Regarding the viral thread on PBNation and beyond regarding Sup’Air’s
infringement of the Ultimate Airball patent, there are many missing details
that should probably not be aired on a public forum, and one poster was
right in saying that Forums are not the best place for this case to be
tried.

In answer to some of the remaining questions for which many people have
sought answers:

The ORIGINAL Ultimate Airball Patent filing was [I]years before [/I]2005,
but final Patent Documents traditionally do not disclose the original Patent
filing dates. Therefore, that information is not shown in our final Patent,
or any others.

The U.S. Patent Office conducted very careful research for several years,
and completed an exhaustive investigation into prior art before granting
this very broad Patent to the owners of Ultimate Airball, which went through
the entire approval process “clean”, (meaning entirely unchallenged by our
competitor) who was fully aware of our product’s “Patent Applied For” status
for years in advance of its approval.

Adrenaline Games did indeed invent the original inflatable bunkers, which
launched a whole new era of tournament Paintball, and they received their
own patent for their fan powered, tube-manifold system.

Regarding their response, it is our understanding that some of their current
staff were not employed there at the time. During my decade with
Procaps/Draxxus, I have known and liked several of their staffers in their
roles with FaceFull magazine and Sup’Air. However, regarding their online
comments about their products from the 1990′s, the DETAILS in our many
Patent claims include important distinctions which their company never
offered in combination previous to our invention. This is where their “prior
art” assertions fall short of being effective, which explains why our unique
tubeless system received its legal Patent after such careful and protracted
scrutiny by the U.S. Patent office.

Of course, the confidential Business Agreements that were signed last year
by both parties in Washington DC do not appear in the Patent. When we
amicably entered into those agreements, we were 100% hopeful that they would
honor the agreements, as we did. In fact, we still hope for an amicable
solution. We acted in good faith. Contrary to their employee’s accusations,
we have made zero attempts to stop anybody’s business, production, or
tournaments, and that is still the case. It has actually been our
unexercised Legal right to choose a much harsher path via Cease and Desist
orders and such actions, but we have never opted to use that heavy-handed
approach.

Instead, we have always sought agreement, so that we could peacefully
coexist. Comments to the contrary are works of fiction that began on a web
forum, and even more fiction was spawned on this site. But remember, we are
not the ones who brought this debate to the forums, and we agree with
several posters who feel this is not the place for it. We have been very
surprised at the popularity of this subject, receiving well over 11,000
views – certainly the best publicity we have ever had, with dozens and
dozens of experienced Field Operators and Field employees setting the record
straight whenever fiction steered the story off course.

Throughout this viral thread, we were very careful – as always – NOT to
slander anyone, despite our competitor’s accusations to the contrary. To
point out that someone is French or German or English or American is not
slander. To factually identify that someone manufactures their products
offshore is not slander. “Slander” is making baseless derogatory remarks and
using foul language and unfounded insults, and this was indeed done
regularly in these threads, primarily by our competitor’s supporters, so
these accusations are totally absurd and without any basis. Unfortunately,
many people – but not all – who posted on their behalf did indeed take that
low road. Perhaps these were not our competitor’s actual staff, but the
pattern was immensely obvious, and that is unfortunate.

Regarding their allegation that we included misinformation about their
firing of staffers, I must point out that subsequent to their reneging on
our agreements, the competitor communicated to us that they had let a
considerable number of staffers go due to financial constraints from a down
market. This was stated as a primary justification for why they could not
honor our legal agreements. So, this startling new and totally conflicting
assertion that they never let ANY staffers go brings new and very
interesting financial discoveries to the discussion. They alleged that WE
were misleading on this firing subject, when in fact, we have now received
both of these totally contrary reports directly from them. We believed them
when they said they fired almost everybody, and now we much more happily
believe them when they say that they didn’t fire ANYBODY. With great
excitement, we very gladly stand corrected on this point.

Legally, our competitor’s public acknowledgement of our Patent speaks
volumes. Still, despite the Legal gravity of that action, and the fact that
it intensely tips the Legal scales in our favor, we still remain hopeful and
open for an amicable solution that will enable us to coexist.

Let’s ALL have a much better 2010…