DIY PneuMags & PTP

[AGD]

Listen to Rabid, the voice of knowledge. The only thing i will add is that minimum price point products also tend have minimum variation. Its darn hard to stand out with a stock Ion.

AGD

[Lenny]

Listen to Rabid, the voice of knowledge. The only thing i will add is that minimum price point products also tend have minimum variation. Its darn hard to stand out with a stock Ion.

AGD

Damn right!

So, does ANYONE know ANYTHING about the Feildmasters?

Any legal info on the G-Force Super 68 would be cool too.

I've only been asking forever... Someone's gotta know something!

[rabidchihauhau]

The Prez speaks...(thanks)

True, minimum variation, but I believe that there is already a very strong support base to ummm 'minimize' that impact: players can readily change barrel, grip panels, loader (& loader color) and tank mounting system. That's basically changing everything except the body shape/color, and I expect that the 'sleeve' market will find its way to the fore. That metal decal company might come back and the smaller mfgs will do well for themselves by setting up short-run mfg of a body style or two and will do REALLY well for themselves if they figure out a way to license the right to make authorized aftermarket bodies (the gun mfg will do well for themselves if they keep those licensing fees within range of multiple small mfgs).

I can easily see a company buiying the rights to all the NXL teams or all the NPPL Pro teams and doing a run that offers, at a minimum, 16 different two-color body schemes; kind of like the NPS 'Team Colors' paintballs.

But the nice thing about the above is that the infrastructure for it is already well in place and none of it affects the price of entry for a new player.

[Chronobreak]

so....

when i can i buy one ?

[Pneumagger]

G@@@@@HHHHHH

Let it die in peace. If it come out... trust me you'll know...and you wont be the first to know either. That's life.

[cledford]

[Pneumagger]

[cledford]

Both companies were just fighting to produce a product with some exclusivity.

I don't think so - as I read posts within this very thread, protecting a product with "exclusivity" was only part of the intent. Covering as much intellectual ground as possible, to essentially control an entire industry was a second, yet possibly more important goal. As I read things they patented virtually every means of returning a trigger to its initial position - hence the micro-switch argument. No effort was made to protect only the IP they developed (via specificity); every effort was made to cover all existing unpaptented IP (what I would call public domain IP - even if ther eisn't such a thing) and any future ideas as well. Big difference to me.

-Calvin

[rabidchihauhau]

OY VEY!!!

Okay, I'll try to take this one step at a time.

first - you're railing against me and I've done absolutely nothing wrong - legally, morally or ethically. Coke built an empire on a trade secret; everyone could have been drinking cheaper soda for years, but no, those bastards had to keep the flavor formula secret! Damn them! Damn them to hell! Hoffman-LaRoche held the patent for VALIUM and for all related anti-depressants. Other drug companies had to wait for the expiry to have seriously competitive products on the market. BAD! BAD ZOOT. Keeping all those wonderful, non-addictive drugs that have helped so many millions to yourselves! BAD!
Don't you think the telegraph companies wanted to kill Alex G. Bell? Why didn't he just turn over the patent to them? Bad Alex. Making us all pay the phone company. Bad!

Your position as it relates to the claims in patents is unfounded at best and detrimentally ignorant at worst. I did not grant the patent from a vacuum - a PTO examiner went over it with a fine-toothed comb, we haggled over language and then HE granted the final version. If the definitions used and the territory claimed were 'unidentifiable', he would not have granted those claims.

