“Assisted Trigger Mechanism” PRO TEAM GETS PATENT GRANT

[edweird]

If people want to investigate such things, its up to them to do their homework.

AKA "its up to others to fund such an investigation, until such time we will sit on the patent instead of going forward with development behind the scenes"

If I'm wrong, prove it to us by releasing some of that vaporware instead of preventing me from paying Colin for one I have already used. I think its truly shameful to stagnate an industry under IP litigation while failing to develop during the patent pending window.

[RRfireblade]

AKA "its up to others to fund such an investigation, until such time we will sit on the patent instead of going forward with development behind the scenes"

If I'm wrong, prove it to us by releasing some of that vaporware instead of preventing me from paying Colin for one I have already used. I think its truly shameful to stagnate an industry under IP litigation while failing to develop during the patent pending window.

There's like 3 different versions of Patent covering this. Colin has one , PTP of course , as well as the guys behind the 68Super. No ones really stopping anyone form making one other than the market.

[edweird]

No ones really stopping anyone form making one other than the market.

sadly this is false, at most I can think two of the 3 you mentioned potentially have the capital to defend themselves against legal action while keeping themselves in business. And since we are being frank, how again is leveraging competitors against releasing product good for progress and innovation?

Oh wait, it isn't.

either produce something or get off the pot, don't sit in the proverbial stall passing gas and hold up the line in the process. If your so damn sure that the "market" is uninterested then open source the patent and let someone who is willing to use it take a crack at it.

[RRfireblade]

sadly this is false, at most I can think two of the 3 you mentioned potentially have the capital to defend themselves against legal action while keeping themselves in business. And since we are being frank, how again is leveraging competitors against releasing product good for progress and innovation?

Oh wait, it isn't.

either produce something or get off the pot, don't sit in the proverbial stall passing gas and hold up the line in the process. If your so damn sure that the "market" is uninterested then open source the patent and let someone who is willing to use it take a crack at it.

Did you not read my post ?

Nicad/Colin HAS his very own patent on his specific version of this. So does G Force. G Force has publicly offered thier patent for licensing like a year ago or longer. To my knowledge so far , PTP hasn't ever officially C&D'd anyone. You can also add to that list of course k2/Be/Wgp/Jardin or whatever it is now who has full rights.

[RRfireblade]

Oh yeah . . .

I have nothing to do with the patent so I couldn't 'open source' it if I wanted too.

[warbeak2099]

Hey classic magger had a good point. Does the fact that Punisher made the first pneumatic mag mean anything?

[LK-13]

one thing that bothers me in this is the idea that if one person builds something for themselves
and has no intent to build them as a product for others.
someone else can come along and order you to take it apart.
if i build a motorcycle, can one of the big bike builders come along and order me to
C&D then rip my bike apart?
if i build a car will one of the big 3 come along and rain on my parade?
if they can do this how do Jessey James , Paul Tuttle (Jr. & Sr.) or Chip Foose and Boyd Coddington stay in business?
as they are clearly making bikes and/or cars and doing so as a business.
I've been working on a project for myself,
the alternating double barreled gun.
none of the big custom builders were interested in the project.
now i have figured out a way to actually make it happen.
suddenly I'm worried that if i do build this,
some company is going to see what I've done
patent the idea,
then order me to rip mine apart because it's their IP.
i don't have the knowledge to get a patent for my idea,
and i don't have the money to go and hire someone to patent it for me.
so has this just killed my project before i even start the actual build?

Geez, Paintball used to be fun!!

now it's turning into one big pain in the ***.

[going_home]

Hey:

rabidchihauhau, this was in the Workshop thread but I didn't see an answer from you.

-ClassicMagger

Well its Deadlywind, they have to consult legal council first before responding.

But the clamping feednecks on the stone age Tippmanns seem to present a very serious
"prior art" challenge to their patents as do the 1993 pneumags.

Some serious stuff that probably wont be responded to in forums.
Because it means the patents would not be enforcible.
Lots of money wasted if they cant be enforced.

https://www.automags.org/forums/showp...&postcount=168

https://www.automags.org/forums/showp...&postcount=169

So I say to you pneu-modders have at it. Mod to your hearts content.
Because theres no money to be made from prosecuting individuals.

