“Assisted Trigger Mechanism” PRO TEAM GETS PATENT GRANT

[SummaryJudgement]

http://www.warpig.com/newswire/prwire_releases/1187615953735.shtml

Pro-Team Products is pleased to announce that it was recently awarded patent number 7,231,911, entitled “Assisted Trigger Mechanism”. The application was originally filed in November of 2000.

The Assisted Trigger Mechanism grant is a divisional patent grant enjoying the same filing date as the earlier patent. The original filing – patent #6,802,305 described the various electronic, electro-mechanical and magnetic methods by which an assisted trigger mechanism would be designed and operate.

[txaggie08]

soooooooooooooooooo....


will, after they sank all other attempts, they bother to bring it out?

[Dirge]

So they have patents on all types of pnumatic triggers and no product. Sweet. Should we give it a few more years before seeing anything? Or is there something waiting in the wings that we should hold out for? After hearing about the royal screwing PTP took from BE, I'm not optimistic.

[OneUp]

they'd rather spend money on the legal things than to make the actual damn mechanism.

[ThePixelGuru]

Let's just say I'm not holding my breath waiting for this to hit the market.

[olinar]

so does this mean the aedes is no longer?

[y0da900]

so does this mean the aedes is no longer?


The Aedes relied on an MQ valve, not a pneu-trigger.

[Dend78]

oh goody someone let me know when its time to get excited pls :confused:

[BigEvil]

Let's just say I'm not holding my breath waiting for this to hit the market.


It's already about 3 or 4 years too late now. The market has moved on.

[StygShore]

Anyone that wants one, knows how to make their own... anyone that doesn't know how to make one, knows someone that does... dead market - NEXT


Styg

[rawbutter]

They could theoretically make pneu-triggers for other guns besides automags. Making a production line for only mags may not be cost effective, but if they make a drop-in kit, then it could be easily modified to fire autocockers, tippmanns, spyders... the list is pretty endless. A whole line of pneumatic triggers as an alternative to electric. Gun manufacturers may even consider putting the kits into new guns.

[txaggie08]

a pneu-spyder would be fun. Hell we might have to start doing those as rentals for the "higher end" fee......

[custar]

They could theoretically make pneu-triggers for other guns besides automags. Making a production line for only mags may not be cost effective, but if they make a drop-in kit, then it could be easily modified to fire autocockers, tippmanns, spyders... the list is pretty endless. A whole line of pneumatic triggers as an alternative to electric. Gun manufacturers may even consider putting the kits into new guns.

That's not a bad idea (the drop-in kits). I would consider an X-7 with one to have a sweet mech only marker with a competent force-feed loader to keep up with the marker.

custar

[rawbutter]

I emailed PTP asking them if we could expect a pneumatic trigger in the next year. This was the response I got.

"This has become such a complicated issue that it will probably be the feature story on a few forums soon... Yes, we now have multiple patents on assisted trigger systems, but it was actually licensing vs. patent issues that were slowing us down. We have the earliest filing dates (important) on these patents, but had licensed some out with the request that we "hold off' on production so not to spoil the introduction of certain licensed products that should have hit the market well over a year ago. We really are an old-school company that has just tried to protect some of the "newer technology" products that we have invested a lot of time, energy, and expense in. The frame is 95% to production - we are free of contractual obligations now, but have been hit very (very) hard by expenses related to enforcement and collection of royalties. It's not like the days when you had X$ and were able to just go off and put those funds towards building something cutting edge that you could actually sell without getting ripped off before barely getting it to market... We have to spend more money on lawyers now than we ever did on actual prototype and development work and there is no way around it, and we are fortunate to have a legal team that has been involved in paintball for almost 20 years as well or we could never do it... Sad days for all of us really, but we'll get it done. Please stay tuned - and we do appreciate your support."

So... the best I can figure out is, yes... they are making a pneumatic trigger, but because of financial setbacks, they have no idea when it will finally come out.

[rabidchihauhau]

Let me clarify and respond to the PTP email and a couple of posts prior:

First - the PTP patents are not just for MAGs - they're for pneumatic triggers. A MINIMUM of three operational systems that this patent can be applied to are described directly in the patents - these include double-stack and in-line semi-auto systems (spyder type, tippmann type) captured bolt style (mag type) and autococking systems (cocker type).

Second - drop in kits still infringe on the patent and, I know you guys are gonna get up in arms over this one - but it also covers people building them for their own use. Patents give you the right to EXCLUDE others from (making, distributing, importing, etc). The exclusion is not limited to commercial applications, it covers everything.

Finally - the response from PTP: one of the major delays in getting these systems onto the market was a licensing deal made by PTP with a third party (quite capable of getting it out onto the market in a number of different applications). They essentially chose to sit on it.

PTP believed (because of the nature of the licensing agreement) that making this deal was the fastest and most effective means of getting the p-trigger system out onto the market AND had set things up so that once things were clicking, a whole variety of other p-trigger applications would be introduced, including one for mags. This deal would have made it possible for PTP to bring such things to market quickly and cost-effectively, while at the same time protecting its IP interests IN A MANNER THAT DID NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT anyone else.

Much of what has gone on behind the scenes had to remain behind the scenes (and still does) because of various confidentiality agreements and on-going legal issues. It has pained the folks at PTP tremendously to know that they were doing the right thing (setting things up so that obtaining P-trigger technology would be reltively easy and costs would be competitive for end-users and potential licensees both) while not being able to explain the issues and not really being able to offer meaningful answers to those who had legitimate questions.

Sometimes this is what happens when you try to do the right thing. But at least now a little of the behind the scenes info has come to light and you can see that its not been PTP that was delaying.

[rkjunior303]

sorry guys. anyone who made a pneumag will now be receiving a C&D letter from PTP asking you guys to take it apart.

[RRfireblade]

Is it possible they chose to sit on it because they don't believe the patent is worth what they paid? Or worth the expense of going into production? (for various reasons)

As you've stated many times, this is business. Maybe they looked at the bottom line, and realized that either your patent work isn't valid and would cause them headaches, or not worth producing the part.




They got pretty far into production tho they did have bottom lines to consider and thier (IMO) anwser to that ultimately resulted in product (quality) issues . . . yet still unresolved.

In addition to that K2 then and new ownership now , have been cutting costs accross the boards based on the current market slump and a lack of realizing expected gains back when K2 first got into the sport.

I think pretty much all the big boys right now are looking for fast , cheap and easy to market.

IMHO.

[BigEvil]

They got pretty far into production tho they did have bottom lines to consider and thier (IMO) anwser to that ultimately resulted in product (quality) issues . . . yet still unresolved.