What I take pride in is my ability to discern the multitude of different engineering approaches that could be substituted for the prototypical design as originally envisioned and to encapsulate all of them into single, broad-ranging definitions. IF ANYTHING, what I did/do is akin to maxing out the legal letter of the rules - but absolutely, I did not play in the gray and never have. What moral and ethical obligations do I have when it comes to writing a patent? Let's enumerate them:

1. working efficiently
2. completing the assignement within budget and on time (it 'was' a last minute rush to the post office, I admit, but it was finished on time. If I were a meanie, I'd deduct a quarter point for the anxiety...)
3. creating a work product that ultimately resulted in the achievement of the goal - that of getting a patent grant
4. knowing the rules and regulations and the inner-workings so that the work would be efficient
5. limiting myself to a single 'embodiment' of the design so that others could create non-infringing variations. Nope, sorry - I didn't do that
6. limiting myself to the least cost-effective version of the design so that others could obtain improvement patents. nope - didn't do that either
7. writing a crappy application that wouldn't get granted, allowing competitors an opportunity. No, so sorry, that wasn't done either
8. leaving holes for other variations to sneak through. nope
9. failing to put in a divisional application on time that would extend the reach of the design - nope
10. delaying the application so that a competitor could get their own in with a prior date. nope

What are my moral and ethical oblications to you, the company I worked for, the industry? Giving things away for free? Giving competitors a heads up? Strongly adivising against applying in the first place?

I'm not being hypocritical about the examiner; he's an idiot. I've never 'lauded' him, I was grateful that they finally granted the patent and still pissed off that it took him so long and still disagree with his splitting of the app. If you want to call heaving a sigh of relief that he actually did his job and followed SOME of the examiner's guidelines in doing so, then I guess you're right.

Perhaps you're referring to comments I made vis-a-vis some other companies grants versus my own - and that might seem contradictory, until you realize that the issue I'm addressing is one of substantivness. That other company got grants based on recursive definitions (it is what I say it is when I say it is), and THAT is improper. My definitions are not of the 'its what I mean when I say X' type - they are self-contained and defined specifically within the application. I'm allowed to do that.

Bud, if I were for sale, I'd be the head potentate in charge of everything paintball by now. You obviously are not familiar with my history of rabidly-stupid independance, dis-respect for authority and I can't even begin to tell you how many noses I've lost to windmill blades over the past 23+ years. Suffice it to say that if I sold out, I wouldn't be on here wasting time, I'd be enjoying the beach on my private island and waiting for the likes of J.B. B.G., R.I. and cronies to arrive with the mai tais.

And, umm, dude, I don't know where you get your tattle tales, but there were numerous prototypes and many, many, many man-hours devoted to that project - some of which were developments that took place over the previous 20 years and others were created specifically for this invention, but to say there's no prototype is a base canard.

I believe 'obfuscatory' was the word you were looking for.

[RRfireblade]

Hey Calvin ,

Let me sum it up in as short and quick answers as I can. I'm not getting into this whole thing all over again.

1) I agree with you , the way these things are done today suck and go against everything that the USPTO was originally intended for. Unfortunatley you simply have no choice , big companies and especially import suppliers (manufactureres) eat this stuff up all day long. They have people who's only job is to scour the USPTO for products/ideas they can exploit , many times putting and getting grated redundant applications themselves. Once they do your done. Guess why the era of small US business is nearly extinct. Look at Walmart for goodness sake , it wasn't that long ago that they ONLY sold US based/made product and gladly advertised as such. Ever see anything in there US made now besides the employees :) ?


2) Having the Patent means nothing. Enforcing it and how you do so is where opinion of 'good' intent can only be based. PTP Patented and has applications in on very specific parts of this product. Some have granted , some are still in process. Regardless , they have NOT gone after anyone outside the realm of the intended purpose of the the granted Patent or the Pending Apps. (Unlike others in the industry) The simple truth is a Mag based pneumatic trigger system was in the works (yes there was proof of function way back , just no where as good as mine :) ) since before any of the original applications were submitted. The amount of time the USPTO took to grant and insome cases is still in process was beyond there control. What are you going to do ?

3) Uh... now I forgot what 3 was was....hang on.

Oh , I guess it was just that this really had/has nothing to do with competition between anyone. DW has claimed since the begining that they do not infringe and have thier own application in. Beyond that , and in the light of Colins recent Grant there's nothing left to discuss on that front. Right now either party has and apparently has always had the full go ahead to build a Mag frame. why each hasn't at this point is irrelevant to the Patent discussion.

