They have been. There's a post with the cads.
Let's assume that the RAP4 Patent is legit. At what point is a company or individual allowed to protect their IP without us paintball players screaming about it?Originally Posted by BTAutoMag
(lets please keep this discussion about current events and theory and not rehash the Smart Parts patent fiasco.)
I'd say any time there is legitimate innovation without trying to use severely over-reaching and broad claims.
First, i don't think anyone is questioning the validity of the patent beyond it being a design patent not a utility patent. Second, at no point has anyone said a company/person shouldn't be able to protect there Intellectual Properties and hard work whether from R&D, Collaborative or on the backs of others. Who is the first is all that matters in a court of law. Last, no one is screaming, at least there was no ALL CAPS and BTAutoMag ended with ellipsis which means a unfinished thought or to end in silence.
Smarts Parts is a insightful comment and was exactly the point i was making. Not the BS of the IP claims and court battles but the loss of another great company; in a sport that can easily disintegrate from the inside out. The sport of Paintball is in a rut right now, people are still playing but it lost its spot as the 3rd fastest growing sport back in 2008. People are moving to other pastimes such as airsoft and video games. Sponsors outside of the sport don't give a crap about us because we don't give them a high enough ROI. Because when paintball is shown on TV it doesn't engage new views and facility the sales of the crap the commercials sell. Its perceived as "Oh I've seen that before".
Innovation and open acceptance of new product platforms and play styles is necessary to develop the sport, continue its rise and take its spot back. I understand if you aren't old enough, haven't been around long enough or just don't remember how big 1995 was with ESPN showing the World Cup for the first time. And again in 1996 on ESPN2 with a development in play style that was the beginning of speedball as we know it. Even tho a game lasted like 30 min with 4 commercial breaks "Houston Heat vs. Paraplegic Turtles"This legitimized OUR sport beyond anything up until that point.
Form Nelsons invention; to the 707 and 007; to Gaines and Gurnsey bored one day in New Hampshire; to National Survival Games; to the JT Wippersnapper; to Winning the Game; to Action Pursuit Games Magazine, to SMG 60 (first Mag Fed) and so on. If someone drop a utility patent/Blanket Patent on the sport back then it would have never been able to develop in its infancy. If you truly care about the development of the sport and not JUST money you don't patent a hopper you patent your drive mechanism or the look, it allows others to take the hopper from VL200 to a Spire 260.
Just my Opinion...
Well Put Nightmareinc!
Started Playing Paintball in 1986'
Owner of Instien's Paintball Supply. H'ville Mo.
J4 Torque Dealer, Deadlywind Also Valken, GI sports
First, i don't think anyone is questioning the validity of the patent beyond it being a design patent not a utility patent. Second, at no point has anyone said a company/person shouldn't be able to protect there Intellectual Properties and hard work whether from R&D, Collaborative or on the backs of others. Who is the first is all that matters in a court of law. Last, no one is screaming, at least there was no ALL CAPS and BTAutoMag ended with ellipsis which means a unfinished thought or to end in silence.
Smarts Parts is a insightful comment and was exactly the point i was making. Not the BS of the IP claims and court battles but the loss of another great company; in a sport that can easily disintegrate from the inside out. The sport of Paintball is in a rut right now, people are still playing but it lost its spot as the 3rd fastest growing sport back in 2008. People are moving to other pastimes such as airsoft and video games. Sponsors outside of the sport don't give a crap about us because we don't give them a high enough ROI. Because when paintball is shown on TV it doesn't engage new views and facility the sales of the crap the commercials sell. Its perceived as "Oh I've seen that before".
