G-Force/PTP patent issue?

[punkncat]

How is it that Garf claims he has a US patent on a product that it would seem apparent that PTP controls?

I know that there was some other company that wanted to bring this product to market, was stopped by PTP and was unable to negotiate the details.

It has come out on another forum that there was the possiblity of some letter sent to G-Force by PTP concering this issue. (edit- I confused a quote stating that IP was supposedly to be addressed with a letter having been sent. Read second page thx)
When I posed the question I was told to "go bug someone else" by Garf and the contents of that question were quickly deleted from the (frame) thread. (explained below and edited)

This is a real issue. If these guys are illegally taking this frame into production then what happens with PTP's vested intrest?
How is it that two different companies have a patent on a seemingly similar product?

I don't think this is a invalid question. I feel it needs to be truthfully answered, without being told to "go away". This "head in the sand" approach is less than ethical.

Just because people are anxious to get a product doesn't make it right to avoid the possible implications or responsibilites.

[AO Moderation Team]

Now you have YOUR own thread and dont have to disrupt the other one. :)

[punkncat]

Now you have YOUR own thread and dont have to disrupt the other one. :)

Simple enough. Thank you sir(s).

[p8ntball72]

Well now that PTP "won" in the brass eagle case, I'd assume that they have plenty of revenue to challenge G-force.

Or they could invest that money in developing new product, acquiring old intellectual product, or Retire... depending on the amount of money they received..

going off of paintball history, I predict they will release nothing and fill their bank accounts with funds from companies that have.

[punkncat]

I find this snippit from an article on 68cal. particularly intruiging...


The Pneumatic Trigger patents are a case in point. While Pro-Team has been wrestling with JT Sports, several other people have been issued similar patents that Pro-Team believes are reliant on its own; meaning that if someone were to purchase or license those other patents, they�d still be infringing on Pro-Teams'.


Seems to me like the ones of you who manage to get this frame will be a lucky few.

[evade]

Patent systems are evil. The us patent office issues conflicting patents all the time. Whose patent is older?

[Zone Drifter]

Well, Isn't G-force based in Canada? And if so, do US patents still apply? I'm probably wrong on that, but I don't know anything about how US patents are implemented in other countries.

[punkncat]

Well, Isn't G-force based in Canada? And if so, do US patents still apply? I'm probably wrong on that, but I don't know anything about how US patents are implemented in other countries.

I have posed that same question elsewhere, but was told here by Garf that he has a US patent. I know there was some other big issue on this between (Angel) and SP. MacDev who is in another country supposedly signed a royalty agreement. Evolve just quit selling frames here.
It would seem the country of sale would be the important factor based on that.

[Chronobreak]

who knows, unles anyone here is a patent lawyer

those invovled obviously wont speak out.

my views

everyone seems to have their own version, Gforce, Deadlywind, PTP and possibly others.

ptp apparently revised theirs several times over a long period, as far as i know gforce got theirs done fairly quickly and with little or no revisions.

same with deadlywind i belive.

there is plenty of room for speculation but the broadness of ptp's and the long timeframe for it to be completed.

this patent was also "sold" perhaps with others a while back to a few large companies who have

the whole deal is sketchy, i and i would hate to see a company like gforce that sacked up and gave us something we wanted be involved in legal battles which could halt or delay further production.

[punkncat]

Consider that any time you make something from scratch it will take longer to come up with a trouble free design. When you stand on the shoulders of that which has already been made its a whole heck of a lot easier.

While it may not seem right to "control" a product through a patent (like SP,etc.) it is no more ethical to produce a product on (what seems) an obviously questionable patent either.
It may come out that the patents differ enough that they truly are seperate.

[muzungu_mbaya]

A US patent protects your product in the US only. It also means that someone in another country may knock off your product and sell it in that country, but if they want to import it to the US, then they would have to pay you royalties. When filing for a US patent, you may also file in other countries, but most file only in the US and Europe. Developing nations tend to have very poor laws regarding IP, if they have any at all. China is a notorious example of this.

To combat the foreign filing loophole, the provisional patent was created to give US filers an additional year of protection in the US that foreign filers had since anyone filing a foreign patent had to file in the US within a year, but they could claim their original filing date, netting a 21 year patent in the US.

[Smoothice]

Consider that any time you make something from scratch it will take longer to come up with a trouble free design. When you stand on the shoulders of that which has already been made its a whole heck of a lot easier.

They have not created a new frame for the automag. They have modified their existing frame to work on a automag.


While it may not seem right to "control" a product through a patent (like SP,etc.) it is no more ethical to produce a product on (what seems) an obviously questionable patent either.
It may come out that the patents differ enough that they truly are seperate.

Gforce has been producing fully pneumatic markers for some time as I had read. Something about a 68 super. Lets assume they had a patent on that. If they just modify their existing patented product to sit on a automag rail without changing its design then maybe their product is not infringing on any other patents.

[rawbutter]

They have not created a new frame for the automag. They have modified their existing frame to work on a automag. Gforce has been producing fully pneumatic markers for some time as I had read. Something about a 68 super. Lets assume they had a patent on that. If they just modify their existing patented product to sit on a automag rail without changing its design then maybe their product is not infringing on any other patents.

This is what I thought... the 68 Super wasn't pulled from the shelf because of patent issues... it just didn't sell well, I seem to remember.

I would love to hear an answer to this question directly from G-Force, however.

[Chronobreak]

well thus far garf has been irritated at any claims his patent/s may be invalid

infact hes seemed to brush them aside and say "we have a us patent" and "i am well aware of the legal issues" when he first joined the forums.

so he has alot of faith in his patent and doesnt seem worried about it.

[craltal]

As the 68 super has been around for a fe wyears and g-force has been quite open about their products and intentions of bringing their frame to market, if there were any legal issues they would have been addressed before now. There are plenty of people associated with PTP on this site that if there were legal issues, they would be being addressed without the need for mindless speculation.

Garf even answered the question when first posed. Albeit, a bit tersely, but he answered it. That is more than sufficient and completely understandable considering he's not a patent attorney. I know that I wouldn't want to get into a legal discussion on an open forum when it involves the company I work for.

[muzungu_mbaya]

If the other patents specify the automag by name (somewhat unlikely since most patents are written to be as broad as possible), then there may be a case for infringement. But if their technology is generally considered to be uncontestable, and all they did was adapt it for the mag without changing any aspect of its operation, then I think they are reasonably well protected. However, the real proof is in the language of the claims. The rest of the patent can say anything it wants, but the claims are the only part that really matters.

However, once you get to court, the only thing that matters is who has the better lawyer.

[Papa_Smurf]

I'll help fund anyone who actually makes me a product to buy!

Good job GForce :cheers:

[punkncat]

well thus far garf has been irritated at any claims his patent/s may be invalid

infact hes seemed to brush them aside and say "we have a us patent" and "i am well aware of the legal issues" when he first joined the forums.

so he has alot of faith in his patent and doesnt seem worried about it.

Well, this may be a fact. If so, it would seem that he could be a bit nicer and tell us by way of a small amount of explaination. Telling me to "go away" and giving a short answer goes no further than to raise suspicion in my mind.
If I am wrong in thinking this then, just like I said in the other (deleted portion of) thread I apologize.
Is it too much to ask for a bit of info?

[anomoly40]

At this point I am almost fed up with great products being choked to death by companies that hold a patent and are not making a product containing the patented componet or idea. I say we revise the patent laws to give 6 months to 1 year from the time it's patented to have a product on the market. After that it's free or slightly limited reign. Now this will not change the SP situation but it will help the small niche companies such as G-force.

[Smoothice]

Well, this may be a fact. If so, it would seem that he could be a bit nicer and tell us by way of a small amount of explaination. Telling me to "go away" and giving a short answer goes no further than to raise suspicion in my mind.
If I am wrong in thinking this then, just like I said in the other (deleted portion of) thread I apologize.
Is it too much to ask for a bit of info?

What kind of explanation are you looking for?

He has already stated in that thread that he has a patent.

Is there some kind of special handshake he needs to perform in order to make you happy?

What I find the most entertaining of all is that you take your "Sources" information as if it was gospel and dismiss what GForce has to say as if he was lying to you. Has GForce done something before that has caused you not to trust them?

Last I checked people were innocent until proven guilty.

[TnDeathInc]

Well, this may be a fact. If so, it would seem that he could be a bit nicer and tell us by way of a small amount of explaination. Telling me to "go away" and giving a short answer goes no further than to raise suspicion in my mind.
If I am wrong in thinking this then, just like I said in the other (deleted portion of) thread I apologize.
Is it too much to ask for a bit of info?


if you bought a frame, no, if you didn't, yes, and in that case tex the sun is that way ride towards it. I know its tough but try finding another home based option to trolling forums stirring up stuff.

[ThePixelGuru]

How is it that Garf claims he has a US patent on a product that it would seem apparent that PTP controls?

I know that there was some other company that wanted to bring this product to market, was stopped by PTP and was unable to negotiate the details.

It has come out on another forum that there was the possiblity of some letter sent to G-Force by PTP concering this issue.
When I posed the question I was told to "go bug someone else" by Garf and the contents of that question were quickly deleted from the (frame) thread. (explained below and edited)

This is a real issue. If these guys are illegally taking this frame into production then what happens with PTP's vested intrest?
How is it that two different companies have a patent on a seemingly similar product?

I don't think this is a invalid question. I feel it needs to be truthfully answered, without being told to "go away". This "head in the sand" approach is less than ethical.

Just because people are anxious to get a product doesn't make it right to avoid the possible implications or responsibilites.
There's more than one way to make a pneumatic trigger, and as such there can be more than one patent for a pneumatic trigger. G-Force isn't illegally taking this frame to market, and there's no way that can possibly be true unless and until it's challenged. If there's no challenge, it's legal. That's just how it works. Garf's telling you to get lost because G-Force has a patent and has no need to respond to the challenges of a third party with no involvement. Sure, you're curious, but he doesn't need to satisfy your curiosity, and doing so could put him in a weaker legal position. He's not a lawyer or a patent attorney, so it would be pretty dumb for him to elaborate and possibly talk himself into a corner.

As for PTP sending a letter to G-Force, I'm gonna have to call shenanigans on that. I've only ever heard that statement from you, and it's never been accompanied by any information about what kind of letter it was, when it was sent, what it concerns, or where information about it was posted. Where did you hear that, anyway?

[Thotograph]

At this point I am almost fed up with great products being choked to death by companies that hold a patent and are not making a product containing the patented componet or idea. I say we revise the patent laws to give 6 months to 1 year from the time it's patented to have a product on the market. After that it's free or slightly limited reign. Now this will not change the SP situation but it will help the small niche companies such as G-force.

Couldn't that also hurt small companies? I mean is it better to have to rush a product to market just to make a deadline, or have the product take a while to get to market and be refined and ready to be sold to consumers? I don't think your idea is a bad one (I agree that holding a patent and not using it is a waste in the eyes of the consumers), but patents are given to small companies as well as big ones to protect their designs and "intellectual property." So if a small co. couldn't get the product to market within said amount of time for whatever reason and lost their exclusive rights to a patent... wouldn't that be like throwing them to the wolves?

Intelectual property is such a grey area with pb patents now a days... I wish patents were given for actual designs instead of vague descriptions (cough sp cough). I hope that GForce gets their frame to market... I think that if PTP does anything to contest GForce they should do so by making their own pneuframe. Then let us, the players, decide which is better.

There's still too many lawsuits (and ever impending threats of lawsuits) that stiffle competition and growth in our sport. Which leaves us with less products to enjoy and purchase. I figure most AOers are above all the lawsuit garbage, so it's my hope that the companies around us are above the fog of legal warfare as well. Only time will tell.

[punkncat]

if you bought a frame, no, if you didn't, yes, and in that case tex the sun is that way ride towards it. I know its tough but try finding another home based option to trolling forums stirring up stuff.

Lol, I find this reply funny. Is it that you (all) care so much that I am "stirring things up" as you put it, or the fact that you fear that you might be getting a product that came to market through less than honorable avenues?
Could it be that your desire to get the product at any cost or means distorts your judgement?

