SP sues everyone to make more money to make it short. i guess they tried to patent guns operated on solenoids. a little while ago WDP won in a trial against them. SP barrels are cool and shockers are OK but SP are run by a bunch of a-holes

Most people don't like Smart Parts because people like to jump on bandwagons, even when they have absolutely no understanding of the issues.  That way, they don't have to think for themselves.

As demonstrated in this thread, most of the people who dislike SP do so on a foundation of misunderstood facts, wild rumors, and a fundamental lack of understanding of economics and intellectual property.

To summarize:  Most people dislike SP because they (not SP) are stupid sheep.

Economics is more than just supply and demand.   Economics includes the motives that drive sales.   Instead of relying on their ability to create a better product, SP has tried to limit the choices available to consumers in their attempt to drive sales.

SP is basing their lawsuit on a creation of a microswitch that operates a solenoid to cycle a paintball marker.   The actual inventors did NOT work for SP at the time however they sold their design and the rights to it to SP... the marker they had was the Shocker.

SP used their purchased rights to patent the process then proceeded to sue mainly the smaller PB manufacturers for unauthorized use of the switch.   Their main goal was to force these businesses under or get them to pay a royalty for each and every marker sold.   They were successful in forcing AKA out of business and the world lost a great company.   NPS and Kingman folded and agreed to pay the royalty, this was mainly for the Intimidators and Spyders.   SP ran into a problem when they went after WDP, the makers of the Angel.  

WDP did their research and discovered that the person that actually invented the solenoid/switch was not compensated by SP.   This person worked for the company that developed the system but had left the company before the rights were sold to SP.   WDP bought the unpaid developers rights to the patent and in court proved that they had the right to share the patent.  In effect, SP lost.

The above would have been MORE than enough for me to dislike SP and to perform my right as a consumer and NOT give them my money.

Then, at the X-Ball portion of the World Cup, the Gardner's (SP) screwed the Oakland Assassins and Chicago Aftershock by getting the ESPN film crew to leave early and not film the game that they were contractually obligated to film.   As a result, both teams boycotted SP and refused to play.   Obviously, those are sketchy details... you can search pbnation.com or flagstation.com for more details on that fiasco.

Anywhoo, these are my reasons.   I am not a sheep either.   I am not a un-educated idiot.   There are the facts, make your own decision.

SP's actions are common place in a world where individuals have to look out for their own best interest.

Making money is a cut throat business and reguardless of what that business is someone will be looking to get one over on you.  Believe this.

Get used to it. 

AdmiralSenn wrote: Riiiiight. Smart Parts "invented" these things.. so why did WDP win the lawsuit?

Read the court's decision.  SP DID invent (at least in part) the technology behind main patent.  But, like idiots, they didn't get the other co-inventor's signature on the employment agreement that assigned the co-inventor's rights to the patent.  WDP cleverly bought those rights from the co-inventor.

WDP won because of clever lawyering and because of SP's stupidity - NOT because SP didn't invent anything.

People hate them because they shut down production of the X-mag, E-mag, Viking, and Excalibur.

AGD voluntarily stopped production - partially because of fear of lawsuits, but voluntary nonetheless.  AKA was infringing on SP's patent.  Doesn't matter if it is SP's or WDP's patent - AKA was infringing, as was ICD.

You might as well be mad at the VHS people for shutting down BetaMax.  That's what people with patents do.  That's why we have patents.

For comparison purposes: If Tippmann followed the same practices, they would have patented the ASA way back when, and we'd either all be using 12 grams or every gun with an ASA would owe Tippmann money for each unit produced.

You have been reading too much Doc Nickels...

Assuming Tippmann could have patented the ASA (which is by no means certain), then yes, there would be a royalty fee on each ASA sold.  But so what?  You pay a royalty fee on each DVD player you buy - has that made DVD players impossibly expensive?  Of course not.

Of course, if Tippmann had patented the ASA, somebody else may have invented something different and better, or maybe direct-attach tanks like AIR would be more popular.  Or something.  The world isn't as simple as Doc makes it out to be.

And, further, to hold up Tippmann as some kind of model of business kindness is silly.  How many patents does Tippmann hold?  (Answer - lots)  How come there isn't a Cyclone on every Spyder?  Or a Flatline on every ATS gun?  Because Tippmann won't let them, that's why.  Bottom line - as to patent management, Tippmann DOES follow the same practices as SP.  If ICD came out with a Cyclone clone tomorrow, you can bet that Tippmann would sue the next day.

Is it possible that Tippmann passed up an opportunity to patent something?  Sure.  Does that mean that Tippmann is goody-two-shoes, and SP is the devil?  Of course not.

