In article <v9ycnZPNSppOHr2iXTWJig@comcast.com>,
"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

> Not fer nothin, but the old adage "possession is 9/10ths of the law" applies
> very nicely to patent law, near as I understand it. The person/company
> holding the piece of paper that says they have a patent is in a pretty
> powerful position when it comes to these sorts of things.

Not really. I spend a good percentage of my time helping punch holes
in patents. There are lots of ways to get a patent ruled invalid; most
of them come back to prior art or obviousness.

SP has to fight off several defenses. The patent is very narrow, so
there is a good chance that all the manufacturers can make an
incremental improvement to the design and work around the patent. If
they try to interpret the patent as beinc very broad, then it is likely
that it runs up against prior art. Any sort of electro-mechanical
design is going to put it into question, and if the Angel was prototyped
before the patent was filed, then they are dead in the water.

A quick look at the patent shows the listed filing date as in 2000.
They started the process back in 96, but if they kept modifying the
patent, the court may hold them to the 2000 date, especially if the
judge thinks they did it to ambush other manufacturers. I'm betting on
it settling for a nominal licensing fee (and maybe even a waiver of back
fees) because prior art has to be worrying them. The USPTO has been
getting pretty lax on issuing patents and seems to have taken the "let
the courts sort it out" attitude over the last decade.

If Indian Creek decides to fight it, the fight will be expensive. I
don't know how deep SPs pockets are, though. A lot of companies run
pretty close to the margin.


Phelps

--
"The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually
idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of
us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched.
He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to
despair." -- H.L. Mencken

"Michael Hughes" <dapaintschmuck**IZASEXYBEAST**@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:bfq0ij$khc$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> so what they didnt invent it, they hold the patent, they were the first.
>
> it'll hold up.

What are they going to claim as theirs? The solenoid? If they do that, I
guess Maytag and Whirlpool will have to pay royalties as well.

They application of "electro paintball marker" is way too broad, and *will
not* hold up in court. No other marker is like the shocker. None (and for a
good reason.. it sucks).

And the Angel and Shocker have nothing in common except for a solenoid valve
(and the angel uses 1, shocker (old) uses 2, and they're of VERY different
types). Other than that, the designs are completely different. Completely.

Hasn't SP tried this before? If I remember right it failed. And I don't
think it's legal to argue the same case twice in court.

<<and if the Angel was prototyped
before the patent was filed, then they are dead in the water.>>

If SP has a chance in hell at winning then companies would have done it out of
court.
This has been going on for years.

"Phelps" <phelps@attbi.com> wrote in message
newshelps-4C404B.22044424072003@netnews.attbi.com...
> In article <v9ycnZPNSppOHr2iXTWJig@comcast.com>,
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Not fer nothin, but the old adage "possession is 9/10ths of the law"
applies
> > very nicely to patent law, near as I understand it. The person/company
> > holding the piece of paper that says they have a patent is in a pretty
> > powerful position when it comes to these sorts of things.
>
> Not really. I spend a good percentage of my time helping punch holes
> in patents. There are lots of ways to get a patent ruled invalid; most
> of them come back to prior art or obviousness.
>
> SP has to fight off several defenses. The patent is very narrow, so
> there is a good chance that all the manufacturers can make an
> incremental improvement to the design and work around the patent. If
> they try to interpret the patent as beinc very broad, then it is likely
> that it runs up against prior art. Any sort of electro-mechanical
> design is going to put it into question, and if the Angel was prototyped
> before the patent was filed, then they are dead in the water.
>
> A quick look at the patent shows the listed filing date as in 2000.
> They started the process back in 96, but if they kept modifying the
> patent, the court may hold them to the 2000 date, especially if the
> judge thinks they did it to ambush other manufacturers. I'm betting on
> it settling for a nominal licensing fee (and maybe even a waiver of back
> fees) because prior art has to be worrying them. The USPTO has been
> getting pretty lax on issuing patents and seems to have taken the "let
> the courts sort it out" attitude over the last decade.
>
> If Indian Creek decides to fight it, the fight will be expensive. I
> don't know how deep SPs pockets are, though. A lot of companies run
> pretty close to the margin.

Could they put up a counter suit suing for the cost of the lawsuit?

I think if someone can prove that they inventing something first even if the
other party patents it first then they can get the patent switiched to
them....I think...

