Open Source Paintball Gun

[rabidchihauhau]

I brought this subject up in another thread :

https://www.automags.org/forums/showt...ht=open+source

and wanted to throw it out there for discussion.

Suppose that it were possible for someone so-inclined to obtain licensing rights to a design and had the manufacturing capability to provide some of the base components at a "decent" price.

Suppose that instead of simply marketing the product, said individual/company figured out a way to include a "limited license" for others who purchased said hardware, allowing them to build a marker for themselves that was legal and covered by patents.

Questions:

Do you think players would be willing to pay a few extra dollars for tech to receive the license?

Would others be willing to purchase just a license so that they could make whatever they wanted (that was covered)? (Presuming a reasonable one-time "lifetime" fee)

Would others be willing to throw their designs into the mix? Would such others be interested in obtaining IP protection (where appropriate) for their contributions and then be willing to sell such under the same kind of terms (limited license folded into the purchase price?)

Do others have other "open source" models they would suggest: a key component of such would necessarily be some dollars being set aside to obtain additional IP and/or to protect the existing IP so that it could remain "open source".

Such a thing would have to also recognize and accomodate the fact that there are at least two different kinds of "designers" out there (and here I'm talking about good, desireable tech, not just anything. Workable, economical, usable stuff.). There are those who will be designing things for which they have a desire and a need to receive some level of compensation, and there will be others who just want to do and be recognized.

This is a hypothetical suggestion for finding/developing a middle ground between IP protection (and its benefits as well as destriments) and the advantages of a completely open market (that eventually stagnates because no one has made enough profit for investment into the next generation).

Those who designed/manufactured would find a ready market; others could take advantage of suggestions/designs that were thrown out there; the IP would remain in a protected state and there would be a reinvestment mechanism in place.

Perhaps another method might be a "club" where membership includes the rights...?

[y0da900]

Like I said in the other thread, I would love to see something like this happen. If it were done, I have a number of concepts that I would gladly toss into the pool just because I would like to see them worked with.

In addition to just designs and concepts, the group could also function as a standards organization. Lots of markers are "cocker threaded" for barrels, but since WGP has no published spec for the barrels, there is enough variation between them that some are incompatible. Things like that could be alleviated by creating a fixed standard that could be adhered to by others.

A suggestion in the other discussion I've seen on the topic was to model it after the GPL that is often used for open source software, and has apparently been successfully used to defend hardware in the past.
http://tinkersguild.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=609

I don't think that limiting it off the bat to good desirable tech is the best option, there are a lot of half baked ideas out there that are terrible ideas in and of themselves, but if their main issues are overcome, have the potential to be fantastic. There may even be a separate protection put in place for designs that are purely jumping points with no marketable aspects as is.

As you mentioned, a membership system could be put in place, which could open up a lot of other possibilities. You could open up anywhere from no included licensing to all included licensing with cost of membership (and everywhere in between), a quid-pro-quo basis where membership and rights are given based on the number of designs you have contributed, some combination thereof, spec adherence rights without licensing of designs membership options....

And one of the things that a lot of people seem to not get entirely, and this goes for both patents (sometimes) and open source licenses. The idea behind it is not always to prevent others from making millions with the idea, but to make it so that they can't prevent you from doing it by taking your idea.

[Anjin3515]

sounds like a reasonable idea. It grants protection but allows users to "tinker"....of course it would all depend on how much that license would cost...too much and people wont bite.

So would the original designer get a "cut" of every license fee? You would have to work out the whole payment thing....but all in all I like the idea.

[rabidchihauhau]

Thanks for participating so far.

I'll look at the GPL stuff later today and comment on it later.

As for "how" it will work - that's obviously far from being decided, but one place I'd look to get a start would be the various patent consortiums that already exist. Licensing of your design to members of the group offsets the fees that you are charged by others. I don't know exactly how one design would be valued against another - categories perhaps - and the consortium concept would probably require a dedicated person to manage, so it might end up being something simpler, like a minimal threshold of contribution to obtain/retain the licenses at no additional charge (or contiual payment of your dues - except what happens to lapsed individual members?)