I am not making any assertions based on any truth that I know over any one else. My entire contention is based on a rumor that when thought about from A point of view and considered with other information easily found concerning PTP makes for what could seem like a shady situation. Anyone can CLAIM anything they like. Heck I can claim I have a patent for this and until someone sues me I can do what I like, correct? And on the same note I am free to make any speculation I like until such time as proof/truth comes along. I imagine that it will soon enough one way or the other.

It was mentioned that G-Force has had a pneu framed marker on the market. Could it also be speculated that PTP has no real claim for their patent?
And of course as was mentioned it could be that the products differ enough to truly be different patents that do not infringe. In my mind that would bring implications as to how another blanket patent issue affecting our market has been so influential. I guess as was alluded to that it all comes down to who has the best lawyers.....

I am obviously not the ONLY person who is interested in knowing, but apparently the only one who "sacked up" (or was stupid)enough to ask.

Thanks TN, as always.

[going_home]

Lol, I find this reply funny. Is it that you (all) care so much that I am "stirring things up" as you put it, or the fact that you fear that you might be getting a product that came to market through less than honorable avenues?
Could it be that your desire to get the product at any cost or means distorts your judgement?

I am not making any assertions based on any truth that I know over any one else. My entire contention is based on a rumor that when thought about from A point of view and considered with other information easily found concerning PTP makes for what could seem like a shady situation. Anyone can CLAIM anything they like. Heck I can claim I have a patent for this and until someone sues me I can do what I like, correct? And on the same note I am free to make any speculation I like until such time as proof/truth comes along. I imagine that it will soon enough one way or the other.

It was mentioned that G-Force has had a pneu framed marker on the market. Could it also be speculated that PTP has no real claim for their patent?
And of course as was mentioned it could be that the products differ enough to truly be different patents that do not infringe. In my mind that would bring implications as to how another blanket patent issue affecting our market has been so influential. I guess as was alluded to that it all comes down to who has the best lawyers.....

I am obviously not the ONLY person who is interested in knowing, but apparently the only one who "sacked up" (or was stupid)enough to ask.

Thanks TN, as always.

Well put.
Now post a link to the site that said PTP sent a letter to GForce.
:cool:

[punkncat]

Well put.
Now post a link to the site that said PTP sent a letter to GForce.
:cool:

I decline. Do your own homework. Its not hidden, and didn't say that it was definate, just hinted so. What led to the comment is actually here on this site.

:ninja:

[going_home]

I decline. Do your own homework. Its not hidden, and didn't say that it was definate, just hinted so. What led to the comment is actually here on this site.


Huh :confused:

You started this thread with :



It has come out on another forum that there was the possiblity of some letter sent to G-Force by PTP concering this issue.


And now when asked twice you refuse to post it.
Then this thread is worthless sir.
No doubt.

:tard:

[punkncat]

And now when asked twice you refuse to post it.
Then this thread is worthless sir.
No doubt.

:tard:

As you wish. I am not counting on your approval rating.... :p

[Beemer]

How long will this last before I have to edit, remove, lock or ban? :argh:

So All be warned so I dont have to :)

Hey Punk, this is AO just the facts please. Did you hear it thru the vine or did you read it somewhere? I thought you said both.

If I said BLaa Blaa Blaaa what would you say?

If I said TK told me Bla Blaaa Blaaa what would you say.

[Smoothice]

Huh :confused:

You started this thread with :



And now when asked twice you refuse to post it.
Then this thread is worthless sir.
No doubt.

:tard:

I second that.

I tell you where he got the information from. A guy on another forums brothers sisters mechanic who came upon the information while in a dream about starwars. :sleeping:

Guys- How about we just stop posting in this useless, informationless, slandering thread and let it die the death it deserves.

[Beemer]

Guys- How about we just stop posting in this useless, informationless, slandering thread and let it die the death it deserves.

Or it could be removed. :ninja: But THIS is AO and you can have your say or make a thread.

See my warning in above post.

[punkncat]

Dont count your chickens just yet. Rabid has alluded to PTP enforcing their IP. The only company they could do that with is G-Force.

This is the quote. You can find it yourselves if you like. Apparently I had misread/misunderstood what was written a few posts below that hinted that a letter had possibly been sent.

In spite of that, it doesn't change the fact that there could be serious issues at play and many of the questions I pose are worth consideration.

[punkncat]

Beemer,

These guys aren't bothering me. I don't take it personally and have not been offended. Unless they. or I, have broken some forum rule, I would really appreciate if you just left it. They are entitled to their opinion as much as I.

Oh, and the vine and reading in some ways are equal IMO. Thanks for the clarification.

[Beemer]

Beemer,

These guys aren't bothering me. I don't take it personally and have not been offended. Unless they have broken some forum rule, I would really appreciate if you just left it. They are entitled to their opinion as much as I.

Ya no need for PMs huh. You know yours and others posts were removed for a reason from the other thread. :(

You shouldnt make a quote like that with out the source. These guys will toast ya.
I predict you will remove it on your own. I will edit, ban or lock it before I remove it as always. :eek:

[craltal]

All you are doing is stirring the pot. You also are assuming that what you read is fact, which is far from the case. It sounds to me like it's pure conjecture all around. G-Force addressed your concern in the other thread. Just because he decided not to elaborate and got annoyed by your inference of wrongdoing doesn't mean he has anything to hide, or is even doing anything illicit.

I don't know how many more times we can say it, IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH A PATENT THESE FRAMES WOULD NOT BE COMING OUT

Given that you are STILL vague about the "source" of your information, why on earth should be believe you on this subject? If it was a reliable source, why not just tell us (and I don't consider some random quote from an unnamed online forum even remotely reliable.)

[nevtangle]

You're probably not going to get either side to answer your question in a public forum. G-Force lists their patent on their site and IS producing a pneumatically assisted trigger frame for the automag. That's all that really matters. PTP hasn't produced one and probably won't. Is it the same or does it infringe on PTP's? I really don't care. It's not up to me to know if it does or doesn't. As long as someone finally comes through and puts one on the market.

[Beemer]

Heres a thought for ya Punk. This guy is bringing the product in the HEAT of all the crap.

You think for just one little bit he might have His butt covered. :D

[punkncat]

Heres a thought for ya Punk. This guy is bringing the product in the HEAT of all the crap.

You think for just one little bit he might have His butt covered. :D


Sure, I think that is a definate possiblity. I even posted that I thought its possible that his patent may supercede PTP's AND that the products may differ enough to be covered seperately.

I never said any of this was gospel. What is read into by others is for them. I look at it like an open think tank. If something definative comes out of it, more the better.

Those that take it personally or make it so, well that is also for them. I am not.

[going_home]

Heres a thought for ya Punk. This guy is bringing the product in the HEAT of all the crap.
You think for just one little bit he might have His butt covered. :D

Honestly I'd like to see GForce make all the mag heads on the pre-buy list very happy by shipping quality product,
AND I'd like to see Pro Team come out with a new Micro body along with a sleeper pneumatic frame !

New toys are only a good thing for the mag community.
Theres enough sand box for everyone to play in.
;)

[Smoothice]

here's another thought punpkin.

Look how long ago the gforce thread was started. Its months and months old. Its 20 something pages.

If they were up to no good do you honestly think they would go so public about it?

If a thread just popped up a day ago saying send us your money and the frames are I the mail then you would have grounds to call wolf.

So again I ask you.

What has GForce done to cause you not to trust them?

[punkncat]

All you are doing is stirring the pot. .)

It could be construed as so, but tell me this. What else is going on here that is so much more important? If you were up to something so much more noble, would you have taken the time to reply, again?

Did, at any point, you have to actually think and consider what you were going to say to post here?
Was nothing I posted within the realm of possibility and worth some consideration?

How many of the common posts on a paintball forum meet ANY of this criteria?

[punkncat]

What has GForce done to cause you not to trust them?

To be completly honest, his blowing me off and the later deletion of my original question, along with other things I have read around made me think and speculate on the possibility. Some of those points have already been addressed.

I still contend that the only reason so many of you are getting up in arms so much about it is that you desire, even more than knowing, to have a frame, ANY frame. If PTP has released it first y'all would be clammering for it. It wouldn't matter where it came from or even if it WERE legitimate.

[craltal]

It could be construed as so, but tell me this. What else is going on here that is so much more important? If you were up to something so much more noble, would you have taken the time to reply, again?

Did, at any point, you have to actually think and consider what you were going to say to post here?
Was nothing I posted within the realm of possibility and worth some consideration?

When playing Devil's Advocate the most important part is knowing how far to push the issue and having viable retorts. You are treading dangerously close to the precipice of being irrelevant since you keep using the same vague replies to everyone's arguments. It's actually quite sad, if you ask me.


How many of the common posts on a paintball forum meet ANY of this criteria?

You don't spend much time on MCB, do you? That's the exact reason I do...

'nuff said.

[Beemer]

Honestly I'd like to see GForce make all the mag heads on the pre-buy list very happy by shipping quality product,
AND I'd like to see Pro Team come out with a new Micro body along with a sleeper pneumatic frame !

New toys are only a good thing for the mag community.
Theres enough sand box for everyone to play in.
;)


Well there is this Forum.

http://www.automags.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=43

[Beemer]

You're probably not going to get either side to answer your question in a public forum.

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing. But we can try cant we? :spit_take

[punkncat]

When playing Devil's Advocate the most important part is knowing how far to push the issue and having viable retorts. You are treading dangerously close to the precipice of being irrelevant since you keep using the same vague replies to everyone's arguments. It's actually quite sad, if you ask me.


I will keep that in mind.....

I suppose it was the apparent lack of reading those "same vague replies" that made similarly posted arguments keep cropping up.

But hey if pity is all you can offer.... ;)

[TnDeathInc]

Lol, I find this reply funny. Is it that you (all) care so much that I am "stirring things up" as you put it, or the fact that you fear that you might be getting a product that came to market through less than honorable avenues?
Could it be that your desire to get the product at any cost or means distorts your judgement?

I am not making any assertions based on any truth that I know over any one else. My entire contention is based on a rumor that when thought about from A point of view and considered with other information easily found concerning PTP makes for what could seem like a shady situation. Anyone can CLAIM anything they like. Heck I can claim I have a patent for this and until someone sues me I can do what I like, correct? And on the same note I am free to make any speculation I like until such time as proof/truth comes along. I imagine that it will soon enough one way or the other.

It was mentioned that G-Force has had a pneu framed marker on the market. Could it also be speculated that PTP has no real claim for their patent?
And of course as was mentioned it could be that the products differ enough to truly be different patents that do not infringe. In my mind that would bring implications as to how another blanket patent issue affecting our market has been so influential. I guess as was alluded to that it all comes down to who has the best lawyers.....

I am obviously not the ONLY person who is interested in knowing, but apparently the only one who "sacked up" (or was stupid)enough to ask.

Thanks TN, as always.


But as a company head, would you take the time to answer pot shots from someone named pukincat that hasnt even signed up or spend the time putting out what was promised, heck i mean i have gotten one email saying my frame is ordered and due to be shipped. Have i sent him questions, yes were all answered? no, is he busy ? yes? I particularly prefer him to work on putting the stuff out and not defending his product. Do you see the patent blocking others, when admittedly others have similar patents, its not like its a SP patent where all future life of paintball will be sucked dry. I mean we all know SP can come in and retro reverse a patent to make garf pay royalties on previously sold models. :cuss:

[nevtangle]

I still contend that the only reason so many of you are getting up in arms so much about it is that you desire, even more than knowing, to have a frame, ANY frame. If PTP has released it first y'all would be clammering for it. It wouldn't matter where it came from or even if it WERE legitimate.
You make it sound like it's the consumers moral obligation to find out if it's legitimate or not. It's not! It doesn't matter. Sure, you would like to know the details on the patents in question, but don't cast judgment on others who want a frame that is long over due. Of course people would have bought a frame that was produced by someone else. But there wasn't, and props to G-Force for having the balls to come out and make it happen.

