Here we go again another lawsuit.

[ProblemKinder]

actually, just AO is the only people I hear complaining about business protection policies in use.

you're wrong

http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=2072922

[paint magnet]

Fruits of what work?

Maybe drilling holes in a barrel? Surely they were the first to do that and not somebody like oh, say, PPS.

Or could it be the Boss paintgun? That was an original idea, not like it was Nelson-based or anything.

Maybe the shoebox Shocker? I mean, since they were the first to buy/steal it from PVI, so they should have the rights to it, right?

Or the Impulse? An original stacked-tube open-bolt EP paintgun?

I'm not saying that Smart Parts stuff isn't well-made--so were the Luger and Panzer tanks--the issue is that they are making in illigetimate ways, whether through stupidly broad patents or products they didn't invent in the first place. Just because other businesses do this outside of paintball and get away with it does not make it right.

The fact that individuals within the paintball community are standing up to it does not make them ingnorant to the ways of business; rather it goes to show that there are still a few of us left who value ethics above profit.

[Lohman446]

Maybe drilling holes in a barrel? Surely they were the first to do that and not somebody like oh, say, PPS.

Or could it be the Boss paintgun? That was an original idea, not like it was Nelson-based or anything.

Maybe the shoebox Shocker? I mean, since they were the first to buy/steal it from PVI, so they should have the rights to it, right?

Or the Impulse? An original stacked-tube open-bolt EP paintgun?

I'm not saying that Smart Parts stuff isn't well-made--so were the Luger and Panzer tanks--the issue is that they are making in illigetimate ways, whether through stupidly broad patents or products they didn't invent in the first place. Just because other businesses do this outside of paintball and get away with it does not make it right.

The fact that individuals within the paintball community are standing up to it does not make them ingnorant to the ways of business; rather it goes to show that there are still a few of us left who value ethics above profit.

Buy/Steal? So when you go into a store its the same as stealing something? If I recall there enforceable patent was for spiral boring, which was not widespread, if at all at that time.

I'm sorry, but a big company being able to buy a patent is not something that hurts small inventors. We may have never seen the Shocker had SP not supported PVI.

Your value of ethics is not admirable, its admirable when people who discuss how great there ethics are actually know what they are talking about.

[ProblemKinder]

Maybe drilling holes in a barrel? Surely they were the first to do that and not somebody like oh, say, PPS.

Or could it be the Boss paintgun? That was an original idea, not like it was Nelson-based or anything.

Maybe the shoebox Shocker? I mean, since they were the first to buy/steal it from PVI, so they should have the rights to it, right?

Or the Impulse? An original stacked-tube open-bolt EP paintgun?

I'm not saying that Smart Parts stuff isn't well-made--so were the Luger and Panzer tanks--the issue is that they are making in illigetimate ways, whether through stupidly broad patents or products they didn't invent in the first place. Just because other businesses do this outside of paintball and get away with it does not make it right.

The fact that individuals within the paintball community are standing up to it does not make them ingnorant to the ways of business; rather it goes to show that there are still a few of us left who value ethics above profit.

amen brother!

[ProblemKinder]

We may have never seen the Shocker had SP not supported PVI.

would that really be a bad thing?

[CoolHand]

Buy/Steal? So when you go into a store its the same as stealing something? If I recall there enforceable patent was for spiral boring, which was not widespread, if at all at that time.

I'm sorry, but a big company being able to buy a patent is not something that hurts small inventors. We may have never seen the Shocker had SP not supported PVI.

Your value of ethics is not admirable, its admirable when people who discuss how great there ethics are actually know what they are talking about.

Actually, SP didn't encourage PVI. They contracted with them to develop the Shocker, waited for them to begin production work (IE leverage everything they had to buy the materials and perform the work for such a large order), and then defaulted on their contract, essentially sticking PVI with a huge stash of product and no more working capital to spend (or assets to leverage).

That leaves SP setting pretty. PVI is broke and unable to pursue the Brothers G in court for their breech (remember, entire family of rather crooked lawyers), there is a huge stock of Shocker parts gathering dust (and accruing loan interest as well, no doubt), and all they have left of value is their patent.

