Is PTP wrong in what they've done regarding a pneumatic trigger?

[tony3]

Well I'm moving to cuba

[teufelhunden]

Warped, I believe the comparison you want to make is capitalism to communism, not democracy to communism.

And bunker17, I do not work for PTP. I simply feel that PTP is getting dicked around on AO because of what happened, and that they don't deserve it.

[teufelhunden]

Tom, I see you voted yes; as someone who was on the inside of the DW side of this, at least for some time, I'd like to hear why you feel this way.

[WARPED1]

Another thing I've noticed, nearly every poster here wants ONLY AGD, Deadlywind, Rouge, and Tuna to do anything involved in paintball! Diversity is good guys. I mean, look at cockers. Nearly every company makes cocker parts or accessories.

[Muzikman]

Another thing I've noticed, nearly every poster here wants ONLY AGD, Deadlywind, Rouge, and Tuna to do anything involved in paintball! Diversity is good guys. I mean, look at cockers. Nearly every company makes cocker parts or accessories.

I don't think anyone cares who makes them, as long as the parts are made. Think about it, where would the cocker be today if one company said, we have the right to the automation system used and would not let any other company make items for this system without paying high licensing fees?

[peewee]

Well I'm a freak because in the past all my double triggers have been benchmarks. They "work " for me. I voted No , I dont believe that they are wrong in protecting thier interest. Its sad that DW & PTP couldnt come to an agreement or work together as a team to get this product out to the consumer. I think that working together & combining together on the project would have given them a great mix & probably a great product that would have been more cost effective for us. Dont know if what I just wrote makes sence only had 1.5 hours sleep in the last 48.

[WARPED1]

I don't think anyone cares who makes them, as long as the parts are made. Think about it, where would the cocker be today if one company said, we have the right to the automation system used and would not let any other company make items for this system without paying high licensing fees?

Exactly, but most here want only those I mentioned to make stuff. If the tolerences were easily available to aftermarket companies, mags would fly off the shelf! As far as I know, AGD keeps thier tolerences of thier products top secret. Thats why the ANS valves failed IMO. And why nearly no company makes mag stuff, which sucks, because the mag is a solid marker. The Emag could probably keep up with most guns out there.

[bunker17]

what i said is not to just give that it should had been negotiaed so both business could work out their things
teufelhunden: what i meant to say is that they are not doing anything wrong but that, at least i wouldn't have mind if they have found a way to make a deal and yeah they are getting the tough in the forum

[Eric Cartman]

Tom, I see you voted yes; as someone who was on the inside of the DW side of this, at least for some time, I'd like to hear why you feel this way.

As would a great many of us. Care to shed a little light Tom?

[SlartyBartFast]

They should have and could have patented them..

You clearly paid no attention to what I wrote and don't understand the fundamental change in patenting philosophy since Bell and Edison's time.

They could NOT have patented the ideas. No more than Jules Verne could have patented the submarine or rocket ship. Arthur C. Clark and Issacc Asimov could have been much richer men if they patented the ideas from their imagination instead of writing Sci-Fi. And that's the fundamental sickness of the aptent office. The people verifying the patents have no idea whether what they are reading is fiction or not.

An idea is easy to have. Dime a dozen. The REAL effort is actually getting something to work and to then put it into production.

Previously, the patent office required a fully operational prototype before a patent was issued. So only the first person to successfully build a working device could claim to be the inventor. Not just someone with an overactive imagination and a desire to get rich on other people's efforts.

[rabidchihauhau]

Slarty,

there are issues with the PTO, but you are focusing on something that is not the problem:

You cited A.C. Clarke and his communications satellite. What Clarke wrote up was not "hey, stick a ball in geosynch and bounce signals off of it" (idea), but all of the necessary orbital mechanics, signal reflection methods, using geosynchronous orbit, wavelength data, loss of signal data, etc., etc., etc. (prototype). BIG difference between the two.