[punkncat]

But as a company head, would you take the time to answer pot shots from someone named pukincat that hasnt even signed up or spend the time putting out what was promised, heck i mean i have gotten one email saying my frame is ordered and due to be shipped. Have i sent him questions, yes were all answered? no, is he busy ? yes? I particularly prefer him to work on putting the stuff out and not defending his product. Do you see the patent blocking others, when admittedly others have similar patents, its not like its a SP patent where all future life of paintball will be sucked dry. I mean we all know SP can come in and retro reverse a patent to make garf pay royalties on previously sold models. :cuss:


Well I suppose that thats open to interpretation. Could the guy have taken three seconds more than the time it took him to be short to be a bit more personable? sure

Other than the cut at me, which takes no psychologist training to see as an obvious indication that I struck a nerve....I tend to agree with you on most other points.

Hope, as we have discussed before, that you aren't taking this personal there Tn....?

[nmib]

Cant we all just get along and build our own pneumags with off the self parts and a freaking dremel?

:spit_take

[Looper]

There are only two things I need to know to sleep at night... One, I have a G-Force Frame on order and Two, http://www.google.com/patents?id=4s1_AAAAEBAJ&dq=7210473

Nuf Sed

:D

[punkncat]

There are only two things I need to know to sleep at night... One, I have a G-Force Frame on order and Two, http://www.google.com/patents?id=4s1_AAAAEBAJ&dq=7,210,473

Nuf Sed

:D

Awright, so this is the patent that G-Force holds.

Now does anyone have a link to the patent that PTP holds?

[ThePixelGuru]

To be completly honest, his blowing me off and the later deletion of my original question, along with other things I have read around made me think and speculate on the possibility. Some of those points have already been addressed.

I still contend that the only reason so many of you are getting up in arms so much about it is that you desire, even more than knowing, to have a frame, ANY frame. If PTP has released it first y'all would be clammering for it. It wouldn't matter where it came from or even if it WERE legitimate.
As I said before, he blew you off because he doesn't have anything to discuss with you. Garf has absolutely no obligation to discuss the issue with you, and it would be a terrible business move to do so. The only way he would have a responsibility to discuss patent issues would be if suit was brought against him, and then he'd only have to discuss it with the guy who brought the suit. Besides, you can't suspect someone and then use his reaction as basis for your suspicions. Cause and effect doesn't work that way, buddy.

Now, kindly provide the link to said "rumors," or we'll continue to regard this thread as shenanigans. It's totally unacceptable to post rumors and refuse to divulge sources for no reason other than that you don't feel like it. Also, if you really want to know the patent issues, look 'em up. It's all public and all online, compare PTP's patent to G-Force's patent. If you want to be taken seriously, have a reason to cast doubt on these things. Don't cast doubt and expect reason to follow, and don't expect explanations and handouts from these companies; do your own homework. :D

[RogueFactor]

Here is a little help for you punkcat:

(http://www.automags.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2457514&postcount=23)


I understand the frustration - believe me, there's more of it over here than over there.

However, I don't think you guys are getting the point.


What's going to be enforced? Everything is going to be enforced. Come on. You guys know you've got to actively protect your IP if you want to keep it.

What's the result of the arbitration going to be? Can't say - but keep tuned in.

[RogueFactor]

There's more than one way to make a pneumatic trigger, and as such there can be more than one patent for a pneumatic trigger.

Well, you must have missed it when rabidchihauhau(the guy who helped write the patent for PTP) stated:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RogueFactor]

http://www.automags.org/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2413145


Ok.

it is my opinion that the G-Force patent is covered by the PTP patent claims. What's not covered by the PTP patent is certainly covered by the DW patent and anything else that might have slipped through the cracks is covered by all the so-called PRIOR ART some of you people keep on bringing up.

[RogueFactor]

There ya go punkcat, there is some of the BLAH BLAH BLAH that some people wanted.

Wasnt too hard to find. Some of it was in a post about 5 down. Some others required a simple search. Sorry, I didnt mean to do their homework for them.

But as you originally quoted..."Dont count your chickens just yet..."

Hope this helped :cheers:

[Smoothice]

As I recall rogue. You had some pretty strong words for rabid. Are you now stating what he says is all true?

http://www.automags.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2457547&postcount=24

[punkncat]

As I said before, he blew you off because he doesn't have anything to discuss with you. Garf has absolutely no obligation to discuss the issue with you, and it would be a terrible business move to do so. The only way he would have a responsibility to discuss patent issues would be if suit was brought against him, and then he'd only have to discuss it with the guy who brought the suit. Besides, you can't suspect someone and then use his reaction as basis for your suspicions. Cause and effect doesn't work that way, buddy.

Now, kindly provide the link to said "rumors," or we'll continue to regard this thread as shenanigans. It's totally unacceptable to post rumors and refuse to divulge sources for no reason other than that you don't feel like it. Also, if you really want to know the patent issues, look 'em up. It's all public and all online, compare PTP's patent to G-Force's patent. If you want to be taken seriously, have a reason to cast doubt on these things. Don't cast doubt and expect reason to follow, and don't expect explanations and handouts from these companies; do your own homework. :D

Many different marker makes offer a pneumatic frame. A great deal of people have the means to make a pnue frame in the basement and how hard would it be to take that into production? Especially considering the number of people on THIS forum alone that work for or do milling and pnuematic work. I asked in order to shed a bit of light on my own curiousity. Heck before I started this thread I didn't even know that G-Force was an actual pre existing paintball company. Shame on me for not knowing....I am no lawyer, the implications that have been brought up for them even answering the thread never even occurred to me.

Searching on pneu frames only raises more questions for me. There is info that Colin at DW came up with the first one. I can only assume that that was for mags? Google has pages and pages of info about pneumatic frame patents and pieces and parts of them.
If I knew where to find the patent that PTP holds I wouldn't have asked if someone had a link.

[punkncat]

Thanks Rogue.

I didn't want to post my original source as there has recently been some drama go on in between, well most of us know about that.
When I read that, I started doing some digging around on here and on the legion and 68 cal. The question seemed really obvious and I wondered why no one had asked yet.

I am obviously not as eloquent as I would like to be, and am glad that you opted to throw me a lifeline.

[RogueFactor]

No problem punkcat.

Just in case someone doesnt want to read page 2:

(http://www.automags.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2457514&postcount=23)


I understand the frustration - believe me, there's more of it over here than over there.

However, I don't think you guys are getting the point.


What's going to be enforced? Everything is going to be enforced. Come on. You guys know you've got to actively protect your IP if you want to keep it.

What's the result of the arbitration going to be? Can't say - but keep tuned in.


There's more than one way to make a pneumatic trigger, and as such there can be more than one patent for a pneumatic trigger.

Well, you must have missed it when rabidchihauhau(the guy who helped write the patent for PTP) stated:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.automags.org/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2413145


Ok.

it is my opinion that the G-Force patent is covered by the PTP patent claims. What's not covered by the PTP patent is certainly covered by the DW patent and anything else that might have slipped through the cracks is covered by all the so-called PRIOR ART some of you people keep on bringing up.

[RogueFactor]

Here is another one, just for giggles:

http://www.automags.org/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2022453


...I wrote the damn thing. We did not 'bury' anything. We wrote the claims as broadly as the law allows. Pneumatic versions, electro-pneumatic versions, mechanical versions, mechano-electrical versions, electromagnetic, etc., etc., etc., are ALL covered.

[Beemer]

Thanks Rogue.

I am obviously not as eloquent as I would like to be, and am glad that you opted to throw me a lifeline.

I am sure you are. Want to share any Pms you got from him.[dig] I know you wont be offended.

Oh boy have to love the Drama that it is Huh? :cheers:


it is my opinion that the G-Force patent is covered by the PTP patent claims.

Who said that? Oh wait I know who. But it is still just That. See my previous posts in this thread Bla Bla Bla.

[Beemer]

I decline. Do your own homework. :ninja:

Ohh but somebody did yours for ya. doh

[Beemer]

There are only two things I need to know to sleep at night... One, I have a G-Force Frame on order and Two, http://www.google.com/patents?id=4s1_AAAAEBAJ&dq=7,210,473

Nuf Sed

:D

I can only think Garf must be :rofl:

[punkncat]

You make it sound like it's the consumers moral obligation to find out if it's legitimate or not. It's not! It doesn't matter. Sure, you would like to know the details on the patents in question, but don't cast judgment on others who want a frame that is long over due. Of course people would have bought a frame that was produced by someone else. But there wasn't, and props to G-Force for having the balls to come out and make it happen.

So would the law look on it any different for buying stolen property and you saying "I didn't know" even though you could see the broken store window?

[punkncat]

Ohh but somebody did yours for ya. doh

No, he just posted y'alls.... :D and did a better job at it than I would have.

[TnDeathInc]

Well I suppose that thats open to interpretation. Could the guy have taken three seconds more than the time it took him to be short to be a bit more personable? sure

Other than the cut at me, which takes no psychologist training to see as an obvious indication that I struck a nerve....I tend to agree with you on most other points.

Hope, as we have discussed before, that you aren't taking this personal there Tn....?


nope never, if i was i would come and chew on your new robocop!!

[snoopay700]

Aw come'n, hitting the guy who points out a fault just for speaking out just doesn't seem right.

I feel i should elaborate, but it would appear that the post in question no longer exists for some odd reason. My point was that when someone points out that i'm doing my job poorly, i may grumble and be mad, but in the end they're still right, and i don't have a right to take action against them.

[Foxworthy]

So this is the G-Force Patent...

US Patent 7210473 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,210,473.PN.&OS=PN/7,210,473&RS=PN/7,210,473)

And I think this is the PTP patent...

US Patent 6802305 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6802305)

I can't get the images to work for some reason so I can't see the figures. It seems that PTP's patent is rather broad but it looks like, too me, that they specify that on a pneumatic grip frame like a pnuemag that it would require a ram to be covered. Now I noticed that the G-Force Patent doesn't mention the use of a ram. Though they may just not be calling it the ram in the patent.

If G-Force isn't using a ram in their gripframe it seems that PTP wouldn't have a claim on them, besides the use of trigger magnets and such.

Now I'm not a real techie or anything so I'm most likely missing something. I did notice that G Force referenced a lot of other patents (one of which is the PTP patent) and if I remember correctly, which I probably don't, wouldn't it be harder for PTP to go after G-Force since the US Patent office already reviewed the PTP patent when G-Force filed?

Or is G-Force saying the patent was granted really meaning that they filed, since the patent doesn't say it was issued?

[Looper]

I can't get the images to work for some reason so I can't see the figures.There is a browser plug-in you need if you view them straight from the patent office. I like to use the Google Patent Search. Here is the Google link to the patents you mentioned above.

G-Force http://www.google.com/patents?id=4s1_AAAAEBAJ&dq=7210473
PTP http://www.google.com/patents?id=2RwQAAAAEBAJ&dq=6802305

:cheers:

[nevtangle]

So would the law look on it any different for buying stolen property and you saying "I didn't know" even though you could see the broken store window?
Look, all I'm saying is that I don't know everything about patent laws and don't pretend to. If there is a product on the market I hope that the people who get paid to know this stuff have done their homework. I don't feel that it's up to the consumer to become versed about patent laws and the specifics of a product they want to buy. You on the other hand want to know the details, and good for you. I don't have the time or the energy to fully understand these things. Like I said, there are people who get paid to do this stuff. About the stolen property analogy, there is no broken window. They have a patent.

[Loguzzzzzz]

The way I see it is that if there was any real issue it would have already been addressed.

The thread and website for ordering of these frames has always been in front of everyone. You can believe that the people from PTP were reading this as we all were. If there had been a legitimate reason for concern PTP would have already done something about this.

The orignal thread was started in August with out any objection from PTP or anyone else for that matter. That being said, I am glad that someone finally took the initiative to produce these frames in stead of just talking about it and teasing the Automag community.

[y0da900]

There is always the chance that PTP is waiting for frames to go out for several reasons.

It is easier to prove infringement after the fact rather than proving it showing somebodies intentions.

If they wait until after the fact then sue for infringement, they can claim additional damages per unit sold (more money for them).

If the decide to sue, and their case is successful (again, easier after the fact), then they have precedent for other potential cases in the future. Having license agreements makes it (apparently) easier to uphold in court (hey, these other companies accept the validity of our claims), court precedent on top of that makes it even easier next time.

