Im Sick of all the talk, i will pay for action!

[UltimatePaintballer]

i say agd should just say they will put a patent on nirto tanks or w/e the heck they started. just to scare sp. not really do it but to say "hey, if you keep this up we will have to paten our nitro dealy. how you going to run your guns, co2? call this whole thing off or we will" and then just never put a patent on it. just scare them a little and make them think about what they did.

if its a bad idea, don't flame me. idk if its a horrible idea or not but i have had that idea for a while.

[Aliens-8-MyDad]

or have agd patent the nitro tank and bring it up only against smartparts (maxflow) and leave the other companies alone.

[Brophog]

Actually you are totally wrong here. Smart Parts owns the patent, they have full rights to enforce it. Yes it sucks, but that's how business works, can't fault Smart Parts for making money.

I agree, if its the case that the patent is legit, which we do not know. While its unethical to let so many people into the market before you decide to challenge something, its not totally illegal, and in the business world, this makes it right.

That's why I've been kind of on the fence here, because there is so much we do not know. There are so many tricky parts to this thing, that I think too many people are letting emotions dictate their actions.

All I want to see, is this patent challenged and either backed up or refuted. After that is done, then we, as mature intellectual adults, can take sides and hash out the ethics and legality of what Smart Parts has done.

Right now though, we have very little information on this patent, all present presidings are closed, and the agreements signed by the respective parties are confidential.

If people really want to blame someone, blame our system. I understand that both the patent office and our judicial system are backlogged, but this issue is pretty cut and dry. Just examine the patent and the prior art and pass down a ruling. Instead of that, we get money involved, with lawyers and mulitiple jurisdictions, all of which cost the taxpayer more and further delay not only this case but others as well.

Unfortunatly, at the rate this is going, this will take a few more years, and we may still not find out if the patent is valid or not. Right now, Smart Parts is able to buy their way due to the fact they have more money and more lawyers than their adversaries. Not only that, but this case is being played out more in the public eye and involving not only the plaintiff and defendent, but an entire industry. This should not happen.

[hardr0ck68]

::SIGH:: I suppose your all correct (well most of you, the ones who justify what SP is doing should take a pickle up the bum). But i would still be willing to pay into any fund that will stand aginst SP...it pisses me off that the Gardner brothers can pull crap like this because the cheaper/easier way out is theirs. So AKA caved to huh, i was even kinda thinkin of a viking i wont buy an electro made from any of the sell out compnays (thats worse than just buyin from SP, when you buy a schocker at least SP has to do something tro get your money....but from ICD and they just get it all gift wrapped and whatnot)

[teufelhunden]

Cry about it, then take a low level job at your favorite fast food resturant. That's about the only place you won't see business practices you don't like.

And the Japan analogy is weak, to say the least. Something better using the same timeframe would've been that Japan forced the US to use atomic warfare. In the same way SP 'forced' AGD to stop production of E/X-Mags, Japan 'forced' the US to develop and use atomic weapons.

[spantol]

Per this thread, it'd cost around $11,000 for a third party to initiate a formal re-examination of the patent. I'd kick in a few bucks.

[evan123]

Put the ads in magazines that SP pays much more money for anyway. If i were a paintball magazine owner i will shoot down your offer so fast. Just think how stupid that is. SP probably pays at least 1 grand for there ads in some magaiznes...100 Bucks won't do diddly poop.

[hardr0ck68]

well the hope was that some of the talk on the forurm would be backed up with $$, i am willing to do so myself...but i think the paintball public here likes to talk a good talk...such a shame it is. I was hoping somone would be like hey yeah we should ogrinize and not take it up the butt for a BS pattent but you all seem to like it up the butt hurm...intresting.

[spantol]

There's something that looks a whole lot like the initial stages of organization going on in the "Invalid Patents" thread that I linked to.

Also, a number of people on AO and PBNation have opened their wallets for this cause before, in the form of the AKA Defense Fund.

Originally posted by hardr0ck68
well the hope was that some of the talk on the forurm would be backed up with $$, i am willing to do so myself...but i think the paintball public here likes to talk a good talk...such a shame it is. I was hoping somone would be like hey yeah we should ogrinize and not take it up the butt for a BS pattent but you all seem to like it up the butt hurm...intresting.

[Wes Janson]

It's also legal for the government to screw you over in more ways than there are posts in this forum. Sadly, many legal things are not moral nor acceptable. LEGAL/=MORAL Just because I could legally screw over the life of anyone I wish through ridiculous lawsuits and legal trivialty, does not mean that I nor anyone else has the moral right to do such a thing. The things SP has/is doing, along with the RIAA, MPAA, SCO, and numerous other corporations, are by no means right. Our economy may be based upon capitalism and laisse faire principles, but it was never intended to be a lawless anarchy where might makes right.

[Brophog]

That's true Wes, but the problem still remains that we're flying off the cuff, and what do we really know about the case.

There is so much conjecture and so little fact to base it from. If it is the case that SP owns that patent, and it is legal, then do they not have every right to protect it?

Myself, my gut feeling tells me that the patent would not hold up, but I don't have much more than bits and pieces to judge that on. We really need to let this thing play out, before we start trying to trash a company due to emotions and happenstance.

Even in the case of morality and ethics, what do you have to base those arguments on at this point? I'm not trying to argue a side here, but I'm truly interested in a REAL conversation here. I think for all the jibba-jabba going on in this issue, the facts have been side stepped.

[paint magnet]

Could someone who is perhaps more proficient in law explain to me how SP can bring a suit against a company, when the company (such as ICD, AKA, or AGD) has patents on their own markers?

And even if the courts ruled that companies other than Smart Parts should not have produced electronic markers without their consent, shouldn't the fact that the companies themselves were able to obtain patents on their designs exclude them from any further legal trouble?

[Brophog]

I'm not sure whether or not those companies do have patents under their own name, regardless:

If said companies patent is said to have come after Smart Parts patent and the contents of the patent is covered under Smart Parts patent, then said companies patent is in violation.

That's the REAL question. Who patented what when, and who is in violation. Instead of answering that, we get silly little lawsuits.

[spantol]

Simply put, a patent does not necessarily give you the legal authority to produce the patented product. It's more than a little unintuitive.

In this case, any marker patents AKA might have would pertain to specific ways of accomplishing various processes. The larger process as a whole, however, falls under a previous patent owned by Smart Parts. To continue to produce these infringing markers, they would need to license that previous patent.

Originally posted by paint magnet
Could someone who is perhaps more proficient in law explain to me how SP can bring a suit against a company, when the company (such as ICD, AKA, or AGD) has patents on their own markers?

And even if the courts ruled that companies other than Smart Parts should not have produced electronic markers without their consent, shouldn't the fact that the companies themselves were able to obtain patents on their designs exclude them from any further legal trouble?