Smart Parts Patents
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
NO....... Oh alright thenOriginally posted by Paul_collier
Can this thread be renamed so its a bit more specific?
Ta,
Paul
Piper
Well this could really back fire on Smartparts here...
I can't see them actually getting these Patents approved, and if they don't, or should I say when they don't they will have lost a load of customers.
Basically trying to monopolise the market like this is not good for anyone, least being the customers. It could lead to price fixing and all sorts of dodgy shiznit.
Dave
I can't see them actually getting these Patents approved, and if they don't, or should I say when they don't they will have lost a load of customers.
Basically trying to monopolise the market like this is not good for anyone, least being the customers. It could lead to price fixing and all sorts of dodgy shiznit.
Dave
SP patenting on/off switches?
Straight from the gutter:
"Smart Parts broadended their patent, and it was revised in January. The patent is very broad. The patent covers ANY paintball marker that has an on/off switch. This means Spyders with electronic triggers, Intimidators, Angels, Matrices, Bushmasters, and anything else with a battery will be in violation of Smart Parts' patent.
On Friday, a judge approved Smart Parts' request to proceed with their lawsuit for patent infringements. On September 3rd, a trial will begin. This is moving very quickly. "
WTF?
Straight from the gutter:
"Smart Parts broadended their patent, and it was revised in January. The patent is very broad. The patent covers ANY paintball marker that has an on/off switch. This means Spyders with electronic triggers, Intimidators, Angels, Matrices, Bushmasters, and anything else with a battery will be in violation of Smart Parts' patent.
On Friday, a judge approved Smart Parts' request to proceed with their lawsuit for patent infringements. On September 3rd, a trial will begin. This is moving very quickly. "
WTF?
Ugh
That sounds like a ****storm!
The question is that how they got the patent in the first place? I mean you have to prove prior art and a patent CANNOT be this vague!!
Cya
That sounds like a ****storm!
The question is that how they got the patent in the first place? I mean you have to prove prior art and a patent CANNOT be this vague!!
Cya
OK, did you miss the point where these patents are already approved and GRANTED!
It's now up to a fight in the court of law. The USPTO already did their part... just as well as they usually do.
Yeah bloody thing did not work..... Were's Robbo when you need him?Originally posted by Paul_collier
or not??
Paul
A lot of us are wondering just that.
**** storm has to be understatement of the week/month/year...