Smart Parts Patent Will Destroy Paintball! - Read!

[jinxed]

I know HELLBORE made an adjustable pneumatic full-auto with no electronics, so its possible that the Sweeney gun uses the same setup.

Worth investigating!

Nick

[AndrewGore(OTB)]

Just curious, Has anyone tried emailing him?

Andrew

[WickedAirSportz]

-That's the problem. In filing their "continuance"- the 'extension' everyone's been talking about- they've essentially set the filing date back to January of '96, when the original Shocker patent was submitted.

The Ellis patent pre-dates this as a electro-pneumatic pellet gun. If you look closely, the pellets are actually "balls" with no specifics to size. The diagrams show them to be large... like a paintball. This patent was referenced 3 times in the first 3 patent submissions by Smart Parts, which were declined BECAUSE of this patent (according to the patent accessor's notes). Amazing that they leave the reference to this patent out, and they get their patent granted. Later on, they put a reference to this patent in an attachment (not as a reference in the reference section)... nice, eh?

[Recon by Fire]

I think this will all work out just fine, it will be more a matter of educating the Patent Office and courts on the paintball industry. Just as each design of a semi-automatic firearm mechanism is patented (there is no one patent for all semi-autos), the same should be true in the paintball industry.

[SLICEnDICE]

A quick question

I have ask this question on otherr fourms before, but what is a paintball gun real considered? Is it a form of a gun/handgun or something else? They basically work off the same principles, right? If that is the case, correctly me if I am wrong here, they have used electronics, switches, and selonids before in weapons, right? Or is it the case that they are being specific about guns being only used to fire paintballs only, while using 4-way, with electronics? I am just trying to get at the bottom of using electronics in a gun. Anyone see what I am getting at?

[hitech]

Originally posted by Doc Nickel
Yes, it's likely past time that industry greats will pass up a lucrative idea for the good of the sport as a whole, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened in the past.

As I remember from a conversation with Bud Orr, he holds patents on commonly used paintball "parts". He does not inforce these patents. He only got them to keep someone else from patenting them and slowing the groth of the sport. I don't remember the specifics. The conversation took place in the late '80s.

[icegod]

Originally posted by jinxed
I thought the Sweeney gun was purely pneumatic, not electro-pneumatic?
If it is electro, then that might be the "holy grail" because it was a "production" paintball gun, not just a vaporware patent or prototype.

The guy from Baccipaintball has a sweeney gun.

Nick

Like i said i don't know, thats what i was hoping you guys would know . From looking at some of the pictures they appear to be similar to the solenoid electropneumatic launchers used by alot of senario users, which run off of a battery supply. But again i am unsure, Guess its time to actually e-mail\call them, just figured SOMEONE might have already knew since it has been around for quite some time.

[Doc Nickel]

Sorry, cool as it is, the Sweeney Gun is entirely pneumatic. The "switches" you see are Clippard valves- they have the same chrome, round toggle as an electrical switch, as they're designed to panel-mount and do the same function.

They even have the same types of switches- center-off (on-off-on) and momentary, etc- as the electrical counterpart.

ROF and force adjustments are done through versions of what are essentially "Rock" type LP regs.

Doc.

[jballer]

As I remember from a conversation with Bud Orr, he holds patents on commonly used paintball "parts". He does not inforce these patents. He only got them to keep someone else from patenting them and slowing the groth of the sport. I don't remember the specifics. The conversation took place in the late '80s.

That's the first question that came to mind when I first learned of the issue at my local shop...why didn't anyone think to patent the idea and not inforce them? I would have guessed that one of the industry's "pure" developers might have thought to do this just in case a problem like this ever came into being.

Oh well, I guess it is no good to wonder why someone didn't do this or that at the time. Who knew Smartparts would pull such a, pardon my french, ******* move.


Cheers,
J.

[hitech]

Maybe Bud got tired of spending money on patents.

[jinxed]

Re: A quick question

Originally posted by SLICEnDICE
I have ask this question on otherr fourms before, but what is a paintball gun real considered? Is it a form of a gun/handgun or something else? They basically work off the same principles, right?

Thats a good question, and I suspect that it is something that the ICD lawyers are currently researching.

The shocker patents state that it is designed for paintball. Actually, it really says its designed to "shoot paintballs" farther then a conventional gun. Yes, it claims it as fact in the patent!

So I'm not sure what kind of impact electro-BB/Pellet/airsoft/waterguns/firearms will have.
I guess the problem is that there WERE electro-paintgun patents and prototypes before the shocker, but nothing really in production?
WHile electro-bb/pellet/airsoft/etc definetly were in production, but may not invalidate the shocker patent?

nick

[pbzmag]

I think that paintball markers are classified as an air-powered rifle under the gun contol laws. That's why there is an age minimum to be able to buy them.

[SlartyBartFast]

I've only been reading up to now, but I've got a question for the patent savvy members.

Why are we (and the defendants) seemingly concentrating exclusively on paintball and paintball patents for prior art?

Seems to me that you approach absolutely any automation engineer, industrail process technician, or any one in the pneumatics and/or electronics field and ANYTHING in paintball pantents concerning pneumatics or electronics is covered by prior art.

I mean a switch to activate, sense, or power a device is patentable?
Using an IR sensor to detect a component in a flow?
Using batteries to power something wirelessly?

You'd get laughed off the planet if you tried to make those claims in any other industry.

[icegod]

Originally posted by Doc Nickel
Sorry, cool as it is, the Sweeney Gun is entirely pneumatic. The "switches" you see are Clippard valves- they have the same chrome, round toggle as an electrical switch, as they're designed to panel-mount and do the same function.

They even have the same types of switches- center-off (on-off-on) and momentary, etc- as the electrical counterpart.

ROF and force adjustments are done through versions of what are essentially "Rock" type LP regs.

Doc.

Thanks, i wasnt for sure thats why i asked, as i said i am not familiar with them, also i did direct my initial statement towards you because i figured you'd be the one to know since i for sure didn't and when posting it was about 2-3am my time so i couldnt have made calls and theres no email on thier site that i found but ok that cuts that one.... so now to find something else

[spacedtedybear]

Oh well, I guess it is no good to wonder why someone didn't do this or that at the time. Who knew Smartparts would pull such a, pardon my french, ******* move.

The owners of SP are suffering from inadequacy issues stemming from the fact that they know that their markers and other products were not developed by themselves, but were either bought or copied off of other people. By filing for patents, they can claim originality for their "inventions". If it goes through, they get a significant ego boost ( and financial) knowing that they can 'officially' say that they have actually invented something, because the court system said they did. OK, thats my rant for today.
*Puts on flame suit just in case*