This whole concept was highly speculative to begin with, so it doesn't surprise me that lots and lots of bumps are showing up even on the third post.

And Yoda - thanks for pointing out that IP protection would be the thing that would continue to allow such a thing to exist. It is an important point missed all too often by others.

[FinchMan]

you might be able to sell a frame that is ready-milled for pneumag components, and add a small license fee on top. Though I doubt anybody would buy a license if they are starting from scratch.

If you want to make a open source idea discussion board with special rules, that would be cool.

[Lohman446]

risk to reward.

Most AOers (and others) feel there is very minimal risk to themselves for building a marker in defiance of intellectual property rights. To a large degree they are right, especially those built for personal use. What effective recourse do you actually have against them?

[robnix]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like what you're talking is selling a kit with specific parts to build a specific type of marker, or a license to go out and build one with whatever parts the builder desires for whatever purpose. It's still not really any different than what you have now. Rights holders that keep a license for a product who's manufacture is openly described in patent applications or can be easily reverse engineered.

The IP is already 'open source'. You can take any marker apart in a few minutes, and with the right technical knowledge understand enough about how it works to reproduce it.

[y0da900]

The IP is already 'open source'. You can take any marker apart in a few minutes, and with the right technical knowledge understand enough about how it works to reproduce it.

That does not give you the right to reproduce it part for part though. The idea of open source is entirely different from that. It allows people to use certain design aspects legally, and for profit. What it prevents is a Smart Parts move of people doing things openly and freely (electros), then having someone go back retroactively and claiming something as their own IP tacked onto something existing or creating anew, and charging you to use it.

Rabid is not talking exclusively about pneu-frames. What this is, is the potential to gather a large amount of intellectual property (ideas, designs, concepts, specifications), control who can use it (potentially freely), and to prevent someone from having their own ideas used against them. Lots of us have designs we would willingly part with just so we can finally see them built, and to get other peoples spins on them. There are tons of designs that nobody gets shown on here or elsewhere because we are paranoid about having our designs ripped off, and prevented from using them ourselves.

[robnix]

That does not give you the right to reproduce it part for part though. The idea of open source is entirely different from that. It allows people to use certain design aspects legally, and for profit. What it prevents is a Smart Parts move of people doing things openly and freely (electros), then having someone go back retroactively and claiming something as their own IP tacked onto something existing or creating anew, and charging you to use it.

So everyone will be happy with a definition for OSS, here's how the OSI defines Open Source Software:

1. Free Redistribution: the software can be freely given away or sold. (This was intended to expand sharing and use of the software on a legal basis.)
2. Source Code: the source code must either be included or freely obtainable. (Without source code, making changes or modifications can be impossible.)
3. Derived Works: redistribution of modifications must be allowed. (To allow legal sharing and to permit new features or repairs.)
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code: licenses may require that modifications are redistributed only as patches.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: no one can be locked out.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: commercial users cannot be excluded.
7. Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: the program cannot be licensed only as part of a larger distribution.
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software: the license cannot insist that any other software it is distributed with must also be open source.
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral: no click-wrap licenses or other medium-specific ways of accepting the license must be required.

taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition (Fair use allowed)

Rabid is not talking exclusively about pneu-frames. What this is, is the potential to gather a large amount of intellectual property (ideas, designs, concepts, specifications), control who can use it (potentially freely), and to prevent someone from having their own ideas used against them. Lots of us have designs we would willingly part with just so we can finally see them built, and to get other peoples spins on them. There are tons of designs that nobody gets shown on here or elsewhere because we are paranoid about having our designs ripped off, and prevented from using them ourselves.

The kind of marker is irrelevant. What he's talking about is a licensing/IP/patent consortium that would maintain control over and protect the IP for it's members. As long as there's any profit motivation with something like this, greed will eventually cause it's failure. Eventually the little guy and the political outsiders will get shut out.

[luke]

risk to reward.