Innovation and open acceptance of new product platforms and play styles is necessary to develop the sport, continue its rise and take its spot back. I understand if you aren't old enough, haven't been around long enough or just don't remember how big 1995 was with ESPN showing the World Cup for the first time. And again in 1996 on ESPN2 with a development in play style that was the beginning of speedball as we know it. Even tho a game lasted like 30 min with 4 commercial breaks "Houston Heat vs. Paraplegic Turtles"
Form Nelsons invention; to the 707 and 007; to Gaines and Gurnsey bored one day in New Hampshire; to National Survival Games; to the JT Wippersnapper; to Winning the Game; to Action Pursuit Games Magazine, to SMG 60 (first Mag Fed) and so on. If someone drop a utility patent/Blanket Patent on the sport back then it would have never been able to develop in its infancy. If you truly care about the development of the sport and not JUST money you don't patent a hopper you patent your drive mechanism or the look, it allows others to take the hopper from VL200 to a Spire 260.
Just my Opinion...
This is very well thought out, thank you for taking the time.
I'm sorry, screaming was the wrong word. I should have said complaining/commenting or something similar.
FYI, I was at the site in 1996 when the ESPN games were filmed.
I am going to make a broad statement that may or may not apply to those reading it, but I asked the question because it seems that no matter how valid or deserving a patent on a paintball related product is we always seem to have players saying "here is another Smart Parts, it's killing the sport, ect". This is primarily on PBN and the crowd here is considerably more intelligent. (please don't take this as me saying that the RAP4 patent is valid. I am not qualified to make that decision.)
I agree with most of what you said, but I will offer this counter point of view. Why would companies invest in additional R&D and take risks on new technology if they can't protect it?
- - - Updated - - -
First, i don't think anyone is questioning the validity of the patent beyond it being a design patent not a utility patent. Second, at no point has anyone said a company/person shouldn't be able to protect there Intellectual Properties and hard work whether from R&D, Collaborative or on the backs of others. Who is the first is all that matters in a court of law. Last, no one is screaming, at least there was no ALL CAPS and BTAutoMag ended with ellipsis which means a unfinished thought or to end in silence.
Smarts Parts is a insightful comment and was exactly the point i was making. Not the BS of the IP claims and court battles but the loss of another great company; in a sport that can easily disintegrate from the inside out. The sport of Paintball is in a rut right now, people are still playing but it lost its spot as the 3rd fastest growing sport back in 2008. People are moving to other pastimes such as airsoft and video games. Sponsors outside of the sport don't give a crap about us because we don't give them a high enough ROI. Because when paintball is shown on TV it doesn't engage new views and facility the sales of the crap the commercials sell. Its perceived as "Oh I've seen that before".
Innovation and open acceptance of new product platforms and play styles is necessary to develop the sport, continue its rise and take its spot back. I understand if you aren't old enough, haven't been around long enough or just don't remember how big 1995 was with ESPN showing the World Cup for the first time. And again in 1996 on ESPN2 with a development in play style that was the beginning of speedball as we know it. Even tho a game lasted like 30 min with 4 commercial breaks "Houston Heat vs. Paraplegic Turtles"
Form Nelsons invention; to the 707 and 007; to Gaines and Gurnsey bored one day in New Hampshire; to National Survival Games; to the JT Wippersnapper; to Winning the Game; to Action Pursuit Games Magazine, to SMG 60 (first Mag Fed) and so on. If someone drop a utility patent/Blanket Patent on the sport back then it would have never been able to develop in its infancy. If you truly care about the development of the sport and not JUST money you don't patent a hopper you patent your drive mechanism or the look, it allows others to take the hopper from VL200 to a Spire 260.
Just my Opinion...
This is very well thought out, thank you for taking the time.
I'm sorry, screaming was the wrong word. I should have said complaining/commenting or something similar.
FYI, I was at the site in 1996 when the ESPN games were filmed.
I am going to make a broad statement that may or may not apply to those reading it, but I asked the question because it seems that no matter how valid or deserving a patent on a paintball related product is we always seem to have players saying "here is another Smart Parts, it's killing the sport, ect". This is primarily on PBN and the crowd here is considerably more intelligent. (please don't take this as me saying that the RAP4 patent is valid. I am not qualified to make that decision.)
