View Full Version : Robinson Arms Sues Remington, Bushmaster, RRA, and Magpul
http://soldiersystems.net/2010/01/15/robinson-arms-sues-remington-bushmaster-rra-and-magpul/
I'll refrain from commenting.. Wouldn't be in line with the stated purpose of the forum.
FN FAL
HK G3.or MP5 any paddle mag release is ambi
Thinking more of the line everybody is hurting for money
variablebinary
01-15-10, 19:08
HK G3.or MP5 any paddle mag release is ambi
Thinking more of the line everybody is hurting for money
The XCR doesn't have a paddle mag release.
QuietShootr
01-15-10, 19:36
Screw Robinson Arms. After they supported Romney, any desire I MAY have had for an XCR (which wasn't much) evaporated.
Looks like he's following the A.R.M.S. business model.
Screw Robinson Arms. After they supported Romney, any desire I MAY have had for an XCR (which wasn't much) evaporated.
That's pretty retarded. I don't like H&K's views on civilian gun ownership, but they make damn fine firearms and I buy them when I can.
As far as the lawsuit goes, if RA's design was patented and the other companies involved copied the design then they had better find a different design.....eh? I do know the XCR was a working prototype as early as 2002. Patents are a very important part of the free market place........its what keeps the drive for innovation and invention alive based on the reward of bringing something new to the market that no one else in town makes.
Outlander Systems
01-15-10, 19:59
Well, there goes *any* chance I'll ever buy an XCR.
Robinson Armament and ARMS should skip the lawsuit and have an attorney draft up a merger instead.
I guess when your sales start to slump, it's time to sue, right?
:rolleyes:
variablebinary
01-15-10, 20:01
That's pretty retarded. I don't like H&K's views on civilian gun ownership, but they make damn fine firearms and I buy them when I can.
As far as the lawsuit goes, if RA's design was patented and the other companies involved copied the design then they had better find a different design.....eh? I do know the XCR was a working prototype as early as 2002. Patents are a very important part of the free market place........it what keeps the drive for innovation and invention alive.
I look foward to hearing a list of guns that featured the XCR's patented features before the XCR.
I'll help. M96, also a Robinson gun
Anyone else?
If you say FAL or G36, you fail. Read the patent and try again.
It's not Robarm's fault the ACR ergos are strangely similar.
Here is my actual M96. See the design?
http://home.comcast.net/~firearmspics/m968.jpg
I don't like H&K's views on civilian gun ownership, but they make damn fine firearms and I buy them when I can.
sorry for my ignorance, but can you explain??
Agent Smith: Do you hear that, Mr. Robinson? That is the sound of inevitability.
Lawsuits don't settle anything other than who has the better attorney(s). Robinson Arms doesn't have the resources to fight a protracted legal battle, the Freedom group does. Simple attrition warfare here.
someone explain to me how protecting the years of work we have put into our rifles make us the bad guy? This is industry, people. Stop making it so personal.
Outlander Systems
01-15-10, 20:42
someone explain to me how protecting the years of work we have put into our rifles make us the bad guy? This is industry, people. Stop making it so personal.
:rolleyes:
Posting Rules
5) Industry Disclosure – If you are an industry manufacturer/dealer or employed by one you must disclose this relationship through your screen name or signature line. Anonymous industry trolling will not be allowed
someone explain to me how protecting the years of work we have put into our rifles make us the bad guy? This is industry, people. Stop making it so personal.
If they truly are unique features that you truly invented, then, by all means, protect them.
If however the features are minor alterations of normal firearm parts that have been around for a long time, then, please. Go beat a wall somewhere else.
I started to read the patent and my eyes glazed over. I am not in any position to pass judgement. I guess we'll have to let the courts do so.
I'm not terribly familiar with the XCR, but what does the article mean when it says the XCR's mag release is operated by the trigger finger from within the trigger guard? It looks similar to an AR mag release to me.
:rolleyes:
My apologies. I truly overlooked that sentence.
CarlosDJackal
01-15-10, 20:53
Who was it that said, "We have met our enemy, and it is us!!"
This suspiciously sounds like market envy on Robinson Arms' part. I guess they decided to adopt like ARMS' "If we aren't doing so well, let's sue those who are" business model. :rolleyes:
What really sucks is that all this will do is hurt the firearms industry and stifle further efforts to advance the technologies and designs in use.
someone explain to me how protecting the years of work we have put into our rifles make us the bad guy? This is industry, people. Stop making it so personal.
Well you have to remember that there are quite a few guys on this forum that are literally foaming at the mouth in anticipation of latest and greatest upcoming ACR. This lawsuit could potentially damage their dreams of what is in their mind the ultimate rifle of this era.......so, they will hate Robinson Arms with a passion and talk about how they will never buy a XCR.
I like guns, but sometimes I think people get a little out of control with their coveting. Sometimes emotion defies logical thinking.
My bad, Variablebinary. I forgot about the introduction of the bolt release in the M96 in the late 1990s. That certainly was the first I'd seen of such a design.
someone explain to me how protecting the years of work we have put into our rifles make us the bad guy? This is industry, people. Stop making it so personal.
I think that how it comes across is that if one fails in the market, then they go to the courts to make up that failure. That is what people resent.
I am not saying that applies in this case but with many other cases out there that fit that description, each succeeding case does not get judged on its merits but through those glasses of market failure and fatigue.
As I mentioned previously, I started to read the patent. It looked pretty specific in terms of having certain number of things at angles etc to each other. When looked at narrowly, if the other guns use the same mechanism, then you win. If their mechanisms may be similar but not exactly as described then you should lose.
Outlander Systems
01-15-10, 21:02
I like guns, but sometimes I think people get a little out of control with their coveting. Sometimes emotion defies logical thinking.
It's not emotions, it's cynicism.
I find the timing of this to be unbelievably suspect. If it walks like a duck...
I've got no pony in this race. I could give two flips about ACR's vapourware status, or that RobArm's getting butthurt over the fact that they're about to get some hardcore competition.
I'll just sit tight for the MR556.
Outlander Systems
01-15-10, 21:03
I think that how it comes across is that if one fails in the market, then they go to the courts to make up that failure. That is what people resent.
This. No, This x 1000.
Chad, you are the man. You stole the words out of my fingertips.
NinjaMedic
01-15-10, 21:04
So my patent law knowledge is a bit rusty but doesn't it matter that this rifle was designed prior to the issuance of the patent?
And why isnt Knights Armament included in this?
Lawsuits don't usually settle anything other than who has the better attorneys...
I made a minor edit and would have to agree. RobArms could be 100% in the right and still lose quite handily. Then again, they could be completely wrong, and some flawed interpretation by a judge could make them a winner because the opposing attorney failed to bring it to his honor's attention properly.
Any chance that RobArms will pursue royalities vs. a design change?? Get a piece of every gun sold?
variablebinary
01-15-10, 21:25
I'm not terribly familiar with the XCR, but what does the article mean when it says the XCR's mag release is operated by the trigger finger from within the trigger guard? It looks similar to an AR mag release to me.
Here is the issue, direct from the patent:
As shown, the magazine release 22 is disposed above a front portion of a trigger guard 29 on a side of the firearm. In this configuration, the magazine release 22 includes a first button 23 (as shown) that is accessible from this side of a firearm. In addition, the magazine release 22 includes a second button (not shown) that is accessible on the opposite side of the firearm. The bolt hold open control 24 extends along both sides of the front portion of the trigger guard 29 and therefore, may accessed on both sides of the firearm 10 . This positioning allows a user to easily actuate the magazine release 22 and the bolt hold open control 24 with a trigger finger of the user regardless of whether the user is right or left handed.
Here is the issue, direct from the patent:
I see. Thanks.
Gutshot John
01-15-10, 21:33
Who was it that said, "We have met our enemy, and it is us!!"
The quote is Commodore Perry from the Battle of Lake Erie and what he actually said was...
"We have met the enemy and they are ours."
HK G3.or MP5 any paddle mag release is ambi
Thinking more of the line everybody is hurting for money
Sorry I was thinking mag release not bolt release.
SW-Shooter
01-15-10, 21:50
someone explain to me how protecting the years of work we have put into our rifles make us the bad guy? This is industry, people. Stop making it so personal.
Wow you just gave me a reason to avoid buying an XCR, I'll just order a SIG 556 instead. I cannot wait for an ACR to make it to the market. Those two will go nicely with a SCAR.
Interesting on the timing here.
http://soldiersystems.net/2010/01/15...ra-and-magpul/
Robinson Arms Sues Remington, Bushmaster, RRA, and Magpul
Robinson Arms, manufacturers of the XCR have filed suit yesterday in US District Court for Utah against Remington, Bushmaster, Rock River Arms, and Magpul Industries based on alleged infingement of their patent (Multi-caliber ambidextrously controllable firearm #7,596,900) issued 6 October, 2009 and initially filed in August of 2003.
Specifically, the weapons alleged to have violated Robinson’s patent are the Remington/Bushmaster ACR, Magpul Masada/Massoud, and the RRA LAR-8. All of these weapons feature a magazine release that is manipulated by the trigger finger from within the trigger guard as well as a similar bot hold open device.
Both Bushmaster and Remington are part of the Freedom group, owned by Cerberus Capital Management. So for taking on Freedom Group I give them an “E” for Effort. Of note is the timing of the suit, just days before SHOT Show as well as Robinson’s announcement on their website that they would be exhibiting after all in a booth (#20034) shared with Serbu.
The quote is Commodore Perry from the Battle of Lake Erie and what he actually said was...
"We have met the enemy and they are ours."
Close, but I think he is referencing the 60s comic strip "Pogo," where one of the characters said "We have met the enemy and they is us."
I don't like H&K's views on civilian gun ownership
Which are what, exactly?
I only ask because over the past year I've been involved in a project that HK sees as promoting its guns primarily towards the civilian market, as well as watching the huge battles they've been fighting with the German government to provide a civilian version of their much-coveted 416 rifles. I also consider the president of HK-USA a personal friend of many years and know for a fact that he is very much a proponent of Americans' Second Amendment rights.
Which are what, exactly?
I only ask because over the past year I've been involved in a project that HK sees as promoting its guns primarily towards the civilian market, as well as watching the huge battles they've been fighting with the German government to provide a civilian version of their much-coveted 416 rifles. I also consider the president of HK-USA a personal friend of many years and know for a fact that he is very much a proponent of Americans' Second Amendment rights.
I'm guessing it is more of the usual "blaming HK for US gun laws" and then blaming HK for not wanting to gamble on future domestic production due to past experience where our gun laws have continuously cost HK huge sums in their efforts to bring their guns to the US market.
It's not emotions, it's cynicism.
I find the timing of this to be unbelievably suspect. If it walks like a duck...
I've got no pony in this race. I could give two flips about ACR's vapourware status, or that RobArm's getting butthurt over the fact that they're about to get some hardcore competition.
I'll just sit tight for the MR556.
I think RobArms got the patent just a few weeks ago, so they couldn't sue before that, right?
Magpul has also been recently sued by ARMS and Abrams (Vltor)...
I do not like RobArms and will never buy an XCR, because of the owner's political stance (even though I got my picture taken with Mitt Romney when I was volunteering for McCain in 08). However, they have a right to defend their property.
And when three different companies with three very different owners sue one particular company in a short period of time, it should raise questions about that company playing fast and loose with regard to designs and patents - regardless of who is suing and who is being sued.
I think RobArms got the patent just a few weeks ago, so they couldn't sue before that, right?
Didn't the article say Oct 09?
I wonder why they waited until right before the SHOT show and did not file the suit as soon as they got the patent awarded or wait until the ACR was actually on the market.
If it is valid infringement then best of luck to them. Hope they can work it out. If it is an attempt to compensate for failure in the market then shame on them.
We'll see I guess.
Magpul has also been recently sued by ARMS and Abrams (Vltor)...
I do not like RobArms and will never buy an XCR, because of the owner's political stance (even though I got my picture taken with Mitt Romney when I was volunteering for McCain in 08). However, they have a right to defend their property.
And when three different companies with three very different owners sue one particular company in a short period of time, it should raise questions about that company playing fast and loose with regard to designs and patents - regardless of who is suing and who is being sued.
I don't know if that follows.
Didn't the article say Oct 09?
I wonder why they waited until right before the SHOT show and did not file the suit as soon as they got the patent awarded or wait until the ACR was actually on the market.
If it is valid infringement then best of luck to them. Hope they can work it out. If it is an attempt to compensate for failure in the market then shame on them.
We'll see I guess.
I don't know if that follows.
Note that I did not say "they suck and no one should buy their stuff."