Most AOers (and others) feel there is very minimal risk to themselves for building a marker in defiance of intellectual property rights. To a large degree they are right, especially those built for personal use. What effective recourse do you actually have against them?

That was my thought exactly.

[luke]

That does not give you the right to reproduce it part for part though. The idea of open source is entirely different from that. It allows people to use certain design aspects legally, and for profit.

If this would allow me to sell parts or frames on the open market I'm all for it.

[rabidchihauhau]

Software is arguably far different from a manufactured product: there have been real questions (in IP terms) about what constitutes the product, how much of a "change" renders such no longer the thing covered, how ownership is derived for applications, patches, what obviousness is and on and on.

It is also much easier to propogate software than it is a manufactured product.

I used "open source" as the phrase to describe it because the general concept would be one of joint sharing of the "designs" and joint "sharing" of the protection, not because I wanted to subscribe to one particular definition of such a thing.

The "objections" raised here are, for the most part valid ones. I have some suggested solutions to some of them, but want to hear others first.

[luke]

Please define what this would entail.

Would it only allow DIY tinkering or could someone use it for profit gain?

[rabidchihauhau]

I'm not sure: I'm hoping that the folks here will make their preferences known.

I would imagine that the "best" way to go about it would be that a "member" gets to commercialize their designs through the group.

That might not mean anything initially, but if such a thing took off, the imprint of the product being from the OSPBG would hopefully provide additional marketing assistance and stand for some level of reliability and quality - not to mention a recognized standard that a whole slew of products would adhere to.

Perhaps something like:

1. you agree to pay the licensing fee to participate (whatever that is)
2. you agree to assign any IP you receive to the "group" (for some reasonable compensation)
3. you agree to assist the group in protecting all of its holdings
4. you agree to modify your product to adhere to the prevailing standards
5. you don't have to pay anyone else in the group if you utilize their IP
6. you get to participate in setting the standards
7. you get to advertise your product within the group and have it included in all group offerings
8. after proper review, the group may decide to underwrite your new IP applications
9. there may be opportunities to bundle various offerings; if your product is selected, you'd be the one asked to supply it

objections to any/all of the above would be: 1. someone will eventually dominate "the group", greed will rear its ugly head, disagreement will curtail growth and a whole host of related issues.

I would say that there are models for dealing with all of it; if "approval" requires consensus, then protection lies within numbers. Numbers can slow things down, so there would be a provision that after a particular time frame of offering something to the group, a member can go it on their own - with no consequences (in other words, if the group fails to act or says no, they can't then stifle something they said no to) and etc.

The above is just one view that will hopefully generate alternatives.

But yes, there would HAVE to be a commercial component if such a thing were to have a hope of succeeding. Otherwise, where's the money going to come from for IP protection, manufacturing a part everyone needs but that is not "economical" for any one member to make, etc., etc.

[robnix]

I'm not sure: I'm hoping that the folks here will make their preferences known.

I would imagine that the "best" way to go about it would be that a "member" gets to commercialize their designs through the group.

That might not mean anything initially, but if such a thing took off, the imprint of the product being from the OSPBG would hopefully provide additional marketing assistance and stand for some level of reliability and quality - not to mention a recognized standard that a whole slew of products would adhere to.

Perhaps something like:

1. you agree to pay the licensing fee to participate (whatever that is)
2. you agree to assign any IP you receive to the "group" (for some reasonable compensation)
3. you agree to assist the group in protecting all of its holdings
4. you agree to modify your product to adhere to the prevailing standards
5. you don't have to pay anyone else in the group if you utilize their IP
6. you get to participate in setting the standards
7. you get to advertise your product within the group and have it included in all group offerings
8. after proper review, the group may decide to underwrite your new IP applications
9. there may be opportunities to bundle various offerings; if your product is selected, you'd be the one asked to supply it

objections to any/all of the above would be: 1. someone will eventually dominate "the group", greed will rear its ugly head, disagreement will curtail growth and a whole host of related issues.