Similarly, when Smart Parts messes with these other companies (AGD and AKALMP), they force them to either pay money, or they shut down new innovations based on this technology (electronics).

How about DeadlyWind's Hairtrigger?  There's some innovation for you, brought about in part (IMO) by determination not to use electronics.  Qloader, Cyclone, Flatline - THAT is innovation.

But more importantly - if patents don't hold up, nobody would bother to innovate, because infringers like ICD would come along and rip off your stuff.

SP did (TMK) nothing different from every other company that isn't being run from a garage. 

Enos, Merc, and Rico - I carefully inserted "most" in my post for a reason...

:/

I got that... nothing meant by it.

I have read the Patent, the Patent Judgement and a whole lot of other junk that would bore most.

To delv further into the case, SP did NOT invent the system.   It was actually developed by a guy named Dr. Ed Hensel who was a professor at the University of New Mexico.   Dr. Hensel joined up with a company called Pneu Ventures which was owned by Ray Gaston and Dave Smith.   Pneu Ventures had a document prepared which stated that any ideas of the people involved with Pneu Ventures would be corporate property.   Dr. Hensel refused to sign this and they never pursued it.  

Since there was no one at Pneu Ventures that had a clue about electronics and incorporating them into a PB marker, they asked Dr. Hensel to develop the system, which he did in his garage at home.   Then he brought the system to Pneu Ventures and they incorporated it into their new marker.  

When SP filed for the patent, they named only the Gardner's, Gaston and Smith as the "inventors."   Dr. Hensel was left off.   Throughout the proceedings, it was shown that the Gardner's had absolutely nothing to do with the invention and couldn't even explain how it worked.   Close to the same was true for Gaston and Smith.

Dr. Hensel was the sole inventor and now WDP is suing to have the SP patent revoked and issued to them as the owners of the rights that Dr. Hensel sold them.   I do not believe that they will be sucessful with that.   But, what that does is open up a bidding war between SP and WDP with the rest of the PB marker manufacturers.   My hope is that WDP will sell the rights for a very nominal fee and in effect make the patent available for general use.

DracoPlasm wrote: i use smartparts

ooo!!! j()() are a user! you use people!

lol

I dont like them because I would rather have a larger selection.  And have you seen there barrel "bags"? they need to get better people

ThEeViLcHiCkEn wrote: clark kent & lightningbolt & DracoPlasm own all of you (forgot which way the "<>" goes.) I like smart parts, there guns are good.

If you wan I could make this as to wht SP markers do infact suck beyond all recognition.

Boo Hoo, even if the compines were around, your stuff would be the same price.

But they wold be available. there wouldnt be any last DC viking, or last 10 vikings. The same with excals, e-mags, and x-mags.

Grow the hell up. You don't work for the companies that Sp but out of business, you dont get any money from them being around, what do you get? One or Two products that you MIGHT buy?

If you want I can give you the aim of someone whose dreams were crushed because AKA can no longer make any markers. He planned on working somehow and oding something(I cant remember what) for AKA, but now he cant. Though if you did try and talk to him about that he would just block you.

I dont like SP because they make inferioro markers, and sell them for way more than they should. I dont like them because when I watch the NXL on ESPN, I wont get to see the third game I was suposed to because SP caused the 3rd and 4th place game to not be shown. I dont like them because I can never buy an 05 viking.

Sorry, I had to bring this to the top.   This will be added to my list of dumb forum quotes.

ThEeViLcHiCkEn wrote: "You don't work for the companies that Sp but out of business"

um, NOBODY works for them... they are out of business.

Wow, this has been fun to watch, but I think a few things still need to be said.

**edited**tr: I don't mean to attack you buddy, but you seriously do need to grow up a little.

Smart Parts does good business. You say that it's low of them to use such ruthless business tactics, but If you applied that idealistic economic theory to other inventions, America would be begging third world countries for handouts.

The light bulb wouldn't exist because some low-life would have made crappy knock-offs right after it was invented, and no-one would want to use one. The same applies to the telegraph, the TV, the computer, etc...       They called Bill Gates a Nazi because he didn't believe in freeware. But If he didn't make and enforce the patents of common things, you wouldn't be here right now griping about this because the Internet wouldn't exist and computers would still be a novelty for the rich and the supergeek hobbyists.

I mean, have you ever even taken at least a basic economy class? Competition breeds inovation. Inovation breeds inventions which fuel progress and development. Patents promote competition. These are universal truths in the business world.
I really don't think it gets any simpler than that.

