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

[craltal]

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

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

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

[RogueFactor]

You mean this?

No, their first one was even before that.

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

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

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

[MANN]

You mean this?

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

/Going to get another.

[craltal]

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

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

[Lohman446]

How is a clamping feedneck patientable?

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

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

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

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

[MANN]

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

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

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

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

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

[DaFin]

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


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

[Lohman446]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MANN]

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

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

[Lohman446]

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

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

[RRfireblade]

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

[RogueFactor]

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

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

[rabidchihauhau]

that's the obviousness doctrine.

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

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

lol

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

[MANN]

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

Sad but true.

[RogueFactor]

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

That would be for a judge to decide. Prior art not submitted/reviewed in evaluation of a patent, is one example to disprove this statement. Another would be documented Transaction History of the patent itself.

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

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

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

Shens.