I would say that there are models for dealing with all of it; if "approval" requires consensus, then protection lies within numbers. Numbers can slow things down, so there would be a provision that after a particular time frame of offering something to the group, a member can go it on their own - with no consequences (in other words, if the group fails to act or says no, they can't then stifle something they said no to) and etc.

The above is just one view that will hopefully generate alternatives.

But yes, there would HAVE to be a commercial component if such a thing were to have a hope of succeeding. Otherwise, where's the money going to come from for IP protection, manufacturing a part everyone needs but that is not "economical" for any one member to make, etc., etc.

You need a Paintball Standards group that sets a solid set of standards for:

1) Markers and air systems.
2) Rules for tournament play.
3) Field standards for rec play.
4) Safety standards.

Paintball IP would be held and used the same way the FSF protects software IP. Not to benefit any one company, but to benefit everyone by defending the group against predatory companies. Members would pay dues depending on their level of retail participation. Members would be safe to use any IP in any way they wish to, as long as it conforms to the standards set by the group. Fees could be based on a members level of interest and plans for use of the IP. A ruling commitee would be elected every so often, with term limits.

It could work, but it would take:

1) Money
2) Marketing
3) Commitment
4) Balls

[Lohman446]

I'm not sure: I'm hoping that the folks here will make their preferences known.

I would imagine that the "best" way to go about it would be that a "member" gets to commercialize their designs through the group.

That might not mean anything initially, but if such a thing took off, the imprint of the product being from the OSPBG would hopefully provide additional marketing assistance and stand for some level of reliability and quality - not to mention a recognized standard that a whole slew of products would adhere to.

Perhaps something like:

1. you agree to pay the licensing fee to participate (whatever that is)
2. you agree to assign any IP you receive to the "group" (for some reasonable compensation)
3. you agree to assist the group in protecting all of its holdings
4. you agree to modify your product to adhere to the prevailing standards
5. you don't have to pay anyone else in the group if you utilize their IP
6. you get to participate in setting the standards
7. you get to advertise your product within the group and have it included in all group offerings
8. after proper review, the group may decide to underwrite your new IP applications
9. there may be opportunities to bundle various offerings; if your product is selected, you'd be the one asked to supply it

objections to any/all of the above would be: 1. someone will eventually dominate "the group", greed will rear its ugly head, disagreement will curtail growth and a whole host of related issues.

I would say that there are models for dealing with all of it; if "approval" requires consensus, then protection lies within numbers. Numbers can slow things down, so there would be a provision that after a particular time frame of offering something to the group, a member can go it on their own - with no consequences (in other words, if the group fails to act or says no, they can't then stifle something they said no to) and etc.

The above is just one view that will hopefully generate alternatives.

But yes, there would HAVE to be a commercial component if such a thing were to have a hope of succeeding. Otherwise, where's the money going to come from for IP protection, manufacturing a part everyone needs but that is not "economical" for any one member to make, etc., etc.

Understand I do not know the exact details. Say for example that SP has a valid claim on the electro. Then say that Dye has a valid claim on the spool valve. They agree to openly share these two technologies with each other (example, I have no clue what hte terms of there deals were) without suing each other into oblivion.

Obviously your idea is a much larger group, but does it not mimic what some companies are doing (on a more defined basis) already.

[AGD]

Guys,

Steve is throwing you all a HUGE bone here (conceptually). With all that has gone on, you should be realizing that a company willing to take you all on as partners is something special. To have an open source design/product could change the face of paintball.

AGD

[olinar]

this sounds like a great idea and depending on the price i think alot of people wouldnt mind paying a license fee.

i havent made a pneumag but id be into making one in the future.

[SummaryJudgement]

I think it would come down to the cost to the people participating. If all of these "fees" were fifty bucks or a hundred, I could see the average player being very interested because most people can scrounge up that kind of money and quites frankly, I think it sounds like a cool oppertunity to get involved more with something we are already interested in.

If the cost was hundreds of dollars or even thousands, then we quickly begin to eliminate the masses who would be more interested IMO. And if someone can spend far less money on some parts and DIY with no intention of selling a product, then I find it extremely hard to believe that someone could get into any legal trouble.

