previously filed application. Its use is limited solely to being a parent application to a later-filed continuation application."

[Maghog]

Man, this is REALLY sad.
Poor paintball.

[rabidchihauhau]

Ultimately, these things straighten out. Its not sad for paintball - its actually accomplished its goal by spurring innovation and invention. Now, instead of one locking feedneck, we've got about half a dozrn different ways to do it.

[Maghog]

I honestly don't see anything straightening out.The Gardener boys started this crap years ago with their patent on electronics and since then the lawsuits have been coming in waves, with no end in sight.
I don't really see it spurring on innovation either, rather scaring off the small inventors who once built this sport. Companies need to invest time and money in lawyers more than they do in development and research. It's sickening to think how many really neat gadgets have never made it to the market because of all this.
The real irony is that those who started the legal BS, (yes that's you Smart Parts), are the ones who've never invented anything on their own! The only reason they're so successful is because their father is a high powered lawyer with good connections in the legal system.
No one wants this anymore, NO ONE! But none of the big players in the industry are going to stand down now. They've gone too far.
Personally, I'd love to see PTP get their due. Forest and Tracy have worked their butts off and stayed involved in the sport for years, always trying to benefit the game. For me, their service paid off, since I remained loyal to them from the first fixed barrel Micromag I bought to the last Micro E.
I'm not sure where you stand anymore Steve, your signature says 'NO MORE PAINTBALL FOR ME'. So what does that mean? You don't play anymore, but you're up to your neck involved in legal quagmyres that appear to be more fun to navigate than the anything the game itself could offer you.
I miss paintball, everyday. I miss the community I helped to build with people who had only fun and safety on their minds. I do take comfort in knowing that that community still exists, and I enjoy reading a lot of the posts that focus on the fun and action that paintball still provides. But this legal stuff is devouring the sport, bit by bit, and I sit in front of a computer and watch it happen. It truly makes my stomach turn.
Dan@Triggernomics

[thomas]

Rogue,

you sound like a wshing machine on agitating cycle.



Exactly.

Rabid, arguing with Rogue is pointless. In the end he will prove that he doesn't a have firm grasp on reality and then he'll delete the thread in an attempt to save face. Take note that his post count often has major fluctuations both up and down. To bad he can't erase all of AO's memory while he's at it.

[rabidchihauhau]

Dan,

where I stand is exactly this: I have closed my paintball business and am in the process of divesting myself of all business involvement with the industry, heading for the day when I will no longer have any financial ties to it.

In the meantime, there are loose ends that need to be tied off and there are friends and allies who need support or assistance or just plain old loyalty and friendship.

Once I no longer have to depend on this industry in order to put money into the bank, I'll be in a position to either play just for fun if I feel like it or leave it behind if I feel like it. I will no longer be in a position where I have to do something or can't do something for fear of whatever consequences there might be.

If continuing to work with a friend on an interesting project strikes my fancy, then I will (although its very likely that my wife will talk me out of it :) )

In the meantime, I remain four-square behind pro-team and their intellectual property pursuits. I believe that the applications they filed for (and some of which I assisted with) are valid, straight-forward, legitimate and not being obtained for purposes of world-domination, but rather out of defense and self-preservation in a business environment that requires such things.

I also have some other friends who have sought my involvement and advice regarding other IP concerns and they also are not pursuing these things for negative reasons but to protect and improve what they are doing.

I also do believe that the patent system, however flawed at this poiint in time, does essentially work the way it is supposed to. I've heard plenty of discussion and seen plenty of 'small innovaters' (Pro-Team is a perfect case in point) reacting to the issuance of a patent not with loud cries of agony but with the conviction that they are fully capable of inventing a different way - and then going out and proving it.

The dual goals of the patent system are to reward inventors for their efforts by giving them a limited period of time to exclusively control their invention and to encourage innovation by those folks who don't want to license. True - its much more complicated these days, but its still working; the exponential growth year by year in the number of patents issued just for paintball demonstrates that.

So, where I stand is I support Pro-Team, I'll tell everyone who will listen that they are legit, that their efforts are for self-preservation and that I think they're the shiznit. I'll continue to speak my mind regardless of the consequences (hell, its cost me millions at this point so why stop now?) and I try to be honest, straight up and forthright.

And Dan, I'm not involved in legal quagmires; I'm not suing anyone, I'm not bringing infringement actions against anyone. From me, what you're seeing is a discussion of the issues surrounding IP and paintball, very often particularly from the point of view of a couple of friends, and nothing more. Unfortunately, what no one is seeing are the agreements and licenses and contracts that go on behind the scenes in the industry where there is no public contention. Perhaps if folks had some idea of just how much of that ia actually going on, they'd be better able to judge how very few major cases there are in this industry. The only thing that gets written about are the arguments - never the agreements.

Thomas, thanks for the heads up. I don't mind discussing the issues on technicalities, or even speculating on the merits, but when it comes to asking me to do something that would be potentially detrimental to a former employer and friend, I just won't go there.

[ClassicMagger]

Exactly.

Rabid, arguing with Rogue is pointless. In the end he will prove that he doesn't a have firm grasp on reality and then he'll delete the thread in an attempt to save face. Take note that his post count often has major fluctuations both up and down. To bad he can't erase all of AO's memory while he's at it.

Thomas:

Don't be such a fluffer. I haven't seen many contributing posts by you here on AO.

Only those where you follow Rogue around throwing your jabs. Throw stones when you have contributed something to these forums, until then you just look like a big boner.

-ClassicMagger

[raehl]

Ultimately, these things straighten out. Its not sad for paintball - its actually accomplished its goal by spurring innovation and invention. Now, instead of one locking feedneck, we've got about half a dozrn different ways to do it.

