Soon you will be supporting Smart Parts when you buy a Quick-Release feedneck...

[robnix]

If so then it would be the first time. That's the point I'm trying to make but everybody seems to be ignoring it. There are exactly zero companies that pay them a royality for a non-electro SP patent. Is anybody really trying to say the fact that they've never done this in the past....somehow is evidence that they will suddently start now? That's nonsensical...those two statements are, by definition, the exact opposite.

That's the point I'm trying to make> If you produce an electro marker or top line board upgrade, then yes SP will come after you. If that's the case then you will certainly have to deal with them. There's many people out there that have dealt with it in the past, nobody is disputing that. Like I just pointed out, I'm one of them. And again, I don't endorce it nor enjoy it, I bear the blunt personally, money out of my pocket and all of that crying...although it's not the point of this thread.

On the other hand, if the past is to be used as an example, so long as you're not delving into the world of electronics you will likely be fine. Of course you're never totally protected from that type of thing, but if smart parts came after you then it would be the FIRST time that has ever happened. If you'd like to be afraid of this happenning for the first time then that's of course your option. But if it were me then I wouldn't. And let me reiterate this for again...I've already dealt with this. I'm not outside of the situation here.

It would be at least the second time, it seems part of the agreement that Kee made with SP killed off the Revolver kit.

http://www.warpig.com/newswire/prwire_releases/1181915124756.shtml

[Ydna]

Kee no longer selling something due to a related settlement is a separate issue from smart parts collecting royality fees on it. That's a situation that begins with their electro patent (which has oh so many previous precidences) and ending with a whole slew of other things. Sucks, yes.

SP has "threatened" many companies for things such as their barrel patents, but companies choose to ignore it, or they don't...theri choice. Good choice, bad choice, who knows. But it's eerily similar to companies ignoring SP's patent on closed bolt electro markers, or ignoring their patents on inline poppet marker arrangement, or their patent on the specific body porting styles described in the old Shocker claims...the list goes on. So many of it applies elsewhere, but so many of it is trivial.

is the feedneck trivial? I say yes, you say no (or at least rogue did), that's cool with me.

[RogueFactor]

is the feedneck trivial? I say no, you say yes (or at least rogue did), that's cool with me.

You got that backwards. You said it was small fry, small fry= trivial. A feedneck that is broadly used on nearly every marker these days is anything but trivial. I believe its big-fry, and stated so.

[Ydna]

oops, you're right (I edited it to make it better). too much acetylene in my head right now methinks.

Every marker does use a feedneck, but this patent doesn't apply to every feedneck (wait for one of those asian no-name developers to put a patent on that...lol). I mean, many markers and developers do use clamping necks...but much less use lever-clamping ones.

[robnix]

Kee no longer selling something due to a related settlement is a separate issue from smart parts collecting royality fees on it. That's a situation that begins with their electro patent (which has oh so many previous precidences) and ending with a whole slew of other things. Sucks, yes.

SP has "threatened" many companies for things such as their barrel patents, but companies choose to ignore it, or they don't...theri choice. Good choice, bad choice, who knows. But it's eerily similar to companies ignoring SP's patent on closed bolt electro markers, or ignoring their patents on inline poppet marker arrangement, or their patent on the specific body porting styles described in the old Shocker claims...the list goes on. So many of it applies elsewhere, but so many of it is trivial.

is the feedneck trivial? I say yes, you say no (or at least rogue did), that's cool with me.

I never said that this was about royalties, it's about eliminating competition via patents like they did with the barrel kit. What they'll do is use C&D letters which are cheap, or they'll include this part in a bigger lawsuit again, like the barrel kits. They'll force people to stop making them, and profit off having the only lever locking feednecks on the market.

[ThePixelGuru]

Ydna - if Smart Parts intend to enforce this patent, then why would they even bother filing for it? Filing for patents isn't cheap, and patents are worthless if you don't defend them. So what benefit would SP gain from filing for a patent they won't enforce?

[Ydna]

A patent isn't worth much if you don't enforce it, but it doesn't mean it's entirely worthless. Things come with the recognition of owning rights to the claims. You should take a look at their patents and notice which ones aren't used....it's the vast majority, and like I said most of them are for things that weren't even released. (Legion Shocker, adaptive dwell control, touch trigger frame, bolt upgrades that will never be released, outdated products, etc etc).