I'd be interested, but there is the cash question at hand......

[rabidchihauhau]

Lohman,

yes in one respect, no in another in that the "customers" are allowed/encouraged to become part of the "consortium".

With your example, its two companies doing something that will strengthen their respective brands, while the customers see no change in their relationship to those companies - expect perhaps for an increase in retail price (if the corporate arrangement confers market control) or a reduction in retail price (if the corporate arrangements eliminates expensive licensing fees and they decide out of the goodness of their hearts to pass some of the savings along).

In the OSPBG, the savings would automatically be earmarked for pass-along to members and would take the form of reduced pricing, acquisition of additional IP, reduction of advertising costs/increase of advertising, etc., etc. Furthermore, the members would be deciding whether such a "merger" would be taking place to begin with, and the party seeking merger would already be indicating their willingness to play by the rules.

Summary,

I have no idea what the cost would be. There could be a split fee - corporate entities paying at one level, private individuals at another (although some companies who's membership would be desireable might balk at the idea of paying a fee in order to save their customers money...double hit you know...) but until there was actually something to license and the costs would be known (as well as any related maintenance, registration, management, etc fees), I have not a clue.

What's the potential market? ten, hundred, thousand? A hundred bucks times one thousand members is 100K and you could do a lot with that. a hundred bucks times ten gets you a website and maybe a logo...

If OSPBG were starting from scratch with its own "committee based" design and wanted to obtain a single base patent, it would probably take about a year to get the app in and would probably cost between 15 and 25K when all is said and done. So, if you're trying to get some kind of handle on what start-up would be, there's a good number to plug in as the low-end.

If you want to be rock-solid and be able to defend your stuff, I wouldn't want to start with anything less than one million in the bank...

[rabidchihauhau]

robinx,

You need a Paintball Standards group that sets a solid set of standards for:

1) Markers and air systems.
2) Rules for tournament play.
3) Field standards for rec play.
4) Safety standards

It could work, but it would take:

1) Money
2) Marketing
3) Commitment
4) Balls

I disagree that all of the standards you list would be necessary to start. ASTM guidelines would be adopted to begin with and modified from there.

I don't think anyone would disagree that I've got #4 in your list of requirements covered

[y0da900]

There is also the possibility of adding value to the consortium by bringing in your own IP to the group, which could possibly be used to offset the monetary cost of membership to a degree, potentially entirely (limited time period, based on perceived value of IP given, etc... all fine details).

[rabidchihauhau]

Yoda, yes - I was trying to imply that earlier.

I was thinking that it might be time to put together some kind of formal "exploratory committee" (to borrow a phrase from the political arena) - but I only see 8 people participating in this discussion.

It doesn't fill me with a lot of hope.

If I were to suggest something semi-formal, it would require the following:

1. selection/election of acting officers
2. appointment of folks to:
A. open source structure definition
B. IP identification group
C. communications group (list serv to start, web site to follow)
D. fund-raising
E. oversite

3. once those groups had produced something worth working with, it could move on the a rules committee, a membership drive/marketing committee and a business management committee

4. those groups would then put the formal "thing" together.

But its apparently way too early for such a thing. I would expect that the early contributors would be selected as participants in the foregoing, should they wish to be.

[Lohman446]

While many people might build things on very small scale outside of the major paintball companies few of them (it seems) get overly excited about IP rights. Kind of I'll do it as long as I get away with it and bow at the first cease and desist letter I receive.

Who is going to participate and offer valuable IP property to the group?

Who is going to produce a profitable product out of that IP?

Who is not going to "back stab" the group by holding back and taking other protection for some small (but needed) piece of technology - IE all paintball markers using electical switches or other means?

I don't intend to come off as a "it can't be done" position either. I just think this are questions that should be out there.

[y0da900]

Yoda, yes - I was trying to imply that earlier.

I know, but it seemed to be asked over and over again, so I skipped the implications and just said it.

