Oh my Gosh...someone got SP darn good..

[Mister Sinister]

No way did WDP do this just for the greater good of the sport... It wouldnt make good business sense to just squash SP... If they do that then they really have to go after everybody much in the same was a SP was doing. Their best move would be to charge a per marker liescen fee on the patent. You cant deny that SP doesnt sell markers I know way too many guys with impys and shockers. So what could be better for WDP than to just let SP keep selling them yet they make 10 bucks or whatever off each marker. Money that they are getting for something that they have no development, manfucturing,marketing money wrapped up in. Thats what I think you will see...

[Muzikman]

Hitech, take a look at the bottom of my long post. It shows both patents.

After reading over the "Programmable chip" patent, it looks like they are more concerend about being able to link directly to the gun with a device that is able to transfer data to and from the chip. I couldn't find any place in there where it said you couldn't remove the chip, reprogram it and put it back in the gun.

[SlartyBartFast]

For instance, the above patent covers any paintball that can be connected to a remote terminal via a data link. But the patent covers everything from a physical wire, to IR, to radio waves. It's just shy of mind control. :)

You mean that Jim Drew doesn't hold the Mind Control Patent?!?

There is NOTHING special, unique, or patentable about links, onboard programming, or using a dispaly. All of that is just state-of-the-art/run-of-the-mill electronics.

Now, placement of a screen in a SPECIFIC configuration or a SPECIFIC user interface may be defendable under trademark or "trade dress".

[ej_y4]

Im glad to see smart parts lose, but this may make things alot worse.

[hitech]

That sums up my feelings and beliefs as well (thanks for saving me the typing time ). The patent system is out of control...

[Muzikman]

You mean that Jim Drew doesn't hold the Mind Control Patent?!?

There is NOTHING special, unique, or patentable about links, onboard programming, or using a dispaly. All of that is just state-of-the-art/run-of-the-mill electronics.

Now, placement of a screen in a SPECIFIC configuration or a SPECIFIC user interface may be defendable under trademark or "trade dress".

Well, I'll agree with what they got should not be patentable...but the fact is they have the patent.

What ever happened to Jim any way? He take a long walk off a short pier?

[hitech]

Patent 20040134476 (thanks Muzik) does NOT apply to an eMag. Following is claim 1. All other claims refer back to claim 1 either directly or indirectly. I sure wish there was a patent attorney here that could either challenge my interpretations (or agree with them ).

1. A pneumatically operated projectile launching device, comprising: an electro-pneumatic flow distribution device configured to transfer compressed gas through the electro-pneumatic flow distribution device to a pneumatic mechanism to open a bolt.

[Muzikman]

Nor would it cover sear trippers (ie. spyders) if that is correct.

[68magOwner]

good thing i got my shocker and all the upgrades before this happened ^.^

or not, when it breaks (trust me, it will) who can you run to if SP is dead

[Mr. Mouse]

Ydna...

[FallNAngel]

I pulled this from the Shocker forum on PBN:

JURY REACHES VERDICT IN NPF v. SMART PARTS PATENT CASE

A four-day jury trial on NPF's allegations of patent infringement against Smart Parts concluded Thursday, December 9, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The jury found claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,311,682 (the '682 patent) invalid for obviousness. Claims 21 and 39 of U.S. Patent No. 6,615,814 (the '814 patent) were not found to be invalid for obviousness. All three claims had previously been found to be infringed in a November 17, 2004 Memorandum and Order. Several post-trial issues remain pending and Smart Parts is preserving all of its legal rights.

Damages in the amount of $109,070 were awarded to NPF as a reasonable royalty for Smart Parts' infringement and an injunction prohibiting Smart Parts from future infringement of claims 21 and 39 of the '814 patent was entered following the jury verdict on damages.
_______________

This does NOT affect Smart Parts' ability to market, sell, and distribute its Shocker, Impulse, and Nerve paintball guns and will not detrimentally affect the quality or performance of its markers in any way.
_______________

Smart Parts has already taken all the necessary steps to comply with the terms of the injunction. Smart Parts' dealers and distributors therefore do not need take any action with respect to their continued sales of Smart Parts' products. The injunction does not apply to markers sold by Smart Parts before December 9, 2004.

Any dealer inquiries should be directed to Smart Parts at (724) 539-2660.

[Magaman]

Yup... It's all here in this Post...

Edit: this was for Hitech... I hadn't refreshed in a while...

Now...what is interesting is this.

In August 2004, WDP (NPF) won against SP in Oregon. The ruling there was that the patent for the "electronic" marker was not held solely by SP but should also be granted to both WDP and SP (Both names on the patent). U.S. Patent No. 6,474,326

http://www.paintballchannel.com/news/industry/story04341.php

Now, in December 2004 the Wisconsin courts say that WDP holds the patent for the "reprogrammable microprocessors" use in paintball guns. U.S. patent number 6,615,814

http://www.68caliber.com/news/industry/story04594.php

This puts WDP in a very powerful position. Now I am sure these two court battles were not cheap for WDP, so how are they going to get their money back? Is it going to be by lowering the price of their guns and trying to sell more of them? Is it going to be by charging a $1 per gun licensing fee to other companies for the use of the "electro" gun and any gun that uses the "reprogrammable microprocessors" (Since they do hold rights to both patents). My guess is that they will charge companies a decent fee...not a small fee...but we can hope.

On the other side of this. SP still holds the patent on the "electro" gun. So they can still require a license fee. What I am not sure about, and maybe if there is a patent lawyer in the house they can answer it. If WDP makes a license agreement with company 'A' in regards to U.S. Patent No. 6,474,326 can Smart Parts turn around and require a license fee also?

All this really did was take a sticky and ugly situation and turned it into tar.

What I would have rather seen was the Oregon courts throw out the validity of the patent totally, not give WDP the rights to it as well.


BTW: Here are the two patents in questions:

U.S. Patent No. 6,474,326:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%226%2C474%2C326%22&OS=%226,474,326%22&RS=%226,474,326%22

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%226%2C474%2C326%22&OS=%226,474,326%22&RS=%226,474,326%22

U.S. Patent No. 6,615,814:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...226,615,814%22

[Muzikman]

I pulled this from the Shocker forum on PBN:

Well damn, that doesn't seem like all that much money.

The saga continues...

[rabidchihauhau]

those of you having an issue with the reprogrammable chip thing don't understand patent claims.

It is perfectly acceptable to apply an existing technology (chips) to a new and novel application (paintball gun control) and receive a patent for it.

They did not get a patent on the chip.

Geez.

[Muzikman]

No, they got a patent on the ability to reprogram/retrieve data from that chip while it is still in the gun.

ie. You can not have a datalink cable any more with out paying a license fee to WDP. You also can not have an LCD (and maybe even an LED) screen on your gun without paying license fees to WDP.