DIY PneuMags & PTP

[RRfireblade]

Looks like Fig 7 and Fig 8 cover that type of set up , as well as other variations.

Do the pics and thier descriptions carry any weight ?

Honestly asking. No sarcasm.

[RRfireblade]

Now it's bed time, I gotta be up in 4 hrs.

Nighty night.

[Lenny]

I've been following this thread since the beginning, and I truly find it all very fascinating and unwittingly intelligent (did that make sense?).

But, I have a couple of questions of my own to ask.

1. After looking at the patents, breifly reading them, and studying the diagrams, I notice the designs are incredibly sophisticated, but very different from the homebrew mods. I understand mildly what you mean saying it is much more advanced, but I must ask; is the current method used in the DIY mods legal? Would the patents cover the mechanic process of the pneumatics within a common DIY frame? The diagrams look very different from internal pics of a few frames I have seen posted here done by Pneumagger and others.

2. Where did CMI play into this? I realize they had nothing to do with the issue being currently argued, but they did produce a blow-forward style marker with a pneumatic trigger assembly (although it was very poor). What happened with that? Legal? Illegal? What were the differences?

3. I must ask, how hasn't RRfireblade earned his respect? I believe it was mobsterboy who said RR earned it by "fear" or something like that, but I have to protest. RR has made it VERY clear that he is not a legal whiz and has only explained the patent legalities to the best of his knowlege (much like everyone else who has posted anything legalistic about patents here). He has admited on numerous occaisions that he is no expert, but for the sake of proving his point, he explains what he understands. Is it his fault he is not a legal expert? Theoretically, yes, but then, we all can't be experts of everything, can we? I know for sure I am no expert in various law, but I do understand some of it and, though possibly not entirely correct, am allowed to state my understandings of it when brought up in debate similar to this one.

I say RR has made some great contributions, as well as keeping a less-hastely attitude while arguing here (and I must commend his common arguers also for this same feat). I say he should have our respect, and has gained mine through intelligent post; much the same as NiCad, rabid, and many others. And I also must comment on this as well: I have never heard such lowly speech of Tom. Everytime someone posts something about him, he is held in very high regards. Now, nothing is outrageously demeaning, and is quite possibly true for all I know, but he still has my respect as an inventor and as an intellect. Assuming this is Tom Kaye you're all talking about. If not, belay my last.

I should also note, with the last comments made, I honestly meant no hostilities and pray nothing stated was taken that way.


**Just thought of something. I had a video saved on my computer once of a man shooting a singe triggered frame (Benchmark?) on a yellow MiniMag pretty fast. The footage seemed older, and there was an LPR mounted on the vert ASA. Is this video related to any of these projects discussed? May I also have some more information on it and the eary developments shown?

[Pneumagger]

Jay, A septuple (SP?) post. I think that's an AO first.

Shaweet!!!

[rabidchihauhau]

Granted!
"we (Deadlywind) didn't have the finances to make the product"
"we (Deadlywind) folded because Tom bailed on us"
"we (Deadlywind) do not have the capacity to make volume product"
"our (Deadlywind) design was inferior and that is why AGD 'rejected' it".
Do you think I am making this up? Perhaps some AO'ers here remember some of these.

let's do this one at a time:

finances - I don't remember saying anything on this subject, but if I did it was most likely speculation - but again, I don't think I said anything like that
Tom bailed - again, I don't recall commenting on this
volume production - same as the above
product quality - no mention of inferiority was made: what was suggested and - sorry if I'm breaking confidences here but I'm fed up - was that the design submitted to AGD was 'way too complicated' 'had far too many parts' and 'would be extremely expensive to mfg': that's quote and verbatim from the parties involved. Designs have to be 'new' - they also have to be economically practical, and the above stated reasons were what I understood AGD's primary concerns to be - nice concept, well executed, too expensive to put into mass production.

Jay's design got us down to one complicated part to manufacture, and fortunately, that part could be made from existing product with some modification.

Here's more from the fed-up department. The examiner you speak of Ricci, has been solely responsible for the vast majority of paintball patent screwups over the past 7-10 years. He's the one who granted someone other than Tom the powerfeed patent, he's the one who granted smart part's original patent (need I say more?)

Also, for your edification: the 'claims' are perhaps "the most important part" of a patent, but ALL of a patent's application comes into play in determining the intent of the designer. ALL of the parts of the application that you are so quick to dismiss have been used in patent dispute cases as the DECIDING factor.

If we had had the money and the time when the original split of the patent came up, we would have fought the split because the concept was the same, just modified for different existing platforms. Ricci chose to take a different point of view. We did not have the time or $ to fool around - they'd already delayed us 2 years at that time.

The DW patent is NOT the only patent to be granted on a subject while another application covering the exact same design WITH AN EARLIER PRIORITY DATE was in delay for some reason or another, only to be granted and causing the invalidation of the other granted patent.

In fact, the above scenario is one of the points of discussion between SP and WDP...