I agree with most of what you said, but I will offer this counter point of view. Why would companies invest in additional R&D and take risks on new technology if they can't protect it?
I will start with a quote since that is my favorite way to begin.. One of the most famous and sometimes overused sayings... "History will repeat its self"... If you don't believe it I can't help you and your destine to experience allot of disappointing outcomes. Not that you need help or that my opinion is any better or worse then yours. The reason for this reply (other then to answer the counter point)is to at least get you to understand the topic of the thread. Sometimes we read something with a clouded mind, like if you read all the other millions of people complaining about smart parts and the path they went down. Then you will take those articles and it effects your ability to see outside the box that the information you were given put you in. It happens to everyone, Its hard to start each review of writing or a discussion with a unbiased opinion. Just ask most die hard woodsball player with $800 in their Tippmann's, why they just don't get a lightweight tourny/speedball gun.
With that said, you stated "I should have said complaining/commenting or something similar." Yes we were commenting that is correct, But commenting that we are commenting doesn't push a conversation/debate forward. It points out the obvious point that when a thread/replay is written someone is commenting/complaining about something. But then again a clouded mind will force that answer. This is by no means a knock on you, we all at times suffer from this. I using you as a example to help everyone that reads this, and informs them to just take a step back.. think about the topic.. write your reply.. then delete it... and then write what you think the opposition would write (think from the other side)... I bet when you re-write your reply it will be better then the original.
To continue the reply, that is sick that you were there: i wish i could have been. I remember watching it on the couch in our living room, i was glued to the screen. Thinking i need to trade in my JTUSA bushmaster and get a automag or cocker(I still have my bushmaster and the next year got a 97 STO). But, that's not the point of the reply, its the fact that the "broadcasting" of the event changed things. Paintball events were happening everywhere, but they weren't visible to the masses. ESPN's Broadcast; legitimized it as a SPORT, that was the point being made. Just like the sale of paintball a Walmart (yes i know, were paintball products go to die) legitimized the sports safety to the masses/MOMS. Because if Walmart carries it, it must be safe. We can be part of allot of things but from now on we should try mentally stepping out of the "NOW" and see the global implication of the series of events at hand. I believe you were in concurring with me on that and you were just saying "I agree i was there it was important". But if you agree with me on that point then you agree with the fact that putting blanket restrictions whether justified or not, will NEVER help new ideas. I will end that with a very important business quote "If you stop moving forward, we start falling behind."
A empirical fact; a Patent is designed to not freely help a idea move forward but to retain ownership of a idea and control of it. The best example of it is Charles H. Garrett's; Garrett Water Carburetor(Patented July 2, 1935:# 2,006,676). Let me know how many of those you've seen? The person/company that invents something deserves to do what ever they want with their patent, even if they bury or enforce it. its his right and its the law!! Simple as that... At now point did i say they can't. The comment "smart parts" as generic as a answer; is in fact one of many correct answers. Getting mad at that answer on THIS thread (DON'T BE CLOUDED) is like getting mad at some one answering 2+2=.. "4". Yes you are correct but that's not the only answer, it can also be answered: x<5, a even number, the square root of 16, 2 to the second power and so on. They are all correct answers if you don't define your expectations for what answer your looking for. I made a topic informing everyone about a patent that was award to RAP4 and asked for a reply on what they think. You can't say "4" is wrong because you like one of the others better, or have heard it before a million times. Taking the position of "that's a generic answer" without dinging deep a generating your own opinion is lazy. Which if i was a betting man i'd bet your not, but the BS cloud had gotten then best of you. Everyone's comments on this forum from what i read, is in support of the patent. I never brought up smart parts, we could have lead with many other lost company that are no longer in the sport. Its not how we lose them that matters, its the fact they are gone.
Anyone out side of RAP4's that think they know exactly how RAP4 will deal with and enforce the patent is ignorant and a fool to the highest extent. Anyone that even states this is definitely is going to happen the same way is also a simpleton. I agree with you completely, on other forums some of these people couldn't come up with a original thought if their lives depended on it. But, some one that says it isn't going to happen is on the same train with the fools. Both are fools because you cant tell the future. You can only look at the past and ask the question; why did it happen? Let some of the PBN forum people be ignorant, we here are better then that!
