Possible Victory For WDP over SP.....

[manike]

I'd bet a donut that none of them have a clause that say they are no longer binding if the patent is overturned.

Krispy Kremes please! But then again the patent hasn't been overturned...

It's still on going, but it looks like both WDP and SP will own the patent. This MAY mean WDP gets to own part of all the continuations also... :rofl:

BUT as to the deals and royalties.

WDP can not go in and demand half of the royalties SP are getting. All they can do is offer a cheaper licence on the patent to companies that are interested... I can tell you that right now they are not fans of SP...

Now that SP has some bad feeling from the market place, they could be undercut in royalties they get on the patents (nothing to stop WDP licencing the USE of the patents for a one off $1 fee...) and SP may still be stopped from using technology WDP have with regards to electronic guns such as adjustable settings etc...

Looks like Karma may be coming into effect. What would happen to SP if they don't get any royalties, can't make electronic guns, and the market place hates them? Just curious...

[SlartyBartFast]

What would happen to SP if they don't get any royalties, can't make electronic guns, and the market place hates them? Just curious...

Pick Me! Pick Me! I Know! I Know!

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.

I've been hoping for this since I was arguing against the nitwits on rec.sport.paintball about the rediculousness of the claims about spiral ported barrel rifling.

Tyger might remember me from (WAYYY) back then.

[MindJob]

Don't think that there isn't huge legal hastles with the HAIR trigger either. The average player doesn't think all this affects him but after its too late they will find out it does.

All development on the hair trigger is at a dead stop right now.

AGD

Anyone care to elaborate on the HAir thing?

As far as all of this Smart Parts crap goes... we are all JUST GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT IT OUT.

In the mean time, we ALL should be careful about what companies we give our hard earned money too. Keep supporting companies like AGD.

[Furby]

Krispy Kremes please! But then again the patent hasn't been overturned...

It's still on going, but it looks like both WDP and SP will own the patent. This MAY mean WDP gets to own part of all the continuations also... :rofl:

WDP can not go in and demand half of the royalties SP are getting. All they can do is offer a cheaper licence on the patent to companies that are interested... I can tell you that right now they are not fans of SP...

I do appreciate the classic English talent for understatement.

And I dig Krispy Kremes as well.

[KRAKMT]

I am not so sure. If the name is added to the patent for an ownership interest then I suspect wdp has a 1/5 right to all income derived from the patent. Not positive about joint ownership of intellectual property but I suspect that will be the next argument. It should not be a free forall on licensing. It would also seem that you can not be accused of infringing upon something you own. Looks to me like wdp made a great legal manuver but I highly doubt it was gratuitous.

BUT as to the deals and royalties.

WDP can not go in and demand half of the royalties SP are getting. All they can do is offer a cheaper licence on the patent to companies that are interested... I can tell you that right now they are not fans of SP...

Now that SP has some bad feeling from the market place, they could be undercut in royalties they get on the patents (nothing to stop WDP licencing the USE of the patents for a one off $1 fee...) and SP may still be stopped from using technology WDP have with regards to electronic guns such as adjustable settings etc...

Looks like Karma may be coming into effect. What would happen to SP if they don't get any royalties, can't make electronic guns, and the market place hates them? Just curious...

[shartley]

Looks like Karma may be coming into effect. What would happen to SP if they don't get any royalties, can't make electronic guns, and the market place hates them? Just curious...

[Marchborne]

Anyone else find this fact absolutely ehfin' hillarious? :rofl: :rofl:

Hilarious, yes, but also kickin' legal work. At the bottom of page 10 of the opinion going onto the next page, Judge King spells it out:

"During the summer of 2003, Dr. Hemsel was contacted by WDP's counsel as well as an attorney in another case involving Smart Parts. ... Negotiations between Dr. Hensel's attorneys and WDP's attorneys resulted in an Assignment and Agreement in November 2003, whereby Dr. Hensel assigned his rights in the '326 patent ...."

Good stuff. The attorneys for the other, unnamed company probably found out about Dr. Hensel during discovery in their case, shared the information with WDP's lawyers and they all went out and found Dr. Hensel. $50k payment, and WDP's got a stake in Smart Part's game. Nice work-around.

[billmi]

Sorry Love ya Mr. Mills but this is not correct. Unless I misread, the procedure that occured was summary judgment which means. WDP sued and smartparts countersued. WDP filed what is called a motion for summary judment which means - here are the indisputable facts and we win as a matter of law. It is a pretrial process. Not often granted, more often overturned and can be directly appealed without trial. The problem is in the "indisputable facts" as a lawyer most facts are disputable. Was a well written ruling. What I am saying is it was not a stipulation but a pretrial motion. Small thing.