In addition to that K2 then and new ownership now , have been cutting costs accross the boards based on the current market slump and a lack of realizing expected gains back when K2 first got into the sport.

I think pretty much all the big boys right now are looking for fast , cheap and easy to market.

IMHO.

Yes, but I would figure that the ability to produce a high performance marker WITHOUT having the additional overhead of paying SP royalties (or the legal headaches) would be reason enough to aggressively pursue something of this manner.

[rabidchihauhau]

Yes, I will be. In fact, Dale is slated to interview Forest sometime in the next couple of days - and the interview will be copyrighted! :)

I wish you'd back up for a second and stop assuming that what I'm doing is inherently wrong, evil or some combination thereof.

You've been told repeatedly that for good and solid reasons that you will not be getting full explanations of things at this time; there are just as many folks out there positvely inclined towards PTP as there are against it, so logically the position ought to be one of 'wait and see' rather than jumping on one band wagon or the other.

To the extent possible, I have tried to be fair and I have always been honest. I have also been at pains to explain that I have a job here, and that necessarily entails the fact that I am going to present and do things that I believe are at least neutral in regasrds to pro-team if not positve towards pro-team, and that I am not going to do or say anything that will be negative for pro-team. not gonna happen.

Put the other shoe on for just one second and make the assumption that PTP's motives aren't evil world domination, assume that their patent grants are legit, assume that they were at least TRYING to do the right thing (as their past history would seem to indicate) and then further assume that you don't have the whole story - just for a second.

[rabidchihauhau]

Bigevil:

"is it possible they chose to sit on it because it wasn't worth what they paid..."

Go read that sentence.

You buy a cow and then decide you paid too much so you don't milk it?

If you are entering into a multi-year, multi-faceted licensing agreement, you do so because you believe that whatever you are paying, you will obtain some advantage that will turn you a profit over that period of time - or

you wanted to keep the technology off the market to favor other technology you control - or

you want to have your cake and eat it too, by assuming that you will never be held accountable for your actions and that if you wait long enough, the other party will just go away and then you won't have to pay anything.

[RRfireblade]

Yes, but I would figure that the ability to produce a high performance marker WITHOUT having the additional overhead of paying SP royalties (or the legal headaches) would be reason enough to aggressively pursue something of this manner.


True . . . depending on the differencial in costs and few people in the private sector really know what those costs are (I'm not disclosing anything) so it'll take more than just speculation to make that judgement.

It's a tough call either way , I know from back when the whole project developed that manufacturing a Pneu 'marker' with the performance that it was capable of was not going to be an inexpensive endevour. It didn't take long for 'E' markers to drop in cost to under that of mechs from just a few years ago that it really complicates the thing. Even with all the asain import/manufacturing resources they have at the disposal , it still could go either way . . . before you add the lack of quality needed.

[raehl]

Bigevil:

"is it possible they chose to sit on it because it wasn't worth what they paid..."

Go read that sentence.

You buy a cow and then decide you paid too much so you don't milk it?

If you are entering into a multi-year, multi-faceted licensing agreement, you do so because you believe that whatever you are paying, you will obtain some advantage that will turn you a profit over that period of time - or

you wanted to keep the technology off the market to favor other technology you control - or

you want to have your cake and eat it too, by assuming that you will never be held accountable for your actions and that if you wait long enough, the other party will just go away and then you won't have to pay anything.

There's a third possibility. The market conditions change and you realize that regardless of what you paid for the patent, the costs of bringing the product to market exceeds what you would make from doing so, so you just don't create the product.


In 2000, this invention would allow people to shoot faster.

In 2007, it doesn't.

That's all there is to it - the market changed, eliminating the value of the patent. It's cheaper, easier and more reliable to fire a marker with a solenoid, even if you have to pay smart parts, than it is to manufacture and distribute a marker where air pressure is used to push the trigger forward.


Players can already shoot as fast as they can wiggle their fingers. This doesn't improve that, and since there's no improvement, nobody is going to pay for it. If nobody is going to pay for it, there's no reason to make it.


- Chris

[BigEvil]

Bigevil:

"is it possible they chose to sit on it because it wasn't worth what they paid..."

Go read that sentence.

You buy a cow and then decide you paid too much so you don't milk it?



Raehl hit the nail on the head. Buy the cow, then realize that there is no market for the milk.

[rabidchihauhau]

Sorry, but you guys are wrong technologically speaking. I tried to give you hints as to what was really going on. Go re-read my three options and realize that what's really happening is in there.

The tech for this trigger system is well-developed and there is virtually no upper limit to ROF and no restrictions on incorporating the equivalents of things like "firing modes".

Build-wise, there are no inherent issues in terms of cost of parts or manufacturing complexity that would place it outside of the competitive market.

And Raehl's fourth option misses the fact that you can still butcher the cow and get at least a few meals out of it and feed the pigs whatever is left over...

[rabidchihauhau]

OOOPs.

Chris, this tech DOES offer improvements. At the very least, it eliminates the need for batteries and chargers AND it places the marker back on an easily observable pneumatic/mechanical footing. Once again, cheats in the marker will be physically expressed, and therefore rules restricting such cheats would once again be enforceable.

[raehl]

OOOPs.

Chris, this tech DOES offer improvements. At the very least, it eliminates the need for batteries and chargers AND it places the marker back on an easily observable pneumatic/mechanical footing. Once again, cheats in the marker will be physically expressed, and therefore rules restricting such cheats would once again be enforceable.

But observable mechanical/pneumatic setup doesn't matter to anyone but a handful of tournament leagues, a tiny percentage of the market, and that market is dominated by electronic markers, and manufacturers of electronic markers. Nobody has any interest in rewriting the rules to eliminate electros. (Believe me - I *WRITE* the rules and I can't even do it.)

As for eliminating batteries, I don't think the need for batteries is a problem. Who is going to pay to not have a battery when they could be buying reduced air efficiency, reduced reliability, etc?

As for rate of fire, it doesn't matter if this invention allows a higher rate of fire, because nobody is going to allow it. It's already illegal to shoot faster than 15 bps in half the leagues out there, and if you introduce something that lets people actually shoot faster than that in semi (I doubt you will) it'll just get banned anyway. We don't need faster rate of fire, and in fact, we should do everything we can to prevent it.


The era of 'whose gun can shoot fastest?' is over. EVERYBODY'S gun shoots fast. Competition is now on reliability, size and weight. This doesn't address any of those.


- Chris

[raehl]

Sorry, but you guys are wrong technologically speaking. I tried to give you hints as to what was really going on. Go re-read my three options and realize that what's really happening is in there.

