Open Source Paintball Gun

[rabidchihauhau]

I brought this subject up in another thread :

http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?t=219153&page=4&pp=30&highlight=open+source

and wanted to throw it out there for discussion.

Suppose that it were possible for someone so-inclined to obtain licensing rights to a design and had the manufacturing capability to provide some of the base components at a "decent" price.

Suppose that instead of simply marketing the product, said individual/company figured out a way to include a "limited license" for others who purchased said hardware, allowing them to build a marker for themselves that was legal and covered by patents.

Questions:

Do you think players would be willing to pay a few extra dollars for tech to receive the license?

Would others be willing to purchase just a license so that they could make whatever they wanted (that was covered)? (Presuming a reasonable one-time "lifetime" fee)

Would others be willing to throw their designs into the mix? Would such others be interested in obtaining IP protection (where appropriate) for their contributions and then be willing to sell such under the same kind of terms (limited license folded into the purchase price?)

Do others have other "open source" models they would suggest: a key component of such would necessarily be some dollars being set aside to obtain additional IP and/or to protect the existing IP so that it could remain "open source".

Such a thing would have to also recognize and accomodate the fact that there are at least two different kinds of "designers" out there (and here I'm talking about good, desireable tech, not just anything. Workable, economical, usable stuff.). There are those who will be designing things for which they have a desire and a need to receive some level of compensation, and there will be others who just want to do and be recognized.

This is a hypothetical suggestion for finding/developing a middle ground between IP protection (and its benefits as well as destriments) and the advantages of a completely open market (that eventually stagnates because no one has made enough profit for investment into the next generation).

Those who designed/manufactured would find a ready market; others could take advantage of suggestions/designs that were thrown out there; the IP would remain in a protected state and there would be a reinvestment mechanism in place.

Perhaps another method might be a "club" where membership includes the rights...?

[y0da900]

Like I said in the other thread, I would love to see something like this happen. If it were done, I have a number of concepts that I would gladly toss into the pool just because I would like to see them worked with.

In addition to just designs and concepts, the group could also function as a standards organization. Lots of markers are "cocker threaded" for barrels, but since WGP has no published spec for the barrels, there is enough variation between them that some are incompatible. Things like that could be alleviated by creating a fixed standard that could be adhered to by others.

A suggestion in the other discussion I've seen on the topic was to model it after the GPL that is often used for open source software, and has apparently been successfully used to defend hardware in the past.
http://tinkersguild.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=609

I don't think that limiting it off the bat to good desirable tech is the best option, there are a lot of half baked ideas out there that are terrible ideas in and of themselves, but if their main issues are overcome, have the potential to be fantastic. There may even be a separate protection put in place for designs that are purely jumping points with no marketable aspects as is.

As you mentioned, a membership system could be put in place, which could open up a lot of other possibilities. You could open up anywhere from no included licensing to all included licensing with cost of membership (and everywhere in between), a quid-pro-quo basis where membership and rights are given based on the number of designs you have contributed, some combination thereof, spec adherence rights without licensing of designs membership options....

And one of the things that a lot of people seem to not get entirely, and this goes for both patents (sometimes) and open source licenses. The idea behind it is not always to prevent others from making millions with the idea, but to make it so that they can't prevent you from doing it by taking your idea.

[Anjin3515]

sounds like a reasonable idea. It grants protection but allows users to "tinker"....of course it would all depend on how much that license would cost...too much and people wont bite.

So would the original designer get a "cut" of every license fee? You would have to work out the whole payment thing....but all in all I like the idea.

[rabidchihauhau]

Thanks for participating so far.

I'll look at the GPL stuff later today and comment on it later.

As for "how" it will work - that's obviously far from being decided, but one place I'd look to get a start would be the various patent consortiums that already exist. Licensing of your design to members of the group offsets the fees that you are charged by others. I don't know exactly how one design would be valued against another - categories perhaps - and the consortium concept would probably require a dedicated person to manage, so it might end up being something simpler, like a minimal threshold of contribution to obtain/retain the licenses at no additional charge (or contiual payment of your dues - except what happens to lapsed individual members?)

This whole concept was highly speculative to begin with, so it doesn't surprise me that lots and lots of bumps are showing up even on the third post.

And Yoda - thanks for pointing out that IP protection would be the thing that would continue to allow such a thing to exist. It is an important point missed all too often by others.

[FinchMan]

you might be able to sell a frame that is ready-milled for pneumag components, and add a small license fee on top. Though I doubt anybody would buy a license if they are starting from scratch.

If you want to make a open source idea discussion board with special rules, that would be cool.

[Lohman446]

risk to reward.

Most AOers (and others) feel there is very minimal risk to themselves for building a marker in defiance of intellectual property rights. To a large degree they are right, especially those built for personal use. What effective recourse do you actually have against them?

[robnix]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like what you're talking is selling a kit with specific parts to build a specific type of marker, or a license to go out and build one with whatever parts the builder desires for whatever purpose. It's still not really any different than what you have now. Rights holders that keep a license for a product who's manufacture is openly described in patent applications or can be easily reverse engineered.

The IP is already 'open source'. You can take any marker apart in a few minutes, and with the right technical knowledge understand enough about how it works to reproduce it.

[y0da900]

The IP is already 'open source'. You can take any marker apart in a few minutes, and with the right technical knowledge understand enough about how it works to reproduce it.


That does not give you the right to reproduce it part for part though. The idea of open source is entirely different from that. It allows people to use certain design aspects legally, and for profit. What it prevents is a Smart Parts move of people doing things openly and freely (electros), then having someone go back retroactively and claiming something as their own IP tacked onto something existing or creating anew, and charging you to use it.

Rabid is not talking exclusively about pneu-frames. What this is, is the potential to gather a large amount of intellectual property (ideas, designs, concepts, specifications), control who can use it (potentially freely), and to prevent someone from having their own ideas used against them. Lots of us have designs we would willingly part with just so we can finally see them built, and to get other peoples spins on them. There are tons of designs that nobody gets shown on here or elsewhere because we are paranoid about having our designs ripped off, and prevented from using them ourselves.

[robnix]

That does not give you the right to reproduce it part for part though. The idea of open source is entirely different from that. It allows people to use certain design aspects legally, and for profit. What it prevents is a Smart Parts move of people doing things openly and freely (electros), then having someone go back retroactively and claiming something as their own IP tacked onto something existing or creating anew, and charging you to use it.


So everyone will be happy with a definition for OSS, here's how the OSI defines Open Source Software:

1. Free Redistribution: the software can be freely given away or sold. (This was intended to expand sharing and use of the software on a legal basis.)
2. Source Code: the source code must either be included or freely obtainable. (Without source code, making changes or modifications can be impossible.)
3. Derived Works: redistribution of modifications must be allowed. (To allow legal sharing and to permit new features or repairs.)
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code: licenses may require that modifications are redistributed only as patches.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: no one can be locked out.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: commercial users cannot be excluded.
7. Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: the program cannot be licensed only as part of a larger distribution.
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software: the license cannot insist that any other software it is distributed with must also be open source.
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral: no click-wrap licenses or other medium-specific ways of accepting the license must be required.

taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition (Fair use allowed)


Rabid is not talking exclusively about pneu-frames. What this is, is the potential to gather a large amount of intellectual property (ideas, designs, concepts, specifications), control who can use it (potentially freely), and to prevent someone from having their own ideas used against them. Lots of us have designs we would willingly part with just so we can finally see them built, and to get other peoples spins on them. There are tons of designs that nobody gets shown on here or elsewhere because we are paranoid about having our designs ripped off, and prevented from using them ourselves.

The kind of marker is irrelevant. What he's talking about is a licensing/IP/patent consortium that would maintain control over and protect the IP for it's members. As long as there's any profit motivation with something like this, greed will eventually cause it's failure. Eventually the little guy and the political outsiders will get shut out.

[luke]

risk to reward.

Most AOers (and others) feel there is very minimal risk to themselves for building a marker in defiance of intellectual property rights. To a large degree they are right, especially those built for personal use. What effective recourse do you actually have against them?

That was my thought exactly.

[luke]

That does not give you the right to reproduce it part for part though. The idea of open source is entirely different from that. It allows people to use certain design aspects legally, and for profit.

If this would allow me to sell parts or frames on the open market I'm all for it.

[rabidchihauhau]

Software is arguably far different from a manufactured product: there have been real questions (in IP terms) about what constitutes the product, how much of a "change" renders such no longer the thing covered, how ownership is derived for applications, patches, what obviousness is and on and on.

It is also much easier to propogate software than it is a manufactured product.

I used "open source" as the phrase to describe it because the general concept would be one of joint sharing of the "designs" and joint "sharing" of the protection, not because I wanted to subscribe to one particular definition of such a thing.

The "objections" raised here are, for the most part valid ones. I have some suggested solutions to some of them, but want to hear others first.

[luke]

Please define what this would entail.

Would it only allow DIY tinkering or could someone use it for profit gain?