The Patent is valid, the US patent office has agreed with it and it can be enforced. Even if someone else is more deserving and wants to fight it, it doesn't remove the legal validity of the patent as it stands now. Don't sell your self short you have the ability to tell its valid but i believe you meant undisputed.
To the counter point, Thank you for the question and its a good one and made me think of a answer.
"Why would companies invest in additional R&D and take risks on new technology if they can't protect it?"
There are multiple sources i can bring up but i will chose software as a example since we didn't define "technology". Since almost all of us have a smart phone we know that the 2 big players are Android and IOS. The difference is one is open source and the other is heavily controlled. Both have there ups and downs and most of the problems are hardware not software. In a Open environment like Android one can create a calculator app, while someone can take that app and spend R&D time to create there own better version. Yes some unscrupulous person can just re release some ones work. But the free market will see that and it will be ultimately passed by for whats better. The original person will have to work harder to keep his customers engaged. What that means for us the end user is a better APP in the end.. "PROGRESSION". IOS doesn't have the same environment. If apple wants to control Calculators they can. There could be only a one calculators. If a person is making $2.99 for there calculator, and there is no competition why would that person develop another version. When he could collect his $2.99 indefinitely. This is one example of a NON PROTECTED environment financially successful because they are forced to innovate. The way paintball way until the big IP push and there is no doubt they spent money on R&D and the paintball company's made money.
I'm not telling you the can't protect the innovation that they came up with. RAP4 came up with the Secondary Feed Port in a magazine as far as the law is concerned. But if you read the 18 pages you will see a bunch a vague statements. One being multi-feed points. Like if i made a mag that can feed from 4 different points. Something they didn't create. Those should by most patent laws be another set of submitted patents it is a different function completely. That's what concerns me, the blanket of ideas this one patent covers, Its call it over reaching.
Thank you giving me a chance and engaging me enough to write this very long reply. Merry Christmas and happy holidays to everyone. Hopefully there were not to many grammatical errors. We all need to THINK BIG!!
I did read that.
yes I did, mighty proud.
My smart parts comments was in direct relationship to the fact that a patent was found on a piece of paintball tech that was not of the company who had made the product. the first thought was if this anomaly exists someone needs to stop or sue. that was what smart parts did, they found out the issue and immediately stopped the production of the violator.
I havnt seen rap4 do any such thing (...yet) and it would be in paintball's best interest for them to either not do anything or work together on it. I agree what you said about investing of research dollars and such but as I see it there is a very common problem ith mag feds... the mags suck. EVERYONE says this and mag players keep looking for the answer.
I really think that the ALL the companies should pool some money together and create a company in which they all have equal shares in that will produce a dedicated "universal" mag system that works, is reliable, and cheap. everyone who has created a mag has had most of a good idea and they all need to settle this.
will it ever happen that way... hell no!
things are not like they used to be. when companies used to GET TOGETHER and pow wow ideas. one would say "hey I got this great idea but I cant make it" someone else would say "I can do that, do you mind?" "no, it's yours"
the above conversation happened... ALOT!
would you believe the first automag happened because of a conversation tom and bud had one day. tom had an idea and bud helped out, even helped machine the parts for him. did bud ask for credit?
I believe in the Gene Roddenberry principle. That if everyone works together and forgets about butt hurts then everything can be better. It's not that way at all.
sadly
- - - Updated - - -
I did read that.
yes I did, mighty proud.
My smart parts comments was in direct relationship to the fact that a patent was found on a piece of paintball tech that was not of the company who had made the product. the first thought was if this anomaly exists someone needs to stop or sue. that was what smart parts did, they found out the issue and immediately stopped the production of the violator.
