Originally posted by shartley
This is partially true, and I agree with much of it. However, the part I don?t agree with is that the general public has ANY say as to what is correct in a patent or not. If you don?t like the patent system, then argue that. But as it stands we have it? and folks should not bash others for USING it.
No, but that is the discussion. Should this take place. Is it ethical, is it "right." Just because something is legal doesn't make it right to me.
If SP has a legal right to the patent and its enforcement, that will be determined in COURT, not on an online forum. And THAT is were the issue of polarization by emotion comes into play. And guess what? If the COURTS find they have a right to the technology or its use as it pertains to paintball, SP has EVERY right to expect all other companies to pay them for it. We would expect nothing less for ANY company, or person.
Making a judgment based on information isn't emotional polarization, it's making a decision based on the things presented to you. From the information presented, it appears that Smart Parts has knowingly left things off patents to GET them into court. So, it SHOULDN'T be decided by a court case, it should have already been decided by a "no" from the application process. And I wouldn't expect less from Smart Parts or anyone else... I'd expect better. Just because you have to make money doesn't mean you have to screw people, even if you can get away with it.
So the issue is about whether they have a legal right or not. The DO have a legal right to pursue the issue however.
Do I hope they are entitled to what they claim they are? I have mixed feelings about that. However, I do think they should be afforded the same rights we would want for ourselves to protect what we think are OUR rights to things. If they honestly know they don?t deserve the rights to this technology, then yes, that can be considered ?sleazy?? but we have seen other companies in other industries do MUCH worse
Sure, but I've already covered the part about their legal right to pursue. We're simply stating that we would perfer that to NOT happen here. It is sleazy. It's cheap, and it's unfair. Again, legally you might be liable for shooting someone who broke into your home, that doesn't make it a good thing. Just because we say we think this is bad, and will do whatever we can as consumers and those who play this sport, doesn't make us controlled by emotions. I'm not whipped into a frenzy. I've felt this way about smart parts for years now. It's not like this just all happened in the past month. If anything, it's ethical and intellectual, two things that may very well constantly conflict with my emotions.
As for when someone patents an idea or product that is not theirs, and what do you do? you prove them wrong. This is not uncommon, and copyrights, patents, trademarks, and other such things are disputed on a regular basis, and often it is shown that they were granted to the WRONG person(s). Just because you file something does not mean you HAVE the rights to it, the same as if d.you DON?T file it does not mean you DON?T have the rights to it. The system is not perfect, and filing is not the final determining factor? otherwise no one would have to go to court to uphold their claims. A judge would simply see that it was filed for and that would be that??? but it isn?t.
Exactly, that's what we are trying to help with. Judges can make decisions in patent cases on a multitude of grounds, one of which happens to be logical progession. We, as concerned consumers see that this patent not only interferes with the technological progression of our sport, it is a blatant infringement upon the public knowledge in the industry. Perhaps we might dig something up or have some information that the defendants don't yet have access to, nor would if this we're as well publicized.
I truly see your points, I simply can't agree that it's emotional rifraff. From what I've seen, SP has little to no reason whatsoever to think that they deserve the rights to these patents. Actually, I see that they have done things underhandedly for the specific intent of getting these rights without having to go through the proper procedures. Does that make them a worse than everyone else. Maybe. I'm not concerned with everyone else right now. I'm concerned with SP and this lawsuit.
I'm not against patents at all. I'm not against the system that grants and enforces them. Without them, there would be little incentive for people to come up with things like the RT valve and the Uber-loader. However, I'm quite against companies who intentionally abuse the system, and do so knowing that it will detriment the people they sell their products to.
Maybe electro's won't dissapear entirely, but they will dissapear to me. I don't have the jack to spring for a new angel or xmag. Tack on another $150 to everything that's out their right now in licensing fees, and there's a much larger group that gets added to the list of stuff I can't afford. And why? Not because of everyone else's greed, because of Smart Part's. It's a direct link. Manufacturing processes aside, competition drives down prices as much as anything else.