You can look at a divisional two ways. first - the way you are choosing to - negatively - ooo, they were FORCED to have to resubmit the claims oooo, they must have done something BAD, or you can look at it positively - hey, two patents for the price of one. Boy won't this screw things up when the second one is finally granted...

Your 'objections' on this score, as you pointed out, don't amount to a hill of beans unless the patent is granted - right? You can choose to believe that your grant will remain good and hope the second PTP app gets canned for some reason and under those circumstances you have nothing to worry about, do you? Or, you can choose to believe, as I do, that the patent will grant, because I did my homework and I'm VERY familiar with Ricci and the process. Its annoying, expensive but in the final analysis, the PTO WANTS those fees.... and at that point someone other than myself will have to jump in and make a decision.

People can go two ways when it comes to pending grants and potentially infringing competitor product. They can keep their mouths shut and then slam those other people with a C&D followed by a lawsuit, or they can give due notification, discharge their responsibility in a friendly way (hey, I think what you're working on may already be covered by a patent) and hope that the other guy makes the right decision.

Finally, for what its worth; when lawyers play the 'infringing' game, they NEVER send along the claims - never. Most don't even site the patent number. All they say is 'you are stepping on our toes, stop or else' and leave it up to the supposed offender to figure out where, how and why. Make that OTHER guy do the homework. So then the other guy writes back and says 'show me the claims you think I'm stepping on' and they get a letter back saying something like 'hey, that's not our responsibility, but you better get off our toes right now!"

That's the way the game is played. Directing the offending party to the specifics is giving them a roadmap on how to get around it and the objective of the original party is not to help a competitor but to get them to stop.

Go read the claims in the pending application. Assume for a moment its going to grant. (Assume also that there are many factors contributing to this story that have little to do with patents) and then see where that puts you.

[rabidchihauhau]

[Jimbud]

I am by no means a legal expert.

But the way I read claims 7,8, 9 they are for assisting trigger movement.

Nicads Patent seams to have nothing to do with assisting the trigger but with amplifying trigger movement and assisting Sear movement via the ram.

No?

[rabidchihauhau]

I am by no means a legal expert.

But the way I read claims 7,8, 9 they are for assisting trigger movement.

Nicads Patent seams to have nothing to do with assisting the trigger but with amplifying trigger movement and assisting Sear movement via the ram.

No?

please define the difference between 'assistance' and 'amplification'....

and usually the diagrams and methodology are used to make that determination.

The main issue is lack of education and knowledge on the patent office's part. They have VERY limited access to prior art in paintball, seem to be very unwilling to obtain such and often contradict themselves.

I have no doubt I could get a grant for a 'stickfeed'; how about the grant for the 'sports mask' that incorporates a 'face shield' as an integral part of the goggle? That one slipped through a few months ago.

Even (most) granted patents aren't enforceable in the long run; you've got to have the 'unique idea' - PLUS you've got to demonstrate the physical method of bringing it into reality. There are tons of grants that demonstrate the 'idea' but turn out to be non-working.

There's also the differentiation between 'same method, different means' and a truly different approach. You get a patent for a 'device for attaching two boards together' (the nail) and I put in an app for 'a device for temporarily conjoining planks of wood' (the 'screw'; sometimes the examiners say 'that's the same as the nail thing' and other times they say 'its different' - and often they have not a clue but are satisfied to collect their annual fees and let inventors waste their money in court.

We got initially denied for another patent based on the examiners claim of prior art from 1933. The device quoted to us was a method of connecting two same-sized metal pipes with a permanent seal between them. Our application was a device for TEMPORARILY holding two objects of different diameters and materials together and being easily removable. The '33 pipe connector was intended to be buried underground as a permanent fixture. Ours was intended to be used repeatedly, etc., etc. Took almost a year to get the examiner (Ricci, again) to recognize that the pipe patent had no bearing as prior art. He actually went WAY outside the 'recommended searches', based on field of invention, from the patent examiner's search manual. So much so that we suspected that he was deliberately trying to invalidate the patent for some reason we couldn't fathom.

How about smart part's patents - think things went smooth there? How about having TWO divisionals grant BEFORE the original application granted and how about the original patent was abandoned and then re-instated? Not to mention the fact that almost anyone who knows patents who has been asked to look at those grants has described them as either 'ridiculous', 'no idea why they granted' and 'those are VERY weak' - but hey, they're patents now so they must have invented it...

I will certainly grant that colin has created some good technology over the years and I will definately state that it is quite possible for two (or more) people to come up with essentially the same concept while being totally independent of each other, but I will also state that the method in our society for laying claim to an idea is the patent, no matter how screwed up the PTO is and, for those who want to argue patents, the filing date and the finding by the court(s) are how things are worked out; no amount of speculation on the publics part affects that - nor does 'rightness' or 'wrongness'. We know Bells' name because he got the application for the phone in first - supposedly only by a day; many have argued that the other guy's invention was better and more thought out, but the billion dollar company has Bell's name on it. Not right, not wrong, just the facts maam.