[rabidchihauhau]

I'm not sure: I'm hoping that the folks here will make their preferences known.

I would imagine that the "best" way to go about it would be that a "member" gets to commercialize their designs through the group.

That might not mean anything initially, but if such a thing took off, the imprint of the product being from the OSPBG would hopefully provide additional marketing assistance and stand for some level of reliability and quality - not to mention a recognized standard that a whole slew of products would adhere to.

Perhaps something like:

1. you agree to pay the licensing fee to participate (whatever that is)
2. you agree to assign any IP you receive to the "group" (for some reasonable compensation)
3. you agree to assist the group in protecting all of its holdings
4. you agree to modify your product to adhere to the prevailing standards
5. you don't have to pay anyone else in the group if you utilize their IP
6. you get to participate in setting the standards
7. you get to advertise your product within the group and have it included in all group offerings
8. after proper review, the group may decide to underwrite your new IP applications
9. there may be opportunities to bundle various offerings; if your product is selected, you'd be the one asked to supply it

objections to any/all of the above would be: 1. someone will eventually dominate "the group", greed will rear its ugly head, disagreement will curtail growth and a whole host of related issues.

I would say that there are models for dealing with all of it; if "approval" requires consensus, then protection lies within numbers. Numbers can slow things down, so there would be a provision that after a particular time frame of offering something to the group, a member can go it on their own - with no consequences (in other words, if the group fails to act or says no, they can't then stifle something they said no to) and etc.

The above is just one view that will hopefully generate alternatives.

But yes, there would HAVE to be a commercial component if such a thing were to have a hope of succeeding. Otherwise, where's the money going to come from for IP protection, manufacturing a part everyone needs but that is not "economical" for any one member to make, etc., etc.

[robnix]

I'm not sure: I'm hoping that the folks here will make their preferences known.

I would imagine that the "best" way to go about it would be that a "member" gets to commercialize their designs through the group.

That might not mean anything initially, but if such a thing took off, the imprint of the product being from the OSPBG would hopefully provide additional marketing assistance and stand for some level of reliability and quality - not to mention a recognized standard that a whole slew of products would adhere to.

Perhaps something like:

1. you agree to pay the licensing fee to participate (whatever that is)
2. you agree to assign any IP you receive to the "group" (for some reasonable compensation)
3. you agree to assist the group in protecting all of its holdings
4. you agree to modify your product to adhere to the prevailing standards
5. you don't have to pay anyone else in the group if you utilize their IP
6. you get to participate in setting the standards
7. you get to advertise your product within the group and have it included in all group offerings
8. after proper review, the group may decide to underwrite your new IP applications
9. there may be opportunities to bundle various offerings; if your product is selected, you'd be the one asked to supply it

objections to any/all of the above would be: 1. someone will eventually dominate "the group", greed will rear its ugly head, disagreement will curtail growth and a whole host of related issues.

I would say that there are models for dealing with all of it; if "approval" requires consensus, then protection lies within numbers. Numbers can slow things down, so there would be a provision that after a particular time frame of offering something to the group, a member can go it on their own - with no consequences (in other words, if the group fails to act or says no, they can't then stifle something they said no to) and etc.

The above is just one view that will hopefully generate alternatives.

But yes, there would HAVE to be a commercial component if such a thing were to have a hope of succeeding. Otherwise, where's the money going to come from for IP protection, manufacturing a part everyone needs but that is not "economical" for any one member to make, etc., etc.

You need a Paintball Standards group that sets a solid set of standards for:

1) Markers and air systems.
2) Rules for tournament play.
3) Field standards for rec play.
4) Safety standards.

Paintball IP would be held and used the same way the FSF protects software IP. Not to benefit any one company, but to benefit everyone by defending the group against predatory companies. Members would pay dues depending on their level of retail participation. Members would be safe to use any IP in any way they wish to, as long as it conforms to the standards set by the group. Fees could be based on a members level of interest and plans for use of the IP. A ruling commitee would be elected every so often, with term limits.

It could work, but it would take:

1) Money
2) Marketing
3) Commitment
4) Balls

[Lohman446]

I'm not sure: I'm hoping that the folks here will make their preferences known.

I would imagine that the "best" way to go about it would be that a "member" gets to commercialize their designs through the group.

That might not mean anything initially, but if such a thing took off, the imprint of the product being from the OSPBG would hopefully provide additional marketing assistance and stand for some level of reliability and quality - not to mention a recognized standard that a whole slew of products would adhere to.

Perhaps something like:

1. you agree to pay the licensing fee to participate (whatever that is)
2. you agree to assign any IP you receive to the "group" (for some reasonable compensation)
3. you agree to assist the group in protecting all of its holdings
4. you agree to modify your product to adhere to the prevailing standards
5. you don't have to pay anyone else in the group if you utilize their IP
6. you get to participate in setting the standards
7. you get to advertise your product within the group and have it included in all group offerings
8. after proper review, the group may decide to underwrite your new IP applications
9. there may be opportunities to bundle various offerings; if your product is selected, you'd be the one asked to supply it

objections to any/all of the above would be: 1. someone will eventually dominate "the group", greed will rear its ugly head, disagreement will curtail growth and a whole host of related issues.

I would say that there are models for dealing with all of it; if "approval" requires consensus, then protection lies within numbers. Numbers can slow things down, so there would be a provision that after a particular time frame of offering something to the group, a member can go it on their own - with no consequences (in other words, if the group fails to act or says no, they can't then stifle something they said no to) and etc.

The above is just one view that will hopefully generate alternatives.

But yes, there would HAVE to be a commercial component if such a thing were to have a hope of succeeding. Otherwise, where's the money going to come from for IP protection, manufacturing a part everyone needs but that is not "economical" for any one member to make, etc., etc.

Understand I do not know the exact details. Say for example that SP has a valid claim on the electro. Then say that Dye has a valid claim on the spool valve. They agree to openly share these two technologies with each other (example, I have no clue what hte terms of there deals were) without suing each other into oblivion.

Obviously your idea is a much larger group, but does it not mimic what some companies are doing (on a more defined basis) already.

[AGD]

Guys,

Steve is throwing you all a HUGE bone here (conceptually). With all that has gone on, you should be realizing that a company willing to take you all on as partners is something special. To have an open source design/product could change the face of paintball.

AGD

[olinar]

this sounds like a great idea and depending on the price i think alot of people wouldnt mind paying a license fee.

i havent made a pneumag but id be into making one in the future.

[SummaryJudgement]

I think it would come down to the cost to the people participating. If all of these "fees" were fifty bucks or a hundred, I could see the average player being very interested because most people can scrounge up that kind of money and quites frankly, I think it sounds like a cool oppertunity to get involved more with something we are already interested in.

If the cost was hundreds of dollars or even thousands, then we quickly begin to eliminate the masses who would be more interested IMO. And if someone can spend far less money on some parts and DIY with no intention of selling a product, then I find it extremely hard to believe that someone could get into any legal trouble.

I'd be interested, but there is the cash question at hand......

[rabidchihauhau]

Lohman,

yes in one respect, no in another in that the "customers" are allowed/encouraged to become part of the "consortium".

With your example, its two companies doing something that will strengthen their respective brands, while the customers see no change in their relationship to those companies - expect perhaps for an increase in retail price (if the corporate arrangement confers market control) or a reduction in retail price (if the corporate arrangements eliminates expensive licensing fees and they decide out of the goodness of their hearts to pass some of the savings along).

In the OSPBG, the savings would automatically be earmarked for pass-along to members and would take the form of reduced pricing, acquisition of additional IP, reduction of advertising costs/increase of advertising, etc., etc. Furthermore, the members would be deciding whether such a "merger" would be taking place to begin with, and the party seeking merger would already be indicating their willingness to play by the rules.

Summary,

I have no idea what the cost would be. There could be a split fee - corporate entities paying at one level, private individuals at another (although some companies who's membership would be desireable might balk at the idea of paying a fee in order to save their customers money...double hit you know...) but until there was actually something to license and the costs would be known (as well as any related maintenance, registration, management, etc fees), I have not a clue.

What's the potential market? ten, hundred, thousand? A hundred bucks times one thousand members is 100K and you could do a lot with that. a hundred bucks times ten gets you a website and maybe a logo...

If OSPBG were starting from scratch with its own "committee based" design and wanted to obtain a single base patent, it would probably take about a year to get the app in and would probably cost between 15 and 25K when all is said and done. So, if you're trying to get some kind of handle on what start-up would be, there's a good number to plug in as the low-end.

If you want to be rock-solid and be able to defend your stuff, I wouldn't want to start with anything less than one million in the bank...

[rabidchihauhau]

robinx,

You need a Paintball Standards group that sets a solid set of standards for:

1) Markers and air systems.
2) Rules for tournament play.
3) Field standards for rec play.
4) Safety standards

It could work, but it would take:

1) Money
2) Marketing
3) Commitment
4) Balls

I disagree that all of the standards you list would be necessary to start. ASTM guidelines would be adopted to begin with and modified from there.

