So i just got off the phone with the DOJ lawyer...(SP Related)

[pbspectre]

he basically said if you can prove that SP aquired their patent fraudulently/deceptively, then there is probably grounds for a case against them under the Anti-Trust laws...

he seemed pretty open to the information and didn't shoot a bunch of legal-speak at me...i think more information needs to be compiled from various people and presented to the govt. in a professional manner, then things will start happening...unfortunately, a person can only understand so much information that is being related to them over the telephone, i believe if we could put together some kind of portfolio or something outlining the case against SP, containing the various patents in question(those that belong to SP and the others that contardict them) and statements from some industry leaders(Tom, Glen, etc) expessing their concerns to send to the DOJ, we'd have a much greater chance of getting something done...

the information is there folks, as is the opportunity for some real change...all we need to do is work together...

this isn't over...not by a long shot...


btw, Tom i've got the guy's contact info if you wanna talk to him...maybe you could relate things a bit better...

[jwalker87]

go pbspectre! Good luck acquiring all that information. I wish I could help. Smart Parts makes some good products, but this e-frame patent has to be stopped.

[Bolter]

if SP were going to do this they should have done it a looooooooong time ago. Its a bit late to pull that card really.

[BlackHalo]

Have Blue

I don't know if you got hold of him already, but he seems to have a lot of info about paintball related patents.

[email protected]

[Kevmaster]

im no lawyer...but to PROVE they did it fraudulently...you'd need to have them testify against themselves...or have someone within SP/SP's lawyers testify agsinst them. What they did was approved by the Patent Office. They didn't, at first glance, view it as fraudulent. I'm guessing you're going to have an uphill battle proving they did it illegally.

[OysterBoy]

Just a thought, but maybe a sheet showing, chronologically, the advancements in paintball, and including various patents, and maybe starting with the Navys 'paintball gun'..

Just a thought.

[pbspectre]

if it can be proven that the technology was developed by someone else who put a patent on it (the Navy patent?), it could be shown that their patent is void...

that's all i'm really worried about trying to do...trying to get the patent investigated futher and possibly voided, thus making all their lawsuits groundless...

[DK1]

You could also say that it's a logical adaptation of exisiting technology, and it falls under "obvious" inventions. The concept was carried through in air guns before paintball was invented.

http://www.haveblue.org/tech/patents/US002845055.pdf

there's an air rifle from the 50's using electronics. It actually uses an electronic contact switch in the trigger, which was one of the things the navy patent didn't have. It's kinda hard to decipher, and you'd definately want to run it by someone who could make it all out, but it definately looks to be a gun in which the firing is controlled by a valve (which looks just like a regular sheridan valve) is opened by a large arm like thing which is moved by a solenoid. All controlled by the trigger switch.

To say that you "invented" a technology that has been used in very similar firing platforms for DECADES is a claim indeed.

DK1

[OysterBoy]

Ooops, hehe. Guy beat me to it.. ^

Heres a site chock full of patents which may or may not be useful:

http://airsoldier.com/~haveblue/tech/patents/

Good Luck

[WenULiVeUdiE]

Arent patents unaffected by patents filed by the military. I remember hearing that if the military has a patent and you have a patent for the same thing, you can still get it. So in a way military con-exsist with normal patents or something. Anyone understand what I mean? B/c I dont.

[steveo356]

i think this guy should have his picture in pb mags for combatting an industry tyrant

[mikebridge]

just need to get the expansion of their patent invalidated, don't need to go all that far

[doc_Zox]

i think this guy should have his picture in pb mags for combatting an industry tyrant

unfortunantly, that would cause the magazine to loose Smartparts as an advertiser

Smartparts buys alot of ad space, so the SP "issue" gets no coverage

[pbzmag]

unfortunantly, that would cause the magazine to loose Smartparts as an advertiser

Smartparts buys alot of ad space, so the SP "issue" gets no coverage

If that's one of the reasons why SP buys ad space, wouldn't that be against some type of anti-trust laws or other laws?

[abaez]

You could also say that it's a logical adaptation of exisiting technology, and it falls under "obvious" inventions. The concept was carried through in air guns before paintball was invented.

http://www.haveblue.org/tech/patents/US002845055.pdf

there's an air rifle from the 50's using electronics. It actually uses an electronic contact switch in the trigger, which was one of the things the navy patent didn't have. It's kinda hard to decipher, and you'd definately want to run it by someone who could make it all out, but it definately looks to be a gun in which the firing is controlled by a valve (which looks just like a regular sheridan valve) is opened by a large arm like thing which is moved by a solenoid. All controlled by the trigger switch.

To say that you "invented" a technology that has been used in very similar firing platforms for DECADES is a claim indeed.

DK1

This is what I was thinking.. kinda like how xerox became a verb and xerox sued some company who was using it in their name or something like that and the judge ruled that it became so commonplace it was public domain basically.. you'd have to prove that electros have come that far but it's possible