G-Force/PTP patent issue?

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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

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.