G-Force/PTP patent issue?

[ThePixelGuru]

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 one not covered and the 'mag frame covered? Thanks.

rabidchihauhau, I'd still like an answer to this if you get time and are at liberty to discuss it. Thanks.

[rabidchihauhau]

rabidchihauhau, I'd still like an answer to this if you get time and are at liberty to discuss it. Thanks.

Sorry, wasn't ignoring you.

I can only provide you with non-specific examples to answer this question. Sorry, but that's the way it has to be.

"Based on" is a problematic word, to begin with. For example; if the initial IP were for an entire system integrated into a particular design, and the scope of the claims did not cover a bolt-on aftermarket embodiment, it is entirely possible that the latter is now public domain - because its an 'obvious' design (especially now considering that you have the entire marker to base it off of).

The holder of the initial IP could probably make a (VERY EXPENSIVE) case that they ought to get credit for the obvious embodiment of a bolt-on version, but it wouldn't be a slam-dunk. There's all kinds of twisty-turney special rules that cover disclosure, and the intent of the disclosure as written and the relationship of which is disclosed in the drawing as compared to what it is the description of the device, etc., etc. They mostly work out to the concept of: if you should have been aware of it when submitting the application but didn't include it in the application, its your loss.

Similarly, it is entirely possible for the second generation version (the 'based-on' version) to be based-on in concept, but not in execution. For example: if you are building a whole marker, there's no requirement for placing an LPR in any particular location, while in building only a frame, the LPR has to be accomodated in or on the frame itself.

I haven't checked recently, but my recollection is that the two patents you are referring to are NOT divisionals or continuations-in-part of each other. Therefore, in determining issues such as infringement, both are treated entirely separately.

My analysis of a comparison of the holdings of the two companies (and ok - if you want to yell bias, go ahead) is that PTP's IP is being infringed. They certainly have the prior date(s).

The following scenario is also possible (although I only offer it as yet another example of how convoluted this IP stuff is and am NOT suggesting in any way the it applies or is related to PTP's current circumstances:

Company A gets a patent for a device
Company B gets a patent for a similar device
Company A gets another patent for a variation of A1

Company B discovers that A1 infringes on their patent. They press their case.
Company A reluctantly comes to the conclusion that B is correct - so far as their second patent is concerned. But then they take a look at their first patent and realize that they think B's patent infringes on that. They press their demands and turn out to be right also.

So A2 infringes on B1, which infringes on A1.

Unfortunately for Company A, what they really want to build is the A2 device and B has told them that if they press their case over A1, they'll press their case over A2. Company A may still end up having to enter into some kind of agreement with B.

I hope that goes a little way towards answering your question.

[rabidchihauhau]

Wow!

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.

First of all, I was taking pride in a left-handed compliment with that statement, not admitting to being like they are. What I was really saying was "hey look, other people think I'm as good at what I do as I think I am." Tongue in cheek of course.

Secondly, in that statement and elsewhere in other posts I have described my process and the rules I operate under ad infinitum. Those rules do not in any way step over any kind of moral or legal line. In fact, they were specifically designed to be "moral", because that is what the owners of PTP insisted on.

These included no fallacious applications just to grab territory in order to make other people have to license, no applications for publicly disclosed devices that we nevertheless knew the patent office would grant, no subterranean patents, no buying up other IP to corner a market, no restrictive licensing agreements, etc., etc.

If you put those criteria in front of the IP attorneys at any major firm that has large IP holdings, they'd laugh at you.

So yes, I do think that my actions on behalf of PTP were BOTH moral AND legal, and I think that PTP's scars are more than enough evidence of their moral character as a company. I'd post a list of products to show just how badly they've been ripped off over the years by, but its so extensive that I'd then have to get into issues of why they allowed such things to happen over and over. The real answer to that question is: because they're moral and ethical and supportive and trusting and kind and understanding and they'd give you the shirts of their backs in a freezing blizzard, but I know from your statement that you'd never believe such a thing.

[Smoothice]

but I know from your statement that you'd never believe such a thing.

My statement was in regard to something you had posted. Which was not read or taken out of context. But the spin you have put on this reply is certainly warmer and fuzzier.

[rabidchihauhau]

smoothice,

sorry if I misread your intent. However, your latest comment also comes across as snide. Intended or not, that's how it strikes me.

There's no spin. Anyone who knows me knows I have a sarcastic sense of humor.

[punkncat]

Here I will up this thread for you rabid. Hop up on your soapbox all you want.

[rabidchihauhau]

Here I will up this thread for you rabid. Hop up on your soapbox all you want.