I don't think anyone would disagree that I've got #4 in your list of requirements covered :D

[y0da900]

There is also the possibility of adding value to the consortium by bringing in your own IP to the group, which could possibly be used to offset the monetary cost of membership to a degree, potentially entirely (limited time period, based on perceived value of IP given, etc... all fine details).

[rabidchihauhau]

Yoda, yes - I was trying to imply that earlier.

I was thinking that it might be time to put together some kind of formal "exploratory committee" (to borrow a phrase from the political arena) - but I only see 8 people participating in this discussion.

It doesn't fill me with a lot of hope.

If I were to suggest something semi-formal, it would require the following:

1. selection/election of acting officers
2. appointment of folks to:
A. open source structure definition
B. IP identification group
C. communications group (list serv to start, web site to follow)
D. fund-raising
E. oversite

3. once those groups had produced something worth working with, it could move on the a rules committee, a membership drive/marketing committee and a business management committee

4. those groups would then put the formal "thing" together.

But its apparently way too early for such a thing. I would expect that the early contributors would be selected as participants in the foregoing, should they wish to be.

[Lohman446]

While many people might build things on very small scale outside of the major paintball companies few of them (it seems) get overly excited about IP rights. Kind of I'll do it as long as I get away with it and bow at the first cease and desist letter I receive.

Who is going to participate and offer valuable IP property to the group?

Who is going to produce a profitable product out of that IP?

Who is not going to "back stab" the group by holding back and taking other protection for some small (but needed) piece of technology - IE all paintball markers using electical switches or other means?

I don't intend to come off as a "it can't be done" position either. I just think this are questions that should be out there.

[y0da900]

Yoda, yes - I was trying to imply that earlier.


I know, but it seemed to be asked over and over again, so I skipped the implications and just said it.

Do you have any suggestions for trying to get others interested in such a thing, or to gather those who would already be interested? I can only think of posting links to here from other boards or contacting people that have already expressed interest in this, or have at least hinted at an interest.



While many people might build things on very small scale outside of the major paintball companies few of them (it seems) get overly excited about IP rights. Kind of I'll do it as long as I get away with it and bow at the first cease and desist letter I receive.

This eliminates that cease and desist letter. It helps the innovators that are just too scared to go it alone release their ideas. Lots of good ideas never see the light of day due to fear of repercussions and or not a huge market for the design. This gets those out there, and lets people run with them.




Who is going to participate and offer valuable IP property to the group?


Anybody who wants to. Designers and engineers that don't have strong company affiliations and otherwise wouldn't show a lot of their work. Smaller companies that have a great product or great ideas and want to expand. Large companies that appreciate the concept.





Who is going to produce a profitable product out of that IP?


Whoever either wants to join or pay licensing fees. Could be a smaller company (any of the custom shops on here, Cerberus Innovations for example) that wants to expand in what they can offer without treading on toes. Could be a huge company that wants to incorporate new IP into an existing design, or create a new line from it.



Who is not going to "back stab" the group by holding back and taking other protection for some small (but needed) piece of technology - IE all paintball markers using electical switches or other means?

Lets bring in the PTP pneu-frame again. Rabid and Fireblade have both said a number of times that the main impetus in the design was to circumvent the electro nazi patent while maintaining what is a currently accepted rate of fire and light trigger pull. With the potential to release new ideas and have them protected by the group, someone would eventually create a workaround. The backstabbers as you call them would only be inspiring us to create other, potentially better means.

[luke]

This has peaked my interest. But, to be honest I don't have anything to input at this point. This kind of stuff is not something I will pretend to completely understand. But I'm willing to pay attention and learn as I go.

[Lohman446]

What about the "big money companies" that form one and keep everyone else out. For example I think its commonly beleived that SP, Dye, and WDP all have an undisclosed agreement. Its entirely possible said agreement allows sharing of certain IP. If I paid 10 million dollars they would probably let me be part of it.

How do we value IP being brought in?

For instance if one was able to obtain the IP protecting electros and offer it to the consortium what would its value be? Surely offering this IP would be worth more than offering the IP to (don't kill me) an RT trigger system. Who, and how are we going to set values?

As the consortium expands (and as such has more IP) how are the licensing fees going to change? Is it an all or nothing "subscription" IE I pay $1000 and am entitled to everything covered? Or is it creating a simpler marketplace for one to purchase individual pieces of IP from the consortium - IE, I'll take rights to the RT system for $10 Alex? If availabile in peices how do we value individual peices? How do we differentiate for use? IE - I want to buy the rights to build 1 unit for myself, vs 10 units for friends, vs manufacture product for profit? Or is it all or nothing? As more and more is added to the consortium how do we keep the costs reasonable while keeping the value of adding IP? What keeps it from mutating from "small" to big business practices and becoming a "good old boys club" as the value (and price) of joining goes up.

Aside from the option of buying all the rights the consortium holds at once what is the advantage over going and seeking individual licenses from various holders?

Whats the base offer of shared IP (for instance pneumatic trigger) that encourages others to join and offer there own IP?

How does the consortium protect its IP without being labeled "anti-development" and looking like SP?

How do we enforce a "work product" agreement. That is not allowing those who use the consortium, then come up with something new, to patent it and keep it from the consortium?

Lots of questions I know, and still not trying to be all negative. The idea looks great, but I see a lot of hurdles. An apparently I am not a "yes man".

[rabidchihauhau]

As far as "backstabbing" goes - here's a couple of defenses:

1. someone creates a "work around" but won't play ball - the group just doesn't endorse it for use and or modifies standards to make it incompatible and/or let's everyone know that so-and-so is a bad actor

2. someone holds a critical piece of tech hostage - but it can only be "advanced" critical tech, since for such to occur the group and products already exist. Participation and licensing to use the group's IP is withdrawn from the individual and/or not renewed (depending on set-up). Great, they've got a really cool "x" - but nothing to use it on.

I'm more concerned about the group being perceived as stifling development and have concentrated my thinking more on the side of how to keep it from going NAZI than I have on external issues - which is why I suggested that the group has (with its members) an agreement to get first option on new things and a set time frame for acceptance, after which it loses its claim and contractually can't impose its will on the member should they decide to produce said thing independantly of the group.

Why would anyone want to impose such a thing on themselves (as a company)?

We're talking all potentials here but:

they buy in to a ready made market - don't have to develop one for themselves

they buy into a protective environment while still retaining ownership of their IP

they do not have to manufacture every component to produce their product

they don't have to budget for a full advertising campaign

they don't have to establish their own website with e-commerce

they don't have to pay licensing and royalty fees to make their product

they may not have to underwrite 100% of their IP application costs

There are two realized revenue streams: one being sales of their product to the outside world and the other being sales of their product (wholesale or group retail) within the group. Anyone with a machine shop will tell you that the opportunity to keep their machines booked up regularly is worth cutting their margins for

There are at least two no cost/low cost advantages: reduction and elimination of many day to day customary business expenses and increased leverage on the IP side.

Supposed, just for supposing sake, that one of the groups' patents finds a licensee outside of paintball; a (good) percentage goes to the owner, the remainder to the group. Now we're cooking with gas because the revenue is completely external. The portion the licensor is giving up to the group comes back to them in increased services from the group - and since the group is responsible for developing external licensing of product, its dollars they probably wouldn't have gotten to begin with.

So, I think there are a lot of reasons why someone would want to sign on - AFTER the group was fully established and functional. Its getting folks initially that's really the problem.

SPEAKING OF WHICH.

I have some IP I'm developing and I am in desperate need of an electronics geek to build a circuit for the FINAL prototype.

I CAN'T pay cash, so I'm prepared to give up a piece of any future sales of the thing to whomever gives me a hand.

This IP might eventually become one of the contributed pieces of IP to the OS group and if it gets its grant (like I fully expect it to) well, let's just say that it could go a long way to solving a lot of issues.

Whomever jumps on board will need to know how to do a circuit that will require software (could be permanent burned in or programmable) and has to "know their stuff" so that we can discuss not only the optimal circuit but the variations on a theme. They'll also have to be willing to sign a non-disclosure.

PM me if you think you'd be willing to work on this.

A few months from now I WILL be able to hire a shop to do this (house closing in about 6 weeks - we made a profit) so the opportunity is limited...

[robnix]

robinx,

You need a Paintball Standards group that sets a solid set of standards for:

1) Markers and air systems.
2) Rules for tournament play.
3) Field standards for rec play.
4) Safety standards

It could work, but it would take:

1) Money
2) Marketing
3) Commitment
4) Balls

I disagree that all of the standards you list would be necessary to start. ASTM guidelines would be adopted to begin with and modified from there.

