Smart Parts Patents
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
Where in other parts of this thread there are the posts that say that "IF" Smart Parts "DO" have the rights to a particular product then of course they should go for courts, however many cases have been discussed about prior art etc well in the case of the barrel patent link, this one although described in the simplified description is about the Freak...in the complicated version (at the top of the patent description) It describes the method by which the Aradaus (sp?) barrel works...so in that case although not in the simplified version they do indeed have a case to bring forward but not against OTP/Bob Long (if indeed their barrels were on the market well before the Freak) The Sterling well actually Soverign had a barrel sizer collar and that was definately well before the Freak but having said that as a patent holder for a collapsable bore barrel system do you have to produce the item to indeed sue...don't believe you have to? I have never seen a barrel like that with a Smart Parts logo on it.
Edit: to correct Amadueus to Aradaus
Edit: to correct Amadueus to Aradaus
"It is an object of the present invention to provide a relatively simple, low cost, electronically operated paintball gun that employs a pneumatic circuit for driving the bolt towards a front shooting position and a spring to bias the bolt to a rearward position after the gun is shot
It is a further object of the invention to provide a novel paintball gun that employs an electronic circuit for controlling a pneumatic circuit of the gun and that can be manufactured easily and at reasonable cost. "
I can't say I really know how most markers work but... Does the first bit mean that Cockers are exempt because they don't use a spring to re-cock the marker but a cocking rod driven by gas? Or am I stupid and totally don't know how a cocker works?
As for the second highlighted bit, the reasonable cost is contradicted by the extortionate fee they are allegedly asking..
It is a further object of the invention to provide a novel paintball gun that employs an electronic circuit for controlling a pneumatic circuit of the gun and that can be manufactured easily and at reasonable cost. "
I can't say I really know how most markers work but... Does the first bit mean that Cockers are exempt because they don't use a spring to re-cock the marker but a cocking rod driven by gas? Or am I stupid and totally don't know how a cocker works?
As for the second highlighted bit, the reasonable cost is contradicted by the extortionate fee they are allegedly asking..
Mark with out seeing the case history I can't say for certain, but i can hazard a guess that SP started the patent based upon their freak system, but as the Aradus product came onto the market they changed the claims to incorporate how it works.
That's actually perfectly legal if the claims still fit within their original description, and I have no problem with that practice (done it myself
)
But I do have a problem with the patent because in my opinion they shouldn't be allowed claim one which is clearly already in the public domain from other products that you also note.
You are not supposed to make or have a claim granted that is broad enough to capture public domain products that were available before you filed the patent. The USPTO is supposed to pick up on it and not allow such broad claims. You are also not supposed to knowingly submit them if you know there is prior art.
You are supposed to disclose all prior art and 'known inventions'.
I wonder if now would be a good time to state the age of the guy doing the 'examining' for SP's gun patents, his experience, how long he is out of his time, and where he lives? Nah that would just be rumour huh Rancid?
The more you know the more the plot thickens.
That's actually perfectly legal if the claims still fit within their original description, and I have no problem with that practice (done it myself
)But I do have a problem with the patent because in my opinion they shouldn't be allowed claim one which is clearly already in the public domain from other products that you also note.
You are not supposed to make or have a claim granted that is broad enough to capture public domain products that were available before you filed the patent. The USPTO is supposed
to pick up on it and not allow such broad claims. You are also not supposed to knowingly submit them if you know there is prior art.You are supposed to disclose all prior art and 'known inventions'.
I wonder if now would be a good time to state the age of the guy doing the 'examining' for SP's gun patents, his experience, how long he is out of his time, and where he lives? Nah that would just be rumour huh Rancid?
The more you know the more the plot thickens.
Thundercat, that is just one of the patents. Pneumatic cockers are exempt from all the patents I know of, but if they have an electro grip attached they no longer are... nor is the electo grip on it's own.
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Rancid?
Nah they don't as far as I am aware.
Kingman (or ICD) invented that principle with their EM1 and ICD also implemented it in their Bushmaster (in the ram) and the BKO.