But there's nothing 'better' about that, at least as far as the player is concerned.

We don't need a half-dozen different ways to do it. We need ONE unpatented way to do it, that would end up being cheaper than any of the half-dozen patented ways.

And I think this is where obviousness matters. If something is obvious enough that anyone offering a gun or a hopper would have ended up offering locking feed necks on their products anyway - we're all harmed by patents being issued.

- Chris

[rabidchihauhau]

Ahhhh, back to a discussion on patents in general as opposed to one particular case:

Chris - I partially disagree that one cheap and unprotected design is necessarily better than 6 or more patented ones.

For starters, 6 different patents on the market potentially drives down the licensing fees, since those looking to license will be able to shop. Also, with all things being equal (and of course we're just being hypothetical here) 6 different designs, licensed or not, all competing in the marketplace will also drive the price down.

Oh, and BTW, the prior art public domain very cheap clamp for loaders and feednecks has been on the market since the beginning of the game. Its called a Hose Clamp.

I'm not an economist, but its pretty easy to see the effects of more than one company offering competing products into the same marketplace; 1500 dollar electronic guns are arguably down to 1/3rd of that cost in the space of 3 or four years...

Now, as to obviousness. Again we seem to be confusing the "idea" with the actual implementation of a particular design.

I have no doubt that many people who made loaders or feednecks thought of the IDEA of something that would lock the two together. Despite how many different loader manufacturers and gun manufacturers there are, we only had a few go on to create a design for such.

Its first up to the PTO examiner to make the determination of such, AFTER they've looked at the submitted citations AND done their own review of the field of invention AND done (however cursory) a review of additional prior art.

Once the patent grants - AFTER office actions in which claims may be removed, altered, watered down, etc - if someone in the marketplace is convinced that something is obvious and should not have beeen patented, and they have a sufficient interest, its then up to them to spend the money to prove their case and, if they win, they'll recover and will have made the world a better place.

There is also the real world 'simply ignore em' approach of those who are convinced that their design for whatever is prior art or doesn't infringe. And then the shoe is on the other foot, as the patent holder is the one who has to shell out the bucks to prove their case. (And if they don't have the money to do so, they can sit and take it, as I've had to do...)

I suppose the major point is that "obviousness" is not so "obvious" when it comes down to the PTO rules and regs regarding such. I'm sure you know this but I think it bears repeating that since the PTO has classified paintball as its own field of invention, objects borrowed or inspired by use elsewhere are ripe for the plucking. If you want to become a paintball product designer - head on down to the local ACE store and take a look around - you'll find something you can adapt and apply for...

[russc]

The only reason they're so successful is because their father is a high powered lawyer with good connections in the legal system.

I'm pretty sure they're patent lawyers themselves...

[thomas]

Thomas:

Don't be such a fluffer. I haven't seen many contributing posts by you here on AO.

Only those where you follow Rogue around throwing your jabs. Throw stones when you have contributed something to these forums, until then you just look like a big boner.

-ClassicMagger


Point taken. But, if you take the time to do a search you'll see that by some twist of fate most of those posts/threads are nowhere to be found. Exactly as I stated. That's odd, don't you think? I was just trying to save Rabid some time and effort, when someone ruffles Rogue's feathers those posts have a history of being deleted and that is a fact.

If something I've written isn't true let me know.

[SummaryJudgement]

Uhh, this just occurred to me: Did Tippmann patent their removable feednecks on the 98 Customs? Those were removable in a way I don't think is covered in any of this I think.

Not that it matters, it just popped in my head. It just popped in there........(reference from what?)

[teufelhunden]

Poor Rabid.

Seriously, most posts he makes are informative, non-combative [unless provoked..], and he's a guy defending his WORK which he works hard on and has pride in. Standing up for what he thinks is right.

<3 interwebs.

[Maghog]

I meant no offense towards rabid. I find all his contributions to this forum to be very valuable. He has not spoken a word of nonsense, and has managed himself honorably. He's one of the few people where it's worth it to read through a long post that obviously takes time out of his day to write.
Looking from the outside, I saw a guy who denounced paintball in his signature, and gets involved in every legal\patent tussle on this board. Being someone who hates this greedy turn that paintball has taken, and knowing Steve a bit from the past, I only wanted to know what his point of view is these days. He answered as any well composed member on this board would, and that's that.
I would agree that my approach to him sounded edgy, and it may have needed to have been formulated differently. If I could do so, I'd say, 'Rabid, when was the last time you forgot about all this balogna and played a good old game of capture the flag?'
'Nuff said, now back to the topic.
Dan

[rabidchihauhau]

Dan,

and most folks reading would not know of past history and would not have any clue that it would be difficult for you to offend me.

I took it for what it was - a real question regarding a seeming disconnect.

[teufelhunden]

I meant no offense towards rabid. I find all his contributions to this forum to be very valuable. He has not spoken a word of nonsense, and has managed himself honorably. He's one of the few people where it's worth it to read through a long post that obviously takes time out of his day to write.
Looking from the outside, I saw a guy who denounced paintball in his signature, and gets involved in every legal\patent tussle on this board. Being someone who hates this greedy turn that paintball has taken, and knowing Steve a bit from the past, I only wanted to know what his point of view is these days. He answered as any well composed member on this board would, and that's that.
I would agree that my approach to him sounded edgy, and it may have needed to have been formulated differently. If I could do so, I'd say, 'Rabid, when was the last time you forgot about all this balogna and played a good old game of capture the flag?'
'Nuff said, now back to the topic.
Dan


Wasn't aimed at you. Seriously, your work is so sweet it basically exempts you from any blame or wrongdoing ;)

More at the people who are "OMG PATENT BAD = RABID HORRIBLE!!!!11"