"Michael Hughes" <dapaintschmuck**IZASEXYBEAST**@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:bfq0ij$khc$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> so what they didnt invent it, they hold the patent, they were the first.
>
> it'll hold up.
>
> "SCM987" <scm987@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030724194759.00793.00000432@mb-m25.aol.com...
> > <<So, which one of the manufactures do you represent? I assume you're
> running
> > scared cause you really did steal their idea?>>
> >
> > SP didn't invent the electro they just got a patent on it. Just like
> someone
> > got a patent on the wheel.
> >
> > SP will lose in court.
>
>

I understand your position, but SP is not going to bring the industry to
it's knees. Just because they may have patented one way to build an
electronic marker does not mean they own the rights to build anything in the
world that uses a battery. Air solenoids where around long before SP. Does
that mean the person that actually invented it can sue them?

I guess I come from the other side of the fence. I own a tool and die shop.
A customer came to me one day needing a fully automated machine to create
lead ingots. I spent 3 days coming up with a design to meet their criteria
and submitted sketches in my quote to them. I lost that job to a larger
company. Now, what really gets me is that a couple of months later I go into
their plant on an unrelated job and I see the machine that I designed
running in their plant. Then I find out that the other company charged more
than my quote. I spent my own time coming up with a concept that was stolen
from me and given to another company. IF that is what happened to SP, they
deserve the opportunity to protect themselves.

--
"Don't be misled, bad company corrupts good character."
www.LCTPaintball.com



"Gush" <jgush99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:36cef160.0307251127.2d82789f@posting.google.c om...
> "LCT Paintball" <nospampleasemnotlyon@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:<SXWTa.137075$ye4.95703@sccrnsc01>...
> > So, which one of the manufactures do you represent? I assume you're
running
> > scared cause you really did steal their idea?
> > Why would you think Smart Parts wouldn't want to crush their competion?
> > That's not greed, its called business.
> >
> > --
> > "Don't be misled, bad company corrupts good character."
> > www.LCTPaintball.com
> >
> I admit, I do have a vested interest in this, but not as a
> manufacturer. I am a part-owner of a small shop, and I don't see how
> the lawsuit is going to help the industry as a whole. I can see the
> point of Smart Parts wanting to blow the competition out of the water,
> but it just seems like they're doing it in a dirty, albeit legal, way.
> Kinda like a cut block in football (or is it chop block? whatever.)
> It's legal, but it has a high probability of crippling your opponent.
> I know some college programs subscribe to this style of play, and it's
> widely frowned upon. But it's legal, so they do it.
>
> I dunno, I guess I'm too altruistic. I feel like if I were to beat
> someone, I would try and beat them outright, because I'm better, not
> through a "grey area" legal way. Maybe I'm just naive that way. I
> think SP should try and put out a better product, is all. Beat 'em
> cause you're better.
>
> Locally, I know a bunch of players here use impulses, maybe 1 or 2
> shockers, TONS of Angels, e-cockers, and electro spyders. If that is
> pretty much indicative of the nation, I can see why SP would do such a
> thing. IMHO, SP doesn't hold the market shares it would like cause
> they're stuff just isn't that good. If SP were to destroy all the
> competition, I still don't think that they're market share would
> increase, just beacuse of the backlash I'm seeing already against
> them.
>
> I guess I'm just looking at the worst case scenario. Hopefully it
> doesn't get to that point.
>
> I guess we'll see.
>
> gush

"Phelps" <phelps@attbi.com> wrote in message
newshelps-4C404B.22044424072003@netnews.attbi.com...
>
> If Indian Creek decides to fight it, the fight will be expensive. I
> don't know how deep SPs pockets are, though. A lot of companies run
> pretty close to the margin.
>
>
> Phelps
>


I seem to recall, and I may be wrong, that Billy Boy's dad/uncle/cousin's
brother's niece/ etc. is a patent attorney.
I think their legal expense may be on the cheap.

I haven't seen this latest patent but I used to have a copy of their barrel
patent around. If this new one is anything like the old one, and IC is
willing to fight, they just might beat the pants off of them in court.
Their barrel patent contained so much bullshit it was almost funny. It all
sound so very reasonable and well presented that the patent office went for
it. Of course odds are they didn't know jack or shit about paintball.
Anyone with the time, energy, and money could beat the shit out of that
barrel patent with nothing more than a roll of duct tape.

LCT wrote:
>IF that is what happened to SP, they
>deserve the opportunity to protect themselves.

I think that "IF" is the point of contention. I am all for someone protecting
themselves and getting what they are owed, but from what I have read of the
patent, SP would hold the rights to, for instance, a Piranha with an electronic
grip frame. Having been around this game for a while and watched the
development of paintball guns over the years, they would have a hard time
convincing me they would in any way deserve credit for the system which
operates those type of guns simply because they use electricity and a solenoid.
Yet if they win their suit against ICD outright based on such a broad patent,
they will be in a position to force royalties from PMI, Kingman and others for
their e-frame guns blow-backs -- this despite the fact that SP has never
manufactured any such gun.


Billy Goodman -
Pukin Dogs
http://www.pukindogspaintball.com