I said that it should raise questions.
As for RobArms patent, I don't know about the timing. You'll have to ask them as to why... I do not see a whole lot of difference between Oct 09 and Jan 10...yeah, SHOT...but maybe I am not getting why 2 months makes a huge difference.
The patent was issued after the rifles in question were already made. I'm not savvy with patent law, so could someone explain what this means?
-B
The patent was issued after the rifles in question were already made. I'm not savvy with patent law, so could someone explain what this means?
-B
Neither am I, but if you copy/make something similar to a product that has a patent pending, I believe that you assume the risk that that patent will be approved and then your product will be "in violation of" or infringing on that patent and then you might have to pay royalties... Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
variablebinary
01-15-10, 22:59
Magpul has also been recently sued by ARMS and Abrams (Vltor)...
.
I know about Robarm and ARMS, but what is the story on VLTOR?
Note that I did not say "they suck and no one should buy their stuff."
did not say you did :)
I said that it should raise questions.
I just said that I did not know if that followed that that was indicative of playing loose with design and patents. Lots of successful companies get sued. Sometimes it is legitimate playing loose and copying. Lots of times though it is just bad luck. You come up with something a little later than someone else and don't do the due diligence you should have. So I am not sure it raises any questions that Magpul gets sued in relatively close succession 3 times. Successful companies tend to attract lawsuits.
As for RobArms patent, I don't know about the timing. You'll have to ask them as to why... I do not see a whole lot of difference between Oct 09 and Jan 10...yeah, SHOT...but maybe I am not getting why 2 months makes a huge difference.
Exactly. SHOT. Try and take the wind out of someone elses sails. Rain on their parade. Use that as leverage.
I know about Robarm and ARMS, but what is the story on VLTOR?
Google turned up this
http://www.ar15adviser.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14636
which has a link to something that purports to be the lawsuit but that site was down for maintenance a minute ago
Okay, then to echo NinjaMedic, if Freedom Group is being sued why isn't KAC? XCRMonger?
-B
variablebinary
01-15-10, 23:19
did not say you did :)
Exactly. SHOT. Try and take the wind out of someone elses sails. Rain on their parade. Use that as leverage.
That sounds like smart business to be honest.
That sounds like smart business to be honest.
Depends on what your goal is. And how much long term enmity you want once the issue is solved.
I made a minor edit and would have to agree. RobArms could be 100% in the right and still lose quite handily. Then again, they could be completely wrong, and some flawed interpretation by a judge could make them a winner because the opposing attorney failed to bring it to his honor's attention properly.
Fair enough and quite true. :)
Any chance that RobArms will pursue royalities vs. a design change?? Get a piece of every gun sold?
That would be the smart route. I suspect that with a few changes, make it wrap around, more of a lever, whatforetc, that Freedom group could make this a very Pyrrhic victory for RobArms. But having read some of the XCR forums and the posts from the RobArms staff, there may be a high level of mechanical skill, but the market penetration, after purchase support and general reputation leaves a lot to be desired on RobArms part.
Personally, I think that RobArms is miffed that they built a better mouse trap and no one beat a path to their door. Then along comes Magpul, who proceeds to build a terrifically better mousetrap (even with the long intro delay) and RobArms gets teh butthertz.
But that's just my .02 kopeks.
That sounds like smart business to be honest.
you aren't exactly objective in this matter...
justin_247
01-16-10, 01:25
So my patent law knowledge is a bit rusty but doesn't it matter that this rifle was designed prior to the issuance of the patent?
And why isnt Knights Armament included in this?
This is going to be the key issue in court, I believe. The Robinson Arms patent supposedly being infringed upon was issued in Oct 09, long after the Magpul and RRA weapons had been developed. Robinson Arms will most likely have to prove that Magpul and RRA stole the design in one way or another while it was in development...
Personally, I don't think this is going to go anywhere.
This is going to be the key issue in court, I believe. The Robinson Arms patent supposedly being infringed upon was issued in Oct 09, long after the Magpul and RRA weapons had been developed. Robinson Arms will most likely have to prove that Magpul and RRA stole the design in one way or another while it was in development...
Personally, I don't think this is going to go anywhere.
Uhh, no. I am not a lawyer nor a patent attorney or anything.
However, when the ACR or RRA guns came out is irrelevant as long as the patent was researched and applied for before that time. The patent was filed like in 2002 or something and they own the prior art that has come out (their 1990s M96).
Magpul did not have to steal anything to be infringing. They could have come up with the same idea totally on their own, separately. The first guy who gets the patent basically wins.
Magpul/Remington etc will have to prove that Robinson Arms did not create the technology by showing prior art that existed before the RA examples which go back to the 1990s. If the patent is found to be infringed on. That has to happen first.
The patent may have been issued in Oct 2009 but that is not the starting gate for when it can be used in terms of when stuff has to have been developed etc
The quote is Commodore Perry from the Battle of Lake Erie and what he actually said was...
"We have met the enemy and they are ours."
Pogo (http://www.igopogo.com/we_have_met.htm) bro
Magpul did not have to steal anything to be infringing. They could have come up with the same idea totally on their own, separately. The first guy who gets the patent basically wins.
....only that the bolt release is almost an exact copy of the XCR? Patents take years to be finalized from the date of filing. Even if RA was not the first to come up with these designs, they put forth the time and money to have the designs patented. However, at least in the case of the bolt release RA build that design on the M96 long before the Masada was even a glimmer in someones brain. From my understanding, a patent filed in 2002 and isn't finalized until 2009, is backdated to the date of filing. This means that anything made after 2002 is a patent infringment on RA. Magpul could have easily looked up patents pending on the XCR design and decided to go the safe route and avoid this.
These companies will have to prove that the XCR designs that RA patented were actually hardcopied prior to RA's patent filing. Anything short of engineering schematics or a dated autocad and I'm betting Remington will have to change the ACR design a bit or pay royalties to RA to keep the design.
Nathan_Bell
01-16-10, 08:10
The quote is Commodore Perry from the Battle of Lake Erie and what he actually said was...
"We have met the enemy and they are ours."
You have the historic quote, but the one Carlos put up is closer to the one from Pogo, IIRC late '30s early '40s.
Which are what, exactly?
I only ask because over the past year I've been involved in a project that HK sees as promoting its guns primarily towards the civilian market, as well as watching the huge battles they've been fighting with the German government to provide a civilian version of their much-coveted 416 rifles. I also consider the president of HK-USA a personal friend of many years and know for a fact that he is very much a proponent of Americans' Second Amendment rights.
Todd last year at shot they HK turned down a large order from a local SRT team because among all there order they requested a variant of one of the guns that sounded to much like it was for civilian use the spent there money elsewere
I called them with failures of several new gen II mags out of the wrapper they told me impossible and i was doing something wrong after a lot of calls i shit i got it handled
Todd last year at shot they HK turned down a large order from a local SRT team because among all there order they requested a variant of one of the guns that sounded to much like it was for civilian use the spent there money elsewere
I called them with failures of several new gen II mags out of the wrapper they told me impossible and i was doing something wrong after a lot of calls i shit i got it handled
I'm not even going to get into the HK political debate. It's a long winded discussion that probably exceed 5 pages of posts and nothing will be accomplished. :rolleyes:
That being said, I consider HK firearms to be some of the best if not THE best firearms in the world.
Maybe they are still angry over the Vepr deal and can't sue MOLOT ... This stuff is getting old....:rolleyes: I hope the cost of this puts them out of business.
....only that the bolt release is almost an exact copy of the XCR? Patents take years to be finalized from the date of filing. Even if RA was not the first to come up with these designs, they put forth the time and money to have the designs patented. However, at least in the case of the bolt release RA build that design on the M96 long before the Masada was even a glimmer in someones brain. From my understanding, a patent filed in 2002 and isn't finalized until 2009, is backdated to the date of filing. This means that anything made after 2002 is a patent infringment on RA. Magpul could have easily looked up patents pending on the XCR design and decided to go the safe route and avoid this.
These companies will have to prove that the XCR designs that RA patented were actually hardcopied prior to RA's patent filing. Anything short of engineering schematics or a dated autocad and I'm betting Remington will have to change the ACR design a bit or pay royalties to RA to keep the design.
Nothing I said disagrees with what you wrote. I was trying to point out that it is not necessary for Magpul to have copied RA to be infringing. Obviously if they did copy it that is also infringing.
did not say you did :)
Was simply clarifying for those who came later ;)
I just said that I did not know if that followed that that was indicative of playing loose with design and patents. Lots of successful companies get sued. Sometimes it is legitimate playing loose and copying. Lots of times though it is just bad luck. You come up with something a little later than someone else and don't do the due diligence you should have. So I am not sure it raises any questions that Magpul gets sued in relatively close succession 3 times. Successful companies tend to attract lawsuits.
Some things, yeah, ish happens and you didn't see the patent. I know I'd get a headache looking at patents all day. Other things are a little more obvious.
Exactly. SHOT. Try and take the wind out of someone elses sails. Rain on their parade. Use that as leverage.
If so, well, that sucks. Whether or not this is the case doesn't change my opinion on RobArms, my money will still go elsewhere.
SHOT is going to suck for Robarms. This is going to have a big negative affect on sales. From now on when the XCR is mentioned on the internet it will be followed by very negative comments about the company. It doesn't matter if it is true or not. Any potential new customers will only see negative and spend their money elsewhere. Bad move...
Jeremy
SHOT is going to suck for Robarms. This is going to have a big negative affect on sales. From now on when the XCR is mentioned on the internet it will be followed by very negative comments about the company. It doesn't matter if it is true or not. Any potential new customers will only see negative and spend their money elsewhere. Bad move...
Stocking dealers won't give a flying fark what the dramaweb is worried about at SHOT. But the long term ramifications are certainly there for word of mouth/internet sales.
I was talking about long term. It doesn't really matter what dealers have if no one buys them. The XCR is not widely known, and this will not help. I have been to many shops and gun shows and have never seen one. At one time I was actively looking for one. I'm just saying from now on the XCR will have negative baggage attached to it. If your not liked on the net the negativity will always be associated with your product.
Jeremy
SHOT is going to suck for Robarms. This is going to have a big negative affect on sales. From now on when the XCR is mentioned on the internet it will be followed by very negative comments about the company. It doesn't matter if it is true or not. Any potential new customers will only see negative and spend their money elsewhere. Bad move...
I think this is a good point. Public perception, at all levels, is a HUGE part of marketing and brand name. Not only do you have to be concerned with your product being well thought of in general, but also the opinions of your company officers on political issues, what public figures endorse or denounce your products, etc. but you also have to take into account the response a buyer gets when he shows his buddies his new toy. "Hey guys, look at this new XCR I bought!" "oh, yeah, those guys are dicks they sued Magpul". It's the same reason the Chart gets such a reaction from some people; it makes them feel like the public perception of their purchase is bad.
I'm not a firearms engineer, I'm not a patent attorney, and I don't know what went on leading up to this filing. I am, however, an educated consumer with a long memory, and very strong opinions about products and companies and I am not shy about speaking my mind. And there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, like me. That has to play a part in what a company decides is the best course of action for them in a situation like this. The fact that I have almost no interest in buying an ACR and even less in the XCR matters not.
My opinion is that regardless of engineering or legal knowledge, how Robarms handled this leading up to the filing is important. If they contact Remington/Magpul/Bushmaster/Cerberus/whoever and tried to resolve the situation first then I have slightly more sympathy. If they did the bitch move and just ran to get their patent filed so that they could then run to file their lawsuit, because they know where the deep pockets are. Well then, my opinion is "**** 'em", regardless of whether they were right in principal to begin with or not.
If they did the bitch move and just ran to get their patent filed so that they could then run to file their lawsuit, because they know where the deep pockets are. Well then, my opinion is "**** 'em", regardless of whether they were right in principal to begin with or not.
They filed/applied for the patent in 2003.
Any chance that RobArms will pursue royalities vs. a design change?? Get a piece of every gun sold?
Let's look at this from a common sense standpoint guys:
1) There is no reason to STOP production of the ACR, and certainly no dog for RA. It makes FAAAR more sense that RA would seek liscencing rights for the ACR's use of patented technology.
1[A]) How much you wanna bet that RA will be releasing their XCR-M this week? You think this press wont be the talk of the show??? Friggin GENIUS I tell ya.
2) Magpul had access to the patent pending application when they designed the ACR, they and bushmaster have subsequently had even more time to look at that application and choose to re-design the rifle and test it properly. FURTHER they've had since October when the patent was issued to yet again change course ... THEY CHOSE NOT TO AT EVERY TURN!!!