Good catch, I believe you are entirely correct. It was the other of the two cases pending between SP and WDP's parent company where there was a move to get pre-trial settlement, which as I understood involved both parties approving the move. I found this out while being given a heads up about some video in my posession that may be subpoenaed (sp.) for the case, and there are differences in what the subpoena would require me to do depending on whether it's information to be simply reviewed by the judge or if it goes to trial.

[billmi]

Well said. When the WDP v ICD flap started, a number of posts in various forums talked about people in paintball who had patents but were the "good guys" because they didn't use the patents against everyone, they kept everything free and open, when the people listed as saints have all either stopped products from being produced, or take royalties from other companies for producing things under their patents. The only real difference is there are now enough nosy people, and easy ways to spread info (the Internet) for patent issues to be seen more in the public eye than they used to be. That's not to say anyone's good or bad for what they've done business/IP wise, but a lot of the flagwaving around some industry people was based on bogus claims.

[KRAKMT]

It is business. It just looks like wdp found a way to stick there fingers in smart parts pie. And they did it very poeticly if you ask me. To outfox the patent happy Gardner brothers was a great twist. The Gardners all but admitted that they didn't invent any part but just added there names to the patent. They have been accused of that before.

[Marchborne]

Good catch, I believe you are entirely correct. It was the other of the two cases pending between SP and WDP's parent company where there was a move to get pre-trial settlement, which as I understood involved both parties approving the move. I found this out while being given a heads up about some video in my posession that may be subpoenaed (sp.) for the case, and there are differences in what the subpoena would require me to do depending on whether it's information to be simply reviewed by the judge or if it goes to trial.

There are all kinds of subpoenas. There's the classic subpoena for a deposition, then there's the subpoena duces tecum which also requires the production of documents (which can also be used in conjunction with a deposition); and then there are subpoenas requiring you to appear at a hearing or trial. All sorts of fun. Different subpoenas also have different "reaches." Generally speaking, a federal subpoena can be served just about anywhere in the US if it only requests documents or an appearence at a deposition, but there are limitations as to how far they can force you to travel to attend a hearing or deposition.

[SlartyBartFast]

[RRfireblade]

If this has been stated already then excuse it but.....

Don't forget WDP was the first to go after ICD, just to name one, and one of the first to use the threat of legal action against those who they feel are infringing on thier IP. Don't think they have just recently become reborn because of this. I wouldn't start calling them the 'white' knight just yet.

(for those who are)

[skipdogg]

This adds nothing intelligent to the discussion but on principle i want to put in writing that i hate SP and will never buy anything from them. I will also continue to encourage other people to never buy anything from them. I have felt this way since day one of their lawsuits, but have just not vented until now. That is all.

[rabidchihauhau]

SPECULATION TIME

While it is more than likely that the existing SP licenses will stand (any licensing agreement that doesn't have a 'this is still in effect even if the patent is invalidated' clause would have to have been written by a lemur), and it is more than likley that the 'settlement' will involve WDP getting a share of the existing license payments, there's also the possibility that they'll double license as in -

'ok, you took the license from SP, but now you have to have an agreement with us also'.

Unlikely, but fun to throw into the mix.

PATENT INVALIDATION

Treading on thin ice here but: you can invalidate a patent by showing prior art, by showing that its already been patented by someone else or by showing that it doesn't do what it claims to do (although that's probably the hardest and most costly).

Nothing in the court's decision invalidates the patent, it only adds an additional named inventor.

The big problem is the fact that the patent office seems to have classified paintball as its own 'field of invention' - which means that 'borrowing' from other disciplines, even if its painfully obvious to those of us who build stuff that it didn't take rocket science to do whatever, the patent office thinks it did take rocket science - or paintball science.

I personally agree that there are many many many issued paintball patents which did not meet the standard for a patent: they were 'obvious to those skilled in the art'. For example, in an electornic marker, where the effen else is the switch going to go except behind the trigger?

However, there is also a good argument in support of those (questionable) patents: while anyone could have said 'oh, an electronic marker will need a solenoid, a switch, a battery and a circuit board', the patent itself defines a specific WORKING way in which to do it - functional design versus concept. On that basis, many of those 'obvious' patents become less obvious.

Fortunately (for the most part) neither you, or I or the Gardner brothers get to decide what is obvious and what isn't, the patent office does.

Also, fortunately, this little go around with SP has demonstrated exactly why patents are set up the way they are: SP gets to prevent people from making their design, but many many many other people have been inspired to invent alternatives - and only did so because they did not want to pay royalties.

MORALS

The good guy bad guy thing. Yeah, SP was attacked and other people who are guilty of 'forcing others to pay royalties' got praised for being nice people.

Anyone who has a patent would be stupid not to get folks to license it. I think we're more concerned about the WAY in which someone goes about doing that. Its the difference between an opening paragraph that says 'hey, we need to discuss this' and 'we're suing your butt'

Just a few thoughts