^^^  That makes absolutely no sense.

"The light bulb wouldn't exist because some low-life would have made crappy knock-offs right after it was invented, and no-one would want to use one."

How does a "knock off" negate the invention itself?   There are thousands of illegal Rolex knock offs... just walk down the street in NYC.   But the demand for the real thing is still overwhelming.   And that example is a luxury item.   With the lightbulb, which is a convenience and basically a necessity at present, do you really think that your statement is correct?

I am all for Patents, the Patent Process and Patent defense.   However, in this case, the reasoning behind it was a flat out slap in the face of a still new sport which I happen to love.   I want to promote the sport and get everyone I can possibly effect to become involved.   SP hurt that progress and the PB world in general took a step back and pushed what is still considered a hobby into the corporate cesspool.

However, there is still more to question with regards to SP.   Like why at World Cup the Gardner's told ESPN to pack up and leave before the match between the Oakland and Chicago.   ESPN was there to film 3 games.   The 1st place match was between 2 SP sponsored teams and the outcome was decided after 2 games.   Based on that, ESPN was supposed to stay and tape the first game of the 3rd place match.   Billy Gardner went to the film crews and told them to go ahead and pack it up... which they did.   He had absolutely no right to do so and once they started tearing down, there was no re-set up.   That is the type of person that runs SP and as is my right, I will not give one dime to him.

And, sorry bud, but your grip on economics is extremely loose.  

boomstick wrote: Smart parts is hurting the paintball world. If you buy their products, you are supporting nazis. It's as easy as that.

 = ludicrous.

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?

Thank you.  I then include your argument in the "ludicrous" category.

DracoPlasm wrote: Smaller paintball companies are crap anyways they never have the right stuff and if they get beat by smart parts oh well thats business you dont start out at the top

Dude, just shut up. What you're saying is just because smart parts is a bigger company, their regulators and LPRs and markers out class those of smaller companies like...say, AKA? Or freeflow?

Sorry, but thats stupider than the Idea of Enos conforming to something.

DracoPlasm wrote: ....either that or youd stop playin paintball

id quit. No reason to spend that much money on something that wont work so you will be over charged for it to be fixed or replaced.

Pariel wrote: Clark, you've simply started calling people's evidence and ideas ludicrous and bad-mouthing those who came here.

No, I haven't.

Go back and check - I used "ludicrous" twice.  Once to describe a ludicrous statement that SP are Nazis (etc), and once to describe a ludicrous theory that it is somehow wrong to patent inventions that are really really good but ok to patent inventions that are not so good.

I stand by my use of "ludicrous" in those two instances.

As to facts - I have provided facts.  I have provided great detail as to exactly what happened in the SP v. WDP case.  Many subsequent posters simply didn't read, didn't understand, or didn't care. 

As soon as somebody comes up with an actual argument - instead of "SP r teh evil", I will address that argument.

Can rational people dislike SP?  Sure - Rico (for instance) makes some good points (although he has the facts slightly wrong), and I can respect his dislike of SP.  Most posters in this and similar threads, however, are far from rational.

If my impatience is showing through, it is because we have had these SP threads for months, on every paintball forum on the internet.  And in each and every thread, the same ludicrous "arguments" keep coming up.  After slapping them down for the zillionth time, I start to get testy - particularly when people obviously haven't even read what was already posted.

However, the idea that Smart Parts is going to have a monopoly on the paintball industry is pretty innacurate.

It is more than that.  That idea is ludicrous.

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.

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.

SP's retirement program and other peoples bad experiences with SP's products are a shame but I've had nothing but good experiences with my SP equipment. If it weren't true I'd be the first to blow the horn.

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.

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

Tricky question.  The Patent Office issued the patent, so at a minimum it passed the "not obviously invalid" test.

And "should" is loaded.  Do you mean legally?  Morally?  Economically?

Legally, it was issued - the only way we will know if that was a mistake is if somebody challenges it.  I have it on very good authority that there is no good reason to believe that a legal challenge to the patent would succeed.  Mostly likely, from a legal perspective, the patent should exist.

If you mean "should" in some other fashion, you will have to explain further.

And you say a lot of "I think so" or "I believe so". Don't you ever do any research?

I do loads of research.  I am very well informed on this subject.  I use careful phrases like "think" or "believe" to indicate less than absolute certainly on some points.  I like to speak - and type - with great specificity and exactness.  There could, for instance, have been a second court ruling of which I am not aware.  I'm just anal that way.

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?

A does not lead to B.  And A is false anyway.