The tech for this trigger system is well-developed and there is virtually no upper limit to ROF and no restrictions on incorporating the equivalents of things like "firing modes".

Build-wise, there are no inherent issues in terms of cost of parts or manufacturing complexity that would place it outside of the competitive market.

And Raehl's fourth option misses the fact that you can still butcher the cow and get at least a few meals out of it and feed the pigs whatever is left over...

You would have us believe that someone bought a license to this patent, then decided not to produce a product that would have made them money, out of some sort of malicious intent.

This fails Occam's Razor.

Isn't it far more more likely that the product wasn't produced because it was just determined that there wasn't a market for it?

- Chris

[ClassicMagger]

Hey:

rabidchihauhau, this was in the Workshop thread but I didn't see an answer from you.

-ClassicMagger


Rabid-

One quick question.. and I am not looking to cause trouble.. I would like your thoughts. Regarding "prior art", what is your explanation, to your knowledge, about previously existing pneumatic Automags, like the few PneuMags that Lee (of Punishers Customs) built and sold in 1993? In operation they are exactly what PTP, I, and the DIYers have done.
(Images from http://punishers-customs.com/gallery.html)

http://www.deadlywind.com/hAir/pneu2.jpg http://www.deadlywind.com/hAir/pneu4.jpg

Does it have to be in a legal document form?

-Colin

[warbeak2099]

Yea, Lee did do it first. Hhhmmm...

[rabidchihauhau]

You would have us believe that someone bought a license to this patent, then decided not to produce a product that would have made them money, out of some sort of malicious intent.

This fails Occam's Razor.

Isn't it far more more likely that the product wasn't produced because it was just determined that there wasn't a market for it?

- Chris

It only fails the Razor test if you don't have all the facts - which you don't.

How much money are people paying to license various electronic designs? What if you could deliver the same capabilities for less? What's freedom from external control of your product line worth?

Classic - I've said before but I'll say it again: I am not going to participate in discussions that address possible prior art, nor am I going to concede that such is prior art. If people want to investigate such things, its up to them to do their homework.

[edweird]

If people want to investigate such things, its up to them to do their homework.

AKA "its up to others to fund such an investigation, until such time we will sit on the patent instead of going forward with development behind the scenes"

If I'm wrong, prove it to us by releasing some of that vaporware instead of preventing me from paying Colin for one I have already used. I think its truly shameful to stagnate an industry under IP litigation while failing to develop during the patent pending window.

[RRfireblade]

AKA "its up to others to fund such an investigation, until such time we will sit on the patent instead of going forward with development behind the scenes"

If I'm wrong, prove it to us by releasing some of that vaporware instead of preventing me from paying Colin for one I have already used. I think its truly shameful to stagnate an industry under IP litigation while failing to develop during the patent pending window.


There's like 3 different versions of Patent covering this. Colin has one , PTP of course , as well as the guys behind the 68Super. No ones really stopping anyone form making one other than the market. ;)

[edweird]

No ones really stopping anyone form making one other than the market. ;)

sadly this is false, at most I can think two of the 3 you mentioned potentially have the capital to defend themselves against legal action while keeping themselves in business. And since we are being frank, how again is leveraging competitors against releasing product good for progress and innovation?

Oh wait, it isn't.

either produce something or get off the pot, don't sit in the proverbial stall passing gas and hold up the line in the process. If your so damn sure that the "market" is uninterested then open source the patent and let someone who is willing to use it take a crack at it.

[RRfireblade]

sadly this is false, at most I can think two of the 3 you mentioned potentially have the capital to defend themselves against legal action while keeping themselves in business. And since we are being frank, how again is leveraging competitors against releasing product good for progress and innovation?

Oh wait, it isn't.

either produce something or get off the pot, don't sit in the proverbial stall passing gas and hold up the line in the process. If your so damn sure that the "market" is uninterested then open source the patent and let someone who is willing to use it take a crack at it.

Did you not read my post ?

Nicad/Colin HAS his very own patent on his specific version of this. So does G Force. G Force has publicly offered thier patent for licensing like a year ago or longer. To my knowledge so far , PTP hasn't ever officially C&D'd anyone. You can also add to that list of course k2/Be/Wgp/Jardin or whatever it is now who has full rights. :)

[RRfireblade]

Oh yeah . . .

I have nothing to do with the patent so I couldn't 'open source' it if I wanted too. ;)

[warbeak2099]

Hey classic magger had a good point. Does the fact that Punisher made the first pneumatic mag mean anything?

[LK-13]

one thing that bothers me in this is the idea that if one person builds something for themselves
and has no intent to build them as a product for others.
someone else can come along and order you to take it apart.
if i build a motorcycle, can one of the big bike builders come along and order me to
C&D then rip my bike apart?
if i build a car will one of the big 3 come along and rain on my parade?
if they can do this how do Jessey James , Paul Tuttle (Jr. & Sr.) or Chip Foose and Boyd Coddington stay in business?
as they are clearly making bikes and/or cars and doing so as a business.
I've been working on a project for myself,
the alternating double barreled gun.
none of the big custom builders were interested in the project.
now i have figured out a way to actually make it happen.
suddenly I'm worried that if i do build this,
some company is going to see what I've done
patent the idea,
then order me to rip mine apart because it's their IP.
i don't have the knowledge to get a patent for my idea,
and i don't have the money to go and hire someone to patent it for me.
so has this just killed my project before i even start the actual build?

Geez, Paintball used to be fun!!

now it's turning into one big pain in the ***.

[going_home]

Hey:

rabidchihauhau, this was in the Workshop thread but I didn't see an answer from you.

-ClassicMagger

Well its Deadlywind, they have to consult legal council first before responding.

But the clamping feednecks on the stone age Tippmanns seem to present a very serious
"prior art" challenge to their patents as do the 1993 pneumags.

Some serious stuff that probably wont be responded to in forums.
Because it means the patents would not be enforcible.
Lots of money wasted if they cant be enforced.

http://www.automags.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2405579&postcount=168

http://www.automags.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2405593&postcount=169

So I say to you pneu-modders have at it. Mod to your hearts content.
Because theres no money to be made from prosecuting individuals.

Opinions are like feet, most people have them, and most of them stink.
But thats my opinion.


:cool:

[RRfireblade]

Hey classic magger had a good point. Does the fact that Punisher made the first pneumatic mag mean anything?

Not 100% in this but if I recall how I've heard before , prior art does not invalidate a patent but it would/may allow that party claiming prior art to product thier own product . . . or something like that. At the very least it would be thier defense of the C&D , still may not keep it out of court depending on how aggressive the patent holder wants to be tho.