And now I will, seeing as how the G-Force thread was correctly moved into the dealers forum.

[rabidchihauhau]

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

Thanks for the clarification. Some contend that I 'spin' things everytime I put words to paper. Its nice to see someone who absolutely has no incentive verify the statements.

Some are hinting that things may be happening. Please keep us informed.

[Chronobreak]

maybe AO needs a NO MORE pre order rule?

i think thatd solve most our problems and bickering .

o wait this isnt PBN right?

[rabidchihauhau]

yep. best way for small companies to get in trouble is to try and boost their cash flow by taking pre-orders for non-existent product. Then they end up running behind their cash flow and then customers end up getting 'delayed delivery' emails...

[punkncat]

yep. best way for small companies to get in trouble is to try and boost their cash flow by taking pre-orders for non-existent product. Then they end up running behind their cash flow and then customers end up getting 'delayed delivery' emails...

Yeah, you make a preorder price based on your predictions for cost and predicted delivery date. Then lump on the redo's from not having fully tried and tested your design before rushing it to market. Add on top of that cost the labor of every day late that the project goes and before you know it you are in the hole. Not too long after that people quit getting updates and product barely trickles out, if at all.
A lesson that you would think many people on AO would have learned over and over. Apparently not....

What is this project at this point...two, three months later that initially projected? Glad I am not the one who has to explain that fubar......

[Chronobreak]

i hope your not reffering to just gforce on this one

im sure DW may have done a pre order if he ever made frames.

and the thread is long gone so i cant check but i believe the ptp frame included some sort of pre order or pre defined amount as ell.

im still debating on asking my money back as i feel i have the right to since they broke the payment agreement 2-3 weeks ago when they went over the initial 8 week timeframe.

i dont want to start a domino effect but im very big on not liking my $ sitting in other peoples banks without anything to show for it.

i dodged the tag fiasco, i resisted the devilsden, and steered away from logics Em frames


why o why did i bite the hook on this one?

hopefuly it wasnt the worst i couldve done

[punkncat]

No definatly not just one vendor has pulled much worse than we have seen out of Gforce (at this point). That is why I am suprized so many people jumped on board with a company that has NO track record for producing....

Last I read the planned release has been pushed back to February? Am I right on that? So at that point barring no other problems between now and then, it will be at least 6-7 weeks behind. Thats a whole lot of paycheck added to the cost to manufacture.

And once again I may be wrong, but I seem to remember reading somewhere else that the patent issue is not by any means settled....and not neccesarily from PTP is the problem coming. Going to be a hard deal for everyone except the lawyers...

[rabidchihauhau]

I can't speak for any other company other than my own and, to some degree, PTP.

I know that way back in the day, when I partnered in a company in NJ called Performance Paintball (89-91 or so), we did pre-orders with 50% deposit in order to test the introduction of new product lines.

Eventually this turned around and bit us - we'd used pre-order money to bridge a temporary cash shortfall and it snowballed. No one lost any money (refunded or product shipped) but it wasn't fun and a good lesson learned.

So far as PTP is concerned, the policy was always 'no pre-orders'. The policy remains no pre-orders. If I remember correctly, they asked for those who were interested and would be placing an order to sign up to a list - but didn't request cash in. This was a decent way to determine if the machine time should be scheduled and whether the materials should be purchased or not.

PTP also doesn't charge someone's credit card until the order is out the door. Many companies charge cards as soon as the order is received, which can lead to the same issues as cash-in-advance orders or pre-orders.

The bottom line I think is this: If you think you have a product that is going to sell (after due-diligence on market research, cost analysis, market comparisons, advertising, etc) - you take money out of your pocket, build it and then sell. That's why being in business is fundamentally a 'risk'. Doing it any other way asks your customers to take the risk. Everyone would love to be in a no-risk business, but they don't exist. There's exposure of some degree or another everywhere and, if you want to be the one to benefit, you should be the one to take the risk. That risk should be money - not good faith or reputation.

Most people would understand market delivery delays when expressed in terms of: the parts I needed are backordered or, prices went up from my supplier - as long as they're legit and don't become regular excuses. (If they do, you and your business need to start solving those issues). On the other hand, saying to someone 'I can't ship because I spent your money paying the light bill and now can't order materials' is a sure way to get everyone hopping mad.

Risk the money, not the reputation. Don't try and circumvent customary business practices that have been perfected over ten thousand years, we have them because they've been proven and reproven over that long a period of time.

[RogueFactor]

Pre-orders when done correctly work well.