DIY PneuMags & PTP

[rabidchihauhau]

all of which is rendered virtually moot by the fact that 'THEY'RE IN THERE'.

Do not forget that SUCCESSFULL patent infringement cases have been brought against the "original inventor", have been brought against those responsible for prior art and etc.

Let's also not forget that opportunities to license from PTP were presented - licensing that was not (imo) draconian in nature and some companies exercised that opportunity while others chose to decline.

In an infringement case - and/or an invalidation case - the fact that both parties had previously engaged in negotiations regarding licensing carries some weight as well. If DW's legal advisors recommended against licensing because they felt they had competing technology about to be patented - good for them, they were doing their job, because a licensing agreement in hand would have been a virtual defacto acknowledgement of potential infringement. Fortunately for them, they did not go quite that far (for whatever reason).

What this means for future pneu-mags may be nothing; however, I suggest that people think long and hard about the market consequences of the prevailing situation: companies that pay for IP usually prosecute their rights. usually, the 'little' guy loses (we're not discussing 'fairness' here, just reality). furthermore, consider the marketing strategy of the company that has licensed the PTP design.

[RRfireblade]

Well again I must repeat I am no legal expert.

But I would argue that seems that when the Patent was split some language, descriptions and drawings were allowed to remain that should not have.

My only response to that is the SOB-ing examiner spent 5 years tearing the application apart , breaking it up into seperate and fully patentable inventions. Don't forget the second App in question still has the potential to grant. (Then PTP would have 2 )

One would have to assume that everything left in the original application after all that intense molecular dissection was intended to be left in there. This sure as heck wasn't a weekender examination where anything could have possibly slipped by on Monday morning.

[Jimbud]

All I am saying is that there are some huge holes in your patent.

And that despite your arguments to the contrary the Issued Patent is nowhere near airtight in regard to Pneumatic Sear actuation.

Just because you have a patent does not mean it is a good patent.

But I will concede that the winner in this type of situation is usually the one with the deeper pockets rather than the one who is "in the right".
And I feel that it is fairly obvious from your arguments here that this is what you are banking on.

In the end you may be "in the right " after all, if you did file first and your second app. gets granted this really will be rendered moot.

I am not arguing who did what when, only that the Issued Patent and your aguments in support of it invalidating the DW Patent are problematic at best.

[Pneumagger]

He knows plenty about patents, i thought you weren't a legal expert. Patents commony take time and money to pull through.

[Jimbud]

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[RRfireblade]

All I am saying is that there are some huge holes in your patent.

And that despite your arguments to the contrary the Issued Patent is nowhere near airtight in regard to Pneumatic Sear actuation.

Just because you have a patent does not mean it is a good patent.

But I will concede that the winner in this type of situation is usually the one with the deeper pockets rather than the one who is "in the right".
And I feel that it is fairly obvious from your arguments here that this is what you are banking on.

In the end you may be "in the right " after all, if you did file first and your second app. gets granted this really will be rendered moot.

I am not arguing who did what when, only that the Issued Patent and your aguments in support of it invalidating the DW Patent are problematic at best.

Basically we agree only that we are looking at it from different sides.

You see holes , I see room intentionally left for interpretation that allow 'us' to cover attempts by people to get around the Patent. If PTP stated outright (which was originally the case in addition to what you see granted) pneumatic , then someone biulds the same mechanics without pneumatics and says they'r in the clear. The compromise was to allow the use of "Force Element" on that point , which a pneumatic ram is without question, and a number of other devices.

I see it as even better protection but that is purely point of view.

In regards to Patent 'quality' we ultimately agree again only that I see it and it has been proven an endless number of times , that there are no 'good' patents only good trial laywers. We/PTP have been on both sides and in the end the paper and dates win until proven otherwise.

On the last item we again agree on. Is that the origin of the invention as it applies here is proven , documented fact in not only Grant 1 but in highly detailed application 2 that is yet to be granted....submitted almost 6 years ago. No one here , especially not myself , is trying to invalidate DWs patent. On the contrary I stated like 2 dozen pages ago that at this point only a court case could effect any possible decision. The issue on the forums inevitably comes when people (not directed at anyone) who don't like being backed in a corner with no way out try to climb the walls to give them another angle to try and fight from.

So....

Given that the entire application and all it contains is what covers the invention and it's protection , along with all paragraphs reposted here for clarity , the detailed drawings , the teachings that 'specifically' cover the pneumatic use as it applies to the Mag , the filing date , granted part 1 and application part 2 (an even greater detailed application whose date will fall back to 2000) I really don't see any thing other than opinion and bias perception left to discuss.

At this point I'm going to go ahead and call myself out of it from here and leave anyone who prefers to argue the opinion side to have the floor to do so.

Thanks everyone who contributed and good manner and behavior.

Jay.

[Jimbud]

Well I think the only things that we entirely agree upon is that we are looking at it from different sides. And that only a court case could settle this.

I have to say though I do love this line coming from you.
"The issue on the forums inevitably comes when people (not directed at anyone) who don't like being backed in a corner with no way out try to climb the walls to give them another angle to try and fight from."
Something about a pot and a kettle comes to mind.

It has been an interesting discussion. And I will say this no matter who wins, if the PTP version is as good as its billed I do hope that it will eventually see the light of day.

[Beemer]

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Hey so did I. But I could get if I opened mouth after a few

[RRfireblade]

Something about a pot and a kettle comes to mind.

Not suprising , bias is often black and white.

Nighty night.

[Beemer]

Not suprising , bias is often black and white.

Nighty night.

Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night to?

[Lenny]

...And I just love how everyone skipped over my post...

I'll revise them and cut to the chase here:

1. I respect RRfireblade. This was brought up many posts ago, but I find it still valid.

2. What was up with CMI's gun with a pneumatic trigger and how did this fall into place? (I believe it was CMI. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

(More recently thought of)
3. Patents expire. What'll happen then? When does it expire?

[Loguzzzzzz]

(More recently thought of)
3. Patents expire. What'll happen then? When does it expire?

I was waiting to see if any one was going to mention this. I could be wrong but I think patents are good for 7 years. If this is the case and the patent was granted in 2000 then we have about 1 year left.

Then it should be fair game.

I am saddened by the fact that we have this technology available and can't use / buy it.

[BigEvil]

I am saddened by the fact that we have this technology available and can't use / buy it.

There are other, better technologies out there that are available and we cannot use either..

[kruger]

If I am not mistaken, Patents run for 17 years, not seven.

[craltal]

I was waiting to see if any one was going to mention this. I could be wrong but I think patents are good for 7 years. If this is the case and the patent was granted in 2000 then we have about 1 year left.

Then it should be fair game.

I am saddened by the fact that we have this technology available and can't use / buy it.

the patent wasn't granted in 2000, that's probably a filing date. the clock doesn't start ticking until it is actually granted, however it is retro-active back to the filing date