DIY PneuMags & PTP

[Chronobreak]

pepsi anyone?

:note to self, dont resurect pneu thread:

,......::looks at jay with sad puppy eyes::

:slips rabid a $20:

[RRfireblade]

pepsi anyone?

:note to self, dont resurect pneu thread:

,......::looks at jay with sad puppy eyes::

:slips rabid a $20:

Mmm Hmm....

Now your on 2 of my lists , funny boy.

[REDRT]

Anyone know why DW's hAir trigger was suggested/needed the standard RT on/off and not the ULT. It has been a while, but I seem to recall it using the standard RT on/off. Now as more and more poeple are DYI the norm is ULT. What was different with the DW set up vs a common set up?

[RRfireblade]

Anyone know why DW's hAir trigger was suggested/needed the standard RT on/off and not the ULT. It has been a while, but I seem to recall it using the standard RT on/off. Now as more and more poeple are DYI the norm is ULT. What was different with the DW set up vs a common set up?

The DIYers use a trigger switch whose activation force increases with LPR pressure which runs in parallel with the force required to trip the sear. ULT=less pressure=Lighter trigger pull.

Neither mine nor DWs has that issue therefore any on/off can be used. Technically the stock RT on/off allows for the highest possible cycle rate.

[REDRT]

The DIYers use a trigger switch whose activation force increases with LPR pressure which runs in parallel with the force required to trip the sear. ULT=less pressure=Lighter trigger pull.

Neither mine nor DWs has that issue therefore any on/off can be used. Technically the stock RT on/off allows for the highest possible cycle rate.

I may have been snoozing at the wheel, but do you build a drop in frame one can buy?

[RRfireblade]

I may have been snoozing at the wheel, but do you build a drop in frame one can buy?

Working on it is all Ima say.

[robnix]

Then I promise you , Coke would sue you so fast your head would spin since they will 'find' grounds to back them up as having rights to the traditional Coke taste.

Bank it.

No they won't. Why do you think a BBQ sauce maker keeps at least portions of his recipe a secret? You can't patent a recipe. Even with copyrights, a list of ingredients doesn't make a copyright.unless it's accompanied by substantial documentation, and even then it's very dificult to make a copyright claim against someone. There's a really good article about stealing recipes in the culinary world here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/story/0,,1738630,00.html

I know it's an english newspaper, but there are references to UK and US law in it.

And, here, make some of your own:

http://inlet.org/adwatch/opencolaformula.htm

[rabidchihauhau]

Excuse me, but you CAN patent a 'recipe'.

Specifically for paintball, Mike Ratko has several 'paintball formulation recipes' patented. It has claims that read something like: "a formulation consisting of a mixture of between .001% and .99% chemical X, .001% and .99% of chemical Y and .001% and .99% of chemical Z"

Wanna talk about 'vague'? (Please note the above is a grave simplification; in the actual patent, there are also listings of alternative chemicals for each of the components, such as ethyleneglycol, polyethyleneglycol, multipolyethyleneglycol, toomuchmultipolyethyleneglycol, etc.)

Guys, the FIRST thing you have to remember about patents is that you are not granted a right TO DO ANYTHING! You are granted the right to PREVENT OTHERS FROM DOING!!!

That most specifically consists of creating something and then sitting on it.

Coca-Cola did not patent their formula because they believed, after careful strategic analysis, that the patent lifetime was too short for their purposes; they wanted to keep it a secret from everyone, FOREVER, not just 21 years.

Slarty - I'd re-think what you're suggesting. Your plan will cut the vast majority of small inventors, companies entirely out of the mix because most lack the financial wherewithal to bring a product to market. If I were Mr. Big Co, I'd be spending good money on spying on my competitors and bringing out a 'kill their patent product' every single day under your suggested system.

The problems with patents today stems from the ill-considered change to the PTO that took them from being a cost center of the Fed to being a profit center. Now, the PTO has a vested interest in granting as many patents as they can possibly shove out the door, while avoiding any responsibility (take it to court...). Prior to 2000, they had a vested interest in ONLY granting solid patents. It was a matter of pride to be able to say, 'not good enough, re-work the claims'. Their salaries were not linked to the fees collected, but to the rigor with which they reviewed claims.

