A nice, intelligent, mature convo about SP

[shartley]

Originally posted by FallNAngel
It doesn't matter if I'm comparing paintball to loss of jobs, murder and fraud... it doesn't make it any more *right* just because it's paintball... it's still *wrong*. What happens if ICD is eating the cost of the SP patent instead of adding it to their markers? Perhaps they have to lay off a worker or two to save a bit of money. What about those people? Oh, wait, I forgot... it's just paintball.

[Dryden]

Originally posted by hitech
I wasn't trying to say that the navy patent invalidates SP patent. I don't really know. However, they (SP) PURPOSELY left it out to get the patent updated. When they included a reference to it the update failed.

When? The removal of a reference isn't an indication of why an update failed, and I'd be completely surprised that such information would be available to the public.

Patents are abandoned, continued, rewritten, etc everyday. They have used dozens of references in their prior patent applications, as they're supposed to, and they've since removed a bunch of them, which they are permitted to do when filing for a CIP (Continuation In Part). Heck, in Shocker Patent 5881707, they referenced an AirGun Design's Patent, then removed it in Patent 6474326. The reference is for, presumably, Tom Kaye's (e.g. Thomas G Kotsiopoulos) Automag, which is (was?) Patent 5280778. So, between those two Shocker patent applications, both the Navy Patent and the Automag patent were dropped as references, not to mention one additional Tippmann patent.

Honestly, if you look at all the prior patents SP has applied for, the Shocker is a helluva lot closer to the Automag than it is to the Navy's 1000+ round, drum fed, belt driven, gear cranked contraption depicted in Patent 3695246.

[Glickman]

Originally posted by FallNAngel
No, actually we don't just have to go along with it. That's the whole point of trying to boycott SP products.

If im correct, SP gets a royalty on every electric gun sold, (minus a few exceptions) so then the only way to not support SP is to not buy a electronic gun. Yea, ur not supporting Sp as much as buying their own gun, but arent u still sorta supporting it?

[Dryden]

Originally posted by Glickman
If im correct, SP gets a royalty on every electric gun sold, (minus a few exceptions) so then the only way to not support SP is to not buy a electronic gun. Yea, ur not supporting Sp as much as buying their own gun, but arent u still sorta supporting it?

Correct. Which is why the only marker you should buy is the all mechanical hAir Triggered RT Pro.

They should be available for backorder in 2005.

[Rigster_TBB]

Originally posted by shartley

Shartley, you are indeed a wise man... Keep up the great work...

Rigster...

[FallNAngel]

Originally posted by shartley

What does it matter if it was caused by SP? Does that somehow make it better? Those people still lost their jobs. The point I'm trying to make in all of this is "wrong is wrong" ... period. You can't say "well, it's wrong, but for paintball (which I don't think matters) it's ok". Money doesn't make a decision ethically right...to think so it's just plain stupid.

As far as supporting Smart Parts via purchasing markers from other companies... unfortunately, there's not a whole lot we can do. But you can boycott in other ways. You can choose not to purchase a MaxFlo system and instead buy a Conquest or X-Stream reg, buy a Scepter instead of the Freak. Ideally, it would be great not to support SP at all, but we all know it's just not going to be possible.

[hitech]

Originally posted by Dryden
When? The removal of a reference isn't an indication of why an update failed...

You are correct, it is not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the Navy patent included an electronic firing mechanism. SP appears to claim they hold the patent on using electronics to fire a "paintgun". The Navy patent would be prior art. The reason for omitting it was, in my opinion, in the hope that it wouldn't be considered for prior art.

It seems pretty cut and dried to me. The Navy patent, even if an invalid patent, demonstrates prior art to the claim of inventing all electronic firing mechanisms. The specific one maybe, but not ALL of them.

[FallNAngel]

In response to what Shartley said, honestly, I wasn't going to buy SP products anyway (despite the fact that I already owned a MaxFlo). Is what they did illegal? That's not really for me to decide.. I'm not a lawyer or a judge. Do I think what they did was morally wrong? Yes. Sitting on a patent and purposefully not doing anything until everyone jumps on the electronic bandwagon then saying "Oh yea, we got a patent, you all owe us money" just doesn't sit right with me.

[shartley]

Originally posted by FallNAngel
What does it matter if it was caused by SP? Does that somehow make it better? Those people still lost their jobs. The point I'm trying to make in all of this is "wrong is wrong" ... period. You can't say "well, it's wrong, but for paintball (which I don't think matters) it's ok". Money doesn't make a decision ethically right...to think so it's just plain stupid.

[Glickman]

heh great analogy. but i still think SP may had indirectly cause a few layoffs, probably mostly in ICD tho.
And about that RT: sadly, ive yet to actually own a automag, for my tinkering, ive used cockers, but im walking away from cockers, and as soon as i pay off my new shocker, or dm4, im going to look into that


Great Discussion Btw guys!

