The Latest in SP issue ICD Settles

[FalloutMan]

http://www.forceofnature.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=715&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0


yay now everyone is screwed(because this is an in court thing unless i read that wrong they just set a precident)

[UTLadiesMan]

They should have fought more... that patent would have never held up in court. Maybe they felt they just didn't have enough cash on hand to fight Smart Parts right now. :(

[dr stupid]

does this mean that icd's products will be more expensive?

[FalloutMan]

if im not mistaken based on this article all its current products will stay the same price however its new ones will cost more(you wont notice since it since it wont jump up it will always be that price)

[VeNoM]

What did it have to do with the district of Oregon?... Ah well, I am glad that is over, hopefully people will get over it now...

[Rancid Coleslaw]

Yeah the whole thing was blown way out of proportion.

[FalloutMan]

not really i dont really think you guys quite understand what this means.

[UTLadiesMan]

If you read the patent, it's basically on the level of patenting all cars with brakes on them. It's ridiculously absurd even for a patent. If it ever held up in court, it's because the judge doesn't understand that more than 2 companies make paintball equipment and that Smart Parts actually didn't develop the game of paintball themselves.

[FalloutMan]

the problem is since icd settled in court from what im seeing that has sent a prescident unless im reading this wrong which basically means if someone tried to take them on they would say but ICD already complied with the patent in court therefore it must be valid or something to that effect

[UTLadiesMan]

You can't settle in court. That's what court is for... settling things that couldn't be settled. :P

Anyway, but yes, Smart Parts could point to their contract with ICD and say "they knew we were right!" The question any smart panel of lawyers would then bring up... "Did they know that Smart Parts held a legitimate patent, or did they feel it was not worth the time or funds to fight a behemoth such as Smart Parts, or were they bullied into the contract with other threats?"

It's an additional obstacle, but not one that isn't somewhat easily overcome.

[FalloutMan]

well considering how the largest company that could take on smart parts(NPS) signed with them its even harder.

[uzscorpio]

For those of you who are information nuts or would like to know what was really going on go the Patent Office website which is www.uspto.gov and look up the patents that Smarts has for their guns they are pretty interesting. Here are the patents that were in the dispute 6,474,326 B1, 6,035,843, 5,967,133, 5,881,707. Now if you actually take the time to read these they are pretty broad, and could actually cover the entire spectrum of electronic paintball. Just some thoughts to ponder.

Also, just to give you an idea, most things in paintball are not patented, so if you wanted to you could all the things that are not patented and build your own marker, patent it, and then sue all the people that are using the design and parts, just like Smart Parts did. Talk about devious!!:badboy:

[Yakb0]

Originally posted by uzscorpio

Also, just to give you an idea, most things in paintball are not patented, so if you wanted to you could all the things that are not patented and build your own marker, patent it, and then sue all the people that are using the design and parts, just like Smart Parts did. Talk about devious!!:badboy:

you can't patent something that already exists. If "Prior Art" already exists, then your patent is invalid...however, if you can sneak it by the patent office...then your patent is valid..and someone else has to go through the expense of suing you, to prove that your patent is invalid.

[nerdcore]

could smart parts go after other companies distributing e-markers as well? or were they concerned with a specific type of e-marker that ICD makes?

[UTLadiesMan]

They can go after anybody and everybody. (and probably will)

The tough part is that Smart Parts did have the first electronic marker to market. However, I'm sure several companies can prove that it wasn't the first to be designed. Even then, it's too broad.

Imagine if BMW owned a patent for electronic controllers in automobiles... EVERY car now days has at least 50+ computer processors... Same thing here, it's not a particularly novel idea since electronics are going everywhere and are widely regarded as the future of everything. By definition you aren't allowed to patent something that isn't novel, unique, revolutionary, or new. Meaning, even if you succeeded in creating a time machine, you can't patent it because the idea has been around for hundreds of years.

It would be interesting to hear what a federal judge would say... but I guess we'll have to wait on that one a bit longer.

[Forest Spyder]

problem is that ICD is probably low on cash right now......

So:

A) Taking it to a higher court= more money......big time

B) Previous ruling needs to be ruled as an error, and case has to be allowed to be heard in a higher court



Doubtful if they can take it higher. It's a pretty black and white issue. They have the patent, it is a legal patent issued by the government, end of story. Can't really fight that. I'm not sure if any judge above the level they took it now, (i'm nto great at law here, so cut me some slack) but the next route would be either a higher state court, or go onto the track for the circuit courts (leading aaaaaaaalllll they way up to the Supreme Court)

[Vaypourus]

The patent isn't black and white though; its extemely broad. Anybody that makes a gun with an electrical solenoid could be sued. And that includes ALL e-guns I believe.

[F.O.D.]

this comes from a very honest man :
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2917428#post2917428

[Cuervo]

By the way, settlements don't create judicial precedents.

[UTLadiesMan]

Out of court settlements are OUT OF COURT. They can not set legal precedence, only company acknowledgment.

Also issued patents are not complete legal documents, and they do not prove you own anything. The USPTO will just glance at your application and make sure you didn't have any violations and then process it. That way you only have to evaluate the validity of a patent if there is a conflict. (because 999 times out of 1000 there won't be)

So, I can patent something I know full well Microsoft is working on. Then they would sue for the patent, probably win, and my patent would be withdrawn.

I know it may seem stupid to do it this way, but it keeps costs down. (If any of you know how to program Haskell, you will see it's exactly the same method of lazy evaluation... look at the variable only if its value is needed)