I believe that the fundamental cultural change that took place was in the area of 'fields of invention' and the definition of 'one skilled in the art'. By narrowing the scope of both of these, they made it possible to divorce firearms technology from paintball technology, allowing someone to get a grant for, say, a switch operated by a trigger - desite the existence of prior art in the firearms industry.

How many of you have walked into the hardware store and said 'hey, that can be adapted for paintball...'? Well, under the old culture, that adaptation would have constituted prior art. Today, it doesn't seem to count.

Its also complicated by the inability of the PTO to keep up with all of the different fields; there's an app in right now that claims that 'no sports goggle has been coupled with a face shield', despite the many years of motocross and paintball 'masks'. Its actually questionable whether the examiner looking at that app will ever be exposed to motocross or paintball masks. If so, the examiner will grant the application, and the guy who put it in will hire a lawyer to write C&Ds to every mask maker out there...

Here's the REAL situation in industry. If you can't dominate a market out of the gate, you need IP. If you don't have the $ to enforce your IP, the bad guys will go merrily along, selling YOUR invention, banking oodles and further increasing their abiiity to ignore you. If you don't have IP and try to bring something to market, the bad guys will copy you and run you off with a less expensive version, all the while advertising how wonderful their new thing is. If you get the IP and successfully market the product, the bad guys will invest in IP themselves and start to surround you, or purchase someone else's prior IP and send YOU C&D letters...

Looking at the above, it ought to be clear that you at least need to try and get the IP, because you're definately no where without it.

(ADDED: Pat No. 6,530,962:

1. A liquid dye composition adapted for use in an impact-rupturable capsule comprising a water-soluble dye and a lipophilic carrier having an oil and an emulsifier, said emulsifier comprising ethoxylated mono- and diglycerides.

2. The liquid dye composition according to claim 1 wherein the impact-rupturable capsule is spherical in shape.

3. The liquid dye composition according to claim 1 wherein the oil is a vegetable oil.

4. The liquid dye composition according to claim 3 wherein the oil is soybean oil.

5. The liquid dye composition according to claim 1 wherein the emulsifier further comprises mono- and diglycerides.

6. The liquid dye composition according to claim 5 wherein the emulsifier comprises a mixture of ethoxylated mono- and diglycerides to mono- and diglycerides in a weight ratio ranging from about 1:10 to about 10:1.

7. The liquid dye composition according to claim 1 wherein the emulsifier is present in an amount ranging from about 2.5% to about 25% by weight of the total composition.

8. The liquid dye composition according to claim 7 wherein the emulsifier is present in an amount ranging from about 5% to about 15% by weight of the total composition.

and THAT'S a recipe!

see pat. no 6,375,981 for more (and worse) of the same

[rabidchihauhau]

let's talk about 'specificity'.

paten no 6,530,962 starts with the following claims:

1. A liquid dye composition adapted for use in an impact-rupturable capsule comprising a water-soluble dye and a lipophilic carrier having an oil and an emulsifier, said emulsifier comprising ethoxylated mono- and diglycerides.

an 'impact-rupturable capsule'. Hmmm, doesn't say gelatin. Looks like they're trying to grab the ENTIRE WORLD of any material that can make up an impact rupturable capsule. Hmmm, doesn't even say 'spherical'. So, these SOBs are trying to grab ANY material and ANY shape. Looks like the boys working on the cubical paintball can hang up their shoes. Oh heck, look at this: the capsule has to break from some kind of impact. Notice it doesn't say how many foot pounds are required. Heck, it doesn't even identify whether the capsule is doing the impacting or if its being hit by some other object impacting it. These guys sure are slick. If I wanted to come up with a whoopee cushion that stained someone's pants, I guess I'll be using a sponge instead of some type of container...

Of course, I'd be able to get around this claim if I could find some other way of getting the oils used to mix into a colloidal suspension with the other materials...but then, that would be emulsifing by definition. How the HECK did those guys get away without having to specify an emulsion agent. Damn, they can use anything; wait - if there is such a thing as a triglyceride that will get the job done and be non-toxic... or, hey wait, if I use ONLY mono or di glycerides...