[White_Noise]

Originally posted by shartley

From what I have seen, it looks like the Gardners will use any legal method at their disposal, to the point of bending (but not breaking) the rules and law, to further their business. This my friends is not illegal. We may not agree with some of the decisions they made, or things they did/do, but that is a far cry from them being crooks and scam artists.

the problem is that theyre arent using legal methods, and are actually breaking the law. their patent breaks the law, therefore, enforcing said patent would be illegal. according to laws concerning patents, a patent cannot impede technology, or ignore prior art. the sp patent on the shocker does both of these. the navy had the first patent on an electronic paintball marker(sp's patent ignoring prior art.), and the patent impedes technology by not allowing other companys to work carry out their businesses as before.



edit:

btw, this thread has become neither nice, mature, nor intelligent. so the entire point of the thread has been lost.

[Dryden]

Originally posted by mag/cocker lover
according to laws concerning patents, a patent cannot impede technology, or ignore prior art.

What exactly would patents be for then? Patents are explicitly offered to inventors as an incentive to invent. This principle dates all the way back to the founding of the United States, and is stated in no uncertain terms in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. It's even further elaborated upon in The Founders Constitution. I suggest you read exactly what Thomas Jefferson had in mind - see here - regarding patents nearly 200 years ago, where he outlines the difference between a physical invention and an intangible idea.

Second, I don't think SP's patents ignore prior art. It is explicitly permitted that a patent applicant may cite why their invention superceeds all prior art, and SP's patents are eloquently worded as such:

Finally, the present invention also provides a significant accuracy advantage over all prior art spring-loaded guns at all pneumatic operating pressures, due to the minimized recoil experienced after a shot is fired [...]

Hmm ... so if SP already has the patent on spiral-ported barrels, I suppose if they affix said spiral ported barrel to any marker, it is therefore more accurate? Actually, this might be an avenue for research. Back to subject though, I already outlined the futility in trying to cite the Navy's patent on their photocell operated paint flinging contraption as prior art. For crying out loud ... look at the picture. It more closely resembles a lawn-seeder than a modern paintball marker!!!

[White_Noise]

the navy's invention is a device that uses paintballs as projectiles, and therefore is a paintball marker(which is what the shocker is called in it's patent) also note that for the revision that got accepted, they left out the fact about the navy's patent.

patents are made to protect inventions, but not stop others from inventing other devices nor to ignore the inventions made prior to said invention.

[FallNAngel]

Originally posted by Dryden
Second, I don't think SP's patents ignore prior art. It is explicitly permitted that a patent applicant may cite why their invention superceeds all prior art, and SP's patents are eloquently worded as such:

Finally, the present invention also provides a significant accuracy advantage over all prior art spring-loaded guns at all pneumatic operating pressures, due to the minimized recoil experienced after a shot is fired [...]

What does that have to do with prior art and the navy's electronic (non spring-loaded) gun?

[Dryden]

Originally posted by FallNAngel
What does that have to do with prior art and the navy's electronic (non spring-loaded) gun?

Nothing specifically. I'm just pointing out that patent applicants actually use the very term prior art in their applications all the time. SP's patent continues with a whole slew of provisions:

Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to provide a projectile launching device that uses only pneumatic force to propel a projectile.

It is also an object of the present invention to provide a projectile launching device for use in the recreational and professional sport of paintball that uses only pneumatic force to propel the paintball.

It is also an object of the present invention to provide a projectile launching device which can be aimed and fired with greater accuracy than all types of spring-loaded guns at all pneumatic operating pressures.

It is also an object of the present invention to provide a projectile launching device for use in the recreational and professional sport of paintball which can be aimed and fired with greater accuracy than existing paintball guns at low pneumatic operating pressures.

It is also an object of the present invention to provide a projectile launching device that uses electro-pneumatic control to release the pneumatic force that propels the projectile.

It is also an object of the present invention to provide a projectile launching device for use in the recreational and professional sport of paintball that uses electro-pneumatic control to release the pneumatic force that propels the projectile.

The repetition of the term "professional sport of paintball" is really quite slick. Was the Navy's device really a "paintball gun?" Did it operate at "low pneumatic operating pressures?"

Look, as I mentioned in my very first post near the beginning of this thread, I'm not defending Smart Parts per se. I'm not even sympathetic to Smart Part's plight, they've brought this fully on themselves - including adding insult to injury with their recent print ads regarding their patent on "winning."

I'm just simply annoyed by the SP hate, and hope to help illustate that overriding SP's electro-patent isn't as clear-cut as walking into a court room and waving a few patents from the 1970's above your head. Heck, you'd still have to even get them admitted without objection from SP attorneys on the grounds of hearsay.