[RogueFactor]

Not 100% in this but if I recall how I've heard before , prior art does not invalidate a patent but it would/may allow that party claiming prior art to product thier own product . . . or something like that. At the very least it would be thier defense of the C&D , still may not keep it out of court depending on how aggressive the patent holder wants to be tho.

Prior Art absolutely can invalidate a patent.

Here it is, straight from the US Patent Trademark Office:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm


35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent. - Appendix L Patent Laws

35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or

(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or

(c) he has abandoned the invention, or

(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor's certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor's certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, or

(e) the invention was described in - (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language; or

(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or

(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.

[RRfireblade]

That's not an example of an individual producing a single sample of 'assumed' prior art. ;)

[RogueFactor]

That's not an example of an individual producing a single sample of 'assumed' prior art. ;)

Really?

I thought this part of subsection (a) was on point:

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country...before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent

[RRfireblade]

"Known or used by others" IMO impies common knowledge and/or common usage. Lee's privately assembled one off custom mod doesn't meet that IMO but that is of course subjective opinion and can only be decieded by a Court Judge of which neither of us are and you'd still have to have hard documentation that proves all the pertinent facts and dates in relaton to the applicable app.

The mear existance of his post does not even prove prior art. It's still all assumed that it may. It's been acknowledged by all interested parties that pneumatics have been used in the area of the invention before , bolting half a production marker to another half of a production marker may easily fall in either side of that realm.

Again , it's all subjective assumption at this point. So as I said , the mear existance of assumed prior art doesn't invalidate a Patent. It take quiet a bit more than that. Again this was in direct response to the questin of Lee's marker , not a grand generalization. And in either case is why I included in my post . . .



At the very least it would be thier defense of the C&D , still may not keep it out of court depending on how aggressive the patent holder wants to be tho.


That's the only place a final word on that issue can be had but feel free to give it all you have here. :D

[RogueFactor]

That's the only place a final word on that issue can be had but feel free to give it all you have here. :D

Absolutely I will. It seems well known by many(especially from reading those 68caliber exclusive press releases), that the court of public opinion is just as important. :spit_take

In business, the customer has the final word with their pocketbook :clap:

[RRfireblade]

Not sure how that applies but Mmm kay , I'd agree with the last part. :)

[rabidchihauhau]

Oy.

I've checked with the resident authorities and CATEGORICALLY, neither PTP, nor anyone in PTP's name, has issued any C&Ds to anyone on the pneutrigger patent issues.

So, if you're looking for someone to denounce for protecting their intellectual property, you'll have to lay it at the feet of one of the other folks who claim to have IP coverng this subject area. There's only two of them, so you ought to be able to figure it out - or at least make a better guess.

To be blunt about it, making something for yourself thats covered by a patent denies the patent holder the right to profit from selling you the same. It doesn't matter whether you make one or many, nor whether you plan on commercializing it or not, except in one case, which is that you are more culpable if you deliberately infringe and potentially even more so if you recommend an illegal activity to others, particulary in a public forum...

You may not like the idea, but keeping a patented product off the market and preventing others from maiking it are inherent rights of the patent holder - that were VERY carefully written into patent law.

As for the claims of prior art - claim all you want. Nothing said on here is going to establish something that someone thinks or believes is such as being so. My opinion is that it isn't, as I've looked at those designs before writing the applications and their subject matter is not claimed in the patents. Tippmanns feedneck is not a 'locking collet' - if anything it is a clamp. Many of you are looking at things, seeing a similarity and automatically assuming that it is the same thing, and they're not.

[CoolHand]

Oy.

I've checked with the resident authorities and CATEGORICALLY, neither PTP, nor anyone in PTP's name, has issued any C&Ds to anyone on the pneutrigger patent issues.

So, if you're looking for someone to denounce for protecting their intellectual property, you'll have to lay it at the feet of one of the other folks who claim to have IP coverng this subject area. There's only two of them, so you ought to be able to figure it out - or at least make a better guess.

To be blunt about it, making something for yourself thats covered by a patent denies the patent holder the right to profit from selling you the same. It doesn't matter whether you make one or many, nor whether you plan on commercializing it or not, except in one case, which is that you are more culpable if you deliberately infringe and potentially even more so if you recommend an illegal activity to others, particulary in a public forum...

You may not like the idea, but keeping a patented product off the market and preventing others from maiking it are inherent rights of the patent holder - that were VERY carefully written into patent law.

As for the claims of prior art - claim all you want. Nothing said on here is going to establish something that someone thinks or believes is such as being so. My opinion is that it isn't, as I've looked at those designs before writing the applications and their subject matter is not claimed in the patents. Tippmanns feedneck is not a 'locking collet' - if anything it is a clamp. Many of you are looking at things, seeing a similarity and automatically assuming that it is the same thing, and they're not.

Good luck chasing down all the DIY'ers out there and forcing them to stop or destroy their devices. So it's technically the letter of the law, in reality, no one is going to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to go after Johny OnseyTwosey for making something for his own use, it'd be a huge waste of time and money.

IMO continuing to lean on the DIY'ers like you are, calling them basically criminals for figuring out what many others before them have is asinine to say the least, and really detracts from your overall point. Want to know why everyone is suddenly booing and hissing at you when you talk about this stuff? It's because you cut right to the "You're breaking the law, we can come after you, I have a patent and say so." crap, which you have to know is just that, mostly crap.

Everyone knows how much I hate to agree with Roguefactor ( ;) ), but in this case I find it happening. That's fine if someone with a patent wants to enforce their rights in the marketplace, but to say that they (PTP) are going to come down on the DIY crowd in the same way is intentionally misleading for the purposes of intimidating folks (to what end I do not know, but you're making an awful big show of it for some reason).

This whole deal has turned into a genuine cluster, that is for sure and for certain.

[rabidchihauhau]

coolhand,

I think I can save you the trouble of agreeing with rogue:

read what I wrote. I said "...CATEGORICALLY, neither PTP, nor anyone in PTP's name, has issued any C&Ds to anyone on the pneutrigger patent issues."

That means that PTP has NOT gone after DIYers.

I then addressed someone who said they had a basic problem with the whole concept of preventing private individuals from making copies of patented items for their own use, and finally, I pointed out that those who assist in doing such are potentially more liable than the person who simply goes and copies.

Nowhere did I say that PTP was going to go after DIYers. All I did was repeat the relevant law. Those individuals who go ahead and violate the law will now do so knowing that they are - whether it gets enforced or not.

I did nothing more than turn to you while we're in the car and say "You know, you're over the speed limit for this stretch of road..."

