Was the Shocker the first electronic marker?

**spantol** · 03-04-2004, 06:45 PM

Where'd you get the complaint? I'd love to take a look at that.

The complaint as you've described it is pretty much crap. Development of the Angel was running in parallel to the Shocker (with a working prototype as early as 1995), and the bulk of the following electropneumatic markers were based far more on the design principles of the Angel.

**Ov3rmind** · 03-04-2004, 06:46 PM

Re: Was the Shocker the first electronic marker?

Originally posted by akscubainst
BARRELS OF AMERICA - 5/95 - not sure what the suit was about.

I believe it had to do with spiral porting on barrels. BOA did go under, but their barrels were great.

**WenULiVeUdiE** · 03-04-2004, 06:50 PM

BOA(Barrles of america) produced ported barrels out of oklahoma I think. All they did was drill a couple holes in a barrel sold it, and got sued for it by SP. As for them being "sued" in Oregon, this is due to their past. They were orginally patent lawyers who legally owned other people's patents. They somehow made people sign papers without them reading them, in result, the Gardner borthers were legally the patent holders. Thisis most likely in civil court, possibly Oregon Supreme court. I am quite sure this is why they are being brought to court. I forgot to mention that the government ran an investigation on them on all of this(as patent lawyers). They had no grounds or hard evidence to consider them guilty. After all, the orginal patent owners/holders "legally" signed away their patents. It was their word against the Gardners. I think I got most of this correct, if I didnt, some one please correct me.

**Gunslinger-ActionBob** · 03-05-2004, 12:41 AM

those were just the high points of lawsuits. They have also served numerous cease and desist orders including ones to people who filmed All-A's Adam Gardner cheating on film Tahoe and Nashville masters come to mind.
BOA was from ohio and was one of numerous barrel makers nailed to the cross. and they did more than just drill holes in barrels. I still shoot one that I have from being sponsored by them. Top notch barrels in the day.

**Miscue** · 03-05-2004, 12:55 AM

Navy patented an electronic paintball gun in the 70s.

**thecavemankevin** · 03-05-2004, 08:08 AM

so to answer you question, yes i the shocker was the first electonic pb marker to be released for public sale. However, i believe the RD started on the Angel first....but not to sure about that.

As Miscue stated, the Navy has a patent for an electro paintball gun with ACE and its own style warp feed/force feed system. So why companies being sued by smart parts aren't using this patent....who knows. Perhaps they have sited this but it has done them no good. Remember, the owners of smart parts were patent lawyers first, paintball company second. So clearly they are good at what they do. And from the sounds of it they have done more than just buy the patents from individuals and companies. It sounds like someone has filed suit for theft of a patent....that i have no idea about but would not put it past them.

ICD was their first target and next WDP. As far as i know the WDP suit is still on going. AKA of course is their most recent victem and seems to be the hardest hit.

I know power lyte had to stop putting a "window" to show the size insert you are using in their scepter barrel system because the freak has a "window." Sounds to me like microsoft should go after smart parts for using windows without permision

Someone also once stated that AGD had artwork that predated all electro pb markers (except the navy gun) that had an electro marker in it.

The grounds that smart parts is suing for is that other electro guns are using "batteries in the grip frame" which i believe the patent has been edited to cover any battery opperated marker now. Thats right, they got some dumb judge to allow them to edit their original patent to include any battery. They are also suing on the grounds of using i believe its the use of two solinoids in the opperation of a paintball marker (although this part i could have wrong).

**madmolly** · 03-05-2004, 08:14 AM

US NAVY Patent

From what I could gather the US patent is expired.
Plus something about the navy not affecting local commerce by patenting something that they are not selling to general consumers.
Mostly the patent expired and they let it die as far as I know.

**Dryden** · 03-05-2004, 08:36 AM

Whether or not the Navy patent is expired doesn't matter, it still represents prior art as proof of an invention. A patent is valid for 14 or 17 years (depends on the type of invention) which grants the patent holder the exclusive right to produce and sell their product. After the patent has expired, the invention becomes public domain.

Thats right, they got some dumb judge to allow them to edit their original patent to include any battery.

No, judges have nothing to do with the patent process. Patents are applied for, granted, and modified every day. Often times they conflict with existing patents or expired ones, as is the case with Smart Parts. The problem though is that there is no remedy through the patent office. Patents are upheld or revoked solely in a court trial, and to this point, no one has seen SP through the courts.

SP could patent the AIR valve, the Viewloader Revolution, and even the wheel if they wanted to, and two of the three would be granted. A company would have to sue in a court to then invalidate the conflicting patent.

**thei3ug** · 03-05-2004, 09:04 AM

the first real documented electro paintball was the Revolution prototype, by mike Cassidy, CCI.

It still exists. He was involved in deposition for ICD's case.

These things aren't revelations, it's all about wording, lawyers, time and money.

**Gunslinger-ActionBob** · 03-05-2004, 09:18 AM

close - what needs to happen to remedy the situation is for a class action be brought against the US gov and SP to review the patent and if found to be incorrect then the patent office will issue a redirect upon their prior decision. The cases being brought by Smart parts are not the forum where the patent is examained. As such the defense of the patent is wrong is not a defense in the eyes of the court in question. In there realm the patent is valid until the US goverment says it is not. The reason SP keeps filing in Oregon is that in this field it is a fast track court which allows little time to prepare and file countersuits.
What I hear going on underneath is many industry figures are in the process of putting together the above class action against SP/US goverment. This and responseable contact with the FTC and your representives ( Fed and state senators, house of reps, even the President ) will bring more muscle to bear than any petition or online forum ranting. If your of age drop your reps an e-mail or phone call, if your not talk to your parents about it.
There is a great post that has the links required to contact the goverment in the AKA forum on PbNation. I challenge even one reading this to follow up and put the pressure on their reps to look into this.

**WARPED1** · 03-05-2004, 09:22 AM

The Shockwer was the first electro marker in the game.

**hitech** · 03-05-2004, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Dryden
The problem though is that there is no remedy through the patent office. Patents are upheld or revoked solely in a court trial, and to this point, no one has seen SP through the courts.

Actually, if appears that there is. What I don't understand is why no one has done this. Or, maybe WDP is, and that is why they have not settled.

http://www.mbf-law.com/pubs/articles/522.cfm

**Gunslinger-ActionBob** · 03-05-2004, 10:27 AM

Taken from the above site;
If these provisions are passed into law, an accused infringer will have an easier time initiating a re-exam proceeding and challenging any unfavorable results of such proceedings. In light of the time and cost savings often available in a re-exam proceeding when compared to district court litigation (especially when haled into an inconvenient forum with large case backlogs), the re-exam option should be thoroughly examined by companies accused of infringing a possibly invalid patent.

so it has only been passed by the house of reps and not the senate apparently. Either way it has not been formalised into law yet. Great find though

**hitech** · 03-05-2004, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Gunslinger-ActionBob

so it has only been passed by the house of reps and not the senate apparently. Either way it has not been formalised into law yet. Great find though

CRAP! I guess that explains why no one has done it.

BTW, Miscue found it.

Was the Shocker the first electronic marker?

Was the Shocker the first electronic marker?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment