- Active Posts:
- 2,022 (0.64 per day)
- Most Active In:
- Paintball Accessories (372 posts)
- 15-April 05
- Profile Views:
- Last Active:
- Jun 22 2013 11:26 PM
- Member Title:
- Trained Shop Monkey
- 31 years old
- February 3, 1982
- Portland, OR
- Brigade Name:
Posts I've Made
01 June 2013 - 02:20 AMwow. I found my old spec ops patches from years ago that reminded me this place even exists.. Apparently I havent logged on in .. 4 years now..There's a lot of names I still remember too.. good to see the forums havent completely gone to...
23 August 2009 - 01:45 AMwhat he's after is essentially an expansion chamber without the internal baffles. I did something similar to my old 98 to get it running in the <300psi range. take any inline expansion chamber (lapco's work well) and remove the internal baffles. Some have a stem that connects one end to the other internally, and that has to stay there to maintain integrity.
21 August 2009 - 11:22 AMI use a combination of Cubase 4, Acid Studio, and Cakewalk Sonar.
For mic equipment: BLUE or Shure, nothing else.
For an input mixer to pc, I use a Behringer mixer and UCA222 pc interface, but I'd like to get a Mackie or Yamaha, but cant afford them.
16 August 2009 - 05:13 PMThe case isn't a Patent infringement. It's a trademark infringement. there is a very slight difference between the two.
A patent has do to with operational design. Between a paintball marker and a firearm, this kind of case is not possible.
A trademark infringement on the other hand, has to do with brand recognition. The US Court system uses 8 tests to determine trademark infringement:
1. Strength of the mark
2. Proximity of the goods
3. Similarity of the marks
4. Evidence of actual confusion
5. Marketing channels used
6. Type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
7. Defendant's intent in selecting the mark
8. Likelihood of expansion of the product lines 
One of the biggest issues is strength of the mark. An image is generally recognized as a trademark if it is actively used to represent a brand/company. The courts have also imposed a higher burden that requires famous owners to prove "actual dilution" of their brand recognition as opposed to a "likelihood of dilution" from the use of their trademark by a third party.
04 June 2009 - 06:19 PMthe links have since been fixed. in the write-up.
sartek hasn't added any friends yet.