G-Force/PTP patent issue?

[RogueFactor]

No problem punkcat.

Just in case someone doesnt want to read page 2:

(http://www.automags.org/forums/showp...4&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?

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.

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...J&dq=7,210,473

Nuf Sed

I can only think Garf must be

[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.... 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

And I think this is the PTP patent...

US Patent 6802305

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...BAJ&dq=7210473
PTP http://www.google.com/patents?id=2Rw...BAJ&dq=6802305

[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