G-Force/PTP patent issue?

[punkncat]

How is it that Garf claims he has a US patent on a product that it would seem apparent that PTP controls?

I know that there was some other company that wanted to bring this product to market, was stopped by PTP and was unable to negotiate the details.

It has come out on another forum that there was the possiblity of some letter sent to G-Force by PTP concering this issue. (edit- I confused a quote stating that IP was supposedly to be addressed with a letter having been sent. Read second page thx)
When I posed the question I was told to "go bug someone else" by Garf and the contents of that question were quickly deleted from the (frame) thread. (explained below and edited)

This is a real issue. If these guys are illegally taking this frame into production then what happens with PTP's vested intrest?
How is it that two different companies have a patent on a seemingly similar product?

I don't think this is a invalid question. I feel it needs to be truthfully answered, without being told to "go away". This "head in the sand" approach is less than ethical.

Just because people are anxious to get a product doesn't make it right to avoid the possible implications or responsibilites.

[AO Moderation Team]

Now you have YOUR own thread and dont have to disrupt the other one. :)

[punkncat]

Now you have YOUR own thread and dont have to disrupt the other one. :)

Simple enough. Thank you sir(s).

[p8ntball72]

Well now that PTP "won" in the brass eagle case, I'd assume that they have plenty of revenue to challenge G-force.

Or they could invest that money in developing new product, acquiring old intellectual product, or Retire... depending on the amount of money they received..

going off of paintball history, I predict they will release nothing and fill their bank accounts with funds from companies that have.

[punkncat]

I find this snippit from an article on 68cal. particularly intruiging...

The Pneumatic Trigger patents are a case in point. While Pro-Team has been wrestling with JT Sports, several other people have been issued similar patents that Pro-Team believes are reliant on its own; meaning that if someone were to purchase or license those other patents, they�d still be infringing on Pro-Teams'.

Seems to me like the ones of you who manage to get this frame will be a lucky few.

[evade]

Patent systems are evil. The us patent office issues conflicting patents all the time. Whose patent is older?

[Zone Drifter]

Well, Isn't G-force based in Canada? And if so, do US patents still apply? I'm probably wrong on that, but I don't know anything about how US patents are implemented in other countries.

[punkncat]

Well, Isn't G-force based in Canada? And if so, do US patents still apply? I'm probably wrong on that, but I don't know anything about how US patents are implemented in other countries.

I have posed that same question elsewhere, but was told here by Garf that he has a US patent. I know there was some other big issue on this between (Angel) and SP. MacDev who is in another country supposedly signed a royalty agreement. Evolve just quit selling frames here.
It would seem the country of sale would be the important factor based on that.

[Chronobreak]

who knows, unles anyone here is a patent lawyer

those invovled obviously wont speak out.

my views

everyone seems to have their own version, Gforce, Deadlywind, PTP and possibly others.

ptp apparently revised theirs several times over a long period, as far as i know gforce got theirs done fairly quickly and with little or no revisions.

same with deadlywind i belive.

there is plenty of room for speculation but the broadness of ptp's and the long timeframe for it to be completed.

this patent was also "sold" perhaps with others a while back to a few large companies who have

the whole deal is sketchy, i and i would hate to see a company like gforce that sacked up and gave us something we wanted be involved in legal battles which could halt or delay further production.

[punkncat]

Consider that any time you make something from scratch it will take longer to come up with a trouble free design. When you stand on the shoulders of that which has already been made its a whole heck of a lot easier.

While it may not seem right to "control" a product through a patent (like SP,etc.) it is no more ethical to produce a product on (what seems) an obviously questionable patent either.
It may come out that the patents differ enough that they truly are seperate.

[muzungu_mbaya]

patent law

A US patent protects your product in the US only. It also means that someone in another country may knock off your product and sell it in that country, but if they want to import it to the US, then they would have to pay you royalties. When filing for a US patent, you may also file in other countries, but most file only in the US and Europe. Developing nations tend to have very poor laws regarding IP, if they have any at all. China is a notorious example of this.

To combat the foreign filing loophole, the provisional patent was created to give US filers an additional year of protection in the US that foreign filers had since anyone filing a foreign patent had to file in the US within a year, but they could claim their original filing date, netting a 21 year patent in the US.

[Smoothice]

Consider that any time you make something from scratch it will take longer to come up with a trouble free design. When you stand on the shoulders of that which has already been made its a whole heck of a lot easier.

They have not created a new frame for the automag. They have modified their existing frame to work on a automag.

While it may not seem right to "control" a product through a patent (like SP,etc.) it is no more ethical to produce a product on (what seems) an obviously questionable patent either.
It may come out that the patents differ enough that they truly are seperate.

Gforce has been producing fully pneumatic markers for some time as I had read. Something about a 68 super. Lets assume they had a patent on that. If they just modify their existing patented product to sit on a automag rail without changing its design then maybe their product is not infringing on any other patents.

[rawbutter]

They have not created a new frame for the automag. They have modified their existing frame to work on a automag. Gforce has been producing fully pneumatic markers for some time as I had read. Something about a 68 super. Lets assume they had a patent on that. If they just modify their existing patented product to sit on a automag rail without changing its design then maybe their product is not infringing on any other patents.

This is what I thought... the 68 Super wasn't pulled from the shelf because of patent issues... it just didn't sell well, I seem to remember.

I would love to hear an answer to this question directly from G-Force, however.

[Chronobreak]

well thus far garf has been irritated at any claims his patent/s may be invalid

infact hes seemed to brush them aside and say "we have a us patent" and "i am well aware of the legal issues" when he first joined the forums.

so he has alot of faith in his patent and doesnt seem worried about it.

[craltal]

As the 68 super has been around for a fe wyears and g-force has been quite open about their products and intentions of bringing their frame to market, if there were any legal issues they would have been addressed before now. There are plenty of people associated with PTP on this site that if there were legal issues, they would be being addressed without the need for mindless speculation.

Garf even answered the question when first posed. Albeit, a bit tersely, but he answered it. That is more than sufficient and completely understandable considering he's not a patent attorney. I know that I wouldn't want to get into a legal discussion on an open forum when it involves the company I work for.