Smart Parts Patent, wait a minute!!
- Thread starter Andy-Yorkshire-Paintball
- Start date
What was the result of the Smart Parts Versus. Indian Creek Designs (+ the sport of paintball) trial.
And why did Dye and NPS agree to work under licence. Did they have to pay some fees -implying they didn't think they could beat SP in court, or was it just a case of "if you agree not to be a threat to us, we won't have to spend any money on lawyers, and you can go after the small companies with out worrying about us backing them."
And why did Dye and NPS agree to work under licence. Did they have to pay some fees -implying they didn't think they could beat SP in court, or was it just a case of "if you agree not to be a threat to us, we won't have to spend any money on lawyers, and you can go after the small companies with out worrying about us backing them."
I think you are all missing the point. The point is that Smart Parts appear to have patented an idea which was around well before smart parts themselves. This surely makes their patant invalid.
Here is a quote given to me
Andy ypc re-smart parts patents.
andy read your thread on the p8 forums re- smartparts patents.
did you know that browning has had a patent for the electronicaly assisted trigger for a hand held firearm of any kind since 1977.cant post on p8 so thought i'd mention it here.
Remember the likes or Indian Springs, National Paintball Supply (NPS), Dye etc were not involved in Paintball from the start. It may be that they have never heard of the Sabot Cannon.
The only companies around as I recall at that time were;
Survival Game (manufacturers of the Splatmaster)
Nelspot
Line SI (Bushmaster)
Component Concepts (Phantom)
Now don't get me wrong, I am talking from a UK point of view, it may be different in the US. I have no issue with the ethics involved if Smart Parts are in the right. If they are then as I said before, it's just good business and good luck to them. If Smart Parts pull it off, then it doesn't matter how many people boycot them, they can give up on paintball and lie on a beach sipping cocktails as the money rolls in.
Back to the point.
1) Were Smart Parts aware of the Sabot Cannon when thay applied for a Patent on an electronic paintball marker.
2) A search must have been done and the manufacturers of the Sabot Cannon obviously didn't object (or even know of the search)
3) With the fact of a production electronic paintball marker available prior to Smart Parts even setting up their company would this invalidate the Patent (It would in the UK)
4) Did the likes of Dye, NPS, Indian Springs even know of the existence of an electronic marker prior to the Smart Parts Patent (remember they wern't around then) and if they did, would it have effected their decision to come to a deal with Smart Parts.
Some people will say "well of course they would have known", but hold on. Paintball is an industry of young people. How many people on here though Smart Parts were the first electronic marker with the Shocker.
Sometimes the most obvious things are overlooked and it may be that the above mentioned companies really didn't know.
There is a famous story that illustrates this. Swan Vesta (the company that makes matches) were told by one of their employees of how they could save £50,000 per year on their manufacturing costs. They couldn't think of a way and asked him how. He said, "Just put the sand paper on one side of the box". Simple but overlooked.
It's like the current problem with netting at competitions and stray paintballs. I have a simple solution that will save tournament organisers a fortune and keep spectators in perfect safety. It's simple but overlooked as most organisers copy the last tournament they went to.
Andy
Here is a quote given to me
Andy ypc re-smart parts patents.
andy read your thread on the p8 forums re- smartparts patents.
did you know that browning has had a patent for the electronicaly assisted trigger for a hand held firearm of any kind since 1977.cant post on p8 so thought i'd mention it here.
Remember the likes or Indian Springs, National Paintball Supply (NPS), Dye etc were not involved in Paintball from the start. It may be that they have never heard of the Sabot Cannon.
The only companies around as I recall at that time were;
Survival Game (manufacturers of the Splatmaster)
Nelspot
Line SI (Bushmaster)
Component Concepts (Phantom)
Now don't get me wrong, I am talking from a UK point of view, it may be different in the US. I have no issue with the ethics involved if Smart Parts are in the right. If they are then as I said before, it's just good business and good luck to them. If Smart Parts pull it off, then it doesn't matter how many people boycot them, they can give up on paintball and lie on a beach sipping cocktails as the money rolls in.
Back to the point.
1) Were Smart Parts aware of the Sabot Cannon when thay applied for a Patent on an electronic paintball marker.
2) A search must have been done and the manufacturers of the Sabot Cannon obviously didn't object (or even know of the search)
3) With the fact of a production electronic paintball marker available prior to Smart Parts even setting up their company would this invalidate the Patent (It would in the UK)
4) Did the likes of Dye, NPS, Indian Springs even know of the existence of an electronic marker prior to the Smart Parts Patent (remember they wern't around then) and if they did, would it have effected their decision to come to a deal with Smart Parts.
Some people will say "well of course they would have known", but hold on. Paintball is an industry of young people. How many people on here though Smart Parts were the first electronic marker with the Shocker.
Sometimes the most obvious things are overlooked and it may be that the above mentioned companies really didn't know.
There is a famous story that illustrates this. Swan Vesta (the company that makes matches) were told by one of their employees of how they could save £50,000 per year on their manufacturing costs. They couldn't think of a way and asked him how. He said, "Just put the sand paper on one side of the box". Simple but overlooked.
It's like the current problem with netting at competitions and stray paintballs. I have a simple solution that will save tournament organisers a fortune and keep spectators in perfect safety. It's simple but overlooked as most organisers copy the last tournament they went to.
Andy
Angel IR3s, Speeds and A4s dont have a switch for the trigger they have a light sensor and a laser.Originally posted by Philip
All the companys should stop using switches an use magnets, and tell everyone to use a 9v 'cell'
Do u think it would be possible to replace the battery with a gas powered dynamo?
This way you are getting rid of the batterty and the on off switch, cos the gun is only on when the gas source is attached.
What u rekon???
There is plenty more prior art other than the sabot cannon, the problem is that the US patent system rewards those who throw the most money at the situation, not those who actually came up with the idea.
In the UK it may be overturned, but the real market is in the US, no paintball company can make much money unless they are tapping into the market in the US, and with SPs patents upheld in the US we're pretty much condemned to use SPs ****ty quality guns or pay alot more for a quality product.
Ok its thread jacking time!
This caught my attention, have you patented it so no one rips it off and if you mention it on here will that be 'prior art'
Please tell me, I can keep a secret.
i have (somewhere at my parents house) a copy of a book titled 'paintball: combat adventure sport' or something similar by richard (i think its richard) cooke. which i think is dated early 80's and in that book are several pictures and a description of the sabot as well as pics of the mess it can make, iirc it throws 40 balls in one shot!