I havnt seen rap4 do any such thing (...yet
I really think that the ALL the companies should pool some money together and create a company in which they all have equal shares in that will produce a dedicated "universal" mag system that works, is reliable, and cheap. everyone who has created a mag has had most of a good idea and they all need to settle this.
will it ever happen that way... hell no!
things are not like they used to be. when companies used to GET TOGETHER and pow wow ideas. one would say "hey I got this great idea but I cant make it" someone else would say "I can do that, do you mind?" "no, it's yours"
the above conversation happened... ALOT!
would you believe the first automag happened because of a conversation tom and bud had one day. tom had an idea and bud helped out, even helped machine the parts for him. did bud ask for credit?
I believe in the Gene Roddenberry principle. That if everyone works together and forgets about butt hurts then everything can be better. It's not that way at all.
sadly
I admit when I saw the first "smart parts" reply my first thought was "great, here we go again".
I am not a mag feed player, so I don't have the same equipment knowledge as most of the posters in this thread. I have read all the replies here multiple times and some of the quoted work.
You are correct, it is a very broad patent. Most patents are however. I have seen in this industry and others that the broader the patent the more difficult it is to enforce it. Design patents are often left up to a courts interpretation of if a product is close enough to infringe.
In your example you think that a mag that feeds from 4 different points may infringe on the existing patent and therefor other companies or individuals may not invest the time and money to make one. I disagree. If the need is there, and someone makes a superior product they have the option to sell the design to the patent holder, license it if the patent holder agrees, or in extreme cases go to court to see if they can have the original patent modified. I am in no way qualified to give patent advice but all of those things have happened in our industry in the past. Was there greater cooperation between companies at the time? Maybe.
You did call RAP4's patent over reaching, and I tend to agree with you, but until the patent law is changed that's the way it is in almost every industry.
The iPhone/Android example is an interesting one and I tend to agree with your side of the discussion. But, I will offer this counter point. iPhone app developers have to innovate just as much or more to keep the iPhone users happy enough not to bail for an Android based device.
- - - Updated - - -
I admit when I saw the first "smart parts" reply my first thought was "great, here we go again".
I am not a mag feed player, so I don't have the same equipment knowledge as most of the posters in this thread. I have read all the replies here multiple times and some of the quoted work.
You are correct, it is a very broad patent. Most patents are however. I have seen in this industry and others that the broader the patent the more difficult it is to enforce it. Design patents are often left up to a courts interpretation of if a product is close enough to infringe.
In your example you think that a mag that feeds from 4 different points may infringe on the existing patent and therefor other companies or individuals may not invest the time and money to make one. I disagree. If the need is there, and someone makes a superior product they have the option to sell the design to the patent holder, license it if the patent holder agrees, or in extreme cases go to court to see if they can have the original patent modified. I am in no way qualified to give patent advice but all of those things have happened in our industry in the past. Was there greater cooperation between companies at the time? Maybe.
You did call RAP4's patent over reaching, and I tend to agree with you, but until the patent law is changed that's the way it is in almost every industry.
The iPhone/Android example is an interesting one and I tend to agree with your side of the discussion. But, I will offer this counter point. iPhone app developers have to innovate just as much or more to keep the iPhone users happy enough not to bail for an Android based device.
That's an ideal situation but we should also remember the business guys might just turn a blind eye when it comes to paying a to license for improvements. The situation I've seen a couple times over the last decade is when resourceful people come up with improvements, even some going as far as to obtain a provisional for it, present it to the big company...who then says "ehh, that's a good idea but we're not interested in it".
BUT then a year later the company releases it anyway. They claim they were working on the same thing from the start and didn't mention it, or in the case of a provisional they simply bluff that the inventor won't defend it. Even if the inventor is an internet-known person, and the bad doings are made public, people just tend to forget after a few weeks/months and its swept under the rug.
Don't get me wrong, that isn't as common as following the legal route, but it certainly happens regardless. And interestingly it's not as much related to patent issues as it is simply a he-said-she-said business move.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote