Here we go again another lawsuit.

[Ninjeff]

It may, indeed, have been "buisness" all around for SP. And logically, i suppose you cant fault them for that.

Still, perhaps part of the problem, is people allowing companies to get away with these kinds of practices, stating :"its all part of the game"

True as it may be, arent we, the collective players at least partly to blame for not taking SP to task for what may have been shady dealings? buisness it may be, but that doesnt make it "right" per se'.

Big corporations in a sense, is good for the sport. Better, more consistant production, more variety, better warrenty and cheaper products. But the corporate mentality has hardly ever been good for ANY type of creative process. The two, by nature, just dont mix well.

There are, however, companies that can practice good habits in dealing with other companies. AGD, is a good example. And look at all it has doen for the players, and the sport.

-on a side note, i enjoy this thread, however old the topic may be, i wasnt around to relaly "see" it when it was happening. So this is all fresh to me.

[turbo chicken]

Yay SP bashing ... I'm sure this means a new agreement between the two companies ... i'd figured that the previous one covered the mini ... but whatever ...

besides all of this "innovation" and making of new products out of existing technology i don't see how it is "hurting he industry" which is always stated in these post but never explained ... in fact the only arguement i see is they are stopping new products from coming out ...

when new product = another EP marker ... with a board ... EP operation ... i fail to see the innovation

[Lohman446]

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!!!!

I'm going to go with two main faults that you highlighted. The incompetence of the patent office and the problems in the legal system. These two things combined allow big companies to pretty effectively bully smaller companies who are not as 100% sure of there legal strength as there customers are. The cost to defend against a patent infringement lawsuit is tremendous

[teufelhunden]

It may, indeed, have been "buisness" all around for SP. And logically, i suppose you cant fault them for that.

Still, perhaps part of the problem, is people allowing companies to get away with these kinds of practices, stating :"its all part of the game"

True as it may be, arent we, the collective players at least partly to blame for not taking SP to task for what may have been shady dealings? buisness it may be, but that doesnt make it "right" per se'.

Big corporations in a sense, is good for the sport. Better, more consistant production, more variety, better warrenty and cheaper products. But the corporate mentality has hardly ever been good for ANY type of creative process. The two, by nature, just dont mix well.

There are, however, companies that can practice good habits in dealing with other companies. AGD, is a good example. And look at all it has doen for the players, and the sport.

-on a side note, i enjoy this thread, however old the topic may be, i wasnt around to relaly "see" it when it was happening. So this is all fresh to me.

I think that players, collectively, while they like to rant and rave about morals and ethics when it doesn't really involve them, will still look out for themselves. Smart Parts has made some of the "best" markers of their time; provided you are capable of understanding best doesn't necessarily mean ZOMG SUPAR GUNZ!

That's why Smart Parts didn't feel any noticeable hurt even though everybody and their brother [on the internet] was SO PISSED ABOUT SP! Further, this has almost certainly been a case of "the vocal minority" coming out to play. Obviously, AO/PBN/PBR/MCB/etc does not represent the entire paintball community, or even a significant portion. So even if everybody who did e-crucify SP didn't buy a single SP product, I'd make the case that it would have a small effect on their income statement.



I also think that in paintball, the relationship between the producers and consumers is abnormally close. That comes out of paintball's recent move from the garage to the boardroom. As a result, we're abnormally well wired into the goings on behind the scenes. [that sentence seems really awkward to me] So for people who don't have any experience or background in business... or even people who don't read the business section... it seems like SP is so out of line trying to a) establish itself as the market leader, by far and b) trying to maintain that. And then of course there's the holdover from 1989 crowd who is just pissed that everybody has CA and full masks, and you get calamity

[remo]

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.

The patent by SP for porting was NOT for spiral, but for the holes themselves. according to SP no one can drill more holes in a barrel the are equal or greater than the hole at the end of the barrel [68cal.] that is what their patent claims. so...anyone can port a barrel, but no one can port it out greater than the hole at the end!

[SCpoloRicker]

/obligatory





edit

This is at chronobreak too:

I suggested this a while back, namely reserving goofing off for FC and making a solid effort to be helpful and polite in PB talk. I'd support the idea again.

Count me in.

You should know by now you dont want to work for him.
Two weeks self-imposed ban. You know why. Good luck

[remo]

If anyone can remember back in the day, SP took ALL the manufacturers of ANY type of electonic marker to court with a very broad lawsuite about their electronics in markers....it took several years but ultimately SP was taken to court of their claims to have the first patented e-trigger by a very large and well respected gun maker[ i believe it was colt, but not absolute on that] And SP lost the battle because it was proven that back in the 40's a e-trigger was already patented.

[madcrisis]

The patent by SP for porting was NOT for spiral, but for the holes themselves. according to SP no one can drill more holes in a barrel the are equal or greater than the hole at the end of the barrel [68cal.] that is what their patent claims. so...anyone can port a barrel, but no one can port it out greater than the hole at the end!

so does that mean all other barrels can only have 68 hole or less?

[Desega]

I agree that patenting ideas is a good move, but I think that SP takes it way too far sometimes.

[Meph]

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

I think Fred Moulton Jr. might have a word or two about the invention of spiral porting with paintball barrels.

Hint hint.

[Rooster]

"Why is it necessarily a bad thing when paintball companies actually act like businesses?"

My only problem is that smart parts has gotten away with several very ambiguous patents that wouldn't hold up to serious legal scrutiny, but no one has the cash to challenge them. When you have an industry in its infancy, the patent process needs to be specific and equitable to all the players. Do you think everyone should be driving a Ford right now? Because that is what would be happening up until 100 years later if Henry Ford had been able to get the same kind of patents sp pulled off. (I can't remember the expiration on a patent, so don't pester me with semantics.)

Either the process needs to be equitable to all, big and small, or there needs to be no law at all. It would just be a free for all. Either way I'm fine with it. But to claim the system is fair, and then to let people "play" it, isn't fair at all.

[Ydna]

While it's true I don't agree with some of the claims in SP's patents, I really don't think analogies with cars or computers are applicable. We're not talking about a product that is/has been the staple for day-to-day living for the past century (or few decades if computer). We're talking about a paintball gun.

At the time the "automobile" was invented, there's absolutely no reason that it shouldn't have been patented. The same thing for the computer, and in fact the computer was patented. But the difference is, both those industries, as well as many others, grew to the point where the items were completely widespread. Of course there shouldn't be a patent on the car! But this is a different industry here. A couple hundred thousand electro pb guns being sold, a recreational toy that 99% of the populace knows nothing about (nor cares about), is different than the millions upon millions upon millions of computers or cars that were made, or technologies spawned as a result.

Like I said, I don't like the patents either...but you gotta put it in perspective and see why the things happen as they do. As far as people are concerned, the "electro" paintball industry is small...which it is...and that's what determines whether or not a patent is nullified.

Of course....the other issue is, it's a little beside the point that of all the companies SP is currently serving, most of them have nothing to do with their electro patent claims. but people on teh interweb surely won't make that distinction...