I don't think anyone would disagree that I've got #4 in your list of requirements covered :D

#4 could come from the ASTM standards, but what I mean for #1 is a bit different. Standardize on a single type of threading for barrels, feednecks, direct mount hole spacing, grips screws, etc...This way companies and individuals can make a single piece that can fit any marke. The day I got my first ULE, I went to a local paintball store to get a new feedneck for it and couldn't, because they didn't carry any that had angel threading. Their loss, not mine, I went online to get one. Look at network devices, right now I could start company to build, market, and sell firewalls, because there are standards set for the transmission of data across networks, and everyone that wants to play follows those standards. You wouldn't want to determine how the internals work of course, but standardizing the accessories would only make that market easier to enter.

#4 I think you have in spades, #3 as well ;)

I really hope you can get something like this started, it would only help this sport grow.

[Fantom]

- but I only see 8 people participating in this discussion.

It doesn't fill me with a lot of hope.




I'm listening. Need to read your propositions and comments more than once to assimilate and undederstand, then assess the risks and benefits before speaking.......

As your were.

[hitech]

...but I only see 8 people participating in this discussion.

It doesn't fill me with a lot of hope.


I don't know what the odds are that this will work, so I can't increase your level of hope. But, I'm reading EVERYTHING posted here with great interest. However, with two school age children and one toddler I won't likely be participating any time soon. Why did I post? Well, to at least let you know that some of us not participating in the discussion could fall on your side of the fence. :eek:

:cheers:

[lt500]

I will second that statment.

[rabidchihauhau]

I'm listening. Need to read your propositions and comments more than once to assimilate and undederstand, then assess the risks and benefits before speaking.......

As your were.

NO! (lol)

you need to post your concerns and observations now, so that we can all poke fun at silliness, applaud and get overly excited by coolness and have something, anything, that will keep the conversation going.

Seriously. I DON'T want people holding back. If you wait until things are set in stone and its not going the way you want it to, you'll be reluctant to continue to participate. If you have the killer concept, it could save time and effort. But most of all, we need to establish the concept of free and open debate, contribution, criticism and discussion.

IF this goes anywhere, what we do now will be setting the culture for all time to come.

[luke]

Few questions,

1. I'm assuming that PTP would be the ones licensing the "group" to build and develop pneumatic frames. (?)

2. I would also assume that their pneumatic frame would be off limits as far as reproduction is concerned. (?)

3.
Originally Posted by rabidchihauhau
Perhaps something like:
3. you agree to assist the group in protecting all of its holdings

What exactly did you mean by this? Are you suggesting that members would be obligated financially if a patent needed to be protected in court? If so to what degree?

[Lohman446]

Some of these may be ideas hiding in question form... don't take them as intended to be critical of the idea

What method does one use to determine value?

For example, lets say the cost is $1,000 to join the consortium and receive right to use the IP that is a propert of said consortium. Based on your description of selling rights for alternate uses (non-paintball) I am assuming the license will be limited to paintball (possibly airsoft) use.

Lets say I held the electro patent (just a for instance). I want to joint the consortium, and am willing to use this to help offset my fees. Surely it is worth more than the $1000. Will the consortium be willing to buy it for a "fair" agreed upon market price?

Will the consortium than take ownership of all IP and pay royalties to the original holder for non-paintball use? Will they be paid royalties for paintball use? Will the consortium offer assitance in gaining IP rights for new ideas to members?

As the consortium ages it will gain more and more IP. The value of joining now will be far less than the value of joining later. How will that be addressed? Will it be essentially a yearly (or whatever) "subscription" fee to continue having license?

How will the consortium get "big enough" that its standards are not just walked over? Not a legal concept, but you know the politics that just side step any standards around paintball lately.

How do you keep the consortium honest to the original intent? Over time more and more IP will be in it, and the value of being in it might be a million dollars a year (or whatever). How then are new members encouraged and able to join?

If I leave the consortium do I get the chance to buy back the rights to my original IP? I'm thinking probably not, you are paid a fair price for it, no pulling it out later (essentially pulling SP - give it out for everyone to take advantage of, help research and hone, then when its as refined as possible (or close enough) begin protecting your rights).

[stevewar]

Like I said in the other thread, I would love to see something like this happen. If it were done, I have a number of concepts that I would gladly toss into the pool just because I would like to see them worked with.

In addition to just designs and concepts, the group could also function as a standards organization. Lots of markers are "cocker threaded" for barrels, but since WGP has no published spec for the barrels, there is enough variation between them that some are incompatible. Things like that could be alleviated by creating a fixed standard that could be adhered to by others.

A suggestion in the other discussion I've seen on the topic was to model it after the GPL that is often used for open source software, and has apparently been successfully used to defend hardware in the past.
http://tinkersguild.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=609

I don't think that limiting it off the bat to good desirable tech is the best option, there are a lot of half baked ideas out there that are terrible ideas in and of themselves, but if their main issues are overcome, have the potential to be fantastic. There may even be a separate protection put in place for designs that are purely jumping points with no marketable aspects as is.

As you mentioned, a membership system could be put in place, which could open up a lot of other possibilities. You could open up anywhere from no included licensing to all included licensing with cost of membership (and everywhere in between), a quid-pro-quo basis where membership and rights are given based on the number of designs you have contributed, some combination thereof, spec adherence rights without licensing of designs membership options....

And one of the things that a lot of people seem to not get entirely, and this goes for both patents (sometimes) and open source licenses. The idea behind it is not always to prevent others from making millions with the idea, but to make it so that they can't prevent you from doing it by taking your idea.

This is spot on. Nice work. Creating standards is what took the PC from a machine that cost $10,000, took up an entire room, and had little software that actually worked on it to being a household device that nobody lives without. Having standard thread designs on a barrel would force innovation in materials, rifiling, pilishing, and other physics that improved the overall function of a barrel. Certainly finding a few folks to start a standards committee isn't that difficult and has been done over and over again by a small group of motivated engineers.

I have to say congrats to Brian for comming up with a new concept that could actually make a difference in this inudstry!

I have read the entire thread and while I dont' claim to be an expert in this field I do have a great deal of project mangament experience and have a few suggestions.

1. Don't get overlly consumed with the nitty gritty details. Come up with a list of the top 3- 5 issues that this Open Source Group (for lack of a better term) aims to solve. I know this will leave a lot of important issues on the side of the road, and they will have to be tracked, but it will greatly improve focus and actually move the idea from concept to reality

2. Once we have nailed down the issues we want to solve, we need to come up with a mission statement. I know this sounds cheesy, but this one statement will be the driving force that keeps us focused and prioritizes the issues we need to address.

3. Define the mechanics by which we solve the issues.

Once we have these tasks complete we can start worrying about legally establishing the group, and starting thinking about compensation, standards, licensing, etc.

I for one don't want to let this idea die. I am a software engineer, so I don't have much IP to add to the project, but if there comes a use for my skills I will glady donate my time, effort, and money.

-Steve

[rabidchihauhau]

Few questions,

1. I'm assuming that PTP would be the ones licensing the "group" to build and develop pneumatic frames. (?)

2. I would also assume that their pneumatic frame would be off limits as far as reproduction is concerned. (?)

3.

What exactly did you mean by this? Are you suggesting that members would be obligated financially if a patent needed to be protected in court? If so to what degree?


No. Right now there is no specific IP or "host company" in mind. I am using the pneumatic trigger situation as a jumping off point.

Since that tech is deemed so desireable by many here, it was a logical place to start... - but I can't make any committments for PTP and their stuff is up in the air right now anyways so far as being able to obtain it.

If it were obtainable, I would seek to license it for limited usage (mag-based systems only) with the right to sub-license it built in. If that happens, then we have something to deal with. If not, I would seek alternative jumping off points.

Yes, I mean that the members would be obligated to assist in protecting all IP that was owned by the group (by owned of course we mean directly owned and or properties that were licenses) - but that would not be to the point of idiocy or bankruptcy. Protect means a lot of things. Among them being: funding legal actions (costly) - establishing a history and library of relevant prior art and existing IP (defensive, relatively inexpensive) agreeing not to do business with companies that infringe, etc.

Stevewar:

that's what we're doing - not getting tied up with the nitty gritty.

We're far away from mission statements. We're also not even at the point of determing the "three to five" things to concentrate on.

In fact, we're still at the stage of finding out if there are enough people who want to participate to justify doing it - and we haven't even determined what "it" is. (Its still wavering between an IP consortium and an open source design standard). Finally, the jury is still out on whether any or all of it would be "legal". I am currently discussing that with my attorney and he has doubts already.

Your points are good project management suggestions when the project has been identified, but not necessarily appropriate to an exploratory.

You're putting the cart before the horse, because we need to find out what IT is first, then determine if IT is legal. Once those tasks are completed, then we can whittle IT down and, once we know what IT is and what we intend to do with IT, then we can write the mission statement.


Funny. Your name is Steve and my name is Steve and I managed a development group at AT&T back in the 80's called "I.T." (interactive technolgies). We created the stuff people take for granted now, like touchscreen interfaces, multi-media integration, interactive video gaming and etc. Small world.

[stevewar]

Funny. Your name is Steve and my name is Steve and I managed a development group at AT&T back in the 80's called "I.T." (interactive technolgies). We created the stuff people take for granted now, like touchscreen interfaces, multi-media integration, interactive video gaming and etc. Small world.