3) If RA wanted to stop ACR release they could have filed for an injunction at the time they filed suit. They did not.
4) There are THREE people suing magpul over the ACR designs????
5) common sense dictates that a protracted legal battle is expensive for both parties. It's a battle of give and take and posturing. RA will seek to put themselves in as strong a position as they can so they can get what they really want. Ideally they will settle before trial, but it's going to be at least a YEAR before they get to that point.
IF IT WERE ME suing Magpul, i'd go for liscencing rights, and I wouldnt ask for an injunction until after a bunch of the ACR's had been sold and demand was high. Id' do whatever I could to get them to settle quickly and for what I really wanted.
THE FACT of the matter is that if you want someone to play ball legally you have to treat them like an amoeba. Pain or Food or both. That is the ONLY thing the legal system responds to.
RA will have to use both here if they are going to succeed. So is magpulremingtonbushmaster.
For the record, I just went thru a similar process with my business, so it's still REAL fresh in my mind.
p.s. I can tell you that this wont hurt sales either. all these XCR fence sitters who claim to be "interested before this... but not now", are NO LOSS to RA whatsoever. you weren't gonna buy anyway and we all know it. This just gives you more fodder to whine about how bad RA is etc. etc. OH BTW, you are gonna sit there and tell me how much better Obama is than Romney right? THATS where your gonna go?
Plus you have people that just won't forget that Alex gave his support for Mitt Romney during the primary elections! Romeny wasn't exactly pro gun. That hasn't helped him. Some people will not buy his products for that reason. Shot show coming up and all the news about the ACR isn't exactly good timing. Or is it? Plus after reading this http://soldiersystems.net/2010/01/15/robinson-arms-sues-remington-bushmaster-rra-and-magpul/ How come he re-applied the patent that was initially filed in August of 2003? Now 6 yrs later again on Oct-6-09?
I guess when your sales start to slump, it's time to sue, right?
:rolleyes:
Well you know the old joke,
When a competitor builds a better product:
A) Japanese companies put 100 engineers on it and make a better one.
B) American companies put 100 lawyers on it and get it taken off the market.
Plus you have people that just won't forget that Alex gave his support for Mitt Romney during the primary elections! Romeny wasn't exactly pro gun. That hasn't helped him. Some people will not buy his products for that reason. Shot show coming up and all the news about the ACR isn't exactly good timing. Or is it? Plus after reading this http://soldiersystems.net/2010/01/15/robinson-arms-sues-remington-bushmaster-rra-and-magpul/ How come he reapplied the patent that was initially filed in August of 2003? Now 6 yrs later again on Oct-6-09?
"Reapplied"?
Stocking dealers won't give a flying fark what the dramaweb is worried about at SHOT.
As a Stocking Dealer I can tel you it really sucks to have a large stock of a product that has fallen out of favor with the consumer. Thus paying attention to consumer trends is very important. Robinson guns are already low-demand items, and with new, long awaited items such as HK/MR556 and Bush/ACR coming to market, I would expect them to be even lower. And now this will lower demand even more.
Plus you have people that just won't forget that Alex gave his support for Mitt Romney during the primary elections! Romeny wasn't exactly pro gun. That hasn't helped him. Some people will not buy his products for that reason. Shot show coming up and all the news about the ACR isn't exactly good timing. Or is it? Plus after reading this http://soldiersystems.net/2010/01/15/robinson-arms-sues-remington-bushmaster-rra-and-magpul/ How come he re-applied the patent that was initially filed in August of 2003? Now 6 yrs later again on Oct-6-09?
Given the "LIKELY" Republican candidates who could actually win the election.......would you have rather have had McCain or Romney(given those choices, I'd take Romney). Huckabee would have been nice, but he didn't have a prayer to win.
I think Robinson Arms just shot themselves in the foot.
I think Robinson Arms just shot themselves in the foot.
I think your right!
I think you need to ask the simple question here.... WHO is the AGGRESSOR? the thief or the one who sues to recover damages?
I think you need to ask the simple question here.... WHO is the AGGRESSOR? the thief or the one who sues to recover damages?
and I think we need to ask how many XCRs you already own as your bias appears to be showing. ;)
rubberneck
01-16-10, 10:39
This is going to be the key issue in court, I believe. The Robinson Arms patent supposedly being infringed upon was issued in Oct 09, long after the Magpul and RRA weapons had been developed. Robinson Arms will most likely have to prove that Magpul and RRA stole the design in one way or another while it was in development...
Personally, I don't think this is going to go anywhere.
You do realize that the patent process is quite long? You don't apply for a patent and then get one six months later. That is why you see pat pending stamped on products sometimes for a couple years before the actual patent is issued. The patent was issued in 2009 but the process started long before that date and if they were the first to develop that feature they are entitled to defend their intellectual property.
Frankly I have read a bunch of retarded nonsense in this thread. Apparently it is inappropriate to defend the hard working hard and resources that go into developing a unique feature or product, and it even less so if you are a fanboy of the company being sued. :rolleyes:
I think Robinson Arms just shot themselves in the foot.
I agree, but I think it could be more of a head shot.... Any interest I had in a XCR is gone!
Does anyone know where to find Magpul/Remington/Bushmaster's patent for the Masada/ACR? Or RRA's for their rifle? Or, for that matter, KAC's for the SR-15 E3 IWS to see why they're not mentioned in the suit?
-B
Frankly I have read a bunch of retarded nonsense in this thread. Apparently it is inappropriate to defend the hard working hard and resources that go into developing a unique feature or product, and it even less so if you are a fanboy of the company being sued. :rolleyes:
Like I said.....we've got a lot of ACR coveters and Magpul fanboys that are throwing a hissy fit when a free market capitalist system is working. I guarentee you if Magpul was sueing RA you'd see very different opinions.
Most likely I too will dish out the cash for a ACR when it hits the market......although I'm not as excited after I found out it weights almost 8.5lbs, will come with a 1:9 twist barrel, and new projected MSRP will be $2300. I'll probably just get the SCAR......we'll see.
.....that being said, my XCR has a lot of Magpul parts on it. :D They make great products.
variablebinary
01-16-10, 10:50
If they did the bitch move and just ran to get their patent filed so that they could then run to file their lawsuit, because they know where the deep pockets are.
Yeah, those bastards, they ran to get their patent approved in 2003. Bitches, real sneaky. They should have put a patent app in 1993. :rolleyes:
rubberneck
01-16-10, 10:54
Does anyone know where to find Magpul/Remington/Bushmaster's patent for the Masada/ACR? Or RRA's for their rifle? Or, for that matter, KAC's for the SR-15 E3 IWS to see why they're not mentioned in the suit?
-B
Is the bolt release/hold open device and mag release on the SR-15 IWS operable by the trigger finger from inside the trigger guard? I have never seen one in person but looking at the pictures it doesn't appear so. If it doesn't than why would Robarms sue them over a patent infringment?
variablebinary
01-16-10, 10:58
Does anyone know where to find Magpul/Remington/Bushmaster's patent for the Masada/ACR? Or RRA's for their rifle? Or, for that matter, KAC's for the SR-15 E3 IWS to see why they're not mentioned in the suit?
-B
The issue is the bolt catch design, and the engineering geometry of the mag release and bolt catch design. The patent clearly states that robarm invented the ambi bolt release that flanks the trigger guard, and resides under the mag release allowing the shooter to reload the weapon without altering his grip.
KAC doesnt feature this design, so why would they be a factor?
RRA and Magpul do feature this design, and Robarm believes it infringes on their patent.
And I notice not a single person is able to give an example of a "prior art" that features this design, besides the Robinson M96.
I challenge anyone on this forum to name a gun that features Robarm's ambi, trigger flanking bolt catch design prior to the M96 which was around before the BAR, ACR and Massoud.
Yeah, those bastards, they ran to get their patent approved in 2003. Bitches, real sneaky. They should have put a patent app in 1993. :rolleyes:
It sure looks like a company that was on its way out of business and is looking for some quick capital via a fast settlement. Not sure how a company can stay afloat with so little product that people actually want to spend money on. I have looked at an XCR at a shop for almost a YEAR and its still not sold...
How many of those awesome M96 did they sell? I think I have only seen one posted here by Variable....
Looks like Rob might disappear just like the Vepr.... Sad because at least the Vepr was a great rifle, wish I could say the same about Rob. Those cranks wont even return a phone call in reference to a Vepr....
I hope the big boys don't settle and drag it out until they go bankrupt.
The issue is the bolt catch design, and the engineering geometry of the mag release and bolt catch design. The patent clearly states that robarm invented the ambi bolt release that flanks the trigger guard, and resides under the mag release allowing the shooter to reload the weapon without altering his grip.
KAC doesnt feature this design, so why would they be a factor?
The bolt catch isn't the only feature of the patent, though. I'm reading about the mag release specifically. If you have zoomed-in pictures of the ambi SR-15 so you could only see the mag release, and read the description of the aforementioned patent, it would look like a matching picture/description. If the bolt catch was the only feature of the patent then I could see why KAC was not involved. Since it's pretty clear reading that nice long patent that the bolt catch is not the sole feature being patented, I still fail to see why KAC would not be involved.
Disclaimer: I'm not a legal expert, and I'm not emotionally or financially tied to any of these companies. I am about consistency, though, and to the best of my [limited] knowledge it looks like RobArms is being selective about alleged which patent infringements they're willing to take on.
-B
Yeah, those bastards, they ran to get their patent approved in 2003. Bitches, real sneaky. They should have put a patent app in 1993. :rolleyes:
I said "if". I was operating on the information I had from the thread at the time. And IF you're correct, it makes the timing even more suspect, albeit tactically a good idea.
IMHO Robarms wants a check and nothing more. Cerberus will buy them off and this whole thing will go away.
As posted prior, discussing this with you, and jack-o too evidently, is well beyond pointless. To say that you come loaded to the hilt with bias is probably one of the great understatements of the century.
The issue is the bolt catch design, and the engineering geometry of the mag release and bolt catch design. The patent clearly states that robarm invented the ambi bolt release that flanks the trigger guard, and resides under the mag release allowing the shooter to reload the weapon without altering his grip.
KAC doesnt feature this design, so why would they be a factor?
RRA and Magpul do feature this design, and Robarm believes it infringes on their patent.
And I notice not a single person is able to give an example of a "prior art" that features this design, besides the Robinson M96.
I challenge anyone on this forum to name a gun that features Robarm's ambi, trigger flanking bolt catch design prior to the M96 which was around before the BAR, ACR and Massoud.
If it's such a great weapon and design, then why didn't anybody buy them?
anyone know what name Robarms uses in ATF records? Can't find them listed here.
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/download/afmer/2008-firearms-manufacturers-export-report.pdf
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/gun%20stuff/ATFUtah.jpg
rubberneck
01-16-10, 11:11
Disclaimer: I'm not a legal expert, and I'm not emotionally or financially tied to any of these companies. I am about consistency, though, and to the best of my [limited] knowledge it looks like RobArms is being selective about which patent infringements they're willing to take on.
-B
Unlike you, Robarms obviously employs intellectual property lawyers who have looked at the KAC product and determined that it either didn't violate their patent or the design was different enough that they weren't likely to prevail in court. The idea that Robarms is gunning for RRA and Bushmaster while being willing to let KAC off the hook is bizarre. No good intellectual property attorney would allow their client to do that.
Mine in bold
I said "if". I was operating on the information I had from the thread at the time. And IF you're correct, it makes the timing even more suspect, albeit tactically a good idea.
IMHO Robarms wants a check and nothing more. Cerberus will buy them off and this whole thing will go away.
I agree. This is the most likely scenario.... Liscencing rights and a cut of the action
As posted prior, discussing this with you, and jack-o too evidently, is well beyond pointless. To say that you come loaded to the hilt with bias is probably one of the great understatements of the century.
If you cant address the message, attack the messenger right? It's not about stealing, it's about what gun I own?:rolleyes: Cmon rob, you can do better than that.
p.s. IIRC RA goes under ZDF something. it shows they made 959 rifles in 2008
variablebinary
01-16-10, 11:18
Mine in bold
Notice all these people who are quick to jump on Robarm still cant name a prior art example that would nullify Robarm's patent claim...
Well there is a prior art. It's called the M96
I think you need to ask the simple question here.... WHO is the AGGRESSOR? the thief or the one who sues to recover damages?
So someone is a 'thief' for introducing the ability to change barrels? The ability to release the bolt catch with either hand on the controls? I'm sorry, but you've got to be shitting me. It's the natural evolution of weapons. If we're going to let people have monopolies on the very simplest ideas we'd have one single manufacturer for each object on the planet. Who came up with the t-shirt? Or, let's say for something more directly correlatable, the venting zippers in soft shell jackets. A clever idea, to be sure, but every soft shell manufacturer does this now. Because it just makes sense. At this rate that guy or his descendants ought to be suing left and right and his entire estate should be getting 'venting zipper royalties'.