2. The liquid dye composition according to claim 1 wherein the impact-rupturable capsule is spherical in shape.

'spherical in shape'. Wow - that could mean anything from an oblate spheroid to a perfect sphere.

3. The liquid dye composition according to claim 1 wherein the oil is a vegetable oil.

vegetable oil. that's ANY vegetable...too bad we can't get oils out of fruits...

4. The liquid dye composition according to claim 3 wherein the oil is soybean oil.


5. The liquid dye composition according to claim 1 wherein the emulsifier further comprises mono- and diglycerides.

6. The liquid dye composition according to claim 5 wherein the emulsifier comprises a mixture of ethoxylated mono- and diglycerides to mono- and diglycerides in a weight ratio ranging from about 1:10 to about 10:1.


don't these guys know what they're making? That's anything from 'about' ten percent to 'about' 90 percent. Guess what - 1 percent is 'about' ten percent. 99 percent is 'about' 90 percent...

7. The liquid dye composition according to claim 1 wherein the emulsifier is present in an amount ranging from about 2.5% to about 25% by weight of the total composition.

pretty big ranger here too, with that smarmy 'about' word thrown in for good measure. You know what? I'll bet than any composition that has less than 2.5% or more than 25% emulsifier just won't get the job done. Bastages!

8. The liquid dye composition according to claim 7 wherein the emulsifier is present in an amount ranging from about 5% to about 15% by weight of the total composition.


And you're hopping all over me for 'force element'?

[Chronobreak]

this may be news to me only, but i assume that is an actual paint "BALL" patent?

i was unaware of who if anyone had one. or was enforcing it.

lmk if its just some random recipe though

i guess pwoered paintballs wouldnt fall under that though would they?

[rabidchihauhau]

yes, it is a paintball formulation patent

[Chronobreak]

yes, it is a paintball formulation patent

as i said i figured that much, but what paint company does that guy own, if any, and who is he( i dont recall the name)

also is said person enforcing the patent( i was unaware of ANY paint companies paying fees)

[robnix]

Excuse me, but you CAN patent a 'recipe'.

Paintballs aren't food.

http://www.lib.washington.edu/Engineering/ptdl/faq-answers.html

Recipes

In general, recipes do not meet the usefulness criterion for a patent. That is, the combination of ingredients which make the world's best peach pie is not functionally different from an ordinary peach pie.

Many companies, like Coca-Cola or Kentucky Fried Chicken, have secret recipes. Typically, they protect these recipes as trade secrets rather than patents. Since patents require the inventor to publish the invention, and since patents have a limited life span, any competitor can duplicate the invention after its patent expires. Trade secrets, on the other hand, are secret, and have no pre-set life span.

You may be able to patent a cooking method, but not a recipe for food.

[CoolHand]

Paintballs aren't food.

http://www.lib.washington.edu/Engineering/ptdl/faq-answers.html

Recipes

In general, recipes do not meet the usefulness criterion for a patent. That is, the combination of ingredients which make the world's best peach pie is not functionally different from an ordinary peach pie.

Many companies, like Coca-Cola or Kentucky Fried Chicken, have secret recipes. Typically, they protect these recipes as trade secrets rather than patents. Since patents require the inventor to publish the invention, and since patents have a limited life span, any competitor can duplicate the invention after its patent expires. Trade secrets, on the other hand, are secret, and have no pre-set life span.

You may be able to patent a cooking method, but not a recipe for food.

You COULD patent it, but you'd only have 21 yrs of protection.

That link doesn't say that it is impossible to get a patent on a recipe, they just said in general, meaning "usually". There's nothing stopping you from sending in an application, and with the way things are now, you're likelyhood of a grant is higher than ever.

[y0da900]

There's nothing stopping you from sending in an application, and with the way things are now, you're likelyhood of a grant is higher than ever.

Anyone think that the patent office will ever go back to operating the way it was meant to, and or, being held accountable for all of the patents that have been issued that shouldn't have been? It's kind of a joke some of the stuff that's gotten through.