And I can't help it if people want to get up in arms when they are informed of a legal reality and don't like it. There's tons of potheads who don't like the illegal status of their personal activity, there's tons of people who light up a cigarette where they're not supposed to and millions who knowingly skirt the rules when they fill out their income tax forms in April.

The fact that there are millions of co-offenders doesn't make the activity legal, nor does the fact that little or no enforcement is addressed to those issues. Pointing out the essential illegality doesn't make me responsible for the law.

We had another case of this kind of thing in paintball. People pointed out the cheaters and the flaws in the rules and got roundly castigated and attacked for being pollyannas, not 'getting it' or complaining because they were losers. Look where that got us...

[robnix]

Everyone knows how much I hate to agree with Roguefactor ( ;) ), but in this case I find it happening. That's fine if someone with a patent wants to enforce their rights in the marketplace, but to say that they (PTP) are going to come down on the DIY crowd in the same way is intentionally misleading for the purposes of intimidating folks (to what end I do not know, but you're making an awful big show of it for some reason).

This whole deal has turned into a genuine cluster, that is for sure and for certain.

It's been my opinion through this whole affair the the DIY crowd are doing this for either or both of the following reasons:

1) They like doing projects like this. It's fun and fills their time with something they learn from and can say 'look what I did' afterwards.
2) They want this product, but the IP holders for whatever reason aren't releasing one to the market, so they're forced to either make their own or find someone to do it for them.

[rabidchihauhau]

Patent holders have a duty to actively protect their patent.

Someone sending out a C&D is either trying to stop the activity, get someone to license and is demonstrating a willingness to protect the IP

or is establishing a record.

The owner of a patent doesn't have to produce anything in the marketplace in order to enforce their rights.

[CoolHand]

Alright, alright, I yield.

I still maintain that this entire thing is a genuine cluster though.

[Dend78]

^^ agreed, this is BS kinda stuff that goes on with real firearms, i can totally understand wanting to corner the market and securing your product but all the red tape to do so seems almost pointless.

[going_home]

Alright, alright, I yield.

I still maintain that this entire thing is a genuine cluster though.

But it is interesting reading the posts, and frankly, pretty funny. :D

[rabidchihauhau]

I think it seems pointless, ridiculous, expensive, petty, etc., etc. until you've worked on a project for two or three years and then get issued a patent five or six years after you started.

We're talking tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars invested on a guess and a prayer before there's even the possibility of making back dime one.

If you assume say, three years of R&D by one person at ten dollars an hour (ridiculous) - you're already looking at $60,000 - not counting protyping/materials costs, a real salary for the R&D guy, normal and customary overhead (electricity, telephone, computer) and then the legal fees kick in when its time to file the application. Then you have to gear up for production, buy materials, send money on advertising and marketing.

A real big perceptual issue is the fact that hardly any of the real costs associated with a patented product are ever seen or realized.

Consider that any small company can hardly afford taking such out of their pockets with no promise of return - let alone the amount of dollars it takes to keep three, six, ten such projects going...

but all anyone sees is someone charging "too much"

[CoolHand]

I agree that the process is entirely too expensive currently, but I don't have an alternative idea handy at the moment either.

Personally, I've never developed anything that (to me) seemed patentable (however, by the current industry standards, I've done it at least once maybe twice), but even if it were and I had the money to pursue such a patent, I don't have the money to defend it, so in reality, it just ends up being so much paper in a frame. Might as well have lit that money on fire.

Sure it's cool, but if I'm gonna be in the same shape with a patent as I would have been without (effectively at least), I'd just as soon still have the money. At least that way you can be nimble enough to develop and move on to new products before or just after everyone starts knocking off your last big thing. IMO this is the only way to beat the Chinese, as they simply don't give a hoot about patents and IP, they see it, they steal it. You can either go out of business trying to defend your turf, of you can forge new ground to stay ahead of the little buggers. I'd choose the latter just because it's something I could control myself.

But that's just how I see it, and I have been told on occasion that I've got a warp outlook. lol

:cheers:

[rabidchihauhau]

Coolhand,

you're not the only one who has made that calculation and come to the conclusion that you have.

There are a fair number of IP attorneys (they make their living off of this) who have written papers and are advising clients that patents are NOT the way to go.


Others of course are taking a counter-view, but I find it very interesting that some of those in the field are going negative against the concept.

There are other things that factor into the calculation that are different (maybe) for a company than they are for an individual inventor. Some inventors make a nice living by securing patent rights and then licensing or selling off their stuff to the right people. All you see after their names on apps is assigned, assigned, assigned...

Some companies hope to build up a portfolio of apps that are used strategically to leverage negotiations with potential partners and/or competitors. Having the ability to throw low cost/no cost usage of patented designs into the mix can be valuable, as can the threat of 'dueling patents' (you try and make me license and guess what I'm gonna enforce?)

But the real irony is this: patents in paintball are a direct reation to what went on previously: John Sievers, who used to be a partner in LAPCO, said this to me in 1989 "before I bring something out onto the market, I decide if I can make my money back before all the copycats jump on the bandwagon. If the answer is yes, I make it, if not, I don't bother."

IN that era, there was a whole lot of good product that just never saw the market because of the above mentality.

So now, we've replaced 'fear of cheap copying' with 'fear of infringement followed by cheap copying'...

in terms of the chinese - there used to be an on-line system for having Customs stop things from being imported. Sadly, it looks like they are still doing it for everything except patents...

[raehl]

Any prior art is prior art. But it only counts if you can prove in court that you actually invented the same invention before the other guy did. And that's only (pretty much) in the US - everywhere else it's whoever files first.

And, many people trip themselves up in not understanding that things that are SIMILAR are not necessarily prior art. If I make A, and did not patent it, and you make B, which is like A but more advanced, I can't make B. I can only make A. And I can't prevent you from making B, because I never patented A.

Or if A and B have the same function, but are different things, my previous invention of A still doesn't prevent you from patenting B. (Although the market may choose to manufacture/buy A instead.)


- Chris

[rabidchihauhau]

actually, Chris, same function, different means, can be prior art.

Someone can't get a patent for 'method of fastening two boards together' by using a screw in the face of a previous patent for 'method of fastening two boards together' using a nail.

Of course, both get thrown out the window if you change the title to "method of fastening two boards together for use with paintball"...

You're correct in people's mistaken understanding. They see something and say to themselves, "that's the same as" and then get all bent out of shape when someone gets a patent for the "same" thing.

What they aren't realizing is that the patent may have one change/improvement that puts it into the realm of a "new device".