Opinions are like feet, most people have them, and most of them stink.
But thats my opinion.

[RRfireblade]

Hey classic magger had a good point. Does the fact that Punisher made the first pneumatic mag mean anything?

Not 100% in this but if I recall how I've heard before , prior art does not invalidate a patent but it would/may allow that party claiming prior art to product thier own product . . . or something like that. At the very least it would be thier defense of the C&D , still may not keep it out of court depending on how aggressive the patent holder wants to be tho.

[RogueFactor]

Not 100% in this but if I recall how I've heard before , prior art does not invalidate a patent but it would/may allow that party claiming prior art to product thier own product . . . or something like that. At the very least it would be thier defense of the C&D , still may not keep it out of court depending on how aggressive the patent holder wants to be tho.

Prior Art absolutely can invalidate a patent.

Here it is, straight from the US Patent Trademark Office:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac..._U_S_C_102.htm

35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent. - Appendix L Patent Laws

35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or

(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or

(c) he has abandoned the invention, or

(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor's certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor's certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, or

(e) the invention was described in - (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language; or

(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or

(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.

[RRfireblade]

That's not an example of an individual producing a single sample of 'assumed' prior art.

[RogueFactor]

That's not an example of an individual producing a single sample of 'assumed' prior art.

Really?

I thought this part of subsection (a) was on point:

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country...before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent

[RRfireblade]

"Known or used by others" IMO impies common knowledge and/or common usage. Lee's privately assembled one off custom mod doesn't meet that IMO but that is of course subjective opinion and can only be decieded by a Court Judge of which neither of us are and you'd still have to have hard documentation that proves all the pertinent facts and dates in relaton to the applicable app.

The mear existance of his post does not even prove prior art. It's still all assumed that it may. It's been acknowledged by all interested parties that pneumatics have been used in the area of the invention before , bolting half a production marker to another half of a production marker may easily fall in either side of that realm.

Again , it's all subjective assumption at this point. So as I said , the mear existance of assumed prior art doesn't invalidate a Patent. It take quiet a bit more than that. Again this was in direct response to the questin of Lee's marker , not a grand generalization. And in either case is why I included in my post . . .

At the very least it would be thier defense of the C&D , still may not keep it out of court depending on how aggressive the patent holder wants to be tho.

That's the only place a final word on that issue can be had but feel free to give it all you have here.

[RogueFactor]

That's the only place a final word on that issue can be had but feel free to give it all you have here.

Absolutely I will. It seems well known by many(especially from reading those 68caliber exclusive press releases), that the court of public opinion is just as important.

In business, the customer has the final word with their pocketbook

[RRfireblade]

Not sure how that applies but Mmm kay , I'd agree with the last part.

[rabidchihauhau]

Oy.

I've checked with the resident authorities and CATEGORICALLY, neither PTP, nor anyone in PTP's name, has issued any C&Ds to anyone on the pneutrigger patent issues.

So, if you're looking for someone to denounce for protecting their intellectual property, you'll have to lay it at the feet of one of the other folks who claim to have IP coverng this subject area. There's only two of them, so you ought to be able to figure it out - or at least make a better guess.

To be blunt about it, making something for yourself thats covered by a patent denies the patent holder the right to profit from selling you the same. It doesn't matter whether you make one or many, nor whether you plan on commercializing it or not, except in one case, which is that you are more culpable if you deliberately infringe and potentially even more so if you recommend an illegal activity to others, particulary in a public forum...

You may not like the idea, but keeping a patented product off the market and preventing others from maiking it are inherent rights of the patent holder - that were VERY carefully written into patent law.

As for the claims of prior art - claim all you want. Nothing said on here is going to establish something that someone thinks or believes is such as being so. My opinion is that it isn't, as I've looked at those designs before writing the applications and their subject matter is not claimed in the patents. Tippmanns feedneck is not a 'locking collet' - if anything it is a clamp. Many of you are looking at things, seeing a similarity and automatically assuming that it is the same thing, and they're not.

