the Automag a spool valve?

[Lohman446]

I guess it could be argued that a mag is a very basic spool valve, but that's a vast, vast generalization to the point where I'd say the designs are two completely different beasts. I think a prior poster was correct in saying that this is a good way for SP to sidestep legal action pointed at them by claiming prior art by AGD.

I agree partially with this. I think what SP is going to argue is that any open bolt semi-auto marker has prior art in the mag. Where I do not beleive that the spring returned bolt on the mag is a spool valve I think that the argument could be made that the spool valve was obvious evolution of an air returned bolt (timmy and whatever) that was an obvious evolution of the mag and is thus not patentable because of prior art and obviousness.

I wonder where TK stands on this, and how much $$ he stands to make if a court sets precedent that all open bolt markers are obvious advancements of the mag and subject to its patent (during the patent life).

[hitech]

...all open bolt markers are obvious advancements of the mag and subject to its patent (during the patent life).

There were open bolt semis before the 'mag.

[Lohman446]

There were open bolt semis before the 'mag.

Well then... obvious advancements of whatever??

Oops...

[Jack & Coke]

He must have figured that all single tube guns are spool valves.

AGD

Who woulda thunkit?

[Evil Bob]

There were open bolt semis before the 'mag.

First mass produced open bolt semi I knew about was the PMI III (later renamed the VM-68), the grandfather of the spring forward, blow back stack tube design, bought one when I saw it in 1990.

-Evil Bob

[Lohman446]

LMAO.. after all these years could you see Tippman sending out cease and desist orders, getting royalties, and being THE major sponsor of tournaments.

[JimmyBeam]

lol

[Enemy]

losley interpreted under dyes patent concerning the operation of the patented valve(spool valve) there are alot of similarities between the electronic spool valves and the mechanical cork in a bottle with a spring on the end.lmao that just sounds funny! i mean the patent isnt as specific as it should be and actually left a little broad..(hmm dye must be taking notes) so if sp were to take the pantents discripription to its losest terms, im talking singapore hooker lose, then they may be able to convince a jury that agd owns the patent to the spool valve!! then when agd sues they will claim that there design is far more advanced than agds pantent includes and negate their previous claims. but thats all just speculation lets tune in and find out!!

ps its 2 20 am so yeah that really sounds funny!!

[ApexAZ]

Actually SP is trying to argue that the ION is a blow forward like a Mag, not the other way around.

Obviously that's the only arguement that if could be shown, would get Dye off thier case.

That's why.

No, Sean is trying to say the automag is a spool valve.

The automag is a spool valve as well as the ion. The on/off is different and it is spring return where as the ion is electonically controlled.

[RRfireblade]

He's confused with what SP is trying to prove in order to side step Dye's infringement suit against them. They would like to show that a blow forward and a spool valve are based on the same principal idea and are looking for a link to that theory.

The Automag "aint" it.

[ApexAZ]

He's confused with what SP is trying to prove in order to side step Dye's infringement suit against them. They would like to show that a blow forward and a spool valve are based on the same principal idea and are looking for a link to that theory.

The Automag "aint" it.

Gotcha. Do you really think that's SP's agenda?

[quik]

He's just trying to impress the PBN kids guys, thats all.

[SlartyBartFast]

I think that the argument could be made that the spool valve was obvious evolution of an air returned bolt (timmy and whatever) that was an obvious evolution of the mag and is thus not patentable because of prior art and obviousness.

And if that is the argument used, someone with their act together could argue many current paintball patents are simply obvious uses of technology developed and patented in other industries.

I fail to understand why this hasn't occured.....

Notable exceptions would be devices and technology SPECIFICALLY related to paintball such as the incorporation of the bolt mechanism with the valve (Automag, DYE Spool Valve).

But everything else........

[RRfireblade]

Everything since the sharpened wooden stick is an evolution of something. That doesn't obsolve it from the realm new invention or neccessarily qualify it as prior art.

An ample 'improvement' over a previous invention, currently patented or otherwise,is grounds enough for new and seperate Patent.

The primary reason why current Patents, if done correctly, are typically so broad in description is to try and encompass future developments and improvements so as to 'not' allow a new,superceding Patent to be applied for or granted over it.

[ShadowCaster]

Ok you said it three times.....

NO the mag valve is NOT a spool valve. There are some things that are similar but I am very suprised someone from SP said it was. He must have figured that all single tube guns are spool valves.

AGD

Seems like the SP guys are trying to play the blame game and try to take down as many companies as they can with them in the whole Dye lawsuit thing.