If, for example, you were to come up with a way to eliminate the connecting pin between bolt and hammer in a stacked blowback semi-auto, you'd probably get a patent grant for it. The "improvement" is the elimination of a part and a potential reduction in the cost of manufacture. The patent would be genuine and legit, but all anyone else would see is someone getting a patent for a device that was well represented in the prior art. "How the heck did they get a patent for the PGP issued in 2007!?!" is all we'd be hearing.

The patent owner would be roundly attacked for trying to rip people off, accused of all kinds of nasty behaviors. Folks would run around looking for prior art, others would start DIY projects to devalue the patent. Meanwhile, the patent owner would have licensed his invention to several companies that were looking to save money, who quietly incorporated the design into their products and along the way someone, somewhere would be sent a C&D. The original patent holder would be accused of trying to destroy paintball, yelled at for not bringing the product to market...

[raehl]

actually, Chris, same function, different means, can be prior art.

Indeed - the question is what constitutes sufficiently 'different means', which is a whole 'nother ball of wax. In your example, fastening boards together with a screw probably precludes a patent on doing it with a nail, but probably does not preclude a patent on fastening boards together with a dove tail, or glue. Still end up with fastened-together boards, but the means are different and separately patentable.


As for the whole 'in paintball' thing, there are patents out there that are obvious, and there are patents out there that do indeed patent something that someone else came up with first, and the criticism for the people who use those patents to extract money from people who actually make product (or to prevent people from making the product unless they pay up a royalty and thus charge the players more) is absolutely deserved.

Just because not all paintball patents are bad and not all paintball patent holders are evil patent trolls does not preclude some of them from being bad and some people from being evil patent trolls.

And as a matter of course, who is and isn't a troll is unfortunately not usually arbitrated by experts in patents, or even experts in business, but in the court of ignorant public opinion.

- Chris

[rabidchihauhau]

wow - I entirely agree, because one of the things you actually said was "who is a troll and who isn't is in the eye of the beholder" (and the beholder may have blinders on or is seeing what they want to see...)

I'm gratified that you have helped bring this thread back on track in the sense of the dispassionate discussion of concepts, concepts that are hopefully devoid of personal bias or axes that need grinding and that focus on the issues of dispelling the myths and explaining the seemingly contradictory.

I'll continue to try to do so, with the oft-repeated caveat that I will not engage in discussion that is antithetical to friends and patrons, while at the same time stating that failure to do the same is not a concession to nor acquiesence to contrary arguments.

[RogueFactor]

And as a matter of course, who is and isn't a troll is unfortunately not usually arbitrated by experts in patents, or even experts in business, but in the court of ignorant public opinion.

- Chris

I agree. The only way to fight ignorance is to educate, with BOTH sides of a discussion.

Unfortunately, some on AO have tried to influence this ignorance with one-sided discussions and by appearing to be an expert--when in fact they are not. But youve stated this previously. Here is part of your quote, paraphrased for conciseness:


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.

For the full quote: http://www.automags.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2400511&postcount=35

[rabidchihauhau]

there you go picking and choosing.

we were just beginning to get this thing back on track and now you're trying to derail it again.

[RogueFactor]

there you go picking and choosing.

we were just beginning to get this thing back on track and now you're trying to derail it again.

Try to have a full discussion, and it wont be an issue. You can start by answering Colin's question on page 1.

[raehl]

Try to have a full discussion, and it wont be an issue. You can start by answering Colin's question on page 1.

To be fair, that's not a reasonable request. A web forum is the last place anyone with any stake/interest in a particular patent should talk about the merits of that patent. Save it for the lawyers.

- Chris

[RogueFactor]

To be fair, that's not a reasonable request. A web forum is the last place anyone with any stake/interest in a particular patent should talk about the merits of that patent. Save it for the lawyers.

- Chris

If a web forum is the last place it should be discussed, then rabidchihauhau shouldnt discuss those merits at all.

[Dirge]

Wow. After following this thread for a while, I have come to the following conclusions:

1) Most of us don't know spit about patent law, myself included.
2) The main thing that irks the majority isn't that there is a patent issue, but that there is no patented goodness to actually purchase. So people get cranky when they can't buy what they want. I have waited since I herd of it in 2004 (I think). Will still buy if someone actually makes one though.....sorry. Ranting.

Am I even close on my assessment?

[raehl]

Isn't the RT trigger a kind of air-actuated trigger? I know if I'm not careful I can get some MEAN bounce out of my emag.

- Chris

[CoolHand]

If I am reading the patent correctly (and to be fair, there is a good chance that I'm not), their claims center around mechanically decoupling the trigger from the sear/firing mechanism.

This mechanical linkage is replaced by an actuation device, and an electromagnetic/fluid power circuit that connects to the "force member" that then in turn actuates the actual firing sequence. This circuit and force member may also be used to multiply the force applied to the trigger.

The RT effect is an air powered return of the directly linked trigger mechanism, which seems to me to be outside the realm of this particular patent (because of the direct mechanical linkage).

Like I said though, I could be totally FOS. ;)

[Accident]

just throwing my 2 cents in here on the issue of whether or not the market wants a pneu-trigger system...


its fun to shoot. plain and simple. it might not be able to get the raw speeds of a electro pneumatic marker, but (if made correctly) it could be more reliable.

lol, funny ya'll should mention prior art. it reminds me of a story i heard about the origins of the dropforward.....

[rabidchihauhau]

kettle = black.

What part of "I will not engage in giving aid and comfort to the enemy" do you not understand?

Of course, Colin is not "the enemy"; Colin has been and is being as victimized by this situation as PTP has been.

But I'm not going to de-engineer a patent I worked on for someone who has their own interests in the same technology.

That is absolutely the exact same thing as me asking Colin to let me know what the work-arounds to his patent are, here, in a public forum, that would place the information into the public domain (particularly if it were to be ruled that 'forums' are akin to 'publications' - and I could make good arguments for either side of that debate, which means it would be a losing proposition to bet either way...)

Hey. Mr. Coca-Cola Bottler, could you please tell me EXACTLY how the coke formula is different from the Pepsi formula?

Yeah, right.

Rogue, your dead horse is really starting to stink.

[RogueFactor]

Thank you rabid, for additional opportunities to inform others to the facts...


Of course, Colin is not "the enemy"; Colin has been and is being as victimized by this situation as PTP has been.
#1) If Colin was victimized by anyone, it was you and RRFireblade spreading internet rumor: A direct quote about this from Colin himself: http://www.automags.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2211557&postcount=83

#2) PTP Victimized? Ha! Thats a laugh. More like Karma- what goes around, comes around.
Check this thread out, it's a poll: http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?t=163070

And the question in the poll is: Was PTP wrong in protecting their patent, and because of it, no hAir trigger?