They also may choose to bow out a round for whatever reason, they may have come to a realization that it is not as enforceable as they initially thought, there may be an agreement amongst parties already that we just don't know about and all this discussion is for nought, and it was easier for Garf to blow off answers than to explain why he didn't agree to an NDA about an agreement, they might have decided there is more to lose than gain at this point with this specific instance. Few of us know (I wish I was one of them), and few if any of us probably ever will unless a lawsuit happens.

[Spider-TW]

...unless a lawsuit happens.
without another NDA

[punkncat]

, there may be an agreement amongst parties already that we just don't know about and all this discussion is for nought, and it was easier for Garf to blow off answers than to explain why he didn't agree to an NDA about an agreement,.

Now this was a point I didn't consider.

[MedicDVG]

In terms of this discussion, and ones similar to this on MCB, and PBN, it is my understanding that the US patent office is so overworked that as long as the application fees are paid, and that there is no overwhelming objection at the time of the application, the patent will more then likely be granted . It is the patent office's contention that it is up to the courts to decide if there is infringement and not the USPO. At least that was one of the salient points in the discussion around the SP patent application for a 'gas through grip' on MCB.

*** Warning -- wild speculation *** Perhaps that is why G-force was able to obtain a patent on a similar device such as the PTP and DW pneu frames -- they had their patent application ducks in a row, paid the fees and the USPO leaving it for the legal arena to decide precedence and enforcement. Hell if there are patents for perpetual motion machines and fart trapping airline seat covers, why not multiple patents for the same device?

[ThePixelGuru]

Well, you must have missed it when rabidchihauhau(the guy who helped write the patent for PTP) stated...
Yes, I must have missed it. That's why I was asking for some confirmation, outside information, links, quotations or anything that could back up what, until now, could be taken to be nothing more than speculation. I called shenanigans on it not because I thought he was wrong but because he wouldn't provide a link and was being pretty shifty and vague when asked pointed, concrete questions. I'm a skeptic by nature, so nothing personal to punkncat.

Well, back to lurking the thread for me. :cheers:

EDIT: Oh wait, so no such letter was sent? So it was all wild speculation, based on quotations and links that the speculator refused to provide? Interesting. :rolleyes: Now, this is turning into an informative thread, but I hope people can see why I called shenanigans about the C&D letters.

[rabidchihauhau]

RABIDCHIHAUHAU'S OPINION:

The Gforce patent infringes on the PTP patent.

The Gforce patent should never have been issued.

The Gforce patent is subject to interference.

The reason wht the Gforce patent was granted was because the PTO is not allowed to consider existing applications as prior art; at least one PTP pneumatic trigger patent, with application dates well prior to anything Gforce submitted, was still in application when the gforce patent came in the door. Gforce gets granted, PTP's application is approved, now Gforce has a worthless patent because its for the exact same thing that PTP already had a patent for.

PTP never NEVER N E V E R issued ANY KIND of letter to Gforce regarding their patent. (Not opinion - fact.)

Gforce's past history has been some innovative concepts followed by little or no production.

There ya go Beemer. Want to take the stirrer for a couple of minutes?

[Spider-TW]

Gforce gets granted, PTP's application is approved, now Gforce has a worthless patent because its for the exact same thing that PTP already had a patent for.
Are you making (is there) any distinction between 'granted' and 'approved'?

If not, are you saying Gforce's application ended up being reviewed prior to PTP's, even though PTP filed earlier?

Thanks.

[punkncat]

PTP never NEVER N E V E R issued ANY KIND of letter to Gforce regarding their patent. (Not opinion - fact.)

I did edit in the first post and make a retraction on the second page about my misreading that led to that opinion.

I am no huge fanboi, but at the same time do not like to see whats going on.

I really hope that since PTP holds the patent and are done with the issue which cannot be spoken about that PTP will actually get it together and release this thing or license it to someone in a mutually benificial way. There is NO question now that there is a demand for this product.

[rabidchihauhau]

ptp filed an initial patent application

the pto requested that the application be split as, in their opinion, it covered more than one distinct device.

(our internal opinion was - and still is - that this was not the case and in fact what we described were simply different preferred embodiments of a single device)

when this occurs, the applicant has a choice to make: either "elect" one or the other set of claims (identified by the PTO as belonging to one or the other devices) and have them examine those and then submit the second set of claims as a 'divisional' application, elect a single set of claims and abandon the remainder or chuck the whole thing.

We elected to proceed with one set of claims and immediately followed that with a new submission of the other set of claims as a divisional application that claimed priority from the original application (this means that so far as the law is concerned, both applications were now submitted at the same time).

The initial set of claims were granted. The divisional application (which has since granted) was still pending when the Gforce application came in.

The gforce application was granted and, around the same time, the PTP divisional was granted. The key point being that the matter covered in the PTP divisional could not be treated as prior art by the PTO because it was a pending application.

The theory behind that concept is that nothing could ever be granted if current applications could be considered, since new applications are coming in all the time...

Chronology would look something like this (from memory, so I might be slightly off here and there):

PTP initial application
DW application
PTP split
part A goes on in examination
part B submitted as divisional
PTP part A grant
DW grant
"discussion" between PTP, DW & AGD and possibility of infringement of PTP app by DW
(complicated by the fact that most of the possibly infringing matter is contained in part B of the PTP app - not yet issued at this time, although a copy of the application was provided to AGD attorneys who agreed that the matter in there covered or substantially covered the DW claims)
PTP part B on-going examination
GF application
GF grant
PTP part B grant

chronology as far as prior date/PTO is concerned

PTP parts A & B
DW
GF

I just love how folks want to talk about how long it took the PTP patents to be granted and the suggestion that there was something 'wrong' with them as a result and that this somehow 'weakens' the patents.

If you knew anything about the process, you'd know that the more claims there are in an application and the more territory they claim, the longer and more convoluted the application process is. Again, we tried to be thorough; unlike most (these days) we submitted applicant supplied citations, lots of background on the technology, multiple drawings & etc. In this particular case, the PTO lost the drawings, which additionally slowed things down - that plus the argument over the split (the PTO does NOT understand that you can substitue a solenoid valve for a mechanical valve and still be doing the same thing - at least not in our case.)

Here's how divisionals and first application for a new device works: if you can file a new application for a new 'version' of your device prior to the previous application being granted, you get to claim the first filing date for all the subsuquent applications. So, if you want to, you can wait and see what your competitors try and do to get around you, and then file a new continuation application to cover that stuff.

Please note that PTP has NEVER engaged in the above tactic, but some in the paintball industry have.

Its very easy to see how confusion and upset can occur as a result of the way in which grants are handled. I submit an application on day 1. You submit one on day 2 for the exact same thing - completely independantly from me. Your application, due to the vagaries of the PTO, gets granted first. You start making your device and selling it. I see it on the market, look up your patent, find out you submitted it AFTER mine. I send you a reasonable letter stating that I believe that your patent infringes on mine and that you ought to be thinking about licensing from me, otherwise I'll have to take action. You look up my patent and don't find anything. You laugh at me. I send you a copy of my application, stating that I believe it will grant. Your lawyers tell you to ignore me until I get a real patent. You start making some serious money. My patent grants. I send a C&D to you. Your loyal customers get wind of it and all they see is someone trying to rip off a company that they like. You dig in your heels - after all, you now have a lot of investment to protect. My lawyers look at how much they think you've sold and encourage me strongly to go the next step. We do. The court finds in my favor, since the devices are identical and I have the prior date - PLUS - you had previous knowledge of the possible infringing nature of your device - so, not only do I get a royalty off of everything you've made so far, and not only do I get court costs covered, but I get awarded treble damages for willfull infringement. All of that AFTER each of us has spent somewhere in the neighborhood of a million bucks each on legal manuevering. You go out of business and I end up trying to supply a market that hates my company - all because: A. you didn't heed the initial warning and B. because the average consumer just can't or doesn't want to understand how the whole thing works. In all likelihood, if you had asked to see the initial application and presumed that it just might get granted, we might have found some way to mutually work together, save everyone money and end up with stronger IP because there's two grants covering the same matter...

[going_home]

ptp filed an initial patent application

the pto requested that the application be split as, in their opinion, it covered more than one distinct device.

(our internal opinion was - and still is - that this was not the case and in fact what we described were simply different preferred embodiments of a single device)

when this occurs, the applicant has a choice to make: either "elect" one or the other set of claims (identified by the PTO as belonging to one or the other devices) and have them examine those and then submit the second set of claims as a 'divisional' application, elect a single set of claims and abandon the remainder or chuck the whole thing.

We elected to proceed with one set of claims and immediately followed that with a new submission of the other set of claims as a divisional application that claimed priority from the original application (this means that so far as the law is concerned, both applications were now submitted at the same time).

The initial set of claims were granted. The divisional application (which has since granted) was still pending when the Gforce application came in.

The gforce application was granted and, around the same time, the PTP divisional was granted. The key point being that the matter covered in the PTP divisional could not be treated as prior art by the PTO because it was a pending application.

The theory behind that concept is that nothing could ever be granted if current applications could be considered, since new applications are coming in all the time...

Chronology would look something like this (from memory, so I might be slightly off here and there):

PTP initial application
DW application
PTP split
part A goes on in examination
part B submitted as divisional
PTP part A grant
DW grant
"discussion" between PTP, DW & AGD and possibility of infringement of PTP app by DW
(complicated by the fact that most of the possibly infringing matter is contained in part B of the PTP app - not yet issued at this time, although a copy of the application was provided to AGD attorneys who agreed that the matter in there covered or substantially covered the DW claims)
PTP part B on-going examination
GF application
GF grant
PTP part B grant

chronology as far as prior date/PTO is concerned

PTP parts A & B
DW
GF

I just love how folks want to talk about how long it took the PTP patents to be granted and the suggestion that there was something 'wrong' with them as a result and that this somehow 'weakens' the patents.

If you knew anything about the process, you'd know that the more claims there are in an application and the more territory they claim, the longer and more convoluted the application process is. Again, we tried to be thorough; unlike most (these days) we submitted applicant supplied citations, lots of background on the technology, multiple drawings & etc. In this particular case, the PTO lost the drawings, which additionally slowed things down - that plus the argument over the split (the PTO does NOT understand that you can substitue a solenoid valve for a mechanical valve and still be doing the same thing - at least not in our case.)

Here's how divisionals and first application for a new device works: if you can file a new application for a new 'version' of your device prior to the previous application being granted, you get to claim the first filing date for all the subsuquent applications. So, if you want to, you can wait and see what your competitors try and do to get around you, and then file a new continuation application to cover that stuff.

Please note that PTP has NEVER engaged in the above tactic, but some in the paintball industry have.

Its very easy to see how confusion and upset can occur as a result of the way in which grants are handled. I submit an application on day 1. You submit one on day 2 for the exact same thing - completely independantly from me. Your application, due to the vagaries of the PTO, gets granted first. You start making your device and selling it. I see it on the market, look up your patent, find out you submitted it AFTER mine. I send you a reasonable letter stating that I believe that your patent infringes on mine and that you ought to be thinking about licensing from me, otherwise I'll have to take action. You look up my patent and don't find anything. You laugh at me. I send you a copy of my application, stating that I believe it will grant. Your lawyers tell you to ignore me until I get a real patent. You start making some serious money. My patent grants. I send a C&D to you. Your loyal customers get wind of it and all they see is someone trying to rip off a company that they like. You dig in your heels - after all, you now have a lot of investment to protect. My lawyers look at how much they think you've sold and encourage me strongly to go the next step. We do. The court finds in my favor, since the devices are identical and I have the prior date - PLUS - you had previous knowledge of the possible infringing nature of your device - so, not only do I get a royalty off of everything you've made so far, and not only do I get court costs covered, but I get awarded treble damages for willfull infringement. All of that AFTER each of us has spent somewhere in the neighborhood of a million bucks each on legal manuevering. You go out of business and I end up trying to supply a market that hates my company - all because: A. you didn't heed the initial warning and B. because the average consumer just can't or doesn't want to understand how the whole thing works. In all likelihood, if you had asked to see the initial application and presumed that it just might get granted, we might have found some way to mutually work together, save everyone money and end up with stronger IP because there's two grants covering the same matter...