Likewise, the PTP patent is not an 'idea' application (hey, use gas to return the trigger and assist in the pull), but a detailed explanation of several different PHYSICAL methods by which those goals are achieved. Not only that, but PTP (as long as I was there) BUILT PROTOTYPES before writing up the patent app. We did it that way for two very good reasons: one, as you said, a truly VALID patent is built and exists and two, doing so allowed us to find alternative methods for accomplishing the same thing and thereby strengthen the scope of the claims.

The PTP patent is completely valid as, among other things, it doesn't just cover one implementation, but utilizes THE SAME SYSTEM for blowback guns, blow-forward guns and autococking guns - quite a feat of UNIQUE engineering.

The article you quoted is, obviously, from somone who shares your views about patents, and they are off on a tangent as well. The article itself said this " "The wise people, with good patent lawyers, patent a whole system," says Thomas P. Hughes." That 'system' STILL has to go through the process of meeting ALL of the requirments for a patent (uniqueness, no prior art, non-obviousness) - whether it covers a single described application (method for pouring water from a cup into a bucket) or a 'system' (method for transferring fluids from a resevoir to a larger resevoir). The 'scope' of the application does not in itself confer invalidity.

Furthermore, the issues with program based applications and business method applications are far enough removed from physically embodied applications to not really apply; a program can't get enough protection from copyright (for example) to confer control on the developer - they need to describe the individual actions of their code (broadening the scope, perhaps too far) in order to protect their 'idea'. Doing the same thing in a different programming language would get right around a copyright.

I agree that there are problems at the PTO, but they are ones of scale, not fundamental problems with the whole system.

[SlartyBartFast]

Likewise, the PTP patent is not an 'idea' application (hey, use gas to return the trigger and assist in the pull), but a detailed explanation of several different PHYSICAL methods by which those goals are achieved. Not only that, but PTP (as long as I was there) BUILT PROTOTYPES before writing up the patent app. We did it that way for two very good reasons: one, as you said, a truly VALID patent is built and exists and two, doing so allowed us to find alternative methods for accomplishing the same thing and thereby strengthen the scope of the claims.

Hey, cool down. I didn't mean to infer the PTP patent was just an idea. SO, cool, you made prototypes. So did a great number of people. Does each PTP claim predate all the various tinker built and other pneumatic triggers?

But, I have a big issue with "several different PHYSICAL methods by which those goals are achieved". If you come up with an idea (hey, use gas to return the trigger and assist in the pull) and then brainstorm all the possible ways and put them in a patent, you have defacto patented the idea. And whether you made prototypes of each type is really not important. The simple fact that you then choose to market only one type of the device really shows that the purpose of the patent is not to protect your intellectual proerty rights on one device but to stiffle all possible competition from differing devices. Indeed the marketing and production of a single varient should be used to invalidate all the extraneous claims as your abandonment and non-intent to produce the varients is obvious and self declaired.

IMO, and my understanding of the classical interpretation of patent law and applicability, EACH "physical" method should be a SEPARATE patent. AND, each patent holder should be held to produce and market their product within a very short period of time. Only, then could there would be true competition and the patent office could really live up to their claims of encouraging competition and development.

The "non-physical" should not be patented nor should patents be allowed to cover all physical variations so as to effectively patent the basic idea (WDP patenting ALL different uses of screens and outside programming, for lack of a better example as I find those claims must be invalid on other grounds).

[WARPED1]

what i said is not to just give that it should had been negotiaed so both business could work out their things
teufelhunden: what i meant to say is that they are not doing anything wrong but that, at least i wouldn't have mind if they have found a way to make a deal and yeah they are getting the tough in the forum

That would have been good. But since DW is only like 2 guys in thier garage, they probably couldn't afford the licensing fees, too bad .
But, my opinion is, if you want the trigger pull of an electro, buy an electro!!!