Do you have any suggestions for trying to get others interested in such a thing, or to gather those who would already be interested? I can only think of posting links to here from other boards or contacting people that have already expressed interest in this, or have at least hinted at an interest.

While many people might build things on very small scale outside of the major paintball companies few of them (it seems) get overly excited about IP rights. Kind of I'll do it as long as I get away with it and bow at the first cease and desist letter I receive.

This eliminates that cease and desist letter. It helps the innovators that are just too scared to go it alone release their ideas. Lots of good ideas never see the light of day due to fear of repercussions and or not a huge market for the design. This gets those out there, and lets people run with them.

Who is going to participate and offer valuable IP property to the group?

Anybody who wants to. Designers and engineers that don't have strong company affiliations and otherwise wouldn't show a lot of their work. Smaller companies that have a great product or great ideas and want to expand. Large companies that appreciate the concept.

Who is going to produce a profitable product out of that IP?

Whoever either wants to join or pay licensing fees. Could be a smaller company (any of the custom shops on here, Cerberus Innovations for example) that wants to expand in what they can offer without treading on toes. Could be a huge company that wants to incorporate new IP into an existing design, or create a new line from it.

Who is not going to "back stab" the group by holding back and taking other protection for some small (but needed) piece of technology - IE all paintball markers using electical switches or other means?

Lets bring in the PTP pneu-frame again. Rabid and Fireblade have both said a number of times that the main impetus in the design was to circumvent the electro nazi patent while maintaining what is a currently accepted rate of fire and light trigger pull. With the potential to release new ideas and have them protected by the group, someone would eventually create a workaround. The backstabbers as you call them would only be inspiring us to create other, potentially better means.

[luke]

This has peaked my interest. But, to be honest I don't have anything to input at this point. This kind of stuff is not something I will pretend to completely understand. But I'm willing to pay attention and learn as I go.

[Lohman446]

What about the "big money companies" that form one and keep everyone else out. For example I think its commonly beleived that SP, Dye, and WDP all have an undisclosed agreement. Its entirely possible said agreement allows sharing of certain IP. If I paid 10 million dollars they would probably let me be part of it.

How do we value IP being brought in?

For instance if one was able to obtain the IP protecting electros and offer it to the consortium what would its value be? Surely offering this IP would be worth more than offering the IP to (don't kill me) an RT trigger system. Who, and how are we going to set values?

As the consortium expands (and as such has more IP) how are the licensing fees going to change? Is it an all or nothing "subscription" IE I pay $1000 and am entitled to everything covered? Or is it creating a simpler marketplace for one to purchase individual pieces of IP from the consortium - IE, I'll take rights to the RT system for $10 Alex? If availabile in peices how do we value individual peices? How do we differentiate for use? IE - I want to buy the rights to build 1 unit for myself, vs 10 units for friends, vs manufacture product for profit? Or is it all or nothing? As more and more is added to the consortium how do we keep the costs reasonable while keeping the value of adding IP? What keeps it from mutating from "small" to big business practices and becoming a "good old boys club" as the value (and price) of joining goes up.

Aside from the option of buying all the rights the consortium holds at once what is the advantage over going and seeking individual licenses from various holders?

Whats the base offer of shared IP (for instance pneumatic trigger) that encourages others to join and offer there own IP?

How does the consortium protect its IP without being labeled "anti-development" and looking like SP?

How do we enforce a "work product" agreement. That is not allowing those who use the consortium, then come up with something new, to patent it and keep it from the consortium?

Lots of questions I know, and still not trying to be all negative. The idea looks great, but I see a lot of hurdles. An apparently I am not a "yes man".

[rabidchihauhau]

As far as "backstabbing" goes - here's a couple of defenses:

1. someone creates a "work around" but won't play ball - the group just doesn't endorse it for use and or modifies standards to make it incompatible and/or let's everyone know that so-and-so is a bad actor

2. someone holds a critical piece of tech hostage - but it can only be "advanced" critical tech, since for such to occur the group and products already exist. Participation and licensing to use the group's IP is withdrawn from the individual and/or not renewed (depending on set-up). Great, they've got a really cool "x" - but nothing to use it on.