This is one of the best posts on this whole saga that I have seen.
This one ought to be placed somewhere in the forum for easy access so it doesnt get lost.

:)

[rabidchihauhau]

I did edit in the first post and make a retraction on the second page about my misreading that led to that opinion..

No problem on the quote - I didn't see your retraction. There have been some out there who have been suggesting that PTP has been flooding the market with C&D orders, when, in fact, my suspicion is that its the accusers who are doing the mailing...


There is NO question now that there is a demand for this product..

yes, there is. HUGE demand for you may only be huge demand for a company. its one thing economically for an individual to cobble together a bunch of parts and another thing entirely for a company to manufacture something on a profitable basis.

If, for example, we suppose that the item in question will sell for no more than $250.00, its got to come in at no more than $60 bucks cost per unit to work. in costing out the processes and components, we find, for example, that one key part can only be brought into line with expense requirements if 10,000 units are purchased at one time. (they need to cost 1.25 and the unit cost is 1.50 for any quantity less than 10,000). Unfortunately, market forecasting strongly indicates that no more than 5,000 units will sell. Therefore - no product.

[warbeak2099]

So G-Force can continue with the frames?

[MANN]

Therefore - no product.

I have only skimmed through all of the patient threads/other aruging BS, but basicly what everything boils down to is that PTP will not produce a product as of Today. Correct?

The reason why PTP will not produce these frames is because of the cost/return ratio. Correct?

Thanks

[Smoothice]

Sounds like it to me.

[warbeak2099]

Great I don't care whether PTP makes it or not. But are they going to get in Garf's way?

[going_home]

Great I don't care whether PTP makes it or not. But are they going to get in Garf's way?

Looks to me like he was in his own way before he started, unfortunately.
Although I probably would have bought one from GF just to have one, if I didnt have other stuff going on sucking up all the funds.
It doesnt look like anyone could sell five thousand of them, so back it goes to the DIY'ers.

:rolleyes:

[Smoothice]

Looks to me like he was in his own way before he started, unfortunately.
Although I probably would have bought one from GF just to have one, if I didnt have other stuff going on sucking up all the funds.
It doesnt look like anyone could sell five thousand of them, so back it goes to the DIY'ers.

:rolleyes:

I am going to love showing off my GForce production pneuframe :shooting:

[Coralis]

Great I don't care whether PTP makes it or not. But are they going to get in Garf's way?

Doesn't really seem worth the effort for something that is not financially feasible to produce in the first place, unless you just like making lawyers rich.

[ThePixelGuru]

HUGE demand for you may only be huge demand for a company. its one thing economically for an individual to cobble together a bunch of parts and another thing entirely for a company to manufacture something on a profitable basis.

If, for example, we suppose that the item in question will sell for no more than $250.00, its got to come in at no more than $60 bucks cost per unit to work. in costing out the processes and components, we find, for example, that one key part can only be brought into line with expense requirements if 10,000 units are purchased at one time. (they need to cost 1.25 and the unit cost is 1.50 for any quantity less than 10,000). Unfortunately, market forecasting strongly indicates that no more than 5,000 units will sell. Therefore - no product.
So if we take this to be true, then PTP, after getting two patents, has no plans to produce a pneumatic trigger frame and is stuck with the cost of getting the patents. Assuming they still want to make money off these patents, the only way to do this is to get royalties and licensing fees from other companies actually taking these frames to market, ie, G-Force.

Now, rabidchihauhau says that one has to enforce this sort of IP, and that the best way to do this is with multiple letters, as early as possible. rabid says no such letters have been sent by PTP. Does this, therefore, mean that we can assume PTP has no intention of producing the frames and no intention of sending a C&D to G-Force? Are we to believe PTP will eat the cost of the patents without seeking to recover loses through litigation?

And I have a question specifically for rabid; G-Force has a prior patent for their pneumatic marker, which the pneumatic 'mag frame is adapted from. Is it your opinion that this design is also covered by PTP's patent? If not, what's different about them that makes this on not covered and the 'mag frame covered? Thanks.

[nmib]

ptp filed an initial patent application

the pto requested that the application be split as, in their opinion, it covered more than one distinct device.

(our internal opinion was - and still is - that this was not the case and in fact what we described were simply different preferred embodiments of a single device)

when this occurs, the applicant has a choice to make: either "elect" one or the other set of claims (identified by the PTO as belonging to one or the other devices) and have them examine those and then submit the second set of claims as a 'divisional' application, elect a single set of claims and abandon the remainder or chuck the whole thing.

We elected to proceed with one set of claims and immediately followed that with a new submission of the other set of claims as a divisional application that claimed priority from the original application (this means that so far as the law is concerned, both applications were now submitted at the same time).

The initial set of claims were granted. The divisional application (which has since granted) was still pending when the Gforce application came in.

The gforce application was granted and, around the same time, the PTP divisional was granted. The key point being that the matter covered in the PTP divisional could not be treated as prior art by the PTO because it was a pending application.

The theory behind that concept is that nothing could ever be granted if current applications could be considered, since new applications are coming in all the time...

Chronology would look something like this (from memory, so I might be slightly off here and there):

PTP initial application
DW application
PTP split
part A goes on in examination
part B submitted as divisional
PTP part A grant
DW grant
"discussion" between PTP, DW & AGD and possibility of infringement of PTP app by DW
(complicated by the fact that most of the possibly infringing matter is contained in part B of the PTP app - not yet issued at this time, although a copy of the application was provided to AGD attorneys who agreed that the matter in there covered or substantially covered the DW claims)
PTP part B on-going examination
GF application
GF grant
PTP part B grant

chronology as far as prior date/PTO is concerned

PTP parts A & B
DW
GF

I just love how folks want to talk about how long it took the PTP patents to be granted and the suggestion that there was something 'wrong' with them as a result and that this somehow 'weakens' the patents.

If you knew anything about the process, you'd know that the more claims there are in an application and the more territory they claim, the longer and more convoluted the application process is. Again, we tried to be thorough; unlike most (these days) we submitted applicant supplied citations, lots of background on the technology, multiple drawings & etc. In this particular case, the PTO lost the drawings, which additionally slowed things down - that plus the argument over the split (the PTO does NOT understand that you can substitue a solenoid valve for a mechanical valve and still be doing the same thing - at least not in our case.)

Here's how divisionals and first application for a new device works: if you can file a new application for a new 'version' of your device prior to the previous application being granted, you get to claim the first filing date for all the subsuquent applications. So, if you want to, you can wait and see what your competitors try and do to get around you, and then file a new continuation application to cover that stuff.

Please note that PTP has NEVER engaged in the above tactic, but some in the paintball industry have.

Its very easy to see how confusion and upset can occur as a result of the way in which grants are handled. I submit an application on day 1. You submit one on day 2 for the exact same thing - completely independantly from me. Your application, due to the vagaries of the PTO, gets granted first. You start making your device and selling it. I see it on the market, look up your patent, find out you submitted it AFTER mine. I send you a reasonable letter stating that I believe that your patent infringes on mine and that you ought to be thinking about licensing from me, otherwise I'll have to take action. You look up my patent and don't find anything. You laugh at me. I send you a copy of my application, stating that I believe it will grant. Your lawyers tell you to ignore me until I get a real patent. You start making some serious money. My patent grants. I send a C&D to you. Your loyal customers get wind of it and all they see is someone trying to rip off a company that they like. You dig in your heels - after all, you now have a lot of investment to protect. My lawyers look at how much they think you've sold and encourage me strongly to go the next step. We do. The court finds in my favor, since the devices are identical and I have the prior date - PLUS - you had previous knowledge of the possible infringing nature of your device - so, not only do I get a royalty off of everything you've made so far, and not only do I get court costs covered, but I get awarded treble damages for willfull infringement. All of that AFTER each of us has spent somewhere in the neighborhood of a million bucks each on legal manuevering. You go out of business and I end up trying to supply a market that hates my company - all because: A. you didn't heed the initial warning and B. because the average consumer just can't or doesn't want to understand how the whole thing works. In all likelihood, if you had asked to see the initial application and presumed that it just might get granted, we might have found some way to mutually work together, save everyone money and end up with stronger IP because there's two grants covering the same matter...

excellent post, that explains alot of the hole process. :cheers:

[Spider-TW]

This is one of the best posts on this whole saga that I have seen.
This one ought to be placed somewhere in the forum for easy access so it doesnt get lost.

:)
Seconded.

Thanks for the effort, rabid.

You have a common problem there. Very thorough specifications at least take longer to go through if you find someone that will do it all. You have to weigh getting something done right with getting it past the people that are not as interested or dedicated, even though it is their job to do so.

less mystery = less drama

[rabidchihauhau]

spider (and others) thanks.

Some folks are reading way too far into the example. I provided ONLY AN EXAMPLE of how a product might be viable but not marketable. That was all.

And now I am forced to repeat myself:

I will do my utmost to explain the situation but I will not do anything that will compromise PTP's position.

Nothing I said implied in any way that PTP was or was not going to enforce their IP, was or was not going to manufacture the product, etc., etc.

Sorry to make some of you angry, but many of you seem to want it your way on your terms: if the owner of the IP doesn't market the product, they're bad and deserving of attack, while all the thieves are good guys and get all the praise. I'm sick of that attitude. Personally, I've NEVER copied someone's IP for my own personal use and never will, nor have I ever encouraged someone else to do so so that I could buy from them. If the owner wants to keep it to themselves, its their privilege and I have no say in the matter. I'll look for the next best thing instead. I'll be disappointed, but I don't immediately put them in the hater file, which many of you guys seem to do at the drop of a hat.

[warbeak2099]

The attitude of "it's legal so I'm going to do it" doesn't hold up well with most mag shooters. We like supporting moral companies, not just legally minded ones. Is it legal for them to not share the patent? Yes. Is it in the best interests of the consumers? No. Therefore we have as much right to villainize PTP as they have to sit on their patent. It's their decision alright, and it comes with consequences from the consumer.

[Foxworthy]

I have a question. I'm not really a tech head as I've noted before as I don't really try to study these things but what is the difference between and pneumatic trigger and the way Typhoons and Autocockers work?

Is it the lack of the pump rod that makes the pneumatic trigger different? I know they both use lprs, rams and three ways (4 ways. 5 way yadda yadda) right? Also was I reading the PTP patent right when I saw that they specified...


Alternatively, the trigger assistance mechanism replaces the mechanical linkage between the trigger and the cocking/firing mechanism of the paintball gun such that a pneumatic actuating ram is used to initiate the cocking/firing sequence.

Does that mean that if a company found a way to do a pneumatic type drop in kit for an already made marker without using a ram it would be cool? Is that even possible?

I can't really tell what is going on at all in the G-Force drawings I'm no where near a tech enough for that.

Edit: Also I know you may not be able to answer this Rabid since it does address the patents and all. So if its better for you to not address it thats cool. Maybe someone who is a techy on the forums may have some ideas.

[rabidchihauhau]

The attitude of "it's legal so I'm going to do it" doesn't hold up well with most mag shooters. We like supporting moral companies, not just legally minded ones. Is it legal for them to not share the patent? Yes. Is it in the best interests of the consumers? No. Therefore we have as much right to villainize PTP as they have to sit on their patent. It's their decision alright, and it comes with consequences from the consumer.


So how is a company that is infringing on IP a "moral" company?

You know, we talked about the possibility of offering an inexpensive license, but the fact that so many have already gone ahead and made their own illegal version has pretty much killed that market. So, go look in the mirror, point a finger at yourself and say "You are at least partially responsible for this product not being available."

And since you were obviously not paying attention earlier, I'll repeat: PTP engaged in the best strategy available at the time to insure that this product would be viable in the marketplace AND so that there would be an ability to support small, orphaned and specialty product lines. They did this by licensing the product to a company that had the financial wherewithal to bring the product to market and help defend it, while at the same time reserving licenses for guns like the automag to themselves. Had the other company lived up to their contractual obligations, PTP would be selling frames for mags at a very reasonable price, because support for the product would be provided by licensing fees and sales of other (more viable and profitable) products. PTP spent lots of money trying to protect YOU, and you didn't even know it. The other company ended up acting in bad faith and blowing the whole deal - but you want to beat PTP up for trying.