At some point you just have to recognize how utterly ridiculous IP laws are when taken to absurd extremes.
I said "if". I was operating on the information I had from the thread at the time. And IF you're correct, it makes the timing even more suspect, albeit tactically a good idea.
IMHO Robarms wants a check and nothing more. Cerberus will buy them off and this whole thing will go away.
As posted prior, discussing this with you, and jack-o too evidently, is well beyond pointless. To say that you come loaded to the hilt with bias is probably one of the great understatements of the century.
I don't own an XCR and don't like Robinson. I find many XCR fans annoying.
But I do feel that RobArms has the right to defend their intellectual property...
And this is not the only lawsuit Magpul is facing at the moment.
For what it is worth, I do defend Magpul when I think it's warranted...link to arfcom (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=17&t=475577)
Thomas M-4
01-16-10, 11:21
There sure are alot of bent dick ACR fan boys screaming over this :rolleyes:.
Firearms design is incremental meaning combining proven features from one or more design's with one or two new features to push the evolution of the design.
I am not a XCR fan boy hell I have never seen one in person. I have 2 good friends waiting on the ACR . Maybe RA has a case and should receive royalties if it is found out that there was an infringement on the patent. Unfortunately RA may have under estimated the bad press in the long run from suing over the ACR because of the big fan base for this rifle.
The timing part Alot of lawyers will tell there clients to wait to the last minute so that the case will have to go to court. So no surprise to me here.
But I do feel that RobArms has the right to defend their intellectual property...
I do too. Don't misunderstand. However I don't think that anyone in this thread so far is actually qualified to discuss that aspect.
Just because you're right doesn't mean there's not a right and a wrong way to handle something, and that aspect is totally subjective.
I deal with companies with claims against my company on a weekly basis in my profession. I know which ones get serviced and which ones don't, and I know which ones get paid quickly and which ones get dragged out. Having a certified letter show up at my office with zero prior notice? Yeah, oddly those payments tend to take awhile because they've now forced our hand and we have no choice but to react in kind. Giving me a call or coming by the office and trying to work things out? Much more likely to end in a resolution we are both happy with, and FAR cheaper for both of us.
Well there is a prior art. It's called the M96
And you have yet to say how many of these pieces of "art" they were able to sell.
I hope they treat you better than they treated their Vepr customers....
variablebinary
01-16-10, 11:33
And you have yet to say how many of these pieces of "art" they were able to sell.
I hope they treat you better than they treated their Vepr customers....
Do you even have any idea what you are talking about when it comes to the VEPR?
And I am still waiting for someone to name a product that uses the XCR bolt hold design, bolt hold location, and lower geometry prior to the M96
I have taken the time to read this and look at both sides. This is robarms claim for the patent violation:
The improved firearm also includes an ambidextrous magazine catch system for selectively retaining a magazine within a firearm. The magazine catch system includes a first button opposite a second button such that either button may be actuated by a user to release the magazine retained with the firearm.
This patent was grant Oct 6 2009.
Based on that claim they can sue any one who develops a rifle with ambidextrous mag release actuated from the trigger guard with out their permission.
Magpul has a patent for :The ornamental design for an automatic rifle, as shown and described. However that patent was issued on Dec 22 2009.
Remington, Bushmaster have no patent claim to ACR.
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out, Here is the link to the patent office for anyone who would like to search for there self.
http://patft.uspto.gov/.
rubberneck
01-16-10, 11:36
And you have yet to say how many of these pieces of "art" they were able to sell.
I hope they treat you better than they treated their Vepr customers....
What does that have to do with what is being discussed here? Who cares if they only managed to sell one or ten million. The point being made is that while the patent was issued in 2009 you can trace their intellectual property claim back at least 13 years.
Again, WTF does their lack of support/customer service for an imported product line have to do with this subject, other than to take a gratuitous cheap shot at Robarms? For the record, I do not own nor have I ever owned a product made by Robarms and I am not in any way shape or form a Robarms fanboy.
christ your needle is stuck again.
Do you even have any idea what you are talking about when it comes to the VEPR?
And I am still waiting for someone to name a product that uses the XCR bolt hold design, bolt hold location, and lower geometry prior to the M96
Yes, because you want someone to say "FAL" on the bolt hold so that you can then refute that argument. :rolleyes:
So here you go.
And I am still waiting for someone to name a product that uses the XCR bolt hold design, bolt hold location, and lower geometry prior to the M96
The FAL does.
Now, go ahead with your explanation you've just been dying to post and get it out of the way.
variablebinary
01-16-10, 11:40
christ your needle is stuck again.
Yes, because you want someone to say "FAL" on the bolt hold so that you can then refute that argument. :rolleyes:
So here you go.
The FAL does.
Now, go ahead with your explanation you've just been dying to post and get it out of the way.
FAL, or did you mean fail, as in failing to read the patent piece I posted earlier.
As shown, the magazine release 22 is disposed above a front portion of a trigger guard 29 on a side of the firearm. In this configuration, the magazine release 22 includes a first button 23 (as shown) that is accessible from this side of a firearm. In addition, the magazine release 22 includes a second button (not shown) that is accessible on the opposite side of the firearm. The bolt hold open control 24 extends along both sides of the front portion of the trigger guard 29 and therefore, may accessed on both sides of the firearm 10 . This positioning allows a user to easily actuate the magazine release 22 and the bolt hold open control 24 with a trigger finger of the user regardless of whether the user is right or left handed.
That sound like an FAL to you? What else you got, or are you just going to disregard the patent wording and say FAL again?
That's really all you have? After all that setup and anticipation I would have thought you'd have a whole powerpoint presentation ready to go with images and long descriptions, maybe some music.
Man, talk about "fail"...
rubberneck
01-16-10, 11:45
I do too. Don't misunderstand. However I don't think that anyone in this thread so far is actually qualified to discuss that aspect.
Just because you're right doesn't mean there's not a right and a wrong way to handle something, and that aspect is totally subjective.
I deal with companies with claims against my company on a weekly basis in my profession. I know which ones get serviced and which ones don't, and I know which ones get paid quickly and which ones get dragged out. Having a certified letter show up at my office with zero prior notice? Yeah, oddly those payments tend to take awhile because they've now forced our hand and we have no choice but to react in kind. Giving me a call or coming by the office and trying to work things out? Much more likely to end in a resolution we are both happy with, and FAR cheaper for both of us.
You seem to be implying that Robarms made no attempt to settle this issue other than to bring suit and in some way in the wrong for the way it was handled. Based on what is public knowledge about this suit there is no way anyone could reach that conclusion in good faith. That's not to say it didn't happen that way but you can't reach that conclusion without making a bunch of assumptions.
ROFLMAO... that little exchange was kinda funny. You guys slay me.
OK, now hug it out bitches.
variablebinary
01-16-10, 11:46
That's really all you have? After all that setup and anticipation I would have thought you'd have a whole powerpoint presentation ready to go with images and long descriptions, maybe some music.
Man, talk about "fail"...
So you cant name prior art?
Anyone else?
I have looked at an XCR at a shop for almost a YEAR and its still not sold...
I have looked at the same SCAR on a shelf for about a year. Benelli M4 on the shelf for about a year and a half. :rolleyes:
Once the price on that SCAR gets low enough.....it will be mine!
Do you even have any idea what you are talking about when it comes to the VEPR?
And I am still waiting for someone to name a product that uses the XCR bolt hold design, bolt hold location, and lower geometry prior to the M96
Hmm,
Nope not a thing... MOLOT, nope not a thing... Nationalizing a factory, nope... Refusing to export at a certain price, nope not a thing...
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/d90king/DSCN1006.jpg
You seem to be implying that Robarms made no attempt to settle this issue other than to bring suit and in some way in the wrong for the way it was handled. Based on what is public knowledge about this suit there is no way anyone could reach that conclusion in good faith. That's not to say it didn't happen that way but you can't reach that conclusion without making a bunch of assumptions.
Remember that "if" I mentioned before?
This all started because I said I would want to know how things went down before coming to any conclusions. I said "if" they did that then they did things the "bitch" way.
Someone mentioned ACR fans getting their dicks bent but man the XCR bunch are really on a tear with this.
Let me restate this plainly....
I am not an engineer specializing in firearms and am therefore not qualified to discuss the engineering aspect. Neither is anyone else in this thread that I've seen so far, and anyone that is would be keeping their mouth shut now thanks to the lawsuit.
I am not an attorney specializing in patent infringement and am therefore not qualified to discuss the legal aspect. Neither is anyone else that I've seen post so far.
IF the chain of events is what it appears/appeared to be (rushing to get the patent, waiting to file the lawsuit just before release, not contacting any of the players on the other side of the table before filing the lawsuit, etc.) THEN I think it was not only a bitch move but also counter-productive and stupid based on something I AM qualified to discuss and that is resolving disputes between my company and another party with a claim against us.
However, I wouldn't be buying an XCR anyway, and wouldn't be buying an ACR for quite a long while (like, years or even decades) to come. Which doesn't mean that I'm not entitled to my opinion. :p
What does that have to do with what is being discussed here? Who cares if they only managed to sell one or ten million. The point being made is that while the patent was issued in 2009 you can trace their intellectual property claim back at least 13 years.
Again, WTF does their lack of support/customer service for an imported product line have to do with this subject, other than to take a gratuitous cheap shot at Robarms? For the record, I do not own nor have I ever owned a product made by Robarms and I am not in any way shape or form a Robarms fanboy.
It has a lot to do with it, as it shows the integrity of a company and how they treat past customers. Just because they got f''d doesn't mean they should ignore the customers that they HAD. Good businesses are there as much after the sale, as they are before and during the sale.
Customer service can make or break small companies. In this case it has broken a company. You can only ignore customers for so long before they say F you! I don't care that they got screwed with the Vepr deal, I only care about how they treat all the people who bought them and now cant even get an email or phone call returned to answer a question....
I have looked at the same SCAR on a shelf for about a year. Benelli M4 on the shelf for about a year and a half. :rolleyes:
Once the price on that SCAR gets low enough.....it will be mine!
Exactly. If you put it on the money that the current market will bear, it will sell. The difference with the SCAR is that people actually want one....
Sometimes as a business owner you have to lose money or middle your cost to sell things that have depreciated since you invested in them. Sadly many business owners aren't smart enough to do this, and they sit on bad inventory for a long time waiting for that one sucker...
Boy there are a lot of bitches, and especially on the XCR side. A lot of you really don't know how all this works either legally or business wise. I'm not a lawyer, but I am a CIO/CSO for a national firm responsible for information, technology, digital security, physical security, facilities, and all corporate intellectual property.
First: Filing date doesn't really matter. It's first to INVENT in this country, NOT first to file.
Second: It's pretty common for small firms, less successful to try to get wealthier of this sort of litigation using their IP. They may have made the conscious decision to be assholes. That's OK, that's part of business. they may have realized that the XCR never sold very well, and it'll probably sell less well with weapons like SCAR, ACR, etc on the market. They may have even realized that it's likely the end of the road for real high-volume of sales for the XCR. So the only outlet is to recoup and gain money through litigation. Is it jackassery? Sure. But it's not a bad strategy, or may be the only strategy. And yeah, it may damage their brand to the point where they're solely relying on the litigation. Anyone here hear of SCO?
Third: It's almost impossible to build anything these days without stepping on someone's patent. It's now the price of doing business. Especially because of douchebag patent trolls who patent all sorts of things that are not particularly original or novel inventions for the sole purpose of patent trolling. I don't think this is the case for XCR, but again, you're gonna need lawyers when you invent something big.
Fourth: Remington and Bushmaster (less so, but also true of Magpul) have been in the inventing shit (either minor or major) business for years. It's likely that they knew about this patent and believe that they need to roll forward thinking one or more of the following:
-- We may be able to litigate this patent out of existence
-- We may be able to invalidate this patent.
-- It'll take forever for this to mean anything to us, and by then it won't mean much.
-- We may be able to settle something.
They're both playing the business/legal/patent strategy game. I personally also think that Robinson may have shot themselves in the foot. SCO became one of the most reviled corporations in the US doing what they did. Robinson may have more standing for injury, but they need to realize that this is probably hail mary for them.
While I say these are good business strategies, that doesn't mean I like them.
rubberneck
01-16-10, 12:19
It has a lot to do with it, as it shows the integrity of a company and how they treat past customers. Just because they got f''d doesn't mean they should ignore the customers that they HAD. Good businesses are there as much after the sale, as they are before and during the sale.
