So I kinda get whats goin on...

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • wetwrks
    Splatting since '85

    • Jun 2007
    • 1828

    #16
    Originally posted by SR_matt
    im pretty sure that because of the fact that wdp had partial ownership all the C+D orders were voided since both parties would have to agree to want it, or at least at this point they have to both agree to it. i remember a big thing about the ordres being null and void but it was a while ago

    -matt
    While that may be true (that the C&D were voided), it still doesn't change the fact that the patent is owned by someone (in this case SP & WDP) and if another company ignores that ownership and produces a similar product without permission they can be sued. Now the owners may chose not to persue it, but that is probably unlikely.

    Comment

    • SR_matt
      Santa Sucks
      • Jun 2006
      • 1072

      #17
      yes and no, many things are patented and not enforced just so that they can be used and improved upon more easily by people who just want to better an industry. with the way the ownership is now of that patent wdp and sp have to both enforce it as one which is had to do. IIRC WDP didnt care much about enforcing it they just wanted to make sure that they didnt get C&D when they had part of the patent and now they really dont care much.

      i thought i remembered Tom patented the HPA concept for paintball (i could be wrong here ) but that has not been enforced

      -matt

      Comment

      • custar
        Registered User
        • Jan 2003
        • 1238

        #18
        Originally posted by SR_matt
        yes and no, many things are patented and not enforced just so that they can be used and improved upon more easily by people who just want to better an industry. with the way the ownership is now of that patent wdp and sp have to both enforce it as one which is had to do. IIRC WDP didnt care much about enforcing it they just wanted to make sure that they didnt get C&D when they had part of the patent and now they really dont care much.

        i thought i remembered Tom patented the HPA concept for paintball (i could be wrong here ) but that has not been enforced

        -matt
        You raised some very interesting points to which I have not paid much attention until you raised them. After the decision in the SP vs. WDP lawsuit, SP, WDP, and Dye reached some agreements which allowed SP to make spool valve markers without further legal action (Dye had the spool valve patent), SP and Dye can use a programmable board (WDP's patent), and Dye can make electro markers. I wonder if part of the agreement between SP and WDP allowed SP to enforce WDP's portion of the of the jointly-owned patent. I doubt we will ever truly know since most such agreements have strict non-disclosure clauses, but that would be an explanation for SP being able to sue KEE by itself over KEE"s alleged violation of SP's blasted electro patent. Interesting stuff.

        custar

        Comment

        • craltal
          MCB, baby...
          • Oct 2003
          • 1452

          #19
          Originally posted by custar
          You raised some very interesting points to which I have not paid much attention until you raised them. After the decision in the SP vs. WDP lawsuit, SP, WDP, and Dye reached some agreements which allowed SP to make spool valve markers without further legal action (Dye had the spool valve patent), SP and Dye can use a programmable board (WDP's patent), and Dye can make electro markers. I wonder if part of the agreement between SP and WDP allowed SP to enforce WDP's portion of the of the jointly-owned patent. I doubt we will ever truly know since most such agreements have strict non-disclosure clauses, but that would be an explanation for SP being able to sue KEE by itself over KEE"s alleged violation of SP's blasted electro patent. Interesting stuff.

          custar
          In regards to the KEE suit, WDP wouldn't need to be involved in a suit over the patent they have partial ownership of since either can enforce their patent against infringement

          Comment

          • trevorjk
            <S>WooLooLoo</S>
            • Dec 2002
            • 4324

            #20
            i was under the impression that the X-Mag was discontinued due to cost of manufacturing since AGD-E raised prices on the body , ect ect. the E-mag story stands to be about right
            t33kyboy "So if a cat is dropped from 11 inches, it will most likely die."

            Comment

            • kruger
              KRUGER GRIPS

              • Jun 2004
              • 1915

              #21
              That is true, but to build another one, you have to deal with the patent issues.
              WOW, sigs. Havent seen these in a while here on AO.

              Comment

              • LK-13
                Confused on purpose!
                • Dec 2006
                • 584

                #22
                so what about Tippmann? don't they still make e-grips for the A5?
                what about http://www.goapeonline.com/ they still make programmable boards, and sell solenoids/micro switches and modify e-grips.

                both Kingmann and PMI both still seem to be making e-triggers,
                am i missing something?
                the market seems to have as many electros as it ever did so are they all bowing to SP or are they rebelling till they get served notice?

                if i build an e-trigger myself for my own gun will i get a C&D?
                what if i start customizing guns?

                Comment

                Working...