I'm more concerned about the group being perceived as stifling development and have concentrated my thinking more on the side of how to keep it from going NAZI than I have on external issues - which is why I suggested that the group has (with its members) an agreement to get first option on new things and a set time frame for acceptance, after which it loses its claim and contractually can't impose its will on the member should they decide to produce said thing independantly of the group.

Why would anyone want to impose such a thing on themselves (as a company)?

We're talking all potentials here but:

they buy in to a ready made market - don't have to develop one for themselves

they buy into a protective environment while still retaining ownership of their IP

they do not have to manufacture every component to produce their product

they don't have to budget for a full advertising campaign

they don't have to establish their own website with e-commerce

they don't have to pay licensing and royalty fees to make their product

they may not have to underwrite 100% of their IP application costs

There are two realized revenue streams: one being sales of their product to the outside world and the other being sales of their product (wholesale or group retail) within the group. Anyone with a machine shop will tell you that the opportunity to keep their machines booked up regularly is worth cutting their margins for

There are at least two no cost/low cost advantages: reduction and elimination of many day to day customary business expenses and increased leverage on the IP side.

Supposed, just for supposing sake, that one of the groups' patents finds a licensee outside of paintball; a (good) percentage goes to the owner, the remainder to the group. Now we're cooking with gas because the revenue is completely external. The portion the licensor is giving up to the group comes back to them in increased services from the group - and since the group is responsible for developing external licensing of product, its dollars they probably wouldn't have gotten to begin with.

So, I think there are a lot of reasons why someone would want to sign on - AFTER the group was fully established and functional. Its getting folks initially that's really the problem.

SPEAKING OF WHICH.

I have some IP I'm developing and I am in desperate need of an electronics geek to build a circuit for the FINAL prototype.

I CAN'T pay cash, so I'm prepared to give up a piece of any future sales of the thing to whomever gives me a hand.

This IP might eventually become one of the contributed pieces of IP to the OS group and if it gets its grant (like I fully expect it to) well, let's just say that it could go a long way to solving a lot of issues.

Whomever jumps on board will need to know how to do a circuit that will require software (could be permanent burned in or programmable) and has to "know their stuff" so that we can discuss not only the optimal circuit but the variations on a theme. They'll also have to be willing to sign a non-disclosure.

PM me if you think you'd be willing to work on this.

A few months from now I WILL be able to hire a shop to do this (house closing in about 6 weeks - we made a profit) so the opportunity is limited...

[robnix]

robinx,

You need a Paintball Standards group that sets a solid set of standards for:

1) Markers and air systems.
2) Rules for tournament play.
3) Field standards for rec play.
4) Safety standards

It could work, but it would take:

1) Money
2) Marketing
3) Commitment
4) Balls

I disagree that all of the standards you list would be necessary to start. ASTM guidelines would be adopted to begin with and modified from there.

I don't think anyone would disagree that I've got #4 in your list of requirements covered

#4 could come from the ASTM standards, but what I mean for #1 is a bit different. Standardize on a single type of threading for barrels, feednecks, direct mount hole spacing, grips screws, etc...This way companies and individuals can make a single piece that can fit any marke. The day I got my first ULE, I went to a local paintball store to get a new feedneck for it and couldn't, because they didn't carry any that had angel threading. Their loss, not mine, I went online to get one. Look at network devices, right now I could start company to build, market, and sell firewalls, because there are standards set for the transmission of data across networks, and everyone that wants to play follows those standards. You wouldn't want to determine how the internals work of course, but standardizing the accessories would only make that market easier to enter.

#4 I think you have in spades, #3 as well

I really hope you can get something like this started, it would only help this sport grow.

[Fantom]

- but I only see 8 people participating in this discussion.

It doesn't fill me with a lot of hope.

I'm listening. Need to read your propositions and comments more than once to assimilate and undederstand, then assess the risks and benefits before speaking.......

As your were.