Customer service can make or break small companies. In this case it has broken a company. You can only ignore customers for so long before they say F you! I don't care that they got screwed with the Vepr deal, I only care about how they treat all the people who bought them and now cant even get an email or phone call returned to answer a question....
So if a company screws the pooch and treats some customers poorly they have no right to try and protect their intellectual property? I see your point.:rolleyes:
Jeebus Rubberneck, stop with the strawman arguments. So you got your panties tied up. Sure they can sue to protect their property.
The rest of us can decide to not buy their stuff.
Noops
So if a company screws the pooch and treats some customers poorly they have no right to try and protect their intellectual property? I see your point.:rolleyes:
If they screw customers in my book, I think they deserve the same in return... But what do I know I'm just a stupid customer.:rolleyes:
This is nothing more than a desperate cry for needed capital IMHO.
Who needs Gun Control. Between companies like ARMS and RA every good firearms company will be ground under by the weight of litigation.
In fact I think I will follow ARMS method and go patent every vague term I can. Maybe the letters X C and R.
I did some more digging it appears that the lower receiver for the masada received its patent on September 22, 2009 .
Boy there are a lot of bitches, and especially on the XCR side. A lot of you really don't know how all this works either legally or business wise. I'm not a lawyer, but I am a CIO/CSO for a national firm responsible for information, technology, digital security, physical security, facilities, and all corporate intellectual property.
First: Filing date doesn't really matter. It's first to INVENT in this country, NOT first to file.
Second: It's pretty common for small firms, less successful to try to get wealthier of this sort of litigation using their IP. They may have made the conscious decision to be assholes. That's OK, that's part of business. they may have realized that the XCR never sold very well, and it'll probably sell less well with weapons like SCAR, ACR, etc on the market. They may have even realized that it's likely the end of the road for real high-volume of sales for the XCR. So the only outlet is to recoup and gain money through litigation. Is it jackassery? Sure. But it's not a bad strategy, or may be the only strategy. And yeah, it may damage their brand to the point where they're solely relying on the litigation. Anyone here hear of SCO?
Third: It's almost impossible to build anything these days without stepping on someone's patent. It's now the price of doing business. Especially because of douchebag patent trolls who patent all sorts of things that are not particularly original or novel inventions for the sole purpose of patent trolling. I don't think this is the case for XCR, but again, you're gonna need lawyers when you invent something big.
Fourth: Remington and Bushmaster (less so, but also true of Magpul) have been in the inventing shit (either minor or major) business for years. It's likely that they knew about this patent and believe that they need to roll forward thinking one or more of the following:
-- We may be able to litigate this patent out of existence
-- We may be able to invalidate this patent.
-- It'll take forever for this to mean anything to us, and by then it won't mean much.
-- We may be able to settle something.
They're both playing the business/legal/patent strategy game. I personally also think that Robinson may have shot themselves in the foot. SCO became one of the most reviled corporations in the US doing what they did. Robinson may have more standing for injury, but they need to realize that this is probably hail mary for them.
While I say these are good business strategies, that doesn't mean I like them.
Excellent post, and more than likely spot on.
I have no dog in this fight. I have known of Robinson since the M96 and the debacle that was, as well as the Vepr. Alex Robinson used to actually participate in the forums back in the day, until he just got tired of people getting fed up with the lack of support and customer service he was providing.
I applaud any company willing to put their balls on the line to develop and bring to market a new system in these politically and legislatively trying times, but unfortunately, Robarms just never was able to pull it all together, and now, they're doing what they can to survive, and it will probably ultimately put one more nail in their coffin.
OK Just to recap so far
d90king = if a company stops selling a product because the manufacturer wont import it anymore, then said company has bad customer service.
d90king = even if above company will still service and repair firearm they sold before manufacturer stopped importing.... THAT equals bad customer service.
d90king = because my feelings were hurt by above two situations RA deserves to have thier property stolen without compensation
RobS = IF robinson acted like a bitch THEN **** em and their rights... even if they had their stuff stolen.
Variablebinary = I like ART. show me your MFing ART!!!
Jack-O = Patents are issued ONLY for new ideas and technology... Things that significantly improve on another idea or technology.
If someone uses an idea from another person, they either have to ask that person for permission, or can deal with it in court. Seems to me like ASKING is the manly and professional way to do shit, whereas stealing and hoping for a chickenshit court ruling is lame. I also like popcorn. I make it in a pan.
rubberneck - RA may be lame, but they still have a right to thier property.
FOR THE RECORD:
I do own an XCR (just one). my first one broke and had to be replaced. I have had problems with my specific gun, but they were ALL worked out thru RA's customer service process in a timely and painless manner. It's RA's customer service AND the excellent design that is keeping me from bailing on the system.
-yes the timing of this suit is strategic
-NO, I dont like legal wrangling. it's chickenshit.... but sometimes it's needed.
-yes this will give more fodder for RA haters, but who cares. they arent customers anyway.
-no this wont scare customers away.
-if you want to know if RA still supports the VEPR and M96 for repairs, simply call and ask for Terra. dont listen to the commenters here. find out for yourself. (801) 355-0401 THINGS HAVE CHANGED WITH CUSTOMER SERVICE AT RA SINCE THE BAD OLD DAYS
-Real patriotic Americans understand that if we dont stand up for the rights of the "bad guys" then OUR rights are lost as well. everyone else is a hypocrite.
and finally a quote from me... "those who proclaim their rights the loudest, will be the first in line to take yours"
If it's such a great weapon and design, then why didn't anybody buy them?
Good question.
Actually it should read-If it's such a great weapon and design, then why aren't people buying them up?
Moose-Knuckle
01-16-10, 13:23
Right or wrong Magpul has legions of devote customers, Rob Arms does not. This was timed right before the highly anticipated release of the ACR. Coincidence? I think not, Robinson is clearly trying to prevent and or delay the release of yet another platform that will dominate the market. This just goes to show how they view the ACR as a threat. This is a suicidal public relations move for Robinson Armament. They will maintain their loyal XCR customer base and that will be about it for US sales.
variablebinary
01-16-10, 13:28
I did some more digging it appears that the lower receiver for the masada received its patent on September 22, 2009 .
I've seen that patent. It's toothless. Literally. There is no functionally verbiage to it.
Read it for yourself: D600,771
So either Magpul wanted to solely protect the likeness of the ACR lower, or they wanted something the examiner could approve fast for whatever reason.
This is the entire content of the patent
FIG. 1 is a rear plan view of the lower receiver for a firearm.
FIG. 2 is a front plan view of the lower receiver for a firearm.
FIG. 3 is a right/top/rear perspective view of the lower receiver for a firearm.
FIG. 4 is a left plan view of the lower receiver for a firearm.
FIG. 5 is a right plan view of the lower receiver for a firearm.
FIG. 6 is a top plan view of the lower receiver for a firearm.
FIG. 7 is a bottom plan view of the lower receiver for a firearm.
FIG. 8 is a left/top/front perspective view of the lower receiver for a firearm.
FIG. 9 is a left/top/rear perspective view of the lower receiver for a firearm.
FIG. 10 is a left/bottom/rear perspective view of the lower receiver for a firearm.
FIG. 11 is a right/bottom/rear perspective view of the lower receiver for a firearm.
FIG. 12 is a right/bottom/rear perspective view of the lower receiver for a firearm.
FIG. 13 is a left/bottom/front perspective view of the lower receiver for a firearm; and,
FIG. 14 is a right/top/front perspective view of the lower receiver for a firearm.
The broken line showing of portions of the lower receiver for a firearm in all figures is included for the purpose of illustrating environment and forms no part of the claimed design.
And lastly
XCR design. Patented
http://home.comcast.net/~firearmspics/xcrbho6.jpg
ACR design. Eerily similar, which is odd considering the XCR is the only gun in the history of firearms with this control layout
http://home.comcast.net/~firearmspics/ACR1.jpg
Oh its exactly like an FAL. Notice the magazine release, and the ambi bolt release flanking the trigger guard. Oh wait...not quite
http://www.a-human-right.com/FAL/fal-left.JPG
Right or wrong Magpul has legions of devote customers, Rob Arms does not. This was timed right before the highly anticipated release of the ACR. Coincidence? I think not, Robinson is clearly trying to prevent and or delay the release of yet another platform that will dominate the market. This just goes to show how they view the ACR as a threat. This is a suicidal public relations move for Robinson Armament. They will maintain their loyal XCR customer base and that will be about it for US sales.
Very true. It is the perfect example of a company with no understanding of the modern business world. Customer loyalty and retention is everything, followed closely by not pissing off potential customers. Looks like they fail at both.
Robinson Arms doesn't Have a leg to stand on since Magpul has there own patent for Acr which was issued before Robinson's.
You obiviously didn't look at the blueprints. The patent was granted based on the blueprints. To bad for Robarms. You stated that you read the patent but you failed to mention that Robinson's patent was referenced in the granting of Magpul's patent.
SWATcop556
01-16-10, 13:40
Man it's getting deep in here.........where the hell did I put my boots?
Newest Magpul DVD: The Art of the Tactical Lawyer
FWIW if RA would just do what ARMS likes to do and patents "XCR" then they have them dead to rights on two infingements for the "C" and the "R"
I choose to support with my money and not by swinging my dick on the Internet. Too much bitching for me. I'm going back to the AR and Handgun threads. :cool:
variablebinary
01-16-10, 13:40
Robinson Arms doesn't Have a leg to stand on since Magpul has there own patent for Acr which was issued before Robinson's.
Magpul better have a time machine that takes them back to 2003, because the M96 design was patent pending before the ACR dropped in 2006, or had a patent app in 2008
Magpul better have a time machine that takes them back to 2003, because the M96 design was patent pending before the ACR dropped in 2006, or had a patent app in 2008
Patent pending means just that, Patent pending. no patent issued. I think the horse is dead. Time to move on.
Thomas M-4
01-16-10, 13:48
You obiviously didn't look at the blueprints. The patent was granted based on the blueprints. To bad for Robarms. You stated that you read the patent but you failed to mention that Robinson's patent was referenced in the granting of Magpul's patent.
Blue prints thats just to keep some one from making an exact copy.:rolleyes:
OK Just to recap so far
[QUOTE]d90king = if a company stops selling a product because the manufacturer wont import it anymore, then said company has bad customer service.
No the problem is when they stop servicing the customers who bought their product before the deal went bad. That is bad CS
d90king = even if above company will still service and repair firearm they sold before manufacturer stopped importing.... THAT equals bad customer service.
Try and email them with Vepr question in your header and let me know if they ever respond. Once again that is bad CS.
d90king = because my feelings were hurt by above two situations RA deserves to have thier property stolen without compensation
I have never said that and I have never had my feelings hurt because of a firearm... I will simply say life is a round ball though... Karma is a bitch...
I have never said that and I have never had my feelings hurt because of a firearm... I will simply say life is a round ball though... Karma is a bitch...
So you're saying that some disgruntled VEPR owners worked for Magpul and decided to steel RA's design to "stick it to the man!"?
So you're saying that some disgruntled VEPR owners worked for Magpul and decided to steel RA's design to "stick it to the man!"?
:confused: Yeah thats what I said...:rolleyes:
What I said, is that when you don't take care of the customers you already have and don't run your business with CS as your first priority, many times that will be your companies downfall.
If you really think that MP had to steal their design... I would simply politely disagree that they need to do that in order to design a weapon...
With that said, I am done with this silly discussion. I hope MP and the rest of the bunch simply spend them out of business in court and don't settle.
Like I said, I think this is a company looking for a capital infusion that they don't deserve.
variablebinary
01-16-10, 14:32
Like I said, I think this is a company looking for a capital infusion that they don't deserve.
Someone violates your patent, you deserve compensation, period.
Someone violates your patent, you deserve compensation, period.
The courts will decide what they deserve and I really hope they don't settle just to avoid the aggravation.
Beating a dead horse is fun.
Someone violates your patent, you deserve compensation, period.
While you may be right and he may have been technically incorrect in overlooking what you just said, I think you are missing the point, intentionally or otherwise, in what he was saying.
I think that this has outgrown the scope of the discussion. We will always choose sides no matter the argument. I think that we can all agree that there will always be disagreement when Group A disagrees with Group B. We have Magpul fans and we have Robinson Arms fans. When you take all of the politics, personal opinions, and fan boy B.S. out the equation what are we left with? A bunch of hurt feelings.
Companies will come and go. People will come and go as well. Lets not let this turn into something that reflects upon us as a whole. There are fantastic bunch of people here.