[CoolHand]

Oy.

I've checked with the resident authorities and CATEGORICALLY, neither PTP, nor anyone in PTP's name, has issued any C&Ds to anyone on the pneutrigger patent issues.

So, if you're looking for someone to denounce for protecting their intellectual property, you'll have to lay it at the feet of one of the other folks who claim to have IP coverng this subject area. There's only two of them, so you ought to be able to figure it out - or at least make a better guess.

To be blunt about it, making something for yourself thats covered by a patent denies the patent holder the right to profit from selling you the same. It doesn't matter whether you make one or many, nor whether you plan on commercializing it or not, except in one case, which is that you are more culpable if you deliberately infringe and potentially even more so if you recommend an illegal activity to others, particulary in a public forum...

You may not like the idea, but keeping a patented product off the market and preventing others from maiking it are inherent rights of the patent holder - that were VERY carefully written into patent law.

As for the claims of prior art - claim all you want. Nothing said on here is going to establish something that someone thinks or believes is such as being so. My opinion is that it isn't, as I've looked at those designs before writing the applications and their subject matter is not claimed in the patents. Tippmanns feedneck is not a 'locking collet' - if anything it is a clamp. Many of you are looking at things, seeing a similarity and automatically assuming that it is the same thing, and they're not.

Good luck chasing down all the DIY'ers out there and forcing them to stop or destroy their devices. So it's technically the letter of the law, in reality, no one is going to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to go after Johny OnseyTwosey for making something for his own use, it'd be a huge waste of time and money.

IMO continuing to lean on the DIY'ers like you are, calling them basically criminals for figuring out what many others before them have is asinine to say the least, and really detracts from your overall point. Want to know why everyone is suddenly booing and hissing at you when you talk about this stuff? It's because you cut right to the "You're breaking the law, we can come after you, I have a patent and say so." crap, which you have to know is just that, mostly crap.

Everyone knows how much I hate to agree with Roguefactor ( ), but in this case I find it happening. That's fine if someone with a patent wants to enforce their rights in the marketplace, but to say that they (PTP) are going to come down on the DIY crowd in the same way is intentionally misleading for the purposes of intimidating folks (to what end I do not know, but you're making an awful big show of it for some reason).

This whole deal has turned into a genuine cluster, that is for sure and for certain.

[rabidchihauhau]

coolhand,

I think I can save you the trouble of agreeing with rogue:

read what I wrote. I said "...CATEGORICALLY, neither PTP, nor anyone in PTP's name, has issued any C&Ds to anyone on the pneutrigger patent issues."

That means that PTP has NOT gone after DIYers.

I then addressed someone who said they had a basic problem with the whole concept of preventing private individuals from making copies of patented items for their own use, and finally, I pointed out that those who assist in doing such are potentially more liable than the person who simply goes and copies.

Nowhere did I say that PTP was going to go after DIYers. All I did was repeat the relevant law. Those individuals who go ahead and violate the law will now do so knowing that they are - whether it gets enforced or not.

I did nothing more than turn to you while we're in the car and say "You know, you're over the speed limit for this stretch of road..."

And I can't help it if people want to get up in arms when they are informed of a legal reality and don't like it. There's tons of potheads who don't like the illegal status of their personal activity, there's tons of people who light up a cigarette where they're not supposed to and millions who knowingly skirt the rules when they fill out their income tax forms in April.

The fact that there are millions of co-offenders doesn't make the activity legal, nor does the fact that little or no enforcement is addressed to those issues. Pointing out the essential illegality doesn't make me responsible for the law.

We had another case of this kind of thing in paintball. People pointed out the cheaters and the flaws in the rules and got roundly castigated and attacked for being pollyannas, not 'getting it' or complaining because they were losers. Look where that got us...

[robnix]

Everyone knows how much I hate to agree with Roguefactor ( ), but in this case I find it happening. That's fine if someone with a patent wants to enforce their rights in the marketplace, but to say that they (PTP) are going to come down on the DIY crowd in the same way is intentionally misleading for the purposes of intimidating folks (to what end I do not know, but you're making an awful big show of it for some reason).