What's left for them to do? SP comes back after letting them fester for a while, and offers to buy the stock (that they contracted for in the first place), and the patent, for a pittance (just enough to bail PVI out of their hole). That leaves PVI in the black, but now with no patents (and likely a non-competition agreement to boot), and no parts to sell (and even if they had them, their hands would have been tied by the sale of the patent).

PVI fades into obscurity, SP gets the kick start they needed to be a big player.

The score is now:

Driven but Naive Upstart Company - 0
Flesh Eating Cut Throat Out to Screw you from the get go Company - 1

It's all downhill from there.

[paint magnet]

Buy/Steal? So when you go into a store its the same as stealing something? If I recall there enforceable patent was for spiral boring, which was not widespread, if at all at that time.

I'm sorry, but a big company being able to buy a patent is not something that hurts small inventors. We may have never seen the Shocker had SP not supported PVI.

Your value of ethics is not admirable, its admirable when people who discuss how great there ethics are actually know what they are talking about.

Spiral porting may not have been widespread, but it is highly unlikely that Smart Parts invented it.

Buying patents doesn't hurt small inventors? So what about the guy who starts a business in his garage (as many people did when paintball was first getting started) porting the barrels on other players' guns? What if he comes out with the idea first and doesn't bother patenting it because he either can't afford to, doesn't have the time, or simply doesn't mind if other people use his idea? So then when Smart Parts comes along and issues a cease-and-desist order because they happened to patent it first, that doesn't hurt him?

PneuVentures and Smart Parts started out working together, with PVI making the Shocker and SP distributing it. When the two disagreed, Smart Parts said PVI couldn't make it on its own and bought the rights to the gun. Heard from PVI lately? I'm sure they're just lying low, since what Smart Parts did couldn't have possibly hurt small companies.

If SP hadn't supported PVI, somone else would have. In fact, if they hadn't made a deal with the Gardners, they might still be around today.



What about AKA? Smart Parts had a patent on a dual-solenoid gun. The Excalibur and Shocker are completely different in design and function, yet Smart Parts claims patent infringement on a design they no longer even manufacture. So who's really feeling the impact now? Not only the small companies, but the players--because not only does SP own the patent and not use it, they apply it to someone else's design and stop them from producing it as well.

[teufelhunden]

It's always fun and games to spit on the big player, that's why everybody "hates" Microsoft/Windows.

However, when you get to the nuts and bolts, the big guys always do more for their respective markets than you think. Microsoft wasn't the first with a GUI [Xerox, actually], but they cornered the market. SP wasn't the first with an electro, but they cornered the market. However, both companies have aided their markets a great deal. The Windows example is more obvious, if you've been awake for the past ~20 years, but look at Smart Parts; they were among the first to bring electro guns into the mainstream, brought barrel kits into the mainstream [I don't care that they didn't "invent" the insert system], for a long time were the standard for regs, brought decent electros to the average player [twice, both with the Impulse at $400 when most everything else was double that and again with the Ion], oh, and succeeded where numerous online patents failed, probably one of the best PR moves for paintball in the past decade; it was a Smart Parts sponsored event/series [I forget, and don't care] that was on ESPN/ESPN2 at hours when people were actually awake.

Albeit, none of that is really here nor there in line with this thread. This thread is the same old argument from 4 or 5 years ago when SP first decided that there was enough of a market for them to start enforcing their patent. On one side, there are the people with some sort of grasp for business and what happens when a hobby becomes an industry and then on the other side are the "purists," the "originalists," and people who don't know a damned thing about anything. This has been funny for going on the better part of a decade and it's not getting old yet. Every few months a new crop of people discover paintball, then paintball forums, and then hear about "how evil Smart Parts is" from someone's signature and regret purchasing their used 16" spyder threaded AA. Nobody bothers to get to the nuts and bolts of the issue, which is that if there is a problem, SP is not it. If anybody is to be at fault here, it's the US Patent Office, not Smart Parts, NPS, Dye, or your sister.