It sure is. I actually work on Xbox 360, a nifty little gadget.

My brother in law is a hot shot IP attorney for some big firm in New Yorkl. Could you do me a favor and put together a draft of your ideas (since I'm clearly no expert on IP consoriums nor Open Source) and I will run it by him. He clearly has no background on the issues surrounding paintball, the smart parts debacle, so if you can put in a couple of links for research purposes so that I can speak knowledgably I will get the information we need on the legality of this issue. Also, as a Microsoft employee I have a legal bennefit where by I can use company attorneys for personal issues such as this. I can schedule and appointment with them if we have a reasonable list of questions to ask, and might be able to conference you (and anyone else interested) in.

[rabidchihauhau]

thanks, but I'm already paying my guys to do just that...

don't want to diminish the offer at all; we'll keep him in the wings for right now as I'm sure in future we'll need plenty of additional help.

we're already discussing anti-trust issues...

[y0da900]

Its still wavering between an IP consortium and an open source design standard.


Personally, I think that a combination of both is best. A group that both sets standards and specs that can voluntarily be followed (as well as can be stripped away a companies ability to claim compliance), and can openly amass IP for use by the group (both through licensing to outsiders, licensure through membership, and just plain free to use ideas). My original thoughts on this over the last few years (I originally brought it up ~2 years ago on the guild, however briefly) were to create a licensing system similar to open source software that allows people to release ideas for physical innovations under it, without fear of being painted into a corner by the big players and not able to use their own design over time. Along with this, create defined mechanical specs for items (as mentioned, barrel threads and feedneck threads) that have too many good options as is (hell, cocker barrels don't always even fit because there is no set spec for them) to increase cross compatibility with accessories.

I think Steves vision is sort of a combination of this, but with more thought put into it from a financial sustainability standpoint. I think it can be done while embracing the open source design aspect as well. Open source software allows for financial gain, it simply requires reference back to the original. With a melding of the 2 concepts (which are really very similar), the group could be a jumping point for people who have a marketable idea that want financial gain for their ideas, but lack the ability to see it through for whatever reason (no starting money, no contacts, fear of IP Nazis....), those who have ideas that wouldn't mind some reimbursement for their work, but really just want to see their ideas put into use in a working model, and those that just want to see their ideas regardless. From a sustainability standpoint, the majority of the ideas may end up being monetarily license based (and possibly from a greed standpoint), but I think it is possible to make it all work together.

Jonathan

[stevewar]

[QUOTE=rabidchihauhau]I brought this subject up in another thread :

http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?t=219153&page=4&pp=30&highlight=open+source

and wanted to throw it out there for discussion.

Suppose that it were possible for someone so-inclined to obtain licensing rights to a pneumag design and had the manufacturing capability to provide some of the base components at a "decent" price.

Suppose that instead of simply marketing the product, said individual/company figured out a way to include a "limited license" for others who purchased said hardware, allowing them to build a marker for themselves that was legal and covered by patents.

QUOTE]


Just FYI, there are two concepts called crowdsourcing and open innovation which cover this exact type of idea. It has been done already so there are examples to follow.

"Crowdsourcing is a subset of what Eric von Hippel calls "user-centered innovation," in which manufacturers rely on customers not just to define their needs, but to define the products or enhancements to meet them. But unlike the bottom-up, ad-hoc communities that develop open-source software or better windsurfing gear, crowdsourced work is managed and owned by a single company that sells the results."

-The Ripple Effect
By Paul Boutin


I will try and find some example companies that have gone with such a plan and see what information I can dig up about their model.

Here is a company that already organizes open innovation work. http://innocentive.plurapage.com/sk1/?gclid=CI2C_r2Nv44CFQU4YAodMEWpmw

-Steve

[ClassicMagger]

Hey:

I'm missing something.

Why should anyone have to pay for a license to make Do-It-Yourself pneumatic mags with off the shelf parts that Punisher's Customs was making over a decade and a half ago?

-ClassicMagger

[rabidchihauhau]

If anyone wants to get into the legalities of patent pools - here's a good review of the subject:

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2006dltr0007.html

Steve - yes, there are a variety of existing models, many if not all from the software side, but there are inherent problems with using software as a model - the main one being that sharing is more than just copying bits and bytes.

As a crude example: If I want to write an app for Linux, I can download the developers tools and look at all the existing, relevant code. If I want to work on an improved grip frame, I need to have a mnaufactured grip frame to start from - or cad one up and have someone make it for me... if I'm combining my design with someone else's product, the two (or more) have to physically come together somewhere for assembly. If I've got a cool idea for modding a noid, I have to get one in - I can't just ask someone to send me a copy of the code...

While the distinction is small (and the previous was a very crude, flawed example), the implications of the distinction are enormous; there are enormours roadblocks there, expecially if one supplier has agreed to participate but the product relies on other suppliers to complete and they aren't playing for some reason. In a software environment, if worse comes to worse, you can independantly work around such roadblocks without too much of major economic hit (some time, some pissed off users, maybe not the A#1 version, but workable, usable product). IN the physical world, a marker without a grip frame is uselss and unsellable. You can only buy into the "release version" solution to a limited degree (release 2.1 fixed X bugs and added this, that and the other feature: version 2.1 of the OSPBG added a trigger; version 2.2 will provide the ability to attach a barrel...)

I guess where the software model really breaks down is that the acquisition of software to work from and build on does NOT have to cost dollars; or better yet, the cost can be virtual, while the environment we're dealing with will require expenditure of cash and is not virtual.

I'm reading up on the RFID consortium as a start and immersing myself in patent pool related law right now.

My attorney is a paintballer too, so he fully appreciates the circumstances and the market and is familiar with all of its history. (He's worked with and against some of the biggest names out there in our industry.)

[rabidchihauhau]

Hey:

I'm missing something.

Why should anyone have to pay for a license to make Do-It-Yourself pneumatic mags with off the shelf parts that Punisher's Customs was making over a decade and a half ago?

-ClassicMagger

We are not discussing issues of the applicability of different patents or any of the issues that have come up regarding the same in this thread. We are discussing the possibility of building a group that will benefit the industry - both business and consumer. The jumping off point was pneumags, but that was only an example.

[stevewar]

If anyone wants to get into the legalities of patent pools - here's a good review of the subject:

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2006dltr0007.html

Steve - yes, there are a variety of existing models, many if not all from the software side, but there are inherent problems with using software as a model - the main one being that sharing is more than just copying bits and bytes.

As a crude example: If I want to write an app for Linux, I can download the developers tools and look at all the existing, relevant code. If I want to work on an improved grip frame, I need to have a mnaufactured grip frame to start from - or cad one up and have someone make it for me... if I'm combining my design with someone else's product, the two (or more) have to physically come together somewhere for assembly. If I've got a cool idea for modding a noid, I have to get one in - I can't just ask someone to send me a copy of the code...

While the distinction is small (and the previous was a very crude, flawed example), the implications of the distinction are enormous; there are enormours roadblocks there, expecially if one supplier has agreed to participate but the product relies on other suppliers to complete and they aren't playing for some reason. In a software environment, if worse comes to worse, you can independantly work around such roadblocks without too much of major economic hit (some time, some pissed off users, maybe not the A#1 version, but workable, usable product). IN the physical world, a marker without a grip frame is uselss and unsellable. You can only buy into the "release version" solution to a limited degree (release 2.1 fixed X bugs and added this, that and the other feature: version 2.1 of the OSPBG added a trigger; version 2.2 will provide the ability to attach a barrel...)

I guess where the software model really breaks down is that the acquisition of software to work from and build on does NOT have to cost dollars; or better yet, the cost can be virtual, while the environment we're dealing with will require expenditure of cash and is not virtual.

I'm reading up on the RFID consortium as a start and immersing myself in patent pool related law right now.

My attorney is a paintballer too, so he fully appreciates the circumstances and the market and is familiar with all of its history. (He's worked with and against some of the biggest names out there in our industry.)

I can definitely appreciate the differences between software and other "hard" products. However there are other companies including www.crowdspirit.com that are using this model for devloping lower cost electronics. I don't have the experience in patent law to understand all of the ramifications of this type of project, but I do understand the concept well enough thto get in contact with such a company and discuss their business model and the barries they had to entry. If this would be benneficial let me know and I'll get to work on it.

[ClassicMagger]

We are not discussing issues of the applicability of different patents or any of the issues that have come up regarding the same in this thread. We are discussing the possibility of building a group that will benefit the industry - both business and consumer. The jumping off point was pneumags, but that was only an example.

Hey rabid:

If this thread isn't about Pneumags which was only used as an example, your very first post is very misleading. Do us all a favor, go back and edit your original post so that it pertains to the topic at hand.

-ClassicMagger

[stevewar]

Hey rabid:

If this thread isn't about Pneumags which was only used as an example, your very first post is very misleading. Do us all a favor, go back and edit your original post so that it pertains to the topic at hand.