Slarty,

there are issues with the PTO, but you are focusing on something that is not the problem:

You cited A.C. Clarke and his communications satellite. What Clarke wrote up was not "hey, stick a ball in geosynch and bounce signals off of it" (idea), but all of the necessary orbital mechanics, signal reflection methods, using geosynchronous orbit, wavelength data, loss of signal data, etc., etc., etc. (prototype). BIG difference between the two.

Likewise, the PTP patent is not an 'idea' application (hey, use gas to return the trigger and assist in the pull), but a detailed explanation of several different PHYSICAL methods by which those goals are achieved. Not only that, but PTP (as long as I was there) BUILT PROTOTYPES before writing up the patent app. We did it that way for two very good reasons: one, as you said, a truly VALID patent is built and exists and two, doing so allowed us to find alternative methods for accomplishing the same thing and thereby strengthen the scope of the claims.

The PTP patent is completely valid as, among other things, it doesn't just cover one implementation, but utilizes THE SAME SYSTEM for blowback guns, blow-forward guns and autococking guns - quite a feat of UNIQUE engineering.

The article you quoted is, obviously, from somone who shares your views about patents, and they are off on a tangent as well. The article itself said this " "The wise people, with good patent lawyers, patent a whole system," says Thomas P. Hughes." That 'system' STILL has to go through the process of meeting ALL of the requirments for a patent (uniqueness, no prior art, non-obviousness) - whether it covers a single described application (method for pouring water from a cup into a bucket) or a 'system' (method for transferring fluids from a resevoir to a larger resevoir). The 'scope' of the application does not in itself confer invalidity.

Furthermore, the issues with program based applications and business method applications are far enough removed from physically embodied applications to not really apply; a program can't get enough protection from copyright (for example) to confer control on the developer - they need to describe the individual actions of their code (broadening the scope, perhaps too far) in order to protect their 'idea'. Doing the same thing in a different programming language would get right around a copyright.

I agree that there are problems at the PTO, but they are ones of scale, not fundamental problems with the whole system.

FINALLY! Someone who actually knows stuff about patents!

[Muzikman]

http://www.m-cam.com/~watsonj/usptohistory.html

That is a great paper on the history of the US Patent Office and how the problems we are having today could have been solved in the 1700's

[cphilip]

Exactly, but most here want only those I mentioned to make stuff. If the tolerences were easily available to aftermarket companies, mags would fly off the shelf! As far as I know, AGD keeps thier tolerences of thier products top secret. Thats why the ANS valves failed IMO. And why nearly no company makes mag stuff, which sucks, because the mag is a solid marker. The Emag could probably keep up with most guns out there.

Wrong.... in several ways....

The tolerances are no secret. The specs are easily measured on an exisiting marker. No one can keep that a secret. It never has been a secret. Anyone with lick of sense and some patiences can determine what they are. And in the Past Tom has feely given some of the CADs away for others to use if they wish.

The fact is that the Mags design Requires close adherance to certain tolerances. Not that its a secret. The marker has very little room for error and adjustment. If its built right it works. And works for a long long time! So its highly important to build every part within a very narrow spectrum of tolerances. It's the markers "timing" if you will. And many manufacturers do not wish to spend the time and money to build to those tight tolerances. For instance a Cocker can be made badly out of tolerance from one to another. Most of them in fact are. And eventualy with the right rods and such you can tweek all that out of it for the most part and make it shoot. But with the mag, if its badly off, it will just have to be remade. Nothing to adjust outside the small narrow window of shim/PT spacers and on off pin lengths. All those things working together have to match up in a very narrow window. When made correctly, They stay there for a long long time. But in the example of the cocker they keep moving around and wearing down and changing ... so you end up retiming it... over and over again...not so with the Mag. You make it right first and foremost and then leave it alone.

There is no secret kept that keeps anyone from making them. THey can make them. But they have to make them right. And then they have to make them over and over again exactly the same. Not many people can get cheap Chinese importers to do that. So anyone else that wants to do it can but its not realy gonna be done with cheap import parts. Most of those would end up in the scrap metal bin.