So why, we ask ourselves, do we find it in an SP patent?
hhmm and it makes us wonder... what does it do for you guys?
Nicely spotted... gentlemen do SP have that in any of their products?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Rancid?
Nah they don't as far as I am aware.
Kingman (or ICD) invented that principle with their EM1 and ICD also implemented it in their Bushmaster (in the ram) and the BKO.
So why, we ask ourselves, do we find it in an SP patent?
hhmm and it makes us wonder... what does it do for you guys?
Well if that is the case as their Patent talks about the material being thin enough to be deformed then they can't attack Aradus as their barrel sizing section is slatted not a solid piece as described in the SP patent claim....so a re-edit (thought) on my previous post.
Why SP won't just stop at ICD or WDP.
Hey Rancid, more points that are easy for you to verify...
What happened two years ago?
Hey Rancid, more points that are easy for you to verify...
What happened two years ago?
oh and that's a fact you can easily verify!
In case you need more info, here is a great link:
http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=9013&messageid=1058942255
And here's the petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/sppet888/petition.html
Somene should write an article about all this in the PGI magazine!
http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=9013&messageid=1058942255
And here's the petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/sppet888/petition.html
Somene should write an article about all this in the PGI magazine!
Just a couple of quick comments and questions.
I can't see SP 5 years from now as the Emperor of the electro paintballing world. The current cited patents hopefully will not stand up once put to the test based on prior art and a few other issues. And, if, I stress IF SP were to defeat ICD and the domino effect works in SP's favor, I don't believe SP would survive an anti-trust suit.
SP's press release is expected to be released 1 week prior to the Philly PSP, in their own backyard. Philly by the sounds of it should be interesting. If a mere 5% of the 13 year old posters and web hooligans posting elsewhere stand by their words the SP area will look like LA after the Rodney King verdict, or we'll see players with torches and pitch forks like a bad frankenstein movie. Philly should be interesting. I'm bringing body armor and the new Kevlar V-force supershield mask.
the brothers Grimm have been talking with Hollywood types. Have they struck any deals? Not an implied conspiracy theory to ensure SP product placement on TV, just a question thats all.
In regards to the barrels. I purchased a freak about 2 weeks before skyball 2001, it had been out for a while prior to that. I'm not sure how long it was out though. And I'm hesitant to admit that I briefly owned an ATS TS-1 in '97 which had different bore sized inserts.
Gripframes? Did SP ever develop a stand alone gripframe, even in prototype? Someone help me out with dates. When did the Mako and Booyaa electro frames come out? I think these were some of the first electro frames to hit the market aimed at the piranha and spyder/clones.
I can't see SP 5 years from now as the Emperor of the electro paintballing world. The current cited patents hopefully will not stand up once put to the test based on prior art and a few other issues. And, if, I stress IF SP were to defeat ICD and the domino effect works in SP's favor, I don't believe SP would survive an anti-trust suit.
SP's press release is expected to be released 1 week prior to the Philly PSP, in their own backyard. Philly by the sounds of it should be interesting. If a mere 5% of the 13 year old posters and web hooligans posting elsewhere stand by their words the SP area will look like LA after the Rodney King verdict, or we'll see players with torches and pitch forks like a bad frankenstein movie. Philly should be interesting. I'm bringing body armor and the new Kevlar V-force supershield mask.
the brothers Grimm have been talking with Hollywood types. Have they struck any deals? Not an implied conspiracy theory to ensure SP product placement on TV, just a question thats all.
In regards to the barrels. I purchased a freak about 2 weeks before skyball 2001, it had been out for a while prior to that. I'm not sure how long it was out though. And I'm hesitant to admit that I briefly owned an ATS TS-1 in '97 which had different bore sized inserts.
Gripframes? Did SP ever develop a stand alone gripframe, even in prototype? Someone help me out with dates. When did the Mako and Booyaa electro frames come out? I think these were some of the first electro frames to hit the market aimed at the piranha and spyder/clones.