This whole deal has turned into a genuine cluster, that is for sure and for certain.

It's been my opinion through this whole affair the the DIY crowd are doing this for either or both of the following reasons:

1) They like doing projects like this. It's fun and fills their time with something they learn from and can say 'look what I did' afterwards.
2) They want this product, but the IP holders for whatever reason aren't releasing one to the market, so they're forced to either make their own or find someone to do it for them.

[rabidchihauhau]

Patent holders have a duty to actively protect their patent.

Someone sending out a C&D is either trying to stop the activity, get someone to license and is demonstrating a willingness to protect the IP

or is establishing a record.

The owner of a patent doesn't have to produce anything in the marketplace in order to enforce their rights.

[CoolHand]

Alright, alright, I yield.

I still maintain that this entire thing is a genuine cluster though.

[Dend78]

^^ agreed, this is BS kinda stuff that goes on with real firearms, i can totally understand wanting to corner the market and securing your product but all the red tape to do so seems almost pointless.

[going_home]

Alright, alright, I yield.

I still maintain that this entire thing is a genuine cluster though.

But it is interesting reading the posts, and frankly, pretty funny.

[rabidchihauhau]

I think it seems pointless, ridiculous, expensive, petty, etc., etc. until you've worked on a project for two or three years and then get issued a patent five or six years after you started.

We're talking tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars invested on a guess and a prayer before there's even the possibility of making back dime one.

If you assume say, three years of R&D by one person at ten dollars an hour (ridiculous) - you're already looking at $60,000 - not counting protyping/materials costs, a real salary for the R&D guy, normal and customary overhead (electricity, telephone, computer) and then the legal fees kick in when its time to file the application. Then you have to gear up for production, buy materials, send money on advertising and marketing.

A real big perceptual issue is the fact that hardly any of the real costs associated with a patented product are ever seen or realized.

Consider that any small company can hardly afford taking such out of their pockets with no promise of return - let alone the amount of dollars it takes to keep three, six, ten such projects going...

but all anyone sees is someone charging "too much"

[CoolHand]

I agree that the process is entirely too expensive currently, but I don't have an alternative idea handy at the moment either.

Personally, I've never developed anything that (to me) seemed patentable (however, by the current industry standards, I've done it at least once maybe twice), but even if it were and I had the money to pursue such a patent, I don't have the money to defend it, so in reality, it just ends up being so much paper in a frame. Might as well have lit that money on fire.

Sure it's cool, but if I'm gonna be in the same shape with a patent as I would have been without (effectively at least), I'd just as soon still have the money. At least that way you can be nimble enough to develop and move on to new products before or just after everyone starts knocking off your last big thing. IMO this is the only way to beat the Chinese, as they simply don't give a hoot about patents and IP, they see it, they steal it. You can either go out of business trying to defend your turf, of you can forge new ground to stay ahead of the little buggers. I'd choose the latter just because it's something I could control myself.

But that's just how I see it, and I have been told on occasion that I've got a warp outlook. lol

[rabidchihauhau]

Coolhand,

you're not the only one who has made that calculation and come to the conclusion that you have.

There are a fair number of IP attorneys (they make their living off of this) who have written papers and are advising clients that patents are NOT the way to go.


Others of course are taking a counter-view, but I find it very interesting that some of those in the field are going negative against the concept.

There are other things that factor into the calculation that are different (maybe) for a company than they are for an individual inventor. Some inventors make a nice living by securing patent rights and then licensing or selling off their stuff to the right people. All you see after their names on apps is assigned, assigned, assigned...

Some companies hope to build up a portfolio of apps that are used strategically to leverage negotiations with potential partners and/or competitors. Having the ability to throw low cost/no cost usage of patented designs into the mix can be valuable, as can the threat of 'dueling patents' (you try and make me license and guess what I'm gonna enforce?)

