if you dont like smart parts come here

Snipa69 wrote: Clark Kent wrote: ^^^^^   That's not what happened...   Not even close. From what I read from court documents, that's what I gathered. However if you are the fountain of knowledge here, enlighten myself and everyone else with the wrong premenissions.

I already did that, in my second post in the thread.  Rico also provided additional detail (although I disagree about the extent of the relationship between Dr. Hensel and Pneu Ventures - the court only concluded that Dr. Hensel was at least co-inventor; I don't believe the court ever said that the Gardners were not also co-inventors).

The validity of the SP patent has never been challenged in court.  Heck, it was just issued earlier this year.  To the best of my knowledge, nobody (who knows what they are talking about) is disputing that ICD and AKA guns probably were infringing on the SP patent.  The outcome of the WDP lawsuit was, essentially, that SP and WDP jointly own the patent.  The patent remains valid.

 

Clark Kent wrote: The validity of the SP patent has never been challenged in court. Heck, it was just issued earlier this year. To the best of my knowledge, nobody (who knows what they are talking about) is disputing that ICD and AKA guns probably were infringing on the SP patent. The outcome of the WDP lawsuit was, essentially, that SP and WDP jointly own the patent. The patent remains valid.

Yes, we agree that the patent was infringed on. The question is, should that patent exist?

And you say a lot of "I think so" or "I believe so". Don't you ever do any research? Again, have you read the responses that state pretty clearly that at least some sources say that the patent is null and void? That SP was not the inventor or co-inventor of anything, and WDP owned the actual rights to the idea?

And does anyone else think it's stupid to wait until NOW to suddenly take out a patent on electronic guns, when they've been out for a long time? That sounds fishy to me.

If they had patented this stuff earlier, I would support wholeheartedly the idea that SP is just trying to survive in business and turn a profit and all that. But to wait for several years and suddenly introduce a patent, then shut down a bunch of other people's products? Sounds like.... being "evil" (note the quotation marks so Kent doesn't get upset and say "ZOMG ADMIRALSENN SAID SP WAS EVIL HE IS IGNORANT AND LUDICROUS ARRRR".

AdmiralSenn wrote: I'm guessing your second use of "ludicrous" refers to me. In which case you have a terrible memory and must have failed reading and comprehension on all your tests. I said that it's bad for one company to own massive chunks of an industry. That part of my post never refers to the quality of parts of any manufacturer, simply that monopoly is bad. Case in point: Microsoft.

This I what I was referring to:

Clark Kent wrote: If I can summarize:  It is ok to patent (and enforce said patent) small portions of a market, but not ok to patent large portions of a market. Is that your point?

Senn wrote: Pretty much. Large portions tends to end up as "monopoly" and will get the patent issuer in deep trouble.

In particular, the idea in my quote, which you agreed to, is ludicrous.  Very ludicrous.

As to your theories about monopolies - you are wrong.

JVC has/had a patent on VHS format videotape.  Did that in any way hurt the market?  Of course not.

(BTW, the "patent issuer" is the US Patent Office - they don't get "in trouble".  I presume you mean the applicant/inventor/assignee of the patent)

There is no law against holding a patent that gives you complete control over everything.  If you invented it, you are entitled to a patent for it.  The idea that you can invent "too much" is ludicrous.

Some guy invented the intermittent windshield wiper, and spent the next 20 years suing car manufacturers for royalties.  Did that "ruin" windshield wipers?  I think not.  Was that wrong or illegal?  Certainly not.  He invented it; he got paid.  The fact that his invention completely dominated the market was and is completely irrelevant.

And your "facts", so far, are mainly to say "No, that's not what happened". You've simply disagreed with people who have quite obviously read the history on what's happened.

I have provided facts.  My second post is the facts.  Apparently nobody read that post, since people continued to proceed as if neither I (or Rico) had provided a fair amount of specifics on what had transpired.

And you're right, the idea of SP having a monopoly on the paintball industry is ludicrous. Fortunately for me, that is nothing like what I said.

That was in response to somebody else.  I never implied that you said this.

...your comment about my "reading too much Doc Nickel" stuff, when I don't read it. I read the Whiteboard comic once in a while, but my opinions... are my opinions.

Your point about Tippmann and the ASA was almost verbatim from an article written by Doc that has been circulating on board for a while.  If you did not get your point from that article, I apologize, but I still strongly suspect that you then got that point from somebody who got it from Doc.  It is just too similar.  I could be wrong.