Best Regards, Charles
NCPatrolAR
01-16-10, 16:15
Dont mind me at all
rubberneck
01-16-10, 17:09
Jeebus Rubberneck, stop with the strawman arguments. So you got your panties tied up. Sure they can sue to protect their property.
The rest of us can decide to not buy their stuff.
Noops
Jesus dude do you even know what a strawman arguement is? I'll tell you what it isn't and that is asking a question to clarify an absurd point that another poster was trying to make. I am still wondering how their past customer service issues relate to the merits of their lawsuit.
BTW I am pretty sure that I have never suggested that anyone should give their business Robarms. Talk about a completely useless non sequitur.
EzGoingKev
01-16-10, 17:51
Here's my take on things.
Robinson Arms produces and sells some weapons and it did not go great for them and their customers. Issues with the weapons and awful customer support.
Then they develop the XCR and it had some issues in the beginning. Not saying it was a flawed design, but just stuff that came up over time that a small independent company might not have the resources to test.
Time goes by, company experiences surge in sales due to new model. Improvements are made to the rifle and the customer service aspect. Rifle fails to gain mainstream appeal like AR. Lack of enthusiasm of their product is partially due to their previous issues.
US military is looking for a rifle to fill a need, Robinson Arms enters but is DQ'd by some BS. Meanwhile the weapon that gets chosen is not only made outside the US but is basically that companies version of the XCR.
Robinson Arms rifle still fails to go mainstream while everybody and their brother is excited about the SCAR and the ACR.
Robinson Arms sees everyone else making out on their design and says WTF and sues.
1. If other companies have infringed upon their patent they are entitled to protect themselves and sue.
2. If other companies have NOT infringed on their patent, the suit will hurt their reputation in the firearms community.
Hopefully Robarms considered this carefully.
That said, I love my XCR.
http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/1282/p1003665sw8.jpg
It's a really well thought out platform and in many ways it's a lot more revolutionary than just throwing a polymer frame on an AR18 piston system and making the controls ambi.
IIRC the XCR was the first rifle to have the ability to change caliber (unless the Masada was actually first) and I think the monorail receiver was theirs before Colt came out with the 6940.
Off-topic: how do you like the light there Steyr? That looks somewhat awkward to manipulate.
-B
Todd last year at shot they HK turned down a large order from a local SRT team because among all there order they requested a variant of one of the guns that sounded to much like it was for civilian use the spent there money elsewere
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. But if a team came along and wanted a new variant of a gun built, the odds are that the numbers simply didn't justify the design. Without more details, I just don't know what "sounded too much like it was for civilian use" means.
I called them with failures of several new gen II mags out of the wrapper they told me impossible and i was doing something wrong after a lot of calls i shit i got it handled
HK's customer service issues have nothing to do with the suggestion that somehow the company is politically opposed to civilian gun ownership.
Off-topic: how do you like the light there Steyr? That looks somewhat awkward to manipulate.
-B
Works perfect for me, I just engage it with my index finger. I'm pretty much used to that location because on my BM SBR and Colt 6520 I have a CAA bayo lug M3 light rail.
I'd still like to see Robarm make a standard AR lower with their bolt catch and mag release.
I'd still like to see Robarm make a standard AR lower with their bolt catch and mag release.
This strikes me as a good business move. Get people interested in your AR lowers (a kind of loss leader) then upsell them to the XCR.
Good luck with that now.
Works perfect for me, I just engage it with my index finger. I'm pretty much used to that location because on my BM SBR and Colt 6520 I have a CAA bayo lug M3 light rail.
Makes sense; thanks for explaining.
-B
This strikes me as a good business move. Get people interested in your AR lowers (a kind of loss leader) then upsell them to the XCR.
Good luck with that now.
I am surprised that RA doesn't get into the aftermarket parts business. Get little bits and pieces of RA products out in the market, and it can build consumer confidence.
ZDF Imports has the same phone number.
anyone know what name Robarms uses in ATF records? Can't find them listed here.
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/download/afmer/2008-firearms-manufacturers-export-report.pdf
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/gun%20stuff/ATFUtah.jpg
This thread is awesome. I love how people post the same thing over and over and over and expect a different response. Awesome. The battle of the fanboys will never get old. :rolleyes:
This has been around for years...
Bolt release on trigger guard:
http://www.tacticalinc.com/imagemagic.php?img=zOHCytncktPTzM%2FF5o6UoZ6TkZrT3so%3D&w=500&h=400&page=popup
This has been around for years...
Yip. I don't see anything revolutionary about it.
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w64/scjbash/g36.jpg
This thread is awesome. I love how people post the same thing over and over and over and expect a different response. Awesome. The battle of the fanboys will never get old. :rolleyes:
+1
This is why I hope and pray LaRue gets fed a crap sandwich by ARMS. You will be able to hear the M4C.net server exploding from space.
Makes sense; thanks for explaining.
-B
Anytime.
+1
This is why I hope and pray LaRue gets fed a crap sandwich by ARMS. You will be able to hear the M4C.net server exploding from space.
Well if you SO STRONGLY dislike the support the support that Mark receives from this site, feel free to FO.
Well if you SO STRONGLY dislike the support the support that Mark receives from this site, feel free to FO.
You completely missed my point and validated it in doing so.
You completely missed my point and validated it in doing so.
No, you're not nearly that clever or subtle. You're a troll, simple as that. Go away asshat.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-17-10, 01:35
If I buy an XCR and I intentionally break it, will Magpul send me a New ACR????
If I buy an XCR and I intentionally break it, will Magpul send me a New ACR????
I would like to subscribe to your news letter. ;)
+1
This is why I hope and pray LaRue gets fed a crap sandwich by ARMS. You will be able to hear the M4C.net server exploding from space.
A.R.M.S. should never have been able to trademark the number 17. So unless they're suing Larue for something other than using the designation LT-170 for a mount I don't see how the lawsuit will go anywhere.
FN FAL
And the BM BAR-10 which is now owned by RRA.
Looks like he's following the A.R.M.S. business model.
Just after reading the title this is the first thing that popped into my mind.
Don't get me wrong though. I've always wanted to copyright the word "the, The, and [the] like." And just sit back and relax, especially if I can get the copyright retro-activated.
someone explain to me how protecting the years of work we have put into our rifles make us the bad guy? This is industry, people. Stop making it so personal.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but are you talking about years of work that Kalishnakov, FN, Armalite, and BM that you put into your (RA) rifle?
Oh and the monolithic rail platform?
I realize that I have posted four times in a row, but I can only read so far before I am forced to post something else on this topic. It reminds me of English and the lack of original thought. You have to site your sources:
Robison Arms presents the XCR:
The best of AK and FN gas systems and bolt mechanisms,
Armalite linear design and box magazines with a bolt hold open feature,
A bolt catch release brought back to you by Bushmaster with new ambidextrous design,
And new side folding stock similar to look of an FN FAL side folding stock and function of an AK side folding stock.
Robinson gives you the Culmination....... a.k.a. the XCR.
Oh and did we mention a monolithic rail platform?
I'm not terribly familiar with the XCR, but what does the article mean when it says the XCR's mag release is operated by the trigger finger from within the trigger guard? It looks similar to an AR mag release to me.
And within the trigger sounds more like a Garand to me.
Five!
Personally, I think that RobArms is miffed that they built a better mouse trap and no one beat a path to their door. Then along comes Magpul, who proceeds to build a terrifically better mousetrap (even with the long intro delay) and RobArms gets teh butthertz.
I second this.
DocHolliday01
01-17-10, 06:19
I second this.
Not to be a dick or anything but we do have a multi-quote button at our disposal.
Notice all these people who are quick to jump on Robarm still cant name a prior art example that would nullify Robarm's patent claim...
Well there is a prior art. It's called the M96
I am pretty sure patten law doesn't work like this. It is the exact design not a feature. Sort of like patenting heated leather seats. You cannot patten the concept just the execution. Glock went thru this with Safe Action Trigger. While the exact design is patten protected, several manufacturers offer the same safety features. S&W only got in trouble with the Sigma because it was too close of a copy.
While I will give you that many of design concepts and features do seem to be pretty similar, I don't think they are copies. Form follows function. I don't Robinson has a chance in court.
You can make your own call if you care to, There is both enough similarity and enough difference to be ambiguous to some and clear to others.
FROM THE PATENT...
As shown, the magazine release 22 is disposed above a front portion of a trigger guard 29 on a side of the firearm. In this configuration, the magazine release 22 includes a first button 23 (as shown) that is accessible from this side of a firearm. In addition, the magazine release 22 includes a second button (not shown) that is accessible on the opposite side of the firearm. The bolt hold open control 24 extends along both sides of the front portion of the trigger guard 29 and therefore, may accessed on both sides of the firearm 10 . This positioning allows a user to easily actuate the magazine release 22 and the bolt hold open control 24 with a trigger finger of the user regardless of whether the user is right or left handed. as you can see the original article is a bit misleading in it's descriptions.
There have been no previously patented firearms that had these features as described. They do seem to exactly describe the ACR's mag release and bolt release. I beleive that the RA M96 had these features to some extent, and the XCR has the bolt hold open if not the ambi mag release (yet)
the following pictures seem to be what the patent verbage describe to my reading at least...
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/961/acrad.jpg
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/lower_3-tfb.jpg
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/acrfull-tfb.jpg
ACR DESIGN DRAWINGS
http://home.comcast.net/%7Efirearmspics/ACR1.jpg
continued below
continued from above...
XCR PICTURES FOR COMPARISON
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/1421/img0002js.jpg
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/6225/img0001pw.jpg
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/951/img0004tf.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/%7Efirearmspics/xcrbho6.jpg
Personally I think it'll boil down to the technicalities of the law. FACTS WONT MATTER MUCH HERE and the side that has the strongest arguement and the money to follow thru will gain concessions from the other.
So, the XCR doesn't even have this ambi magazine release yet? If the charge is that the ACR team stole their design, how would the ACR team have been able to steal something they don't know exists?
Additionally, is the uS govt really issuing patents based on written descriptions only? I can send them a letter and simply describe what I want my fantasy machine to do and they issue a patent? Or is there a drawing of this XCR ambi magazine release that is both different than the designs for the M4 already in place AND would have been available for the ACR design team to steal?
I got this from SHOT... 2007 I think?
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/SHOT/untitledgx6-1.jpg
and took these pictures of the prototype then...
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/SHOT/IMG_0004Medium-1.jpg
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/SHOT/IMG_0005Medium-1.jpg
not saying they show much, other than this is the prototype and it had an ambi magazine release when the XCR evidently did not.
I believe this topic is on Intellectual Property (IP). While I'm not a patent attorney, I have been granted over 100 U.S. and world wide patents, and serve as an IP expert both in the defense of, and freedom in usage of, claimed IP.
When dealing with IP, one typically would not author a narrow claim based on exact visual and operating properties... or as some have stated: "works and looks exactly like an XCR", as the protection to such a claim would be easily defeated by others through minor visual and operational deviations.
In order to truly protect IP, the claim must be broad enough to protect your concepts, while at the same time not infringe on other art, or fall into the "obvious" category. Obviousness is typically what separates truly novel concepts. In a nutshell, could another inventor reach the same conclusion as your concept, starting with the current state of the known art. Remember, in reality a patent is simply a license that "teaches" the usage of its concept.
Now lets move pass the visuals and on to the value of this claim: the operating principles and benefits there of.. a rifle bolt and magazine release mechanism... and their physical relationship to each other and the rifle operator.
In order to defend (Robarms) this claim, one must prove novelty to the degree that others in this field, working with the existing and known state of the art (at the time), would not have reached similar design and benefit conclusions without being taught by the Robarms patent.
Give the existing state of the art in relationship of mag and bolt releases... and the existing known benefits of the ergonomic placement of these elements to the operator, I believe this patent will not stand due to obviousness.
BTW, just to provide some additional background. The granting of a U.S. patent is not any indication that a concept is novel or unique. The successful defense of a patent is...
ChicagoTex
01-17-10, 12:12
Fascinating insight, slag, thank you for that.
I must confess that looking at the detailed photos, Robarm MAY have a case for their bolt release.
I don't think they have one for the mag release.
be interesting to see what the courts say.
Give the existing state of the art in relationship of mag and bolt releases... and the existing known benefits of the ergonomic placement of these elements to the operator, I believe this patent will not stand due to obviousness.