And you know what? Consumer consequences can work both ways. I know that if it were my product to make decisions over, I'd already have the most visible 'private' individual(s) in court over patent infringement, just to make a very public example of them, I'd be VERY inclined to make sure that the most vocal of the nay sayers could never get their hands on the technology. Fortunately for all of you, the folks at PTP aren't as nasty and as vindicitive as I am.

I do know one thing for sure: if PTP made a personal, individual license available for a reasonable fee, half the folks on here would be moaning and complaining about PTP demanding money for something they can build themselves. You can blah, blah, blah on this subject all you want to. It doesn't make you right - either legally OR morally, its not going to change anything and it continues to demonstrate that there's probably a whole generation out there that believes they're entitlted to something for nothing. If I'm lucky I won't live long enough to see tbem in charge.

[Smoothice]

I agree with what you are saying rabid.

But this is how I see it:

I want a pneu frame.

Someone has come forward to produce one.

They claim they have a patent. Which has been linked to.

Does it infringe on other patents? Well i'm no patent analyzer. But if it was I would think the holder of the infringed upon patents would take steps to correct the problem.

You may think this is taking the head in the sand approach and that I'm supporting an immoral company.

But so far I have been given no actual proof that there has been any wrong doing. provide me a link where someone in the patent office states that gforce is infringing on someone elses patent. Show me a court transcript where the judge states gforce is in the wrong.

so far all I've heard are peoples opinions. and that doesn't mean much to me.

Last I knew there was more then one way to skin a cat. therefore I do find it possible for gforce to produce this product without stepping on anyone elses toes.

[insixdays777]

I just caught up on this thread. I have 2 questions:

1) Just how many of there frames can anyone expect to sell? This is a VERY niche product for a very niche marker. How much gain/loss is at stake? I just cant see how any of the legal ranglings on eighter side would be cost worthy. I mean, this is not some revolutionary industry shake'n IP. If it was, I could understand all of the hub bub, and a product that could sell 200,000 units would justify this...but this product is not that.

2) What Would Tom Do? WWTD?

[punkncat]

So how is a company that is infringing on IP a "moral" company?

You know, we talked about the possibility of offering an inexpensive license, but the fact that so many have already gone ahead and made their own illegal version has pretty much killed that market. So, go look in the mirror, point a finger at yourself and say "You are at least partially responsible for this product not being available."

And since you were obviously not paying attention earlier, I'll repeat: PTP engaged in the best strategy available at the time to insure that this product would be viable in the marketplace AND so that there would be an ability to support small, orphaned and specialty product lines. They did this by licensing the product to a company that had the financial wherewithal to bring the product to market and help defend it, while at the same time reserving licenses for guns like the automag to themselves. Had the other company lived up to their contractual obligations, PTP would be selling frames for mags at a very reasonable price, because support for the product would be provided by licensing fees and sales of other (more viable and profitable) products. PTP spent lots of money trying to protect YOU, and you didn't even know it. The other company ended up acting in bad faith and blowing the whole deal - but you want to beat PTP up for trying.

And you know what? Consumer consequences can work both ways. I know that if it were my product to make decisions over, I'd already have the most visible 'private' individual(s) in court over patent infringement, just to make a very public example of them, I'd be VERY inclined to make sure that the most vocal of the nay sayers could never get their hands on the technology. Fortunately for all of you, the folks at PTP aren't as nasty and as vindicitive as I am.

I do know one thing for sure: if PTP made a personal, individual license available for a reasonable fee, half the folks on here would be moaning and complaining about PTP demanding money for something they can build themselves. You can blah, blah, blah on this subject all you want to. It doesn't make you right - either legally OR morally, its not going to change anything and it continues to demonstrate that there's probably a whole generation out there that believes they're entitlted to something for nothing. If I'm lucky I won't live long enough to see tbem in charge.

:clap:

[nicad]

...

Chronology would look something like this (from memory, so I might be slightly off here and there):

PTP initial application
DW application
PTP split
part A goes on in examination
part B submitted as divisional
PTP part A grant
DW grant
"discussion" between PTP, DW & AGD and possibility of infringement of PTP app by DW
(complicated by the fact that most of the possibly infringing matter is contained in part B of the PTP app - not yet issued at this time, although a copy of the application was provided to AGD attorneys who agreed that the matter in there covered or substantially covered the DW claims)
PTP part B on-going examination
GF application
GF grant
PTP part B grant

chronology as far as prior date/PTO is concerned

PTP parts A & B
DW
GF

Good timeline layout. There is one minor correction tho (for other's historical reference sake). The "discussions" part with DW and AGD took place 2003-2004, which would put it between
-PTP initial application
and
-DW application

Yes, we were in talks with AGD prior to filing the patent. At the time the only things in place were a document disclosure with the US Gov and an NDA with Tom. :)

[punkncat]

.....The "discussions" part with DW and AGD took place 2003-2004, .....Yes, we were in talks with AGD ....:)


Kind of makes me wonder how different things may have been for AGD and the pneu frame if something had come out of those talks.....

[Smoothice]

So how is a company that is infringing on IP a "moral" company?


Wow!

Lets talk about moral companies. I think we all agree smart parts is not one of them.

But for you to judge another company as immoral would that mean that you see yourself and ptp as moral?

Cause you have openly and happily admited to being the same if not worse then smart parts in your patent applications. Which would make you and ptp equally if not more immoral then they are.

http://www.automags.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2211788&postcount=101


I'll make absolutely no apologies for my 'smart part' ways when it comes to patent apps. (Someone on the white board even accused me of being WORSE than they are); I studied the process and was employed to do the best job I could for PTP - not for everyone on the planet. Had I been writing a patent app for you, I would have employed the same methods. I do, however, pride myself on the fact that while I played the SP patent app game, my claims were solid claims for working designs, not fantasy...
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x57/smoothice15/candlecopy.jpg

[y0da900]

Wow!

Lets talk about moral companies. I think we all agree smart parts is not one of them.

But for you to judge another company as immoral would that mean that you see yourself and ptp as moral?

Cause you have openly and happily admited to being the same if not worse then smart parts in your patent applications. Which would make you and ptp equally if not more immoral then they are.

http://www.automags.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2211788&postcount=101


http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x57/smoothice15/candlecopy.jpg


In Rabids defense, which I'm sure he can handle himself anyways, his patents have been worded with the intent of covering as much grounds as a Smart Parts patent does. But his have done this from day 1 (original scope), they were not done through additions and continuations after the fact claiming priority dates and broadening the patent past its original scope, flying under the radar and abusing known weaknesses/loopholes in the USPTO.

I'm not trying to defend the validity of the PTP patent, I still think that it's overly broad given prior art, but I somehow seemingly still have an idealized view of what should and should not be patented, and what should and should not be prior art. The USPTO obviously sees it differently.

[ThePixelGuru]

I have a question specifically for rabid; G-Force has a prior patent for their pneumatic marker, which the pneumatic 'mag frame is adapted from. Is it your opinion that this design is also covered by PTP's patent? If not, what's different about them that makes this one not covered and the 'mag frame covered? Thanks.
rabidchihauhau, I'd still like an answer to this if you get time and are at liberty to discuss it. Thanks.

[rabidchihauhau]

rabidchihauhau, I'd still like an answer to this if you get time and are at liberty to discuss it. Thanks.

Sorry, wasn't ignoring you.

I can only provide you with non-specific examples to answer this question. Sorry, but that's the way it has to be.

"Based on" is a problematic word, to begin with. For example; if the initial IP were for an entire system integrated into a particular design, and the scope of the claims did not cover a bolt-on aftermarket embodiment, it is entirely possible that the latter is now public domain - because its an 'obvious' design (especially now considering that you have the entire marker to base it off of).

The holder of the initial IP could probably make a (VERY EXPENSIVE) case that they ought to get credit for the obvious embodiment of a bolt-on version, but it wouldn't be a slam-dunk. There's all kinds of twisty-turney special rules that cover disclosure, and the intent of the disclosure as written and the relationship of which is disclosed in the drawing as compared to what it is the description of the device, etc., etc. They mostly work out to the concept of: if you should have been aware of it when submitting the application but didn't include it in the application, its your loss.

Similarly, it is entirely possible for the second generation version (the 'based-on' version) to be based-on in concept, but not in execution. For example: if you are building a whole marker, there's no requirement for placing an LPR in any particular location, while in building only a frame, the LPR has to be accomodated in or on the frame itself.

I haven't checked recently, but my recollection is that the two patents you are referring to are NOT divisionals or continuations-in-part of each other. Therefore, in determining issues such as infringement, both are treated entirely separately.

My analysis of a comparison of the holdings of the two companies (and ok - if you want to yell bias, go ahead) is that PTP's IP is being infringed. They certainly have the prior date(s).

The following scenario is also possible (although I only offer it as yet another example of how convoluted this IP stuff is and am NOT suggesting in any way the it applies or is related to PTP's current circumstances:

Company A gets a patent for a device
Company B gets a patent for a similar device
Company A gets another patent for a variation of A1

Company B discovers that A1 infringes on their patent. They press their case.
Company A reluctantly comes to the conclusion that B is correct - so far as their second patent is concerned. But then they take a look at their first patent and realize that they think B's patent infringes on that. They press their demands and turn out to be right also.

So A2 infringes on B1, which infringes on A1.

Unfortunately for Company A, what they really want to build is the A2 device and B has told them that if they press their case over A1, they'll press their case over A2. Company A may still end up having to enter into some kind of agreement with B.

I hope that goes a little way towards answering your question.

[rabidchihauhau]

Wow!

Cause you have openly and happily admited to being the same if not worse then smart parts in your patent applications. Which would make you and ptp equally if not more immoral then they are.

First of all, I was taking pride in a left-handed compliment with that statement, not admitting to being like they are. What I was really saying was "hey look, other people think I'm as good at what I do as I think I am." Tongue in cheek of course.

Secondly, in that statement and elsewhere in other posts I have described my process and the rules I operate under ad infinitum. Those rules do not in any way step over any kind of moral or legal line. In fact, they were specifically designed to be "moral", because that is what the owners of PTP insisted on.

These included no fallacious applications just to grab territory in order to make other people have to license, no applications for publicly disclosed devices that we nevertheless knew the patent office would grant, no subterranean patents, no buying up other IP to corner a market, no restrictive licensing agreements, etc., etc.

If you put those criteria in front of the IP attorneys at any major firm that has large IP holdings, they'd laugh at you.

So yes, I do think that my actions on behalf of PTP were BOTH moral AND legal, and I think that PTP's scars are more than enough evidence of their moral character as a company. I'd post a list of products to show just how badly they've been ripped off over the years by, but its so extensive that I'd then have to get into issues of why they allowed such things to happen over and over. The real answer to that question is: because they're moral and ethical and supportive and trusting and kind and understanding and they'd give you the shirts of their backs in a freezing blizzard, but I know from your statement that you'd never believe such a thing.

[Smoothice]

but I know from your statement that you'd never believe such a thing.

My statement was in regard to something you had posted. Which was not read or taken out of context. But the spin you have put on this reply is certainly warmer and fuzzier.

:hail:

[rabidchihauhau]

smoothice,

sorry if I misread your intent. However, your latest comment also comes across as snide. Intended or not, that's how it strikes me.

There's no spin. Anyone who knows me knows I have a sarcastic sense of humor.

[punkncat]

Here I will up this thread for you rabid. Hop up on your soapbox all you want.

[rabidchihauhau]

Here I will up this thread for you rabid. Hop up on your soapbox all you want.

And now I will, seeing as how the G-Force thread was correctly moved into the dealers forum.

[rabidchihauhau]

Good timeline layout. There is one minor correction tho (for other's historical reference sake). The "discussions" part with DW and AGD took place 2003-2004, which would put it between
-PTP initial application
and
-DW application

Thanks for the clarification. Some contend that I 'spin' things everytime I put words to paper. Its nice to see someone who absolutely has no incentive verify the statements.

Some are hinting that things may be happening. Please keep us informed.