I never said that this was about royalties, it's about eliminating competition via patents like they did with the barrel kit. What they'll do is use C&D letters which are cheap, or they'll include this part in a bigger lawsuit again, like the barrel kits. They'll force people to stop making them, and profit off having the only lever locking feednecks on the market.

Well, the first thing you have to understand is that a C&D is not the end of the world. I just listed several examples in a previous post of specific instances where SP gave out a boat load of C&D notices, which were all blatently ignored, and nothing ever came of it. What you, as a developer, choose to do with a C&D is entirely your choice, it's not an end-all-be-all thing, nobody knows what'll happen.
Hell, listen I get C&D notices for making parts in my basement. I ignore them every time because those situations are perfectly safe for me. It's not even anybody's business but I have no problem mentioning that to anybody that asked. It's just too laughable!

Anyways, if you're having to deal with SP on a legal basis and they require filing under other patents of theirs, then it's the least of your worries. But that even brings up a different issue...who exactly is going to be under attack here? List off the markers that use a cam-lock feedneck, then list off the companies that already have mutual merchandising agreements with SP. Firstly there's only a half dozen markers that even use them, and secondly they've all signed already. You also brought up the issue of them having the only feedneck on the market...are you saying a cam-lock feedneck opposed to a regular screw-lock one is a product decision that would drive you toward an SP product? I know yoiu're not thinking that.

But it doesn't even matter. Everything here is conditional, speculatory, varies depending on who you're talking about, etc etc. Can't we just wait and see what happens, and be fine until then...

[ThePixelGuru]

A patent isn't worth much if you don't enforce it, but it doesn't mean it's entirely worthless. Things come with the recognition of owning rights to the claims. You should take a look at their patents and notice which ones aren't used....it's the vast majority, and like I said most of them are for things that weren't even released. (Legion Shocker, adaptive dwell control, touch trigger frame, bolt upgrades that will never be released, outdated products, etc etc).

Right, but the patents that you cite as the unenforced ones are products that never made it to market (via SP or anyone else). I don't believe that SP would treat a patent they own for a product that someone else is making money off of the same way that they would treat a patent for a product that doesn't exist. The logical scenario here (in my mind, at least) is that they filed these patents so that in the event that they brought the product to market they could block others from doing the same or get royalties from others for doing the same.

Anyways, if you're having to deal with SP on a legal basis and they require filing under other patents of theirs, then it's the least of your worries. But that even brings up a different issue...who exactly is going to be under attack here? List off the markers that use a cam-lock feedneck, then list off the companies that already have mutual merchandising agreements with SP. Firstly there's only a half dozen markers that even use them, and secondly they've all signed already. You also brought up the issue of them having the only feedneck on the market...are you saying a cam-lock feedneck opposed to a regular screw-lock one is a product decision that would drive you toward an SP product? I know yoiu're not thinking that.

Well, the cam-lock feedneck probably wouldn't be the deciding factor for most people, but to assume that it's not an advantage for SP would be ridiculous. I think the reason that so many of us have a problem with this sort of thing is that we think it's stupid that every old product becomes a new one as soon as it's applied to paintball (in the eyes of the USPTO). Also, I wouldn't think it would be out of character for SP to turn to the companies that have agreements to produce electronic markers and ask them to pay royalties to put cam-lock feednecks on those markers.

[SR_matt]

^^ the thing is though that by combining them they are new ideas/patens/things.

its like a knife with a bottle opener on the spine, nether are new but combined they are a brand new thing.

the only way to get by SP patenting everything is for some one to get it into the free domain listing (which you have to copyright or paten it and then claim it as that but i dont know the exact process)

-matt

[Ydna]

Right, but the patents that you cite as the unenforced ones are products that never made it to market (via SP or anyone else). I don't believe that SP would treat a patent they own for a product that someone else is making money off of the same way that they would treat a patent for a product that doesn't exist. The logical scenario here (in my mind, at least) is that they filed these patents so that in the event that they brought the product to market they could block others from doing the same or get royalties from others for doing the same.