A lot of the anti-SP people love to talk about the early 90s when people cared about growing the game and making it accessible to all and sharing stuff. That's fine and dandy and their initiative. They chose to keep their work public. They chose not to sell their IP. Some chose to be ignorant of patent laws. However, for people to chastise those who took the other course and decided that their business was going to be profit oriented is absurd. Talking about "stealing" the idea to port, or even spiral port, barrels? Yeah, that's new. Hasn't been around for... quite some time... outside of paintball.

I'm pro-business, vote Republican [usually.. ], and support profit driven actions and motives.

[Badmovies.org]

Just because the system is open to abuse does not mean anyone is forced to do so. If I leave a window open in my house and someone crawls in and steals something, I am not the problem. Trying to convince me otherwise is flawed at the basic level. You will never be able to convince me otherwise, though I do not mind arguing the points.

Microsoft is an awful company on many levels. When the anti-trust case was announced I had some hopes. Unfortunately, nothing was really done. What is going on in the European court has been far more significant. And I should point out that Microsoft is a company that intentionally submitted fraudulent evidence at the trial.

No, I say that Smart Parts is hurting the sport and that runaway patents are an awful thing.

[Lohman446]

Spiral porting may not have been widespread, but it is highly unlikely that Smart Parts invented it.

Buying patents doesn't hurt small inventors? So what about the guy who starts a business in his garage (as many people did when paintball was first getting started) porting the barrels on other players' guns? What if he comes out with the idea first and doesn't bother patenting it because he either can't afford to, doesn't have the time, or simply doesn't mind if other people use his idea? So then when Smart Parts comes along and issues a cease-and-desist order because they happened to patent it first, that doesn't hurt him?

PneuVentures and Smart Parts started out working together, with PVI making the Shocker and SP distributing it. When the two disagreed, Smart Parts said PVI couldn't make it on its own and bought the rights to the gun. Heard from PVI lately? I'm sure they're just lying low, since what Smart Parts did couldn't have possibly hurt small companies.

If SP hadn't supported PVI, somone else would have. In fact, if they hadn't made a deal with the Gardners, they might still be around today.



What about AKA? Smart Parts had a patent on a dual-solenoid gun. The Excalibur and Shocker are completely different in design and function, yet Smart Parts claims patent infringement on a design they no longer even manufacture. So who's really feeling the impact now? Not only the small companies, but the players--because not only does SP own the patent and not use it, they apply it to someone else's design and stop them from producing it as well.

Do you have any experience running a profitable business in a competetive environment?

Who was there to help PVI, who did? So now the one who actually bought it is in the wrong because someone else might have?

As to spiral porting, I think you are going to find that is an SP "invention".

As to inventors who don't patent there idea, how should I feel sorry for them for that. Besides, if you have provable prior art SPs patent does them no good, so your point is rather moot anyways on that. Besides, judging by your statements you think patents are "evil" or some such.

[paint magnet]

Do you have any experience running a profitable business in a competetive environment?

Who was there to help PVI, who did? So now the one who actually bought it is in the wrong because someone else might have?

As to spiral porting, I think you are going to find that is an SP "invention".

As to inventors who don't patent there idea, how should I feel sorry for them for that. Besides, if you have provable prior art SPs patent does them no good, so your point is rather moot anyways on that. Besides, judging by your statements you think patents are "evil" or some such.

Funny, I don't recall Smart Parts ever being in danger of going under, and they certainly didn't do PVI a favor, as CoolHand mentioned.

I have nothing against patents, I just think that Smart Parts' patents are entirely too broad. Patenting a gun with two solenoids and then claiming that AKA is infringing on the SP patent by making the Excalibur is like claiming that Rockport is infringing on the Nike Shox because they both have laces.

[Pneumagger]

As to inventors who don't patent there idea, how should I feel sorry for them for that. Besides, if you have provable prior art SPs patent does them no good, so your point is rather moot anyways on that. Besides, judging by your statements you think patents are "evil" or some such.

Agreed. Even if the inventor can't afford to fully patent his work, he can have a detailed design legally notarized VERY cheaply to establish prior art. Then if someone "steals" his design, he has proof of prior art.

Spiral porting may not have been widespread, but it is highly unlikely that Smart Parts invented it.

