Cardinal_Biggles
08-03-2003, 02:57 AM
It's an evil and cunning plan, but it would only be fair. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Well, obviously SP wants paintball companies to patent ideas that others have embraced. I read djbea's post, which entailed Doc's words of wisdom from the WGP Press, and it gave me an idea.
Posted on July 4, 2003 at www.WGPPRESS.com
The Honeymoon is over.
by Doc Nickel aka WarLord
In the early eighties, Bob Gurnsey passed up a chance to patent all paintball- the very idea of the game- since it would stifle the nascent sport and keep it from growing.
In the late eighties, Tippmann declines to patent the CO2 tank "pin valve", since doing so would prevent it's widespread use and adoption, and Tippmann knew it was far safer and more useful than any of the other cobbled options players were using.
A year or two later, Glenn Palmer passes up the chance to patent pneumatic automation- the method by which an Autococker, Typhoon and Blazer work. He wasn't interested in keeping a stranglehold on the idea, and wanted to see it used and improved.
In the very early nineties, FASTech declines to fight PMI over the stacked-valve blowback semiauto patent. This opens the door to low-cost semiautos, which by themselves are singularly responsible for a major percentage of paintball's growth through the ninties.
About that same time, Tom Kaye refuses to patent the regulated nitrogen system, since he felt it was a superior power source over CO2. Without the HPA systems, our current high-speed, high-ROF markers and ultra-stable regulators simply wouldn't have worked.
Why doesn't Tippmann patent the pin valve, Palmer patent pneumatic automation, and Tom patent the regulated nitrogen system, then only sue Smart Parts. Give all other companies free royalties, but charge the pants off of SP! I know they manufacture a regulated nitrogen system, and a pin valve, and the pneumatic automation is a gimme. It would at least be enough to put them out of business.
This idea may be morally wrong, and it might be impossible due to patent laws, which I am largely unaware of, but it sure would be just desserts. Opinions?
Biggles
Posted on July 4, 2003 at www.WGPPRESS.com
The Honeymoon is over.
by Doc Nickel aka WarLord
In the early eighties, Bob Gurnsey passed up a chance to patent all paintball- the very idea of the game- since it would stifle the nascent sport and keep it from growing.
In the late eighties, Tippmann declines to patent the CO2 tank "pin valve", since doing so would prevent it's widespread use and adoption, and Tippmann knew it was far safer and more useful than any of the other cobbled options players were using.
A year or two later, Glenn Palmer passes up the chance to patent pneumatic automation- the method by which an Autococker, Typhoon and Blazer work. He wasn't interested in keeping a stranglehold on the idea, and wanted to see it used and improved.
In the very early nineties, FASTech declines to fight PMI over the stacked-valve blowback semiauto patent. This opens the door to low-cost semiautos, which by themselves are singularly responsible for a major percentage of paintball's growth through the ninties.
About that same time, Tom Kaye refuses to patent the regulated nitrogen system, since he felt it was a superior power source over CO2. Without the HPA systems, our current high-speed, high-ROF markers and ultra-stable regulators simply wouldn't have worked.
Why doesn't Tippmann patent the pin valve, Palmer patent pneumatic automation, and Tom patent the regulated nitrogen system, then only sue Smart Parts. Give all other companies free royalties, but charge the pants off of SP! I know they manufacture a regulated nitrogen system, and a pin valve, and the pneumatic automation is a gimme. It would at least be enough to put them out of business.
This idea may be morally wrong, and it might be impossible due to patent laws, which I am largely unaware of, but it sure would be just desserts. Opinions?
Biggles