That's the case with some of them, but not all. Of the examples I mentinoed, the only one using a shelved product was from the Legion Shocker patent. It's true that it was filed before the marker was shelved, but it's also very true that even after it was permanently shelved SP continued to invest on more and more patents for it. The situation is that product will never be produced and sold, ever, at least not until the populace stops caring about shooting fast (ie. never).

Just about everything else is a product that was used or sold. The closed bolt issue was based on the Shocker Sport patent (well, the old pVI one, but same thing). The solenoid porting patent was also based on that one. Adaptive dwell control was used on Shocker SFT and Nerve boards for quite some time. All those products were sold and there are many examples of competing things that are out there alongside them, issued C&Ds, and that be the end of it. There are other examples too with other SP patents, such as the Impulse's patent on using a certain size air chamber, valve diameters, etc. or the Ion core upgrade that was shelved due to limiting the rate of fire.

It's kindof like asking why do all teh other paintball patents exist, from companies that don't enforce them. SP isn't the only one filing patents and sitting on them, that's what most other companies do...as every SP hater is so fond of pointing out. It's just that getting a direct return on the patent claims isn't of upmost priority.

[Spider-TW]

Patents on innovation are great. Patents on something you've seen that no one else claims for the sake of controlling the market is pretty stinky.

Cam lock feed necks are a little deal. I wouldn't want SP to make them a big deal.

I dislike the practice of applying for patents for combinations of two common mechanisms, such as cam locks and paintball markers, hose clamps and paintball markers, screws and paintball markers.

Actually, I'm thinking of applying for a patent on a rear truck bumper with a bottle opener on it. Well, front and rear. Well...

[ThePixelGuru]

Just about everything else is a product that was used or sold. The closed bolt issue was based on the Shocker Sport patent (well, the old pVI one, but same thing). The solenoid porting patent was also based on that one. Adaptive dwell control was used on Shocker SFT and Nerve boards for quite some time. All those products were sold and there are many examples of competing things that are out there alongside them, issued C&Ds, and that be the end of it. There are other examples too with other SP patents, such as the Impulse's patent on using a certain size air chamber, valve diameters, etc. or the Ion core upgrade that was shelved due to limiting the rate of fire.

Unless I'm missing something, these things only appeared on Smart Parts products - it seems likely that if anyone else tried to make a marker with these features, they'd get a C&D. I don't see the cam-lock feedneck being any different. The only patents I see that a company just sits on and doesn't do anything with are for products that no one else ever took to market. It's no wonder they didn't enforce these patents; there was no enforcement to be done. Maybe I'm missing something, though: do you know of any patents that Smart Parts holds for a product that someone else produces but hasn't licensed?

[Smart Parts Sean]

I have not bothered to read everything.

The patent paending is for the lever action feed neck. Which we were the first to have one. It debuted on the nerve. The patent is not trying to cover ALL clamping style feednecks.

Hybrid had one come out at the same time as well. We have prior art well before everyone else with ads of the nerve with it on there. Remember the marketing of the nerve was a year before it came out.

We do not make patents a big deal as well. It is the public who reads into things too much or too many "conspiracy" theories going as well. Would you rather have the technology patents going to people who are making the products outside of the US? All of our Q-locks are make in house. We are firm believers in trying to make as much of our product here in the US as well. We have even moved things back to the US such as the electronics.

BTW... I really like the Smiles on here

[Smart Parts Sean]

It would be at least the second time, it seems part of the agreement that Kee made with SP killed off the Revolver kit.

http://www.warpig.com/newswire/prwir...15124756.shtml

There is a lot more to that story. They were paying royalties and then tried to strong arm us. They ended up losing more in the end. Makes you wonder why Gino is not around anymore

[Ydna]

Unless I'm missing something, these things only appeared on Smart Parts products - it seems likely that if anyone else tried to make a marker with these features, they'd get a C&D.
It's no wonder they didn't enforce these patents; there was no enforcement to be done.

oh no, they're not specific to the Smart Parts item. Well, the patent started over the SP item, but can be aplied elsewhere. And afterwards there were C&Ds, which went nowhere. It's not so much of a future-conditional "they wouldn't do this" as it is past tense, already happened and examples made.