[Chronobreak]

maybe AO needs a NO MORE pre order rule?

i think thatd solve most our problems and bickering .

o wait this isnt PBN right? :rolleyes:

[rabidchihauhau]

yep. best way for small companies to get in trouble is to try and boost their cash flow by taking pre-orders for non-existent product. Then they end up running behind their cash flow and then customers end up getting 'delayed delivery' emails...

[punkncat]

yep. best way for small companies to get in trouble is to try and boost their cash flow by taking pre-orders for non-existent product. Then they end up running behind their cash flow and then customers end up getting 'delayed delivery' emails...


Yeah, you make a preorder price based on your predictions for cost and predicted delivery date. Then lump on the redo's from not having fully tried and tested your design before rushing it to market. Add on top of that cost the labor of every day late that the project goes and before you know it you are in the hole. Not too long after that people quit getting updates and product barely trickles out, if at all.
A lesson that you would think many people on AO would have learned over and over. Apparently not....

What is this project at this point...two, three months later that initially projected? Glad I am not the one who has to explain that fubar......

[Chronobreak]

i hope your not reffering to just gforce on this one

im sure DW may have done a pre order if he ever made frames.

and the thread is long gone so i cant check but i believe the ptp frame included some sort of pre order or pre defined amount as ell.

im still debating on asking my money back as i feel i have the right to since they broke the payment agreement 2-3 weeks ago when they went over the initial 8 week timeframe.

i dont want to start a domino effect but im very big on not liking my $ sitting in other peoples banks without anything to show for it.

i dodged the tag fiasco, i resisted the devilsden, and steered away from logics Em frames


why o why did i bite the hook on this one?

hopefuly it wasnt the worst i couldve done

[punkncat]

No definatly not just one vendor has pulled much worse than we have seen out of Gforce (at this point). That is why I am suprized so many people jumped on board with a company that has NO track record for producing....

Last I read the planned release has been pushed back to February? Am I right on that? So at that point barring no other problems between now and then, it will be at least 6-7 weeks behind. Thats a whole lot of paycheck added to the cost to manufacture.

And once again I may be wrong, but I seem to remember reading somewhere else that the patent issue is not by any means settled....and not neccesarily from PTP is the problem coming. Going to be a hard deal for everyone except the lawyers...

[rabidchihauhau]

I can't speak for any other company other than my own and, to some degree, PTP.

I know that way back in the day, when I partnered in a company in NJ called Performance Paintball (89-91 or so), we did pre-orders with 50% deposit in order to test the introduction of new product lines.

Eventually this turned around and bit us - we'd used pre-order money to bridge a temporary cash shortfall and it snowballed. No one lost any money (refunded or product shipped) but it wasn't fun and a good lesson learned.

So far as PTP is concerned, the policy was always 'no pre-orders'. The policy remains no pre-orders. If I remember correctly, they asked for those who were interested and would be placing an order to sign up to a list - but didn't request cash in. This was a decent way to determine if the machine time should be scheduled and whether the materials should be purchased or not.

PTP also doesn't charge someone's credit card until the order is out the door. Many companies charge cards as soon as the order is received, which can lead to the same issues as cash-in-advance orders or pre-orders.

The bottom line I think is this: If you think you have a product that is going to sell (after due-diligence on market research, cost analysis, market comparisons, advertising, etc) - you take money out of your pocket, build it and then sell. That's why being in business is fundamentally a 'risk'. Doing it any other way asks your customers to take the risk. Everyone would love to be in a no-risk business, but they don't exist. There's exposure of some degree or another everywhere and, if you want to be the one to benefit, you should be the one to take the risk. That risk should be money - not good faith or reputation.

Most people would understand market delivery delays when expressed in terms of: the parts I needed are backordered or, prices went up from my supplier - as long as they're legit and don't become regular excuses. (If they do, you and your business need to start solving those issues). On the other hand, saying to someone 'I can't ship because I spent your money paying the light bill and now can't order materials' is a sure way to get everyone hopping mad.

Risk the money, not the reputation. Don't try and circumvent customary business practices that have been perfected over ten thousand years, we have them because they've been proven and reproven over that long a period of time.

[RogueFactor]

Pre-orders when done correctly work well.

[Spider-TW]

Pre-orders when done correctly work well.
I know AO (as a group) has provided some very nice and unique parts on pre-order. I think it requires a level of business awareness that is not otherwise required of a start-up company or individual who will always need an easy way to market.

"Due diligence" is hard to meet for most people.

[rabidchihauhau]

when done well - what does that mean?

My contention is that going the pre-order paid deposit route is primarily a dodge for the supplier who is shifting his risk off to customers.

A company that is well run and properly financed would have funding available to start up new product lines. They would not need to shift the risk off to the consumer.

Furthermore - you're not getting anything for participating in the risk. If someone said 'this is not my usual line of business, but I'll float it' and then offered the first few customers a decent discount off the final price for sharing the risk, it would be marginally better, but still not completely right.

I've been involved in numerous new product intros (not from PTP) where the speciality manufacturer saw the potential of a new market, contacted me for market info, was told a good solid price they'd need to sell the product at, ignored that advice, didn't build enough product and the product line died - too pricey, for example. They wanted to shave the risk by only dropping in dollars they thought they could spare - not accepting the fact that in order to make it work they would have to spend more. Instead of ignoring the advice, they should have said 'well, we can't afford that right now'.

[Spider-TW]

How about small fixed quantity runs of about 10 to 20? It's a different concept and it is not really aimed at establishing a company, but that is the sort of thing that gets pre-orders most often on AO, especially out of production items or bodies that are relatively well known.

If you know the costs (because you've done one) and the total quantity, it's much easier to estimate the total run. The smaller the run, the less it needs a corporate business model. The risk is on the customer, but that risk is what you pay for the unique item.

I agree, pre-orders shouldn't be the start of a company. But pre-orders from established business bring unusual values to the market.

That's what I consider "done correctly".

[going_home]

Theres nothing wrong with pre-orders with a non-refundable deposit.
Say of like 50.00, refundable only if the seller cant deliver at least
close to when he said he would.
Paying the total sale price up front does encourage the seller to take his time though.
The new PTP Micromag run is supposed to be set up that way, a 50.00 deposit (if/when it happens). At least that what Tracy posted.

:D

[RogueFactor]

when done well - what does that mean?
I didnt mince words, it means exactly what I said.

Go back and re-read what I wrote. I didnt say 'when done well'.

[MANN]

when done well - what does that mean?

Participate in one of Rogue's preorders and you will understand. Basicly it goes like this

1 prepay
2 a few weeks later get invoice for second half of payment
3 open mailbox and get product out

:cheers:

edit: guess you beat me to the draw.

[rabidchihauhau]

I didnt mince words, it means exactly what I said.

Go back and re-read what I wrote. I didnt say 'when done well'.

Ok - when done 'correctly'. Define 'correctly'.

[rabidchihauhau]

Participate in one of Rogue's preorders and you will understand. Basicly it goes like this

1 prepay
2 a few weeks later get invoice for second half of payment
3 open mailbox and get product out

:cheers:

edit: guess you beat me to the draw.

That doesn't answer the question, but from your description it doesn't seem like that meets the definition of what we've been discussing:

I think there is a difference between 'send me money and I'll start screwing around and see what I can come up with' and 'I'm getting ready to do another run (for an existing product) - how many do I need to build this time?'

This discussion has obviously been (damn old age, can't remember the word right now) a substitute for certain practices by certain companies.

Regardless of the above, there is a difference between "place your pre-orders now - product will be shipped by x" and "let's see how many people are interested; IF this goes forward, we'll take a deposit and then do the run."

[rabidchihauhau]

How about an AO policy on pre-orders?

Something like:

business license exists and is current
full contact information is provided & verifiable
fully refundable deposits (maybe less a small processing fee)
deposit can be no more than 25% of final cost (not including shipping)
time between pre-order and delivery can be no more than 6 months

[luke]

How about an AO policy on pre-orders?

Something like:

business license exists and is current
full contact information is provided & verifiable
fully refundable deposits (maybe less a small processing fee)
deposit can be no more than 25% of final cost (not including shipping)
time between pre-order and delivery can be no more than 6 months

Sorry, but that is the most ridicules thing I've ever seen you post. You're trying to police things you have no true ownership to. This whole thing is becoming borderline pathetic.

Please, explain exactly who you are to me and why you have ANY say in what I or anybody else here does?

[Chronobreak]

im with rabid 100% on this.

too many people have been jerked around by delays and bad pre orders.

i personaly like pbns policy on NO pre orders at all. your allowed to guage interest in a product but you cannot take payments or patial payments for products that are not in your hands.

as others have said partial payment encourages them to finish faster and delive product.

I would like to say the ONE person who has done pre orders justice is Roguefactor who has done an excellent job and delivering on time if not earlier in most cases with superior products and workmanship. :clap:

my view on pre orders is the company does not have enough $ to invest in the product to do it otherwise, or is unsure of how their own product will sell.

[MANN]

My question is why do people jump on every band waggon that passes by. I am sorry, but some people need to learn their lessons.

How many of us will buy a marker from someone when they post it as their first post good deal or not. So why is it that when someone post in the dealer section they automaticly think they have feedback.

[punkncat]

My question is why do people jump on every band waggon that passes by. I am sorry, but some people need to learn their lessons.

How many of us will buy a marker from someone when they post it as their first post good deal or not. So why is it that when someone post in the dealer section they automaticly think they have feedback.

Nail meet hammer

[Chronobreak]

My question is why do people jump on every band waggon that passes by. I am sorry, but some people need to learn their lessons.

How many of us will buy a marker from someone when they post it as their first post good deal or not. So why is it that when someone post in the dealer section they automaticly think they have feedback.

it was in PB talk, i and im sure others knew it was a risk

hopefully one that goes unpunished by us.

Im still debating on asking for my money back or trying to holdout til the 28th.

you have my word if by some reason there is another delay i will be asking for a full refund, as well as writing a letter to better business bureu as well.

Im curious as to how many AO ers and others actualy bought one.

20-50-100-200 ?

[luke]

OK, How many have I screwed up?

Do tell..



im with rabid 100% on this.

too many people have been jerked around by delays and bad pre orders.

i personaly like pbns policy on NO pre orders at all. your allowed to guage interest in a product but you cannot take payments or patial payments for products that are not in your hands.

as others have said partial payment encourages them to finish faster and delive product.

I would like to say the ONE person who has done pre orders justice is Roguefactor who has done an excellent job and delivering on time if not earlier in most cases with superior products and workmanship. :clap:

my view on pre orders is the company does not have enough $ to invest in the product to do it otherwise, or is unsure of how their own product will sell.

[Chronobreak]

OK, How many have I screwed up?

Do tell..

ha, you know i love you luke, the RF example just seems to work, i dont recall you doing an pre orders to be honest. But im glad you diddn't screw any up .

i hate to make this a case of one bad apple spoils the bunch but it comes to a point where you have to decide

are we gonna make this a buyer beware situation

or a Here are the rules and regulations regarding pre orders.

[Spider-TW]

I expect Luke lives by pre-orders. It's just really helps to know what you're doing.

I can see how Luke and Rogue would take exception to rabid's comment about pre-orders. By itself it reads like all pre-orders are bad.

I took rabid's comment to apply to start-ups. There's no other way anyone that lives on custom work can do business (like Lukes Customs).

Rogue brings us limited run items. Worst case is he gets to hang on to one or two for a while and suffer the "got any more"s for months. That risk and limitation make those parts that much more valuable.

It's not the same as 'I have an idea for a worldwide paintball revolution' and 'we are taking pre-orders' coming from me.

[luke]

ha, you know i love you luke, the RF example just seems to work, i dont recall you doing an pre orders to be honest. But im glad you diddn't screw any up .

i hate to make this a case of one bad apple spoils the bunch but it comes to a point where you have to decide

are we gonna make this a buyer beware situation

or a Here are the rules and regulations regarding pre orders.

Who's to say the deal has gone bad on these frames? The poor guy has been tried and convicted because a few individuals have stirred the pot against him. (One in particular because of personal feelings.)