Edited by Clark Kent

Okay, look. References to outside patents in other industries aren't going to apply here. The movie industry has, since long before VHS, been much more massive than paintball is. Tiny amounts of damage to a paintball company represent a huge percentage of damage done. So shutting down two companies, say Tippmann and Kingman, would do a lot of damage to the paintball industry. If Panasonic and JVC went out of business, yes it would do damage, but Sony and the other big companies would take up the slack pretty quickly. Different market situation. I never said you can invent too much, I said you can control too much. Having complete control over *your product* is fine; having complete control over electronic guns (a market, not a product) is a monopoly on electronic guns. People get sued and shut down for this. Remember that lawsuit against Microsoft a few years ago?

As to the Doc Nickel thing, no, I think this way because I learned that Tippmann invented the ASA. This was off of a site detailing old paintball inventions and their dates, it said something like "Tippmann invents ASA; thankfully they did not attempt a patent for it".

Judge's opinion

Verdict

And Smart Parts may not have technically broken the law, but did they perform unethical acts? I've said this before: Say issue X is definitively wrong (I usually say abortion, but that'll hijack the thread). Issue X is signed as being legal in the USA, despite clear absence of moral responsibility (just assume it's so, don't start on "but what if not everybody believes that way...". This is a hypothetical situation). Now committing X act is 'legal', but it's not 'right'.

I didn't know the application date was that early.. but again, just because they legally extended it does not make it right or fair.

Conclusion: Smart Parts does not own the patent on electronic guns. They at the very best are co-owners, and may lose all rights to the patent at final settlement.

Smart Parts' victory would have seriously hurt the paintball industry. Your example about JVC is fine, but how many quality, respected companies did they shut down for their patent (maybe they did do this, I honestly don't know). Even if they did shut some down, in the movie industry, a few companies is nothing.

In paintball industry applications, losing one out of ten companies is a 10% loss... the JVC example would be more like 10 companies out of 1000.. or a 1% loss.

Do you see what I'm saying? SP's actions, with the intent to completely ruin most of the other companies instead of at least saying something to them when they submitted their patent ("Hey, we're patenting electronic boards. You'll need to talk to our lawyer about this when the time comes."), have damaged the industry fairly badly. As tom/Hairball explained it (at least I think this is what he said), the X- and E- mag were for rec players, not tourney players. Now that they are no longer in production, the electronic-rec players can't buy them. This isn't a huge branch of the industry, but it's still enough to make an impact.

Had SP's patent been granted to them wuth full ownership, any new guns with new technology would have to be approved by SP, made by SP, and either way SP gets the inventor's money. This is generally considered the beginnings of a monopoly (on electronic guns, don't anyone start on thinking I mean the whole industry).

As I've stated before, particularly in a small market like paintball, monopoly is really, really bad.

Every single one of your precedents for this situation deal with very small sections of a market (types of components on a very small section of a huge market [cars], or a single format for releasing a massive industry [movies] to the public). You haven't provided convincing evidence (to me anyway) that other companies frequently dominate a portion of the market as large as electronic paintball guns (you could argue that electronics are half the market: mechanical, electrical. Therefore SP is trying to claim half the paintball gun market. Bad way of arguing it, but I think you see my point).

This is not about what's legal. Legally, I could insult the heck out of you, call you a liberal pansy communist with no moral values, no brains, poor debating skills, and a mullet (ooooohhh... burn!). Legally, I can do this according to my rights. I might get banned from here, but I wouldn't break any laws.

However, this is not right for me to do. You would, most likely, feel that I was in the wrong for unjustly attacking you when I don't even know you, and when my attacks on you aren't based on anything (example: I don't know if you have a mullet. I could make a theoretical argument for the rest of my points... but I won't.).

You see? In the same way, the LAW may say that SP is great, a role model for aspiring business owners, and never does any wrong. That point remains, most people agree it is wrong to needlessly shut down other companies with a tactic like delaying a patent for as long as they did (and yes, I know AGD did stop production voluntarily.. I also know that I have a personal email from Tom Kaye where he sounds pretty upset over the issue of patents.. dated July of this year. That's about when the X- and E-mags went out of production. Coincidence? Maybe. I doubt it.


To summarize:

SP's patent should not have been granted in the manner that it was. SP should probably not have applied in the first place. SP's actions against the other companies are too vicious and harsh for everyone to just agree that "it's their right". It's my right to make horrible remarks about your mother, too, right? Is it nice? Is it morally acceptable?

If you say (seriously) that it's perfectly fine for me to abuse my rights and insult whoever I want, I'll be the most shocked and saddened than I've been for a while.. and I'll have to start praying for you personally.




EDIT: I know how you love these massive real-time debates, but I'm going to sleep.



Edited by AdmiralSenn

Can I summarize, Senn?

"Companies should not take actions that would injure a significant number of their competitors, or otherwise give them a significant advantage in the market."

Is that about right?

Nice Hway...