But the real irony is this: patents in paintball are a direct reation to what went on previously: John Sievers, who used to be a partner in LAPCO, said this to me in 1989 "before I bring something out onto the market, I decide if I can make my money back before all the copycats jump on the bandwagon. If the answer is yes, I make it, if not, I don't bother."

IN that era, there was a whole lot of good product that just never saw the market because of the above mentality.

So now, we've replaced 'fear of cheap copying' with 'fear of infringement followed by cheap copying'...

in terms of the chinese - there used to be an on-line system for having Customs stop things from being imported. Sadly, it looks like they are still doing it for everything except patents...

[raehl]

Any prior art is prior art. But it only counts if you can prove in court that you actually invented the same invention before the other guy did. And that's only (pretty much) in the US - everywhere else it's whoever files first.

And, many people trip themselves up in not understanding that things that are SIMILAR are not necessarily prior art. If I make A, and did not patent it, and you make B, which is like A but more advanced, I can't make B. I can only make A. And I can't prevent you from making B, because I never patented A.

Or if A and B have the same function, but are different things, my previous invention of A still doesn't prevent you from patenting B. (Although the market may choose to manufacture/buy A instead.)


- Chris

[rabidchihauhau]

actually, Chris, same function, different means, can be prior art.

Someone can't get a patent for 'method of fastening two boards together' by using a screw in the face of a previous patent for 'method of fastening two boards together' using a nail.

Of course, both get thrown out the window if you change the title to "method of fastening two boards together for use with paintball"...

You're correct in people's mistaken understanding. They see something and say to themselves, "that's the same as" and then get all bent out of shape when someone gets a patent for the "same" thing.

What they aren't realizing is that the patent may have one change/improvement that puts it into the realm of a "new device".

If, for example, you were to come up with a way to eliminate the connecting pin between bolt and hammer in a stacked blowback semi-auto, you'd probably get a patent grant for it. The "improvement" is the elimination of a part and a potential reduction in the cost of manufacture. The patent would be genuine and legit, but all anyone else would see is someone getting a patent for a device that was well represented in the prior art. "How the heck did they get a patent for the PGP issued in 2007!?!" is all we'd be hearing.

The patent owner would be roundly attacked for trying to rip people off, accused of all kinds of nasty behaviors. Folks would run around looking for prior art, others would start DIY projects to devalue the patent. Meanwhile, the patent owner would have licensed his invention to several companies that were looking to save money, who quietly incorporated the design into their products and along the way someone, somewhere would be sent a C&D. The original patent holder would be accused of trying to destroy paintball, yelled at for not bringing the product to market...

[raehl]

actually, Chris, same function, different means, can be prior art.

Indeed - the question is what constitutes sufficiently 'different means', which is a whole 'nother ball of wax. In your example, fastening boards together with a screw probably precludes a patent on doing it with a nail, but probably does not preclude a patent on fastening boards together with a dove tail, or glue. Still end up with fastened-together boards, but the means are different and separately patentable.


As for the whole 'in paintball' thing, there are patents out there that are obvious, and there are patents out there that do indeed patent something that someone else came up with first, and the criticism for the people who use those patents to extract money from people who actually make product (or to prevent people from making the product unless they pay up a royalty and thus charge the players more) is absolutely deserved.

Just because not all paintball patents are bad and not all paintball patent holders are evil patent trolls does not preclude some of them from being bad and some people from being evil patent trolls.

And as a matter of course, who is and isn't a troll is unfortunately not usually arbitrated by experts in patents, or even experts in business, but in the court of ignorant public opinion.

- Chris

[rabidchihauhau]

wow - I entirely agree, because one of the things you actually said was "who is a troll and who isn't is in the eye of the beholder" (and the beholder may have blinders on or is seeing what they want to see...)

I'm gratified that you have helped bring this thread back on track in the sense of the dispassionate discussion of concepts, concepts that are hopefully devoid of personal bias or axes that need grinding and that focus on the issues of dispelling the myths and explaining the seemingly contradictory.

I'll continue to try to do so, with the oft-repeated caveat that I will not engage in discussion that is antithetical to friends and patrons, while at the same time stating that failure to do the same is not a concession to nor acquiesence to contrary arguments.