Even tho It's clear the TEXT of the patent specifically describes the ACR's mag release as well as the bolt hold open (even tho the XCR does not use the mag release), after reading your "obvious" instruction, I beleive that this was an obvious evolution of the design even if RA's patent application did "teach" the ACR's evolution. I think RA will have a hard time proving thier case, and if their lawyer has not expressed this to them, then he is doing them a great disservice.
If what you say is in fact how things work, then they have a LOOONG road ahead.
variablebinary
01-17-10, 12:43
Even tho It's clear the TEXT of the patent specifically describes the ACR's mag release as well as the bolt hold open (even tho the XCR does not use the mag release), after reading your "obvious" instruction, I beleive that this was an obvious evolution of the design even if RA's patent application did "teach" the ACR's evolution
What isn't obvious after someone else created it? http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/anim_lol.gif
variablebinary
01-17-10, 12:49
So, the XCR doesn't even have this ambi magazine release yet? If the charge is that the ACR team stole their design, how would the ACR team have been able to steal something they don't know exists?
.
Pardon? The XCR has had an ambi mag design since the SCAR solicitation.
http://home.comcast.net/~firearmspics/xcrambimag2.jpg
I'm going by the pictures above and the description of Jack-o. Is it a production part or is that something that just rolled off the showroom floor? and in either case, answer the rest of the question about how it is that in 2007 the ambi release shows up on the Masada if it wasn't on the XCR yet.
variablebinary
01-17-10, 12:59
I'm going by the pictures above and the description of Jack-o. Is it a production part or is that something that just rolled off the showroom floor? and in either case, answer the rest of the question about how it is that in 2007 the ambi release shows up on the Masada if it wasn't on the XCR yet.
How about a pic of the actual XCR sent to SOCOM back in 2002/2003. Pretty sure that is before the Masada http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/anim_lol.gif
http://home.comcast.net/~firearmspics/XCRlcqcscar.jpg
A.R.M.S. should never have been able to trademark the number 17. So unless they're suing Larue for something other than using the designation LT-170 for a mount I don't see how the lawsuit will go anywhere.
They are...
So, the XCR doesn't even have this ambi magazine release yet?
The XCR I bought when they first came out, as well as every other one I've ever seen, has the ambi magazine release. But I'm not sure if Robarms or Magpul was first.
How about a pic of the actual XCR sent to SOCOM back in 2002/2003. Pretty sure that is before the Masada http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/anim_lol.gif
http://home.comcast.net/~firearmspics/XCRlcqcscar.jpg
Did they send it with the Thermold and YHM sights? :confused:
Outlander Systems
01-17-10, 13:05
+1
This is why I hope and pray LaRue gets fed a crap sandwich by ARMS. You will be able to hear the M4C.net server exploding from space.
Have you had positive experience with ARMS? I sure as shit haven't.
The XCR I bought when they first came out, as well as every other one I've ever seen, has the ambi magazine release. But I'm not sure if Robarms or Magpul was first.
Having limited experience with them outside of them breaking on the line and being taken out of service I was operating under the idea that the pictures posted above were of a production part and they don't show an ambi.
Give the existing state of the art in relationship of mag and bolt releases... and the existing known benefits of the ergonomic placement of these elements to the operator, I believe this patent will not stand due to obviousness.
This. Unless the Robinson patent describes some novel way of achieving the ergonomic functionality (i.e., a mechanical device that is novel in design rather than simply uncommon in location), I'm baffled as to how they think they'll win. "Ambi controls" isn't exactly something ingeniously ground-breaking.
How about a pic of the actual XCR sent to SOCOM back in 2002/2003. Pretty sure that is before the Masada http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/anim_lol.gif
Your smarmy little remarks, leading questions, and replies since this all came up, not to mention your well-established connection to Robarm are really making my earlier statements about not bothering to discuss this with you seem all the more accurate. Your emotional and personal attachment to this is revealed with every little smart-ass post and obnoxious smiley.
I really didn't care about any of this when it fist came up and was trying to learn more about the situation and simply have a discussion, but with you as their shill at this point I would be happier if this lawsuit flames out and Robarm shits the bed.
I'll go back to simply thinking the XCRs are junk since I haven't seen one make it through even a 3 hour drills night yet without somehow failing and being put back in the bag so the shooter could finish out the night with a DI AR.
I'll go back to simply thinking the XCRs are junk since I haven't seen one make it through even a 3 hour drills night yet without somehow failing and being put back in the bag so the shooter could finish out the night with a DI AR.
Maybe Robarms should get a patent on a multi-caliber carbine with ambidextrous controls that doesn't run worth a damn and has poor customer service. Enough companies will infringe such a patent that the owners of Robarms will never have to waste another day ignoring their critics!
VB, what do I hafta do to get one of those ambi mag releases?
Outlander Systems
01-17-10, 13:20
Who holds the patent for a side-folding stock?
How about a telescoping stock?
Is there a patent for the flip-up iron sight?
I'm not talking about specific designs here, I'm talking about a generalised patent for a generalised mechanical feature.
Again, the timing is suspect, as well as the fact that we're talking about some simple, common-sense functional aspects of a weapon system.
Did SOCOM specify ambidextrous controls in its RFP?
As far as the mag-release, to me it looks like nothing more than a standard M16/AR/M4 mag release, on both sides.
Whoever made the comment on the Japanese hiring 100 more engineers, and the Americans hiring 100 attorneys is dead-on the money.
Japan, unlike the US, is NOT an overly litigious nation. It relates back to work-ethic and honour, and what I've seen out of A.R.M.S., Robinson, etc. is a lack thereof.
What people seem to be missing whilst their panties are in a twist, is the fact that these sorts of lawsuits don't fuel competition, ingenuity, and enterprise; they stifle them.
ETA: What I'm expressing here isn't a bias towards either manufacturer. What I find is that these sorts of lawsuits are, in my opinion, bad for the industry as a whole. And the end-users are the ones who ultimately get ****ed.
Derek_Connor
01-17-10, 13:23
RA should save their money, and use it to make a rifle that works.
As has Rob and Todd G, I've never seen an XCR finish a course in the past SEVERAL years.
I care about the XCR as much as I care about Haiti.
variablebinary
01-17-10, 13:25
I really didn't care about any of this when it fist came up and was trying to learn more about the situation and simply have a discussion, but with you as their shill at this point I would be happier if this lawsuit flames out and Robarm shits the bed.
LOL. I've been called a Glock fanboy, an LWRC shill, and a Colt kool-aid drinker several times. I get crap for owning a SCAR, and a cheapo century AK.
It doesn't hurt my feelings, I promise. I cant wait to get my MR556 and really watch the fur fly :)
Outlander Systems
01-17-10, 13:44
I cant wait to get my MR556...
These are the first words you've written in this thread that I've agreed with.
:D
Now, to really bump the butt-hurt up a notch, what's the MSRP on the HK?
http://xcrcarbine.com/forum/index.php/topic,93.0.html
http://xcrcarbine.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4
http://xcrcarbine.com/forum/index.php/topic,238.0.html
Interesting tidbits I found while surfing, Funny there is no mention of lawsuit on the xcrcarbine forum. But people want to come here to shove their personal feelings upon others.
ChicagoTex
01-17-10, 14:04
Now, to really bump the butt-hurt up a notch, what's the MSRP on the HK?
Same answer as with all HK's...
How much you got? :D
Outlander Systems
01-17-10, 14:22
Same answer as with all HK's...
How much you got? :D
$2750 I'll bite...$3500 will hurt...$4000, I'll probably tap out.
http://xcrcarbine.com/forum/index.php/topic,93.0.html
http://xcrcarbine.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4
http://xcrcarbine.com/forum/index.php/topic,238.0.html
Interesting tidbits I found while surfing, Funny there is no mention of lawsuit on the xcrcarbine forum. But people want to come here to shove their personal feelings upon others.
yeah, nobody goes to THAT forum.
try here... http://xcrforum.com/index.php/topic,6125.0.html
I admire your passion Variablebinary, but in the end you know as well as the rest of us that this is not going to be good for our community. We are under attack from all sides. We need to let the court decide the outcome. We as a community need to stick together no matter what.
Maybe Robarms should get a patent on a multi-caliber carbine with ambidextrous controls that doesn't run worth a damn and has poor customer service. Enough companies will infringe such a patent that the owners of Robarms will never have to waste another day ignoring their critics!
winner. :D
Wow, I just read that thread over on XCRForum. I feel down right dirty now, that place makes TOS look like a conversation between Nobel laureates by comparison.
Wow, I just read that thread over on XCRForum. I feel down right dirty now, that place makes TOS look like a conversation between Nobel laureates by comparison.
No kidding. I feel dumber for reading even part of that.
Littlelebowski
01-17-10, 21:07
LOL. I've been called a Glock fanboy, an LWRC shill, and a Colt kool-aid drinker several times. I get crap for owning a SCAR, and a cheapo century AK.
It doesn't hurt my feelings, I promise. I cant wait to get my MR556 and really watch the fur fly :)
Every time I see an XCR post on this forum, it's from you. I had just assumed you were associated with RobArms.
sobriant74
01-17-10, 22:07
VB is just a fan of guns in general; I have seen him on sites all over spouting the joys of this platform vs that, so I know he isn't a kool aid drinking XCR fan, he just happens to own many rifles he can compare against and b/c of that I am willing to listen to his two cents about his experiences with his shooting.
As for this whole hub bub about the law suit, I will sit back and watch the fireworks between the lawyers.
I like the XCR (I admit I own two) and have never had anything other than great customer service from them. Of course I bought both of mine through Chester Arms in NH, but I have bought parts kits, etc from RA and never had any trouble. Both rifles have >1000 rounds through them and nary a hick up.
I also own DPMS, Colt, Ruger and HK rifles (although I regret buying the SL8 b/c of the magwell) and enjoy shooting them as well. They are liberally dressed in Magpul gear and most sport Eotechs and I shoot a lot of Federal/Lake City ammo through them all. They all make holes in paper just fine and I get to enjoy time with my friends on the range no matter what I am shooting.
I rarely care about the owners of a company and I certainly don't spend a whole lot of time griping about what those corporations do in there dealings with each other.
Lets all go to the range tomorrow and celebrate the 2nd Amendment by shooting off a few hundred rounds on our favorite rifles, take a deep breath and move on to some other horse we can kill and then beat profusely.
my 2 cents.
ForTehNguyen
01-17-10, 22:17
wow this thread is still going?
This is a relatively old way of doing business in the legal arena.
It might be a strong case if...
1) They had the patents filed way before magpul or the others "broke ground."
and...
2) These features were not available on any other rifles in the past.
Otherwise I think there is a good chance they are wasting their time.
After reading the last ten pages, all I can say is 'wow'. I was actually considering purchasing either the XCR-L micro or mini just for giggles.
Now, I think I'd rather buy a used Hipoint carbine than anything from RA. :mad: Win or lose, this lawsuit will only produce more negative publicity for RA.
Not to be a dick or anything but we do have a multi-quote button at our disposal.
Roger, I understand this. It's just that I actually tried to read through the post before posting myself but could not make it far each time before feeling that I had to reply.
Wow, I just read that thread over on XCRForum. I feel down right dirty now, that place makes TOS look like a conversation between Nobel laureates by comparison.
Indeed. I want that 15 minutes of my life back.
wow this thread is still going?
Exactly.....
How many different ways can you discuss the same points? Until we hear more information for the lawsuit, anything fresh and interesting on this thread went stale about about page 3.
I only read a few post because it was all the same drivel... I will say that Terra acted as a professional, or did in the posts I read. She's a MP "fan girl"...
Littlelebowski
01-18-10, 09:27
I was amazed at the immaturity displayed. VB has a very large chip on his shoulder against Costa and Magpul.
I was amazed at the immaturity displayed. VB has a very large chip on his shoulder against Costa and Magpul.
Anytime I see someone insult a man who has honourably served and proceeded to to make a successful business from those skills, I know that the person doing the insulting is at best a coward.
I doubt VB would say any of the things that he said, to Chris' face.
With the Shot Show starting tomorrow maybe things will come to light about this. I'am sure it will be brought up there. Especially since Alex/Robarms is going to be there.
As someone said on another site, when you screw up at SHOT, everyone knows it. ARMS, RA will certainly reap what they have sown in how people perceive them.
You conveniently leave out Vltor...
With the Shot Show starting tomorrow maybe things will come to light about this. I'am sure it will be brought up there. Especially since Alex/Robarms is going to be there.
As someone said on another site, when you screw up at SHOT, everyone knows it. ARMS, RA, VLTOR will certainly reap what they have sown in how people perceive them.
You conveniently leave out Vltor...
Uhh, I must be behind the curve. Whats up with VLTOR? The omission wasn't on purpose.
variablebinary
01-18-10, 10:08
Uhh, I must be behind the curve. Whats up with VLTOR? The omission wasn't on purpose.