-ClassicMagger


I don't mean to be a jerk, but rabids first post isn't misleading at all. The title specifically states "open source paintball gun." The pneumag is just an example of a common feature that people on the board want, and can't get commercially due to legal BS.

However, I will say that the topic is very complicated to understand, but that is the nature of the issue.

[ClassicMagger]

I don't mean to be a jerk, but rabids first post isn't misleading at all. The title specifically states "open source paintball gun." The pneumag is just an example of a common feature that people on the board want, and can't get commercially due to legal BS.

However, I will say that the topic is very complicated to understand, but that is the nature of the issue.

Hey stevewar:

You do realize a Pneumag is a paintball gun, right? If this thread isn't about Pneumags, the first post is misleading.

-ClassicMagger

[Lohman446]

You are going to have to forgive the lack of technical terms - if I were doing this I would discuss it with an attorney.

We all know that IP has a value - and to some degree that value can be appraised.

Does this concept not suit itself to some type of restricted corporation, where those joining the consortium purchase stock in it (or trade IP rights for stock)? Investors could be found to purchase stock in the consortium through direct financial purchase, allowing start-up money and some cash on hand in order to protect said IP. A board of directors would allow control. It would also allow distribution of profits (should it ever become profitable). Ownership of stock could include a limited licensing agreement to IP owned by the company with X amount of shares being required for private use, XX amount of shares being required for small production, and XXX amount of shares being required for "for profit" manufacturing. Without an IP issue stockholders could freely trade manufactured goods between one another at an agreed upon rate. The initial concept (allowing people to help legally develop existing IP without a major investment) could be maintained through stock splits, keeping the prices required attainable for many while protecting the investment of early investors.

Just kicking out ideas at this point, not fully formed obviously.

[stevewar]

Hey stevewar:

You do realize a Pneumag is a paintball gun, right? If this thread isn't about Pneumags, the first post is misleading.

-ClassicMagger


I'm building my first pneu, and you need to re-read that post.

[BigEvil]

- but I only see 8 people participating in this discussion.

It doesn't fill me with a lot of hope.


Im just curious as to why this is brought up now, interestingly enough right after G-Force announces they are moving forward with a Pneu-frame? PTP has been sitting on this concept for how many years? How come now all of a sudden the bright idea?

[rabidchihauhau]

Big,

again, we're talking about the concept of open sourcing paintball guns and perhaps other stuff, with the possible addition of standards creation thrown in - not pneumags.

The genesis for the the concept applied to paintball markers was the discussion about pneumags, the three patents issued and all the IP crap surrounding those and other products.

I DO NOT want this thread to devolve into a discussion of those topics. In addition to several other things that are in process, I WILL go back and edit the initial post, even though the primary subject is stated.

The connection to pneumags is nothing more than "HEY, THAT GIVES ME AN IDEA..." That's all.

[luke]

Well quite frankly it was a little misleading because how and where the conversation started. I do understand now, but I did ask point blank because I wasn't certain myself. Now that's not to say that what you guys are considering is any less interesting or viable. I just thought this was being considered for different reasons.

No big deal.

I realized yesterday that this really is to help rabidchihauhau bring a product he has developed to market. Because of this statement.


A

SPEAKING OF WHICH.

I have some IP I'm developing and I am in desperate need of an electronics geek to build a circuit for the FINAL prototype.

I CAN'T pay cash, so I'm prepared to give up a piece of any future sales of the thing to whomever gives me a hand.

This IP might eventually become one of the contributed pieces of IP to the OS group and if it gets its grant (like I fully expect it to) well, let's just say that it could go a long way to solving a lot of issues.

Whomever jumps on board will need to know how to do a circuit that will require software (could be permanent burned in or programmable) and has to "know their stuff" so that we can discuss not only the optimal circuit but the variations on a theme. They'll also have to be willing to sign a non-disclosure.

PM me if you think you'd be willing to work on this.



It's all good. But perhaps it should have been presented a little differently. :)

[rabidchihauhau]

Which we're trying to clear up right now.

But this is not even an attempt to help me bring a product to market. I mentioned here only because it doesn't deserve its own thread and I saw some folks here who might be able to provide some info or help.

If an OS program for paintball got started, I would definately be interested in making my IP a part of it - but my request for help was an unnecessary and ill-considered action considering the sensibilities that the topic is arousing.

If you think I ought to edit the request out, I'll do so.

[luke]

Which we're trying to clear up right now.

But this is not even an attempt to help me bring a product to market. I mentioned here only because it doesn't deserve its own thread and I saw some folks here who might be able to provide some info or help.

If an OS program for paintball got started, I would definately be interested in making my IP a part of it - but my request for help was an unnecessary and ill-considered action considering the sensibilities that the topic is arousing.

If you think I ought to edit the request out, I'll do so.


Just for the record I'm not pointing fingers or complaining, I think this is a fantastic idea. I just assumed it was an attempt to bring a pneumatic frame to the market. If anything I would edit your first post and explain in a little more detail what the focus of this idea is on.

I really don't have a problem with you using this as a tool to help market and idea or design you have. (Even though you've stated it wasn't.) It's well within the parameters of what you are trying to achieve here and will probably benefit the participants of this group if this is brought to fruition.

I applaud you for your efforts here regardless of my misunderstanding of the subject. I still don't exactly know where I stand on the matter, but I'm still interested.

[rabidchihauhau]

Thanks, although applause is not necessary. Well, maybe later if this thing should turn into something real.... :)

I've amended the initial post to remove references to pneumags.

So far, preliminary legal work is suggesting that what would have to happen (on the IP side) is that a group of interested IP holders would have to get together and create a new entity, who's purpose would be to oversee, manage, protect, license and control related IP.

This would be relatively expensive, since merely contributing their IP to the pool would not provide the dollars required for organization, management, legal, etc.

It would require the assignment of IP AND the investment of dollars by the founding members.

Presumably they would get that back in two primary manners: realizing a profit on the licensing of the IP held by the pool (shares, whatever) (both internal to the industry and external) and revenue generated from the acquisition of new IP (again, an additional expense) and new members doing their own buy in.

They would also realize potential savings by not spending money litigating against each other and on the joint protection of the pool holdings.

Such a pool would need, at a minimum, a "manager" (CEO, whatever), a hired licensing firm and a hired cageful of business and IP attorneys.

It would also necessarily contain a "standards" group (which means at least one staff "engineer") because without defining what the scope of the pool holdings will be, its pointless to begin. Standards would provide two functions: assist in determining what new IP to acquire/forecasting new technology developments and creating/refining the standards themselves.

So, what you're looking at to start is:

Several companies holding "desireable" IP who are willing to fund/invest in a new company that will probably spend 6 to 18 months defining the technologies and targeted IP it will want to acquire or develop, funding at least a year's worth of acquisitions and funding at least 24 to 30 months of patent development.

I know there are a bunch of "little guys" who would be interested, some even have IP on hand, but I don't think the dollars are there. Short of finding an outside investor (who will want a stake), the pool will be missing a key component for success - the ability to put enough money on the table to get others to sell their IP...

[stevewar]

I'm finding trying to get this topic developed in this forum a bit maddening. Perhaps we could organize a skypecast and Rabid you could throw out your ideas and we could moderate a Live discussion. If anyone is interested, I will organize the schedule and set up the Skypecast.

[rabidchihauhau]

Steve

I didn't want to say anything yet but I've talked to Tom and one of the mods about setting this discussion up as its own forum here on AO. I'm just awaiting the final word.

We can do something more generally accessible, perhaps a chat room, sometime in the future.

[rabidchihauhau]

BTW, forgot to mention that TK offered the concept of creating a logo/symbol for the group and licensing its use to members of the group as a way to note affiliation and generate some revenue.

That would be IP obtainable by a "group" for about $1,000 to $2,500 (if its trade/servicemarked, not counting design work).

He also suggested that "use" of the mark be tied to production/sales, so that the little guys would pay less than the big guys, but it would be fair and reasonably easy to manage/account for. (You make 100 widgets and pay a penny for each one, the other guy makes 10,000 widgets and pays a penny for each one. Policing could be come an issue if folks use without paying...)

The above, of course, presumes a group who's purpose is the development of and promotion of standards, not necessarily an IP pool.

[rabidchihauhau]

and speaking of that: straw poll:

Is Open Source Paintball Gun/Open Source Paintball Group - OSPBG - just a working title or something that makes everyone happy?

Chop a letter? OSPG?

Chop two letters? OSP (open source paintball) (there's a lot of existing acronyms on that one)

OSPrey?

OSPP (Open Source Paintball Project)

BOB? (Doesn't mean anything...)

Not A Schicklgruber Thing? (NASTy. Some will get it, some won't...)

Now I'm getting silly...

[y0da900]

and speaking of that: straw poll:

Is Open Source Paintball Gun/Open Source Paintball Group - OSPBG - just a working title or something that makes everyone happy?