Did anyone ever notice that Tom Kaye(AGD) voted YES in this poll? Tom Kaye, who at the time had seen BOTH PTP's and DeadlyWind's Intellectual Property.


What part of "I will not engage in giving aid and comfort to the enemy" do you not understand?

But I'm not going to de-engineer a patent I worked on for someone who has their own interests in the same technology.

Youve stated how much of an expert you were in writing "solid claims" that were so broad that they couldnt be worked around.

So which is it? If you wrote these patents so solidly, there is nothing to de-engineer or "aid the enemy" with. If your patent is so solid, youd have no issue with answering questions regarding prior art, or how it is engineered.


Hey. Mr. Coca-Cola Bottler, could you please tell me EXACTLY how the coke formula is different from the Pepsi formula?

Yeah, right.

Those formulas are trade secrets, not patents. Nice try on the SPIN, again.


Rogue, your dead horse is really starting to stink.
Ive been helping you beat YOUR dead horse. The one youve been beating for 2-3 years on AO about your patents. Youre right, it does stink. But thats because its so old. You really should bury it.

Takes 2 to tango. ;)

[going_home]

http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?t=163070

And the question in the poll is: Was PTP wrong in protecting their patent, and because of it, no hAir trigger?

Did anyone ever notice that Tom Kaye(AGD) voted YES in this poll? Tom Kaye, who at the time had seen BOTH PTP's and DeadlyWind's Intellectual Property.



I've searched the thread 4 times now and cant find a post by AGD.
Maybe he didnt want in the middle of this discussion and deleted it.

:confused:

[rabidchihauhau]

Buddy, if you think this is a dance, its no wonder you're getting so many other things wrong.

You hold me accountable for RRFireblades' posts. Talk to him about those if you have an issue.

You put Nicad's statements up there as if the fact that he's DeadlyWind automatically makes his side of the argument correct and mine wrong. Wrong again. I don't want to drag Tom into this - he's jumped onto these boards in support of me often enough - but the record is that AGD determined, on its own, that the hairtrigger was too cumbersome and complicated a design to implement. That's prior to any discussion of patent rights and moots the entire DW vs PTP argument in regards to AGD application.

Dates mean everything if you don't want to fight the claims in court. PTP's patent was going through the examination process. PTP had no control over when DW's patent would issue. If his had taken as long as PTP's, then PTP's would have had the prior date and would have issued first. At that point DW would have had a different decision to make.

PTP was not responsible for DW's decision to assume that the PTP issue would not affect his patent.

My statement about him not being the enemy was not spin: he, like PTP, got caught up in a logistical issue over the issuance of patents for essentially the same thing. I do not think Colin was 'bad' for pressing ahead in his own interests - that's his right. I don't think he was the enemy for trying to make things come out in favor of his own design. He was doing what he thought he ought to be doing and had every right to do. Same goes for PTP.

There was an attempt at reconciliation through licensing. The parties ended up not agreeing. Doesn't make either of them bad guys. They were both victimized by this situation because it negatively affected both of their abilities to bring the product to market. It would have been nice if there was a patent consortium, but such is not the case. Business is business and I don't have to assign negative connotations to someone in the same industry who is pursuing the same goal.

[rabidchihauhau]

I've searched the thread 4 times now and cant find a post by AGD.
Maybe he didnt want in the middle of this discussion and deleted it.

:confused:

umm yeah, and all the post numbers are sequential too...

thanks for that - I didn't even bother to address that one...

and excuse me for saying so, but regardless of how Tom voted (if he did vote): I'm sorry to have to say that the results of a poll on AO might be interesting, but they don't make something so...

New Poll: Should the Automag Still be on the market today...?

[RogueFactor]

I've searched the thread 4 times now and cant find a post by AGD.
Maybe he didnt want in the middle of this discussion and deleted it.

:confused:

I will highlight the keywords for you, so you can go back and check again:


And the question in the poll is: Was PTP wrong in protecting their patent, and because of it, no hAir trigger?

Did anyone ever notice that Tom Kaye(AGD) voted YES in this poll? Tom Kaye, who at the time had seen BOTH PTP's and DeadlyWind's Intellectual Property.

[RogueFactor]

You hold me accountable for RRFireblades' posts. Talk to him about those if you have an issue.

Your ADD must have kicked in too:


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:

[BigEvil]

kettle = black.

What part of "I will not engage in giving aid and comfort to the enemy" do you not understand?

Of course, Colin is not "the enemy"; Colin has been and is being as victimized by this situation as PTP has been.

But I'm not going to de-engineer a patent I worked on for someone who has their own interests in the same technology.

That is absolutely the exact same thing as me asking Colin to let me know what the work-arounds to his patent are, here, in a public forum, that would place the information into the public domain (particularly if it were to be ruled that 'forums' are akin to 'publications' - and I could make good arguments for either side of that debate, which means it would be a losing proposition to bet either way...)

Hey. Mr. Coca-Cola Bottler, could you please tell me EXACTLY how the coke formula is different from the Pepsi formula?

Yeah, right.

Rogue, your dead horse is really starting to stink.


Dude,

You could be the greatest guy in the world,

You could have found the cure for cancer, aids, and
created a device that will not only make wives more
amorous, but get them to cook dinner every night as
well.

You may have given untold fortunes to charities to
help starving children in Africa..

but

No matter what your credentials,

No matter what you post here,

No matter what you say,

No matter how you spin anything....

and not for all the press releases in the world...

AO is the WRONG tree to be barking up looking
for sympathetic ears in this debate. If you haven't
figured that out by now.. you are not as smart as you
think you are.

Now please.. PLEASE ...PLEASE... GO AWAY. No one wants
to hear about this abortion anymore.

[KC]

I've searched the thread 4 times now and cant find a post by AGD.
Maybe he didnt want in the middle of this discussion and deleted it.

:confused:

Click on the yes vote #. Its in order thus AGD is the first name on the list.

[raehl]

If I am reading the patent correctly (and to be fair, there is a good chance that I'm not), their claims center around mechanically decoupling the trigger from the sear/firing mechanism.

This mechanical linkage is replaced by an actuation device, and an electromagnetic/fluid power circuit that connects to the "force member" that then in turn actuates the actual firing sequence. This circuit and force member may also be used to multiply the force applied to the trigger.

The RT effect is an air powered return of the directly linked trigger mechanism, which seems to me to be outside the realm of this particular patent (because of the direct mechanical linkage).

Like I said though, I could be totally FOS. ;)

I didn't really mean in direct relation to the patent under discussion, more as a general comment - air pressure pushes the RT trigger back forward.