Buying patents doesn't hurt small inventors? So what about the guy who starts a business in his garage (as many people did when paintball was first getting started) porting the barrels on other players' guns? What if he comes out with the idea first and doesn't bother patenting it because he either can't afford to, doesn't have the time, or simply doesn't mind if other people use his idea? So then when Smart Parts comes along and issues a cease-and-desist order because they happened to patent it first, that doesn't hurt him?

What you described is not buying patents, it is called stealing someones idea who basically advertised, "Please take my idea, I'm a moron". Also, it's very cheap to have a public notary notarize designs of your idea, giving you legal first dibs on the idea. Spend a couple bucks a the local UPS store getting your idea legally documented, or warm up some raman noodles .... hmmm, tough choice.

Buying patents is when an inventor has a great idea and DOES patent it, however does not have the means to produce his product for profit. So the inventor finds a big player and sells the rights for a couple hundred thousand (or whatever it's worth). That allows the inventor INCENTIVE to think stuff up, even if he can't produce them for commercial sale. Buying patents is actually the single largest positive incentive for developing ideas for engineers and inventors, because many individuals don't have money or can't secure a loan to go into production.

[SCpoloRicker]

Some honest-to-goodness Econ majors in here, apparently.

[CoolHand]

Agreed. Even if the inventor can't afford to fully patent his work, he can have a detailed design legally notarized VERY cheaply to establish prior art. Then if someone "steals" his design, he has proof of prior art.



What you described is not buying patents, it is called stealing someones idea who basically advertised, "Please take my idea, I'm a moron". Also, it's very cheap to have a public notary notarize designs of your idea, giving you legal first dibs on the idea. Spend a couple bucks a the local UPS store getting your idea legally documented, or warm up some raman noodles .... hmmm, tough choice.

Buying patents is when an inventor has a great idea and DOES patent it, however does not have the means to produce his product for profit. So the inventor finds a big player and sells the rights for a couple hundred thousand (or whatever it's worth). That allows the inventor INCENTIVE to think stuff up, even if he can't produce them for commercial sale. Buying patents is actually the single largest positive incentive for developing ideas for engineers and inventors, because many individuals don't have money or can't secure a loan to go into production.

While I do agree in principal that "ya snooze, ya lose", in reality what happens is the "golden rule" is exercised.

You know the one - "he who has the gold, makes the rules"

That notarized piece of paper is worth nothing whatever (not even the cost of the notary seal) if you do not already have millions of dollars to piss away in court.

THAT is the inheirent problem with the system as it is. It doesn't make a ****'s bit of difference who is right, it only matters who has more money. There doesn't even need to be anyone corrupt involved for money to decide it either, you just spend and stall and spend and stall, and eventually, the other guy runs out of money and folds. You win by default because he can no longer afford to defend himself. He must settle, and he must settle on your terms, lest he risk losing even more than you want to take at present.

If you are a small inventor, patent or no, you are pretty much screwed in the business world these days. Invent something cool and patent it? Sweet! The big guy will steal your idea and tie you up in court until you're bankrupt, all the while stealing your market share. When they've bled you dry, they might buy your patent as a favor so they can then bully other businesses who try to compete.

If you are the big guy and you invent something, you can spend gobs of money bashing anyone who might try to compete with you. Their design doesn't infringe your patent? No problem, you can sue anyway, and drag it out forever, until they're bled dry too. Rinse and repeat as often as necessary to insure that you never have any competition to deal with.

You cannot tell me that the cycle of money continually trumping what is right is what the originators of the USPTO had in mind when they created it.

How do I know all of this?



Because . . . . I'M A NINJA!!!!

[Pneumagger]

Hopefully if you had a preliminary hearing with a judge who had any sense, the cas would get thrown out as soon as a judge saw you had a legal prior art or patent established. However, I'm sure there are ways of losing alot of money just getting to the preliminary hearing even representing yourself. Money's tough to beat... just look at the history of the Yankees

USPTO doesn't care what the system works like... as long as people keep filing for patents. Those things are expensive, and the USTPO is not at any sort of shortage of applicants.