Might want to remove/replace the source, as that is directly derived from the source code of software.

Open Paintball Group (OPG)

Open Platform Paintball Alliance (OPPA / OPPBA)

Open Paintball Alliance (OPA/ OPBA)

[robnix]

and speaking of that: straw poll:

Is Open Source Paintball Gun/Open Source Paintball Group - OSPBG - just a working title or something that makes everyone happy?

Chop a letter? OSPG?

Chop two letters? OSP (open source paintball) (there's a lot of existing acronyms on that one)

OSPrey?

OSPP (Open Source Paintball Project)

BOB? (Doesn't mean anything...)

Not A Schicklgruber Thing? (NASTy. Some will get it, some won't...)

Now I'm getting silly...

Open Platform Paintball Gun - OPPG

You down with OPPG?

[rabidchihauhau]

No. I'm going to whine and cry and b**** and moan until we call it OSPrey...

I'm down with whatever everyone agrees to within reason. (I tried like hell to get the teams to drop the "professional" from NPPL when we were naming it, but no go, we were stuck with nipple. I did, however, manage to extract the promise from the founding teams that we would not create any additional body-part sounding acronyms, like S.C.R.O.T.U.M. or the like...)

Keep in mind that this might become a logo and the name should have some "coolness" factor built into it.

[rabidchihauhau]

You are going to have to forgive the lack of technical terms - if I were doing this I would discuss it with an attorney.

We all know that IP has a value - and to some degree that value can be appraised.

Does this concept not suit itself to some type of restricted corporation, where those joining the consortium purchase stock in it (or trade IP rights for stock)? Investors could be found to purchase stock in the consortium through direct financial purchase, allowing start-up money and some cash on hand in order to protect said IP. A board of directors would allow control. It would also allow distribution of profits (should it ever become profitable). Ownership of stock could include a limited licensing agreement to IP owned by the company with X amount of shares being required for private use, XX amount of shares being required for small production, and XXX amount of shares being required for "for profit" manufacturing. Without an IP issue stockholders could freely trade manufactured goods between one another at an agreed upon rate. The initial concept (allowing people to help legally develop existing IP without a major investment) could be maintained through stock splits, keeping the prices required attainable for many while protecting the investment of early investors.

Just kicking out ideas at this point, not fully formed obviously.

Sorry. didn't mean to ignore your post. It was technical and I decided to get to it later - and later is just occurring...

You are spot on in general regarding the particulars. However, the problem is, "investors" are not going to buy in (to provide seed money) unless there is something worth investing in and right now, most, if not all of the "valuable" IP is either not obtainable, held by folks who would not be inclined to sell or would require an inordinate outlay to obtain...

Which brings up something that Stevewar suggested earlier. I think its time to begin the discussion on WHAT technologies should be contemplated

Gun tech? Type of gun?
air systems?
loaders
masks?
packs?
barrels
paintballs


all of the above have numerous IP issues.

should this attempt (as a goal) to cover ALL requisite IP, or just the marker?

[y0da900]

Which brings up something that Stevewar suggested earlier. I think its time to begin the discussion on WHAT technologies should be contemplated

Gun tech? Type of gun?
air systems?
loaders
masks?
packs?
barrels
paintballs


all of the above have numerous IP issues.

should this attempt (as a goal) to cover ALL requisite IP, or just the marker?


All requisite IP. Especially if the group would like to evolve (or even begin with) into developing mechanical specs/standards to follow, the desire to obtain IP pertaining to those specs seems like an obvious move to me. Helps avoid crap in the future like restricting a certain angle of helical spiral in your barrel porting, ratios of open porting to barrel diameter, etc...

[Lohman446]

Whats the difference between paintball and airsoft? <--- rhetorical question

Surely .68 is not the "ideal" measurement for a paintball. Why not invest in the research, and change the base system? Sure its not backwards compatible, but is it the end of the world if it isn't? .72 caliber can be converterd to .68 if people were concerned?

Then... lets discuss what might be available? Not necessarily through $$ but through trade for pieces of the entity. The Warp 2 system?

What does the consortium focus on? I would think to stay away from the speedball market, where the manufacturers currently in control also control the rules. What about bringing paintball back to what it was once.

Find a niche, build from there.

[stevewar]

Sorry. didn't mean to ignore your post. It was technical and I decided to get to it later - and later is just occurring...

You are spot on in general regarding the particulars. However, the problem is, "investors" are not going to buy in (to provide seed money) unless there is something worth investing in and right now, most, if not all of the "valuable" IP is either not obtainable, held by folks who would not be inclined to sell or would require an inordinate outlay to obtain...

Which brings up something that Stevewar suggested earlier. I think its time to begin the discussion on WHAT technologies should be contemplated

Gun tech? Type of gun?
air systems?
loaders
masks?
packs?
barrels
paintballs


all of the above have numerous IP issues.

should this attempt (as a goal) to cover ALL requisite IP, or just the marker?

I think all requisite IP should be contemplated and in fact be our mandate, but we should focus on marker technology and standards to start with. Also, we should focus on a couple of goals to start with (as the team at this point isn't huge) such as more reliable, lighter, less expensive to produce, etc.

By the way I vote: Open Paintball Group (OPG) - This sounds very professional to me, is unique enough of an acronym that we could easily market it on the internet (I checked live.com and google) to attract new members and customers.

-Steve

[luke]

I'm finding trying to get this topic developed in this forum a bit maddening. Perhaps we could organize a skypecast and Rabid you could throw out your ideas and we could moderate a Live discussion.

Humm, I smell a fragrance of arrogance in the air. Quite frankly I think it stinks.

[Lohman446]

In order for the concept to work, as described, there must be room for people who are good at ideas but bad at business. The consortium must be able to develop raw ideas into patentable form, without excluding those not doing it themselves. Otherwise it perverts the base idea...

[y0da900]

In order for the concept to work, as described, there must be room for people who are good at ideas but bad at business. The consortium must be able to develop raw ideas into patentable form, without excluding those not doing it themselves. Otherwise it perverts the base idea...


I whole heartedly agree. Somewhat like a very widespread think tank. There would need to be measures put in place to prevent people from trying to abuse the system to get IP written for them under the guise of using it for the group then trying to take complete control once written out in legalese.

[TheTramp]

I think the discussion needs to be pushed back in that direction as well.

[stevewar]

Humm, I smell a fragrance of arrogance in the air. Quite frankly I think it stinks.


I apologize if I came off as arrogant. I simply was trying to come up with a way that we could all communicate in real time. I thought it would be a good way to get the ball rolling.

Once again, my apologies if I came off as rude or arrogant.

[Lohman446]

I whole heartedly agree. Somewhat like a very widespread think tank. There would need to be measures put in place to prevent people from trying to abuse the system to get IP written for them under the guise of using it for the group then trying to take complete control once written out in legalese.

If the group owns the IP its much less of an issue. You get a valuable service + stock ownership in the group in return for your IP. That stock ownership gives you the right to that IP as well as other IP. At some point the group will be at a point where profitability is possible (possibly through cross (non paintball) licensing of the IP it owns). The value of your IP will influence how much of the stock you are given in exchange and you will see payment through various stock related returns on investment. Over time those purchasing one stock (to be able to build it themselves) may even see there entire investment and more back to them (maybe), though that would be long long term.

Sure, I have over simplified it, and there are a lot of complexities. But I'm going from a position of high skepticism to a position that this might just work.

[rabidchihauhau]

well, I see we got moved to the workshop! :)

Thanks to Rob, Beemer & Tom.

On the direction that the discussion has taken (following the thought and positively inclined to where its going but not yet cast in stone in my own mind):

As potentially "draconian" as it sounds, anyone providing the group with IP would either have to give up a controlling interest (which of course means that they might keep as much as 49%) or execute an exclusive license with the group that would only release the group's "control" under specific circumstances. (For example - failure to develop, failure to protect, etc).

As for "stock" in the group, I'd say that that would be difficult to manage, especially on the valuation side of things. (Surely the framistan is worth 12,000 shares, unlike the thingumbob which is only worth 5,000...I disagree, the framistan isn't worth doodly...)

As for, let's call them 'conceptualizers', inventors, developers and producers; there will need to be a framework and methodology by which everyone's contribution is recognized and "credited".

I'd even say down to the level of "hey, I had a good idea. How about if someone invents something that will..." - and it really does turn out to be a unique idea that's actually workable. They person who first identifies the opportunity - whether they can do anything with it or not themselves - should be the first place we figure out "worth". (Its starting to sound like the patent office, isn't it?)

Let me just blue sky here for a minute:

suppose that we accept that there are at least four "stages" involved in producing a product: conceptualization, development, production, marketing/sales. And let's suppose also that for the sake of argument, we value each of those stages equally (before assessing associated costs).

Someone who comes up with the idea or invents something new gets 25% credit, someone who develops it into producable form gets 25%, someone who actually makes it gets 25% and someone who figures out how to sell it on the street gets 25%.