- Chris

[nicad]

I don't want to drag Tom into this - he's jumped onto these boards in support of me often enough - but the record is that AGD determined, on its own, that the hairtrigger was too cumbersome and complicated a design to implement. That's prior to any discussion of patent rights and moots the entire DW vs PTP argument in regards to AGD application.I would like to address the mis-conception that AGD bailed on the hAir trigger because of complexity. I am not sure which record you are referring to, but here is the course of events as I have documented via emails.
On 03/18/2004 Tom contacted me about the trigger system.
By 04/11/04 we had NDAs in place and Tom had a prototype in his hands. Initial concern was complexity.
By 04/14/04, after much dialog via phone and email, it was concluded that the system was not as complex as originally thought... Most were specific to that prototype, and would not be a concern in production.
On 04/29/04 we started negotiations on licensing along with refining the system for a seamless integration.
On 07/14/04 Tom informed me that he was made aware of "other parties" working on the same thing and would have patents issuing soon. (which turned out to be the PTP pneumatic trigger patent which just issued a few weeks ago). Tom no longer felt it was wise to continue since the "rightful owner" of the technology was now unclear.


There was an attempt at reconciliation through licensing. The parties ended up not agreeing.You are correct, but allow me to say that at the time PTP wanted to license patent #6802305 to us, and insisted that it covered pneumatic interfaced triggers.. which as it turns out did not-- apparent in the divisional patent #7231911 issuing just now a few weeks ago-- (3 years too late in the market). PTP wanted fees of a few magnitudes higher than what we were looking to license to AGD for, so we declined the "offer".

That is all for now. :)

[RRfireblade]

Thank you rabid, for additional opportunities to inform others to the facts...


#1) If Colin was victimized by anyone, it was you and RRFireblade spreading internet rumor: A direct quote about this from Colin himself: http://www.automags.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2211557&postcount=83



;)

I like how you falled to include 'all' the facts tho , like the one's you don't like . . . like where pretty much everything Colin questioned was fully answered later in the thread. ;)

[rabidchihauhau]

Thanks Colin,

Folks ought to remember that while this was all going on, much discussion was taking place through third parties, not directly between the parties.

I note that Colin acknowledged that Tom said his concern was complexity. That's what we heard over at PTP. That's what I've said I heard.

Now Colin adds some additional clarifying information - again, not out of line with what I have said from my point of view in the whole equation. I was never told that Tom relaxed his concerns regarding the complexity - but I have no reason to doubt Colin's statement.

Evil - you've got your opinions, but obviously since people are addressing me by name throughout this thread, some of them are interested in what I have to say.

[RogueFactor]

I like how you falled to include 'all' the facts tho , like the one's you don't like . . . like where pretty much everything Colin questioned was fully answered later in the thread. ;)

I included all the FACTS. Not what was, in your opinion, ELUDED to.


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 always leave yourself a few 'outs' with the "I believe", and "was eluded to". This allows you not to have the backup for you statements, and allows you to formulate your own truths with 'ellusions' ;)

Had Tom or Colin said any of those things, Colin certainly wouldnt have had issue with them. And he did. Obviously.

[RogueFactor]

Thanks Colin,

Thanks for...the FACTS! The facts that said there was no complexity ? Yes. Oh wait....


I note that Colin acknowledged that Tom said his concern was complexity. That's what we heard over at PTP. That's what I've said I heard.

More SPIN.

#1) Someone having a concern of complication/complexity(Tom) before having seen it, and there actually BEING complexity once he has seen it, are 2 completely different things.

#2) You have stated with authority that Colin's technology was more complicated than yours, and that yours was much better. You didnt say you 'heard it' when you proclaimed it. It wasnt 'conjecture', it was stated as fact by you.


Now Colin adds some additional clarifying information - again, not out of line with what I have said from my point of view in the whole equation.

Its way out of line from what you have said. It wasnt stated as a 'point of view'. It was staed with authority, as fact. :nono:


Way to try and SPIN what Colin said to fit your position though.

I will repeat. DeadlyWind was victimized. PTP - Not so.

[warbeak2099]

Now look, rabidchihauhau doesn't have to be the bad guy here. Maybe no one is. But I'd like one question answered:

Is PTP ever going to go through with the product? If not then yes, they are being dicks for not allowing the product to come to market. It's perfectly legal, but not at all ethical. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt before we crucify them. Rabid, Jay, is it going to ever happen?

[Accident]

Now look, rabidchihauhau doesn't have to be the bad guy here. Maybe no one is. But I'd like one question answered:

Is PTP ever going to go through with the product? If not then yes, they are being dicks for not allowing the product to come to market. It's perfectly legal, but not at all ethical. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt before we crucify them. Rabid, Jay, is it going to ever happen?

I bet it would if they could ever figure out how to make it work.

[BigEvil]

I bet it would if they could ever figure out how to make it work.

I dont think thats the issue with it not being produced. The real problem; is there a market for a trigger system which is both inferior and vastly more expensive than most entry level electros. The time for something such as this has passed.

[Accident]

I dont think thats the issue with it not being produced. The real problem; is there a market for a trigger system which is both inferior and vastly more expensive than most entry level electros. The time for something such as this has passed.

i'm not disagreeing. i just have to wonder why it took them Three years for this. its not exactly a overly complicated system.

and i do have to agree on the marketability being an issue. i would still chop my arm off and beat my sister to death to have one, though.

[BigEvil]

i'm not disagreeing. i just have to wonder why it took them Three years for this. its not exactly a overly complicated system.

and i do have to agree on the marketability being an issue. i would still chop my arm off and beat my sister to death to have one, though.


Make one ;)

[Dark Side]

Make one ;)

OR.....

There are a few for sell in the BST forums. :rolleyes:

Just watch out for the letter about "stealing" technology from Rabid.

[nathanjones008]

Wow this has turned into a witch hunt! :shooting:

[J.James]

Keeps picking & scratching @ old scab then pours salt in . Boy it still hurts like the day it happened :) . Reminicing of the hAir trigger anticipation like it was yesterday .

[rabidchihauhau]

yada yada.

I don't know what PTP is planning on doing once the IP dust settles. Things are "happening".

I do know this. If a license for their mag version becomes available, I'm getting one. Then I'll work on creating some kind of "open source" methodology, so that everyone who wants to can participate and so that there will be someone around to deal with other, potentially harmful patent grants that come down the pike.

[y0da900]

Then I'll work on creating some kind of "open source" methodology, so that everyone who wants to can participate and so that there will be someone around to deal with other, potentially harmful patent grants that come down the pike.


There has been some talk off and on elsewhere about doing exactly that, I really hope that it gets done someday soon.