Honestly, I really could care less if Clark, Senn or anyone else on here does or does not boycott Smart Parts.   That is a personal decision that I leave to each person.   I don't care if you shoot a Shocker, Nerve, Impy or a Matrix... I'll still gog you if I have the chance 

I have, however, enjoyed a spirited debate with a few competent and intelligent people.  

I do not argue the fact that a Patent was issued.  However, there is some question as to the blanket nature of the patent which will limit the "inovative design" mentioned earlier.

To address the only point that Clark seemed to have contention with what I presented regarding the "close" relationship between the Gardners and Dr. Hensel, I will refer back to the Judge's Opinion on which Senn had supplied a link to.   I have inlcuded the entire sentence for context:

"Although I question the contributions of some of the named inventors, specifically Billy Gardner and Adam Gardner, I do not find that the evidence supports the conclusion that Dr. Hensel was the sole inventor of the ‘326 patent. I do find for the reasons stated, however, that WDP has established by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Hensel was a joint inventor of the ‘326 patent."

There was no relationship between the Gardner's and Dr. Hensel.   Also the Judge has a question as to the Gardner's validity to being listed as "Co-Inventors."   Legally, that point is moot since even if their names are removed and Dr. Hensel's added, they still purchased Pneu Ventures' rights to the patent.   However, it does show the arrogant nature of the Garders.   I think this is the root of my dislike for the company...   Paintball has given them the opportunity to make ALOT of money (their family is actually fairly well off anyway, their father was a... ready for this?   Patent Attorney).   They took the money and gave nothing back.

I need to address the attitude shown by a couple people that business is completely cutthroat and that if you wish to succeed you have to be a scumbag.   I don't screw ANYBODY, I treat them fairly and if it works out great, if not, I don't try to back door them and burn a bridge.   Business is about relationships, you will catch more flies with honey kind of thing.   I am a manager for a national Marketing/Advertising Company.   Untilizing a fair, "nice" way of doing business, the net revenue in my plant has increase from $7.8M in 2000 to $12.1M YTD in 2004.   This is not to brag, this is to show that being true, honest and "nice" can work.   Whomever is teaching you the ruthlessness is the root of economic growth is wrong.   I only wish my compensation package had increase at that exponential rate...LOL!  

SP has burned alot of bridges with all of this.   There won't be anyone looking to help them out in the near future and in as small of a world as PB, my personal feeling is that it is a HUGE mistake.   Mark my words, someone within the next 12-months will find something to patent that will place SP on the other side of the fence.   There will be NO ONE rallying to support them when that happens.   Hey, what goes around, comes around.

Here is some more relating to the Gardners' relationship with Dr. Hensel from the Opinion Document.   The end of page 16 and beginning of page 17.

"However, the evidence shows that Billy and Adam Gardner had almost no interactions with Dr. Hensel and Smart Parts admits that no one else at Smart Parts sent any information to Dr. Hensel. With respect to named inventors Gaston and Smith, as well as Cronin, there appears to have been much more communication."

 

Draco, there have been many viable arguements made throughout this thread, unfortunately, none by you.  

Do yourself and everyone else a favor and read the long posts by Clark, Senn and myself if you are going to attempt to contribute.  Read the Court findings that we are referring to. Take the time to educate yourself so that maybe someone besides your 10th grade classmates will listen to you.   You have absolutely no grasp at all on business tactics, economics or apperently life in general.  

If you continue down the road that you are insisting is the right one, have fun in your career of asking... "Do you want fries with that?"

< edited to tame down the flame ~ RR >

Edited by Rico's Revenge

Obviously everyone here thinks business is about making friends with your competitors and its obvious im not gonna change anyones mind so i am done giving my opinion here hope you children have fun arguing over this like anything you say is gonna make a diference or change anything

Have fun

Clark Kent wrote: Can I summarize, Senn? "Companies should not take actions that would injure a significant number of their competitors, or otherwise give them a significant advantage in the market." Is that about right?

Of course not. If you keep twisting my words that way, I'm going to lose all respect for you. You wouldn't want to lose the respect of a teenage loser you don't even know, would you?

I'm saying that companies should not take actions that would injure the INDUSTRY (or market), or give them a MAJOR advantage over every other company in the market. Example: Tippmann's new investor is a significant advantage - they have money to burn, figuratively speaking. Owning the rights to every single electronic gun on the market is a major advantage, and an unfair one - it has harmed the industry by shutting down other products that were arguably superior.

I probably wouldn't care as much if the patent wasn't so broad (I believe several analysts have already said that they can't see how it was issues. I'm talking patent analysts, not little kids.. I'll have to dig that up later). If they had patented, say, a specific solenoid/microswitch (or a combination of both), or maybe a specific board design, that would be different. I also would be a lot happier if they'd just let well enough alone. I still would violently dislike Smart Parts, but for clearer, more easily debatable reasons.