So, someone who invents, develops, manufactures and sells something gets 100% of the benefit - which is exactly the way it works now, right?

So, what we have to decide is - in raw terms of value - are each of those phases equal?

Then we have to decide what a clean mechanism for reconizing 'invention' is. Issues like "I said the same thing a week ago..."

Issues of outside contribution versus internal contribution.


But once again, we're back to initial funding. We have "nothing" right now, so why would someone be willing to give up a substantial portion of their potential profits in order to participate? I know I've done plenty of things 'just to contrbute' - but my motivations were always suspect because for most people it comes down to dollars or control (or both). I too am suspicious of someone who is willing to give up ideas or money in order to participate "for the good of the group". I've been personally involved in far too many circumstances where the do-gooder turned out to be the evil overlord...

So. we're honing in on some basic concepts of what we want to do. Once those are refined, does anyone know somebody with a lot of bucks we can go to?

[rabidchihauhau]

there are also MAJOR issues of disclosure. We'd have to rectify the 'need to know' with the 'need to distribute'. At the very least, that would entail each new member signing an agreement with the group, which would mean that they would also have to disclose anything they are currently working on in order to get it included or excluded and issues regarding working on the same kind of tech for both the group and not for the group...

[rabidchihauhau]

I am starting new threads in order to begin focusing the discussion further.

[questionful]

Can someone summarize everything for me? As I understand it we're sharing rights to stuff?

[rabidchihauhau]

to be more specific, we are discussing the possibility of bringing the idea of a creative commons/open source/patent pool to paintball.

[questionful]

okay so we basically share our ideas? I'm in, seeing as it's very hard for a 15yr-old to do anything by himself. :)

[rabidchihauhau]

We're still working out the structure of what we're doing, "how" we're going to share, rights, ownership, funding and a bunch of other things.

Right now, its just a bunch of folks - of all ages - throwing ideas against the wall to see what sticks.

Thanks for your enthusiasm.

[harbichidian]

I'm another lurker that would like to see this group come to fruition.

Now IANAL, but the way I see it, the best way to proceed is just to start a group, put some IP in, and make it either freely available to any interested party (under a OHL-style license), or easily licensable by anyone who wants to produce it. This becomes the main purpose of the group: Protecting the freedom of use for ideas that it owns. Production is not one of the group's goals or even its purpose; It's just standards and ideas.

Once this is established, you bring up issues like accepting a certain standard (like barrel threading). Anyone who wants to be a part of the group pays an annual membership fee and gets an equal vote in all of the group's decisions. They are made by a 75% majority, and delayed for less.

As far as production is concerned: Members should have free access to all licenses, so that a bunch of us can order a run of OPG-threaded barrels (or whatever) without having to pay our own fees.

I'd be interested in submitting a number of ideas and fleshed-out designs to the group to be used by everyone, as well as take an active role in design. We can discuss decisions on a forum for members, and then once the topic can be summarized with pros and cons for either side, we take a vote of all members wishing to participate.

From what other people were saying, I guess I'm one of those few that really doesn't care about the income: Give me a place to get feedback and help with my ideas, and I'll contribute everything I have purely for the "good of the group".

... Sure seems like going ahead and *making* this is better than just trying to figure it all out beforehand.

[rabidchihauhau]

Harb,

it would be great if things worked that way, but doing so would be the surest method of creating hard feelings and problems.

As stifling as it may be, we need a formal structure under which to work so that anyone getting involved knows what they are giving up - at the very least.

Such a group could not sustain legal actions against it brought by someone who didn't understand the rules and felt taken advantange of, just as one example.

We just need to be a little patient.

[LinearGoose]

Im a bit interested in this but not sure if it even fits in this category. I guess it will run under Paintball Standards but not sure. How do I go about posting it? Do i just post it here an see what you guys think or is there a special thread im suppose to post it in or what?

[rabidchihauhau]

No - we're not at the stage of looking at anything yet - just discussing how to put this together.

[questionful]

So are we basically looking for some sort of contract thingy? My dad said we should just copy opensource software licenses. I found one called "COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (CDDL)", which by the name sounds like it would fit our application. And I'm not going to read all that text right now, but take a quick look at it and tell me if I'm on the right track or not.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php

[Anjin3515]

Im really interested in this. I think I would be more in on the idea(conceptualization) and the marketing side of things. Im still reading all this trying to take it all in...lol..undestand it....but wanted to raise my hand and say I am interested.

P.S. Ive been an working artist for over 11 years. If the time comes to develop a logo...etc...I am more then willing to help out.

[rabidchihauhau]

questionful -

appreciate the info. and folks should take a look, however:

we haven't finished discussing "purpose", and therefore contracts are a bit premature

[rabidchihauhau]

some of that contract might be usable - much of it not...

[harbichidian]

to be more specific, we are discussing the possibility of bringing the idea of a creative commons/open source/patent pool to paintball.

Personally, I'm leaning more toward the "hands off" approach, similar to how the Free Software Foundation conducts business, which is to publish a free-as-in-freedom license that others may use to "copyleft" their ideas so that they will remain freely available. I see the group as less of a commercial entity and more of a group of interested parties working for interoperability.

The basic working idea would be that the group secures the rights to their "open standards", and allows anyone to use them, free of charge. Then all manufacturers and designers can build to one standard, or at least support it.

[rabidchihauhau]

If one were making an anagram out of Rabidchihauhau, you might have a problem unless you left off a couple of Us and an A...

[rabidchihauhau]

If one were making an anagram out of Rabidchihauhau, you might have a problem unless you left off a couple of Us and an A...


Interoperability is a good goal. I doubt however that anyone who is working strictly from a profit-motive is going to subscribe to an open source standard unless it confers some major advantage on them - such as no longer having to pay license fees. Otherwise, their best percentage lies in sticking to a proprietary format.

The only other possible way to gain their interest/support would be to start manufacturing products to the open standard and demonstrating in the market place that there are advantages.

Either scenario leads to a requirement for $$$ up-front. Which is hard to obtain unless you can show how its going to be returned. Which leads back to an environment that provides the group with some method of recovering the investment.

Short of winning the lottery or some major patent-holding company suddenly gifting us with good patents for key technologies, this thing won't get off the ground. The goal might eventually be like what you suggest, but for right now it has to be a model that recognizes the need to behave like a real "business" in at least some respects.

Once the group is out there and has shown its benefits and inventors are falling all over themselves to donate their (really good, really marketable, really desireable) ideas, we can look at other ways to do the same thing.

[harbichidian]

If one were making an anagram out of Rabidchihauhau, you might have a problem unless you left off a couple of Us and an A...

:) No, actually I've been using the handle for a little while. It's a combination of words that I thought sounded cool, and in proper tinkering mindset, I've completely forgotten what they are.

[harbichidian]

I doubt however that anyone who is working strictly from a profit-motive is going to subscribe to an open source standard unless it confers some major advantage on them - such as no longer having to pay license fees. Otherwise, their best percentage lies in sticking to a proprietary format.

Alright, so maybe I wasn't thinking straight (likely, due to the number of meds I was on), but that actually makes perfect and logical sense today. Enough sense that I'm still trying to figure out where my point was, yesterday...

So, now the way I see things (correct me if I'm wrong) is: The Group has a bunch of ideas, designs, and patents. Everyone can purchase licenses to the patents they want (this is the "open" part), and memberships are offered which are essentially "package" licenses and include the member in the Group's decisions.

[rabidchihauhau]

that would be one way to do it.

the issue still remains that financial success is necessary - or funding to make that so - before the group will be able to enforce whatever it is doing

[Spitlebug]

that would be one way to do it.

the issue still remains that financial success is necessary - or funding to make that so - before the group will be able to enforce whatever it is doing

IMHO, the easiest way to do it is to keep it non-profit and do whatever strikes our fancy. Any company that sends out C&D letters and/or instigates litigation with a tinker group is looking for a lot of bad PR.

[questionful]

I don't want to make any money out of this anymore. I just want to do something. I have an idea, I hate smart parts, and it would be awesome to make a great paintball gun and make the IP public.

God I love this music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91sfrw106xs&feature=related

I need to watch that movie again.

[Spitlebug]

I don't want to make any money out of this anymore. I just want to do something. I have an idea, I hate smart parts, and it would be awesome to make a great paintball gun and make the IP public.

God I love this music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91sfrw106xs&feature=related

I need to watch that movie again.

Indeed, releasing the IP to the general public is a good way to encourage more people to tinker. While this would allow others to profit off any our our works, it will also level the playing field for all involved.

[questionful]

Here's a temporary chatroom if anyone wants to use it. I can delete all the messages at the push of a button.

Chat (http://uberdiego.googlepages.com/chat)

In order to use the chat we need to arrange a time. With winter holidays coming up very soon, I imagine many of us have some sort of vacation, so it shouldn't be too hard to get most of us together. So post up and let us know what time you're available, taking time zones into account.

http://www.classbrain.com/artstate/uploads/us-time-zones.jpg

I'm available all the time starting thursday at noon.