I do understand people have invested money here and are concerned about their return. But NOBODY forced anybody to send him money. It would seem that everybody who did send him money, agreed to his terms without question. So, as far as I'm concerned it's a personal problem.

I'm not part of "said" problem, so I don't like being dragged into it inadvertently. Everyone willingly did business with this guy on his terms, I chose not to. Personally I had never heard of him or his company, never seen any feedback on him to give me a clue of what kind of person he was, so I decided to set back and see what happened. The outcome remains to be seen.

The real point I'm trying to make here is that credibility is earned over time not overnight. It took a LONG time before people started buying my stuff. I first had to build a good reputation, it didn't matter what I had to sell or even what it cost. People didn't know me and weren't going to send me money until they felt I could be trusted. So, I've put my time in to build a small reputable (I hope) business, now someone wants to regulate how I operate? Sorry but I take offense to that.

Now, if T.K. decided to regulate how I operate here on HIS forum that would be different. Because it is his to say so, not anybody else's.

In a nut shell you guys took a gamble on an a risky project, now you have to live with it! My instinct tells me you will get what you paid for. Give the guy a chance to prove himself one way or another...

[luke]

I expect Luke lives by pre-orders. It's just really helps to know what you're doing.

Well not exactly, I don't always do them. Most of the time it's just for piece of mind that I'll get my money back for material and supply's. If I can at least do that up front I figure the stuff will eventually sell... ;)

[rabidchihauhau]

I think I said elsewhere in the thread (or maybe it was a different thread) that this discussion was really a metaphor or standin for "another" discussion.

As to who the heck I think I am and why do I think I can control what you can do on the site - FORUM POST, duh.

I may make Tom laugh from time to time, but I certainly don't have any undue influence over what he or the moderators do or don't do here. Several people raised the issue of what can be done about "this kind of thing" and I offered one set of possible rules that would address the issue. Now, please explain to me - why should I/we have to do what you want us to do?

***

I was not trying to indict the business practices or reputation of people here who have done a fine job of producing custom product and keeping their (rather opinionated and vocal) customers happy. Perhaps I should have added to the suggestion that some companies should be 'grandfathered' into a special category based on history and reputation, a 'gold star' club, that others could be moved into as time and circumstances warrant.

This would have an additional benefit to both buyers and sellers, since some sellers would stand out, and other sellers would have an example to both be guided by and to strive for.

BTW, I don't personally equate 'custom order' with 'pre-order'. In my mind, a 'pre-order' is payment up front for a production run, however limited the run may be. A 'custom' order is a one-off - hey, can you build me this? - and necessarily entails some kind of down-payment or deposit. Not a pre-order.

[luke]

I think I said elsewhere in the thread (or maybe it was a different thread) that this discussion was really a metaphor or standin for "another" discussion.

As to who the heck I think I am and why do I think I can control what you can do on the site - FORUM POST, duh.

I may make Tom laugh from time to time, but I certainly don't have any undue influence over what he or the moderators do or don't do here. Several people raised the issue of what can be done about "this kind of thing" and I offered one set of possible rules that would address the issue. Now, please explain to me - why should I/we have to do what you want us to do?

***

I was not trying to indict the business practices or reputation of people here who have done a fine job of producing custom product and keeping their (rather opinionated and vocal) customers happy. Perhaps I should have added to the suggestion that some companies should be 'grandfathered' into a special category based on history and reputation, a 'gold star' club, that others could be moved into as time and circumstances warrant.

This would have an additional benefit to both buyers and sellers, since some sellers would stand out, and other sellers would have an example to both be guided by and to strive for.

BTW, I don't personally equate 'custom order' with 'pre-order'. In my mind, a 'pre-order' is payment up front for a production run, however limited the run may be. A 'custom' order is a one-off - hey, can you build me this? - and necessarily entails some kind of down-payment or deposit. Not a pre-order.


Fair enough.

Edited for clarity>
One small part I disagree with put nothing I should get "pissy" about.. <

[rabidchihauhau]

wasn't getting pissy.

:)

I also forgot to mention the benefit of the gold star club to buyers; its an instant recognition that the seller has earned a high degree of trust and enjoys a solid and on-going positive reputation.

Personally, I still see the main issue with pre-orders (not for custom work) in being the inherent unfairness of a business asking customers to take the risk; if you are in business and don't understand that it works on 'risk', you shouldn't be in business. (There are of course all kinds of exceptions - for instance, the hobbyist who just does it for fun), but in general, when you go to into business you take YOUR money, invest it as you see fit and hope to get it back through your own efforts. Pre-orders make me say 'what the heck do I need you for'? I'd rather find a local machinist and pay him directly to do the job for me - even if it means a few extra dollars spent. That way, I get exactly what I want and am not letting my money be held hostage by someone who obviously doesn't have enough confidence in their own abilities to sell in a competitive market place; and that makes me question their ability to do anything business wise.

[luke]

[QUOTE=rabidchihauhau]wasn't getting pissy.

No-No I meant I just disagreed with a small part of your previous post, but it was no big deal. I wasn't going to get worked up about it. (Like I did previously)

:)


Personally, I still see the main issue with pre-orders (not for custom work) in being the inherent unfairness of a business asking customers to take the risk; if you are in business and don't understand that it works on 'risk', you shouldn't be in business.

I completely agree with this. The only time I do pre-orders for production runs is when I really don't think the part will sell but a few guys are bugging me to make them. Even then really all I'm looking for is enough pre-orders to cover the cost of materials and supplies.

[rabidchihauhau]

wow, lookie there. :) ies all around...

the only problem with THAT is, without dissension, there's very little to talk about, lol.

[going_home]

Wow I didnt think I was going to be able to find this thread.
It was on page 5......

Anyone notice the pneu frames are gone off the G-Force site now ?

http://www.gforcepb.com/securestore/c377956782.2.html

:confused:

[punkncat]

Well, according to the "word on the street" this initial run is going to be the only one. Supposedly there is word directly from Garf, whatever his name is, that he will not do another, or if he does it is sometime in the unforseeable future.
The preorder is closed as well.

So if the preorder is done and there will be no other run, why keep it up on the website?

At this point I am just curious as to whether anyone is going to get anything. His amended timeframe is only two weeks away, and as of the last time I checked the thread there seemed to be a lot left to be done in that amount of time.
I hope for those involved that it does turn out ok. A lot of good people have money on the line with a dealer who has no track record, and as may be evident by this threads very existance, in my mind questionable ethics. Eh you know the saying "business not personal".

I just cannot see after this timeframe how a profit out of this could be possible. The optimistic release date and underestimation of AO's collective patience were the undoing of this product.

[TnDeathInc]

Edit.......... for flaming, dont do it again you are warned. Please post with some respect here. Thank You.

[punkncat]

I spite of what some people think, my raising questions about certain things is not always just about stirring up drama.

Do I enjoy that as well? Sure, sometimes, but...well I am not going back through all that again.

Sorry that you find me irritating there TN. Not all that I do is simply to piss you or anyone else off.

[TnDeathInc]

dont worry, ill let you shoot it if i get it there gimpy. /hug

[punkncat]

dont worry, ill let you shoot it if i get it there gimpy. /hug

Well, ok then. I feel better already.

[TnDeathInc]

friend, let me know a few weeks out when you get to go play im not against dribing out to ga.

[punkncat]

friend, let me know a few weeks out when you get to go play im not against dribing out to ga.

I will be sure and give a bit more notice next time. It will more than likely be in late March or so. Last time I hurt my knee a bit, so I have to strengthen up some more.
I think Mann expressed some intrest as well. Might have to contact Kruger and see what his field is looking like. With some of the folks interested....hmm, new thread time.

[Spider-TW]

It's possible that the real winners of this whole thing are the pre-order customers. Garf may be in a bind one way or another and can't make a career out making frames, but if he delivers on his obligations the owners of his limited frames may have some nice one-offs, made all the more rare by the situation.

[Chronobreak]

It's possible that the real winners of this whole thing are the pre-order customers. Garf may be in a bind one way or another and can't make a career out making frames, but if he delivers on his obligations the owners of his limited frames may have some nice one-offs, made all the more rare by the situation.

i know those of us that jumped on the order hope thats the case, but its still not definite when or if we will get a tangible product.

still ahvent seen a final version either..

[hitech]

OK, How many have I screwed up?

Do tell..

Pre-orders?!? Hell, I get free stuff!

Then again, I guess paying up front for custom work is like a preorder. And you did claim your screwed it up, but I still can't tell how! :wow: :rofl:

:cheers:

[luke]

Pre-orders?!? Hell, I get free stuff!

Then again, I guess paying up front for custom work is like a preorder. And you did claim your screwed it up, but I still can't tell how! :wow: :rofl:

:cheers:

Hey Hitech, hows it hanging?

Took a second to absorb that, I wasn't sure what you were taking about at first, that was a long timeago! LOL.

I guess it wasn't a goof up if you can't fine it! :D

[Chronobreak]

anyone waiting for rabid to jump in and say "i told you so" :rofl:

[warbeak2099]

anyone waiting for rabid to jump in and say "i told you so" :rofl:

EDIT.................for flaming. You are warned. Please post with some respect Here. Thank you

[going_home]

EDIT.................for flaming. You are warned. Please post with some respect Here. Thank you


Ok I'll try it again .

Anyone notice the G-Force site is missing the pneumag frame now ?

http://www.gforcepb.com/securestore/c377956782.2.html

"Pneumatic frame for the Automags can now be ordered here from our web store."

Does this worry anyone ?

[rabidchihauhau]

anyone waiting for rabid to jump in and say "i told you so" :rofl:


Nope.

[Chronobreak]

Nope.


nope, or not yet?

we got 8 days still :p

[hitech]

Hey Hitech, hows it hanging?

Took a second to absorb that, I wasn't sure what you were taking about at first, that was a long timeago! LOL.

I guess it wasn't a goof up if you can't fine it! :D

I wondered if you'd have any idea what I was talking about. And yeah, I'd swear in court that they are perfect. I still love that whole warp/flatline setup. It's the only thing I have never tried to change. :headbang:

:cheers:

[rabidchihauhau]

chrono,

I'm not the kind of guy that says "I told you so". I just make another notch in the bang stick and sit around with a smug, excrement-eating grin on my face.

and I never jump the gun on ITYSs, since I really hate egg on the face.

(None of the above is entirely true either...)

The above is all in fun. I accomplished my goal earlier when a certain thread was moved into the proper forum.

I can't really lose on this one: either ITYS or future IP litigation will justify my position, so...

[rabidchihauhau]

9 days Chrono. Leap year.

I'll call it a split-decision if something happens on the 29th...

[Chronobreak]

he said theyl ship on or before the 28th, and i hate leap year, its an excuse for a bad calendar

if your reffering to BE doing anything as per the ptp/be arbitration, i think we both know they arent in that position right know...

[rabidchihauhau]

again - NOPE.

[punkncat]

Frames yet?

Seems like another deadline is coming up..... :argh:

[Dawg047]

I know for those who ordered the G-Force frames, it could be a big issue but hey, that is why I built my own Pneu-Mag frame. I honestly don't understand what the big deal is. If people get the frames, good for them. If people don't get them, it is not the end of the world. They would get there money back I 'm sure and if they didn't, that would be a big deal but, the G-Force frames are not the only thing out there. Lately, so many people have been building there own frames. They work just as well. I just don't see what the big deal about the whole G-Force frame issue is. G-Force frames look very nice and look to be a quality product. If people want one, I'm sure they will get one. If not, then not. They are just Pneumag frames though. It is not like we have never seen one. I thnk the real issue is people are jealous about the G-Force frames. I think some people have invested too much time and money in building there homebrews and then the G-Force Frame comes out with a very reasonably priced production frame and it upset some people. I think these people thought they were unique and that G-Force took that away. Well, those people need to stop there crap and get over it. G-Force is a great company and I am sure they know what they are doing. Alot of people think that G-Force is some basement runned operation. They are not. They are a company with facilities and I'm sure they know what they are doing. If not, than they made a mistake and every company does. It is hard not to in this world anymore. So, I hope you guys get your frames. If not, then it is not a matter of someone saying "I told you so". It is a matter of dealing with it and moving on.