What's obvious , or should be to most is this product sits dead square in the middle a greatly declining market , an increasing low rate of return based on current product values (thank Sp and the ION again) and a lack of motivation to continue.

In a nut shell you have to look at this whole thing in a bigger picture. No one , I promise you , is relishing in the dirty parts of the process. What Rabid relishes in , is trying to outwit or simply stay one step ahead of the thousands of leaches and dirtbags sitting in the shadows waiting to steal our lunch money. Paper work is just that , it's paper work needed to keep you around till lunch time. It's has little or no indication of how you handle yourself proffesionally and personally. That's a whole other issue. In regards to PTP , sure not everything they ever built or sold was perfection. Not everthing was groundbreaking change the world technology but what PTP is and always has been is good people doing thier best for the betterment of the industry and thier customers. They've alway stood behind everything they've ever sold 100% or more , regularly given back to the community , taken active part in all aspects of industry safety (ASTM) and IMO , just doing good business. I'm proud to say I was/am a small part of that.

That's 'should' be where the judgement is made overall.

[SlartyBartFast]

What are you going to do ?

That used to be why you'd release product "Patent Pending".

Not dream up a million ways to lock others out of producing similar products or simply trying to lock up a design you never even had the intention to build yourself (not saying the last applies to PTP).

The situation will remain unpalateable IMO until there are VERY strict requirements for actual production/use of pattented items within very limited time frames.

One I'd like to see is that if a product goes to market after someone else applied for a patent, but before they went to market, the released product would be considered prior art and the patent null and void.

Only if a product was released first AND the patent applied for first would the patent be enforceable. Then the true entrepreneurs and inventors would be protected.

[Pneumagger]

That used to be why you'd release product "Patent Pending".

[RRfireblade]

That used to be why you'd release product "Patent Pending".

Not dream up a million ways to lock others out of producing similar products or simply trying to lock up a design you never even had the intention to build yourself (not saying the last applies to PTP).

The situation will remain unpalateable IMO until there are VERY strict requirements for actual production/use of pattented items within very limited time frames.

One I'd like to see is that if a product goes to market after someone else applied for a patent, but before they went to market, the released product would be considered prior art and the patent null and void.

Only if a product was released first AND the patent applied for first would the patent be enforceable. Then the true entrepreneurs and inventors would be protected.

You 'used' to be able to get away with Pat Pend too. Nowadays it's a huge risk , to big a risk for smaller companies. Not to mention many larger companies will often produce under infringement and take over market share , chalk up the cost future legal to exceptable losses or simply of power (legally) the smaller company.


As I see it , the USPTO will only get more sloppy , grant more open ended applications , allow greater flexability in description and design and ultimately Patents will have less and less legal standing until they are useless.

And then we will never see any big technological break thrus by the little people....at least not as far as 'we' will ever know.

[robnix]

OY VEY!!!

Okay, I'll try to take this one step at a time.

first - you're railing against me and I've done absolutely nothing wrong - legally, morally or ethically. Coke built an empire on a trade secret; everyone could have been drinking cheaper soda for years, but no, those bastards had to keep the flavor formula secret!

You can't patent a recipe. If you're lucky you could patent a cooking method, but that's about it. I could go buy a case of Coke, ingredients that I thought would mimic the flavor, and reverse engineer it until I either got it right or got sick from having ingested too much Coke. If I came up with a formula that was very close, or even the exact same flavor and bubbliness I could compete with Coke if I desired to, or not and give it away free to family and friends.

[RRfireblade]

You can't patent a recipe. If you're lucky you could patent a cooking method, but that's about it. I could go buy a case of Coke, ingredients that I thought would mimic the flavor, and reverse engineer it until I either got it right or got sick from having ingested too much Coke. If I came up with a formula that was very close, or even the exact same flavor and bubbliness I could compete with Coke if I desired to, or not and give it away free to family and friends.

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.