If you take a look at the 4326 patent it's very interesting to see claim 7.
It's an independent claim about electronic grip frames. I didn't know SP made a stand alone grip frame product... or that they came up with the idea to do that such that it could be retro fitted to older style guns...
Claim 8 is an interesting one also, it's the very broad one which looks to capture the essence of using electronics in a paintball gun.
Strange how they could get that in their latest patent, but couldn't in their first when patenting the shocker...
It's also very clearly prior art from an earlier Navy patent... that's why they couldn't get it in the first patent...
Oh and in the case history they argue against their first patent (which had to be tight to get granted) and say that open bolt is the same thing as closed bolt... have they been misleading us all with their marketing for the last few years?
They had to narrow their claims to get their first patent granted, once it was granted they based new patents off it, and slowly but surely broadened the claims to capture things that seem to have been prior art and not allowed in the first patent!
I would have no problem if they had invented the concept of electronically controlled paintball guns. If they had done that and patented it I would take my hat off and wish them the best.
The thing is, it was in the public domain and known as prior art.
They then patented and are now in my opinion trying to enforce patents on things they have no right to ownership of.
Take a look at some other prior art... please note discussing ideas and inventions on the web is like giving it away as you are immediately putting the information into the public domain...
1995 9th of January
and this
1995 April 18th
Is that our very own Tyger? Geeze did he actually do something worthwhile for paintball?
![Q[TXR]](/data/avatars/m/3/3059.jpg?1325174782){kind=avatar}