The court ruling was pretty clear on this.  Dr. Hensel was at least co-inventor.  The court did NOT conclude that the Gardners were not also co-inventors.  The court DID describe a long and close relationship between Hensel and the Gardners.  Had Hensel signed the very standard assignment agreement, this lawsuit would have been a slam-dunk for SP.   Those agreements are standard fare for engineers everywhere - it was highly unusual that Hensel hadn't signed his.  I personally believe this was just an oversight and crappy lawyering.  I could be wrong.

WDP cleverly bought Dr. Hensel's rights to the patent, before anybody even knew for sure that Hensel had any rights at all.  As a result, as of the last I know, WDP owns at least part of the SP patent, but I do not believe that the court has subsequently ruled that SP is not also part owner.  It is very unlikely that the court will award sole ownership to WDP.  Possible, but unlikely on the facts.

But regardless - none of this renders the patent invalid.  Once the inventor/assignee designations have been corrected, the patent lives on.  The patent is nowhere near "null and void".

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.

I can't help you with the stupid, but SP made the patent application long ago, back when the original Shocker came out and nobody else had electro guns out there (WDP aside the for moment - slightly different issue).  The application has been hanging out in the Patent Office waiting for approval since then.  All the early Shockers (I suspect) had "patent pending" stamped all over them, giving plenty of notice to the world that they were about to infringe on somebody's future patent.

Now, it is interesting that it took so long to issue the patent - one might normally expect a simple patent like this to issue in a year or so.  Part of the reason for this is because SP's lawyers extended the timeline on purpose.  This is an aggressive - but legal, and fairly common - maneuver used when you have early infringement going on.  You let the infringers develop variations on your invention, and then include those variations in your patent.  This is what SP did.  This does not make the infringing any less infringing, or any less illegal.

This is arguably the most morally questionable act that SP did, IMO.  Some view this practice as a little dishonest.  That is up for discussion, but it is clear that SP did nothing illegal, or even particularly unusual, in the pursuit of their patent.

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?

As noted above, SP did in fact file the patent right away.  They just tarried in the final execution.  But people were on notice the whole time.  Infringers beware.

Bottom line:  SP has a valid patent (even though they now have to share with WDP).  The application was legal, the grant was legal.  It is quite apparent that ICD, AKA, and others were infringing on the patent.  SP took action to stop the infringement.  The end.

While SP certainly has shown aggressiveness, they have, TMK, done absolutely nothing illegal.  Heck, I could even make them out to be the victims here - if Hensel had signed the agreement like he was supposed to, SP would still have sole ownerhip of the patent.  I might look into suing their old lawyers...    :)

zombieman wrote: why do you guys not like smart parts and if i get like no replies i will know why because you guys dont have an answer

Because they have abused the "open source" spirit of the sport/industry, are patentning things they did not invent and are now holding several other companies hostage with those patents, and have brought "big business" style dirty tricks to the sport I love.

They pummeled Indian Creek Designs into submission, caused the end of production of the AKA Viking, the AKA Excalibur, the AGD E-Mag, and the AGD X-Mag.

Thank God that WDP turned them back in court. Makes me want to buy an Angel.

Any other ridiculous questions?

No?

Good.

To the back ot the class with you.

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.

^^^^^   Hard to disagree with that - it makes good business sense to be nice (to some extent).

Now I am have to go dig out my sources for the relationship between the Gardners and Hensel...     :)

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 >

Hairball!!! wrote: Clark Kent wrote: JVC has/had a patent on VHS format videotape. Did that in any way hurt the market? Of course not. Technically, it did. It forced BetaMax, a surperior product, out of production

Nope.  Betamax didn't die because of any patent (except arguably the Betamax patent).  Betamax did not infringe on the VHS patent.  They were competing formats, not infringing formats.  Betamax died because people preferred VHS.  VHS won because VHS ran a better business campaign.

I guess I just haven't invested as much time into this as some others so I must ask,  does SP have rights on ALL electro guns?

I'm keeping my interest in the matter at the consumer level.  Either I like a piece of equipment or I don't.  It's as simple as that.

I am involved in 3 building companies being the Vice President of the parent company of the 3. From this standpoint, it's easy to understand why SP want's to guard what they consider to be theirs.  Then on the other hand, the last time I skimmed the patent it seemed way to broad for my liking.  The finger should be pointed at the individual that allowed for such a broad patent to pass.

In a much more mature and evolved market (snowmobiling) patents occur all of the time as well as infringments.  When company A comes out with a design and patents it you know what company B,C and D do?  They hit the drawing board and come up with a sometimes better and different take on the technology.  It's better for the sport that way.  Keeps the thinking fresh.