I think that there are many people that need to know what is legally required to acquire a patent, what SPECIFIC aspects of electronic markers SP patented, what SPECIFIC proof SP has/used in comparison to other companies that legally justified the grant of the patent, and perhaps ALL of the REAL/TRUE reasons for SP attaining more patents. Perhaps SP did it to get money from royalties from other companies, or maybe they did it as a DEFENSIVE measure? I'm not in favor of SP, but I think there is still too much improperly justified slamming of SP in this thread still ( many people justify it well, others repeat gossip and warped information that is basically myth more than fact)
If SP didn't patent such and such thing, who is to say that NO OTHER COMPANY wouldn't do it (or even, wasn't trying to gain patents at the same time)? AKA or ICD could have done it, or at least attempted it. Would so many people then yell and scream at either of those companies for doing it? What if (this is extremely hypothetical) AGD attempted to patent these sort of things in the paintball industry? Just some food for thought, it's really annoying when I see ungrounded reason after reason. When I talk about specific proof, I'm talking about what Shartley did ( thanks, by the way).
- Dern
If SP didn't patent such and such thing, who is to say that NO OTHER COMPANY wouldn't do it (or even, wasn't trying to gain patents at the same time)? AKA or ICD could have done it, or at least attempted it. Would so many people then yell and scream at either of those companies for doing it? What if (this is extremely hypothetical) AGD attempted to patent these sort of things in the paintball industry? Just some food for thought, it's really annoying when I see ungrounded reason after reason. When I talk about specific proof, I'm talking about what Shartley did ( thanks, by the way).
- Dern
Comment