[luke]

I do not think PTP would like for AO to hear my side of the story. I do not know everything as well, but the point is I kept my mouth shut.

OK, now you've gone too far, you have to tell use what really happened.

(please)

[Pneumagger]

please define the difference between 'assistance' and 'amplification'.....

what he's saying is that colin's design strictly deals with lightening the trigger and decreasing the amplitude of the distance/weight by using a ram which in turn assists the Mag valve. The assistence in his frame comes from the air assisting the sear pull, not the trigger return or pull. You have an air assist trigger and he has a sear assist frame...quite a legal difference I feel.

However, you could say that collin's frame "assists by decreasing amplitude" - then what?

And if your patenting "forces" assisting trigger movement...that's pretty general and lame. (right up there with SP patenting electronics) Every trigger on every gun has a constant or varying force to reset it, other wise everyone would manually have to pull their triggers forward. Hell, the Emag has both mech and magnetic trigger returns. I personally think that your patent steps on AGD's RT toes. I believe that AGD technology would fall under the category of "a trigger force designed to help the marker fire faster"
\/\/\/

...7. A method of assisting the movement of a trigger between a resting position and a firing position to increase the rate at which paintballs can be fired from a paintball gun, the method comprising the steps of: positioning a force element behind the trigger of the paintball gun; sensing the movement of the trigger from the resting position to the firing position; and activating the force element to assist the movement of the trigger from the resting position to the firing position....

[rabidchihauhau]

[QUOTE=Pneumagger]what he's saying is that colin's design strictly deals with lightening the trigger and decreasing the amplitude of the distance/weight by using a ram which in turn assists the Mag valve. The assistence in his frame comes from the air assisting the sear pull, not the trigger return or pull. You have an air assist trigger and he has a sear assist frame...quite a legal difference I feel.


and the E-Mag patent application was based on creating an 'electronic SEAR' for which there was NO prior art, but that got bogged down and dunned by others with existing patents.

sorry to disappoint, but we worked in lock-step with AGD on the e-mag; in fact, the initial patent application came out of pro-team and was based on earlier discussions.

you will also note that other claims in the PTP patent assist not just in the 'activation' but in the 'return'.

when it comes to a 'mag, show me the line of demarkation that separates the 'trigger' from the 'sear' - and don't cop out with they're not 'mechanically' connected. You can fire a mag with a pair of needle nose pliers by pulling on the clevis rod.

Colin 'point of influence' is different than the PTP version, but it does the same thing, in my opinion.

I'll make absolutely no apologies for my 'smart part' ways when it comes to patent apps. (Someone on the white board even accused me of being WORSE than they are); I studied the process and was employed to do the best job I could for PTP - not for everyone on the planet. Had I been writing a patent app for you, I would have employed the same methods. I do, however, pride myself on the fact that while I played the SP patent app game, my claims were solid claims for working designs, not fantasy...

[rkjunior303]

I'll make absolutely no apologies for my 'smart part' ways when it comes to patent apps. (Someone on the white board even accused me of being WORSE than they are); I studied the process and was employed to do the best job I could for PTP - not for everyone on the planet. Had I been writing a patent app for you, I would have employed the same methods. I do, however, pride myself on the fact that while I played the SP patent app game, my claims were solid claims for working designs, not fantasy...

Business is Business for a reason.

[StygShore]

ho hum....

Wow....the paintball world has become so stagnant that we are bringing this up again

I am impressed at how much more "alluded too" information has come out in this discussion than in the past.

I guess those that are in the know are finally just bursting at the seems to tell someone the truth and all they really know - but don't for fear "big brother" will come down on them.


Styg




oh well, at least its a topic that people are writing loooong responses too, so it gives me something to read at my desk waiting for the work day to end....

[robnix]

You can fire a mag with a pair of needle nose pliers by pulling on the clevis rod.

Who needs pliers? I can fire my mag by jumping up and down.

[Jimbud]

Pretty much what Pneumagger said.

Your patent is about assisting the the movement of the Trigger. But relative to What?

Most markers have a semi fixed trigger input force.

Many markers "amplify" this force to fire marker.

Colin's patent takes a semi fixed trigger input force and moves the Sear.

He simply uses pnuematic to do this. Just as a means to an end.

The argument that his use of Pnuematics to do this lightens the pull and therefor "assists" trigger movement is ridiculous.

So does using a microswitch and electronics. You going to go after Smart Parts too?

If I adjust the spring return of my EGO trigger to lighten the pull am I now in violation of your patent?

How about if I switch out the single trigger frame of my Mag to a Duel trigger Intelli there by incresing my leverage and lighting my pull, another violation?

Not to mention that as Pnuemagger pointed out that the RT valve patent may already cover
Pnuematicaly assited triggers.

I think in your attemt to be as broad as possible in your patent app. you may have made it so broad as to be pointless.