RFC Case Number: P-A09-620M
Court Case Number: 4:09-cv-00620-DCB
File Date: Thursday, October 29, 2009
Plaintiff: Abrams Airborne Manufacturing, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Peter Bernard Goldman of Altfeld Battaile & Goldman PC
Defendant: Magpul Industries Corp.
Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement
Court: Arizona District Court
Judge: Judge David C Bury
-Spock Voice-
Interesting.
variablebinary
01-18-10, 10:20
On the upside, this patent issue will have no bearing on this version of the ACR, which is the main version of the Masada that got my eye from the beginning
Edit: G36 PMAG's, modular ACR lower. Possibilities? Maybe this is a sign of things to come.
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/3615/masada1.jpg
The internet toughs can resume their convo :p
Littlelebowski
01-18-10, 10:36
The internet toughs can resume their convo :p
I take that to mean you'll continue to talk trash at the XCRforum about Costa and Magpul? You know what you said and you cannot hide it, there's a link to it right here in this thread. You are the definition of "fanboy with an emotional investment in an inanimate object".
You do realize that this is not going to help RobArms even if they win? If they had a competent marketing department and/or an actually superior weapon, they wouldn't be resorting to this crap.
Prediction: RobArms will lose and be whining about how unfair it is just like when they didn't get into the military rifle trials.
NCPatrolAR
01-18-10, 10:42
Let's stop with the name calling and talk about the lawsuit or the thread is going to be shut down.
-Spock Voice-
Interesting.
Vltor is both a) quite capable of continuing to innovate and develop new products and b) not struggling in the current economy and looking to make a boatload of money off the lawsuit.
And yet, they still end up suing Magpul.
Funny, I thought only crappy companies that couldn't innovate sued those that could.
It depends on your definition of "innovate". Mine doesn't include theft of intellectual property. I don't care about the companies involved.
This is why I go to bat for Magpul whenever CProducts starts making noise about their followers.
variablebinary
01-18-10, 10:53
You do realize that this is not going to help RobArms even if they win? If they had a competent marketing department and/or an actually superior weapon, they wouldn't be resorting to this crap
Defending your IP is not crap. No matter how much one tries to blurry, personalize or overlook the core issue, there is no getting around this.
Sorry
The real funny part is Terra of Robarm, says I drink LWRC kool aid. It's all very amusing.
rubberneck
01-18-10, 11:06
Anytime I see someone insult a man who has honourably served and proceeded to to make a successful business from those skills, I know that the person doing the insulting is at best a coward.
I doubt VB would say any of the things that he said, to Chris' face.
I would suggest that you take a deep breath and go for a nice long run to clear your head. I read that thread on the XCR forum just now from beginning to end and didn't see a single post by Variablebinary that insulted Chris Costa. He did however spare no effort to take a couple of cheap shots at those who hero worship Travis and Chris. That personally isn't my style but he didn't do what you so cavalierly accused him of doing.
Least anyone accuses me of being in league with those who have some sort of secret agenda I'll make it clear that I have the utmost respect for Chris, Travis, Rich and the entire crew at Magpul. I like and own their products while I don't own anything from Robarms and I will continue to buy Magpul products even if Robarms wins it's suit.
The simple fact of the matter is that no one, except for the lawyers, wins when a lawsuit happens. I wish all of the parties could have come to some resolution that didn't involve the courts, but I also believe that it is important in our system for those who feel aggrieved to have the chance to defend their products and property before a neutral party. I have been a party to a intellectual property lawsuit and it sucked, big time but the alternative for the company I was working for at the time was even worse. Anyone that manufacturers a product and tries to stay on the cutting edge of development in a competitive industry will find themselves in court sooner or later. No one in the firearms industry is immune from it. As the old saying goes it isn't personal it's business. It's just to bad that so many here apparently have decided to make it personal even though it doesn't involve them.
I'm curious, did anyone at Robinson Arms contact Richard Fitzpatrick at Magpul before filing the suit? Try to settle it without lawyers?
rubberneck
01-18-10, 11:36
I'm curious, did anyone at Robinson Arms contact Richard Fitzpatrick at Magpul before filing the suit? Try to settle it without lawyers?
The costs of going to court are so large that you would have to be a fool to go for the nuclear option right out of the gate without first pursing other avenues.
On the upside, this patent issue will have no bearing on this version of the ACR, which is the main version of the Masada that got my eye from the beginning
Edit: G36 PMAG's, modular ACR lower. Possibilities? Maybe this is a sign of things to come.
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/3615/masada1.jpg
The internet toughs can resume their convo :p
I actually prefer the Euro magazine release which is fully ambidextrous, and more easily allows for full curvature magazines to improve reliability. It's also more of a gross muscle movement(more reliable operation under combat stress), and the additional pulling out of an empty also works in muscle memory training for inserting a loaded one.
The crapy part of the Massada design is the location of the charging handle. Look at where it is in relative to any optics. Several guys that have shot the Massada rifles complained about this. The SCAR and ACR fixed this by mounting it forward to allow for swaping from side to side, and the XCR fixed it by mounting it very low on the left side to clear any optics.
I still think it's a damn shame that a version of the XM8 never saw any civilain markets. The G36/XM8 is the only true fully amidextrous charging handle in which you don't have to lose your sight picture when charging.
I'm curious, did anyone at Robinson Arms contact Richard Fitzpatrick at Magpul before filing the suit? Try to settle it without lawyers?
I would think that would have been the first step, but I am often surprised how many choose the hard way to try and resolve an issue, instead of the simple and easy way...
I'll bet SHOT is going to be really fun this year for some companies and not so much fun for others...
Just got a e-mail from Bushamaster today. The ACR goes on sale 3/1-10. There was no price in the e-mail. Probably released at the Shot Show tomorrow.
http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe5516767d6c037e7611&m=fefa1c71766d04&ls=fdf11076736503757515747c&l=fe881c787363047b71&s=fdf915727c6102797d157077&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe351672776c057f741676
Oops!
Just got a e-mail from Bushamaster today. The ACR goes on sale 3/1-10. There was no price in the e-mail. Probably released at the Shot Show tomorrow.
http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe5516767d6c037e7611&m=fefa1c71766d04&ls=fdf11076736503757515747c&l=fe881c787363047b71&s=fdf915727c6102797d157077&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe351672776c057f741676
Fit it for ya
ForTehNguyen
01-18-10, 12:43
I would keep going with my current plans until there is a court order to stop
I like the XCR (I admit I own two) and have never had anything other than great customer service from them.
This statement is very profound...
I own two Noveske carbines and I own three LMT carbines and I'll admit that I have never had good customer service from either of these companies!!!
Oh wait, I've never had a need to contact them for any customer service...
variablebinary
01-18-10, 13:59
I actually prefer the Euro magazine release which is fully ambidextrous, and more easily allows for full curvature magazines to improve reliability. It's also more of a gross muscle movement(more reliable operation under combat stress), and the additional pulling out of an empty also works in muscle memory training for inserting a loaded one.
The crapy part of the Massada design is the location of the charging handle. Look at where it is in relative to any optics. Several guys that have shot the Massada rifles complained about this. The SCAR and ACR fixed this by mounting it forward to allow for swaping from side to side, and the XCR fixed it by mounting it very low on the left side to clear any optics.
I still think it's a damn shame that a version of the XM8 never saw any civilain markets. The G36/XM8 is the only true fully amidextrous charging handle in which you don't have to lose your sight picture when charging.
I have to admit, I would be a bit more enthused about an ACR with a G36 lower and ergos. I will end up with an ACR anyway, but I would be first in line to get one if it did in fact feature a G36 type lower.
The less AR15 like a carbine is, the more interesting it is to me personally.
I do not like RobArms and will never buy an XCR, because of the owner's political stance (even though I got my picture taken with Mitt Romney when I was volunteering for McCain in 08).
Brilliant!
On the upside, this patent issue will have no bearing on this version of the ACR, which is the main version of the Masada that got my eye from the beginning
Edit: G36 PMAG's, modular ACR lower. Possibilities? Maybe this is a sign of things to come.
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/3615/masada1.jpg
The internet toughs can resume their convo :p
That lower was the "AK" lower, designed to take AK magazines. The picture shows a Buglarian 5.56mm AK magazine, not a Pmag.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Arsenal%20SLR-106FR/DSC00014.jpg
Littlelebowski
01-18-10, 16:26
Alexander Robinson supported Romney because they're both Mormons. I've lost count of the pro gun Mormons I know that came out for Romney.
QuietShootr
01-18-10, 16:44
Alexander Robinson supported Romney because they're both Mormons. I've lost count of the pro gun Mormons I know that came out for Romney.
I know it, and it's sickening. No better than blacks supporting Obama just because he's black.
Alexander Robinson supported Romney because they're both Mormons. I've lost count of the pro gun Mormons I know that came out for Romney.
Count one for the other side. I didn't support Romney and I'm LDS.
Guys, let's keep the religious aspect out of this.
QuietShootr
01-18-10, 17:13
Count one for the other side. I didn't support Romney and I'm LDS.
And that's about as statistically significant as the 3% of blacks who didn't support Obama. But thank you, regardless.
QuietShootr
01-18-10, 17:17
Guys, let's keep the religious aspect out of this.
I don't think it's about religion, except that that's the reason Robinson supported Romney, and THAT's the reason some of us won't buy a Robarms weapon. Robinson is free to support whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants, and his potential customers are free to do the same.
I don't think it's about religion, except that that's the reason Robinson supported Romney, and THAT's the reason some of us won't buy a Robarms weapon. Robinson is free to support whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants, and his potential customers are free to do the same.
I totally agree, but I can also see it getting even uglier if we go down that path.
Don't have a dog in the fight (can we still use that analogy these days???), but I feel like all the major points have been covered
1) Yes people have the right to defend their intellectual property, design ideas, etc.
2) Its not good for the firearms industry as whole.
3) Right or wrong, Remington et al have the cash to drag it out and put a hurting on Robinson Arms financially
4) All our arguments are pretty much academic, as its in the hands of the courts now--lawyers and dollars will decide this fight.
5) I believe it was rob_s that talked about how people will deal with Robinson Arms going forward and how this affects their overall marketability/business and he hit the nail on the head. The old adage "Image is everything" comes to mind as now more than ever, many times perception is reality. People don't like lawyers, people don't like lawsuits, people love Magpul--right or wrong.
The costs of going to court are so large that you would have to be a fool to go for the nuclear option right out of the gate without first pursing other avenues.
Want to bet on how many business entities NEVER call to work stuff out before filing suit? You'd lose based on your comment.
So, sticking to the board mission, anyone with firsthand knowledge whether Robinson Arms contacted Richard Fitzpatrick before filing suit? BTW, I do not consider Robinson Arms attorneys as contacting Magpul before litigation.
If I were contacted by an external legal counsel first, for all intents and purposes, I would consider myself subject to future litigation and act accordingly. (Read: Inform my attorneys to respond to Robinson Arms as warranted.)
I am unaware of Robinson Arms financial situation but the dogs they entered the pen with certainly have some cash. Things like this can very easily go on for years and unless Robinson arms is swimming in Scrooge McDucks money vault, right or wrong, they are going to get hammered. Not to mention what has already been said in this thread about the impact of public perception over their actions etc.
It's a shit situation all the way around.
rubberneck
01-18-10, 21:48
Want to bet on how many business entities NEVER call to work stuff out before filing suit? You'd lose based on your comment.
So, sticking to the board mission, anyone with firsthand knowledge whether Robinson Arms contacted Richard Fitzpatrick before filing suit? BTW, I do not consider Robinson Arms attorneys as contacting Magpul before litigation.
If I were contacted by an external legal counsel first, for all intents and purposes, I would consider myself subject to future litigation and act accordingly. (Read: Inform my attorneys to respond to Robinson Arms as warranted.)
Good luck getting anyone with firsthand knowledge to discuss a pending lawsuit on a public message board. FWIW, I don't see how I "lose" on my comment when it was an observation not a statement of fact. If Robarms didn't try and work this out before going to court than they are fools.
Good luck getting anyone with firsthand knowledge to discuss a pending lawsuit on a public message board.
At least one with firsthand knowledge has posted in this thread, more than once.
FWIW, I don't see how I "lose" on my comment when it was an observation not a statement of fact.
Based on your opinion that people would be fools to go with litigation before trying to make a direct call to "work it out", means your perception of reality in this area is very divergent from what happens every single day. I'd say that most of the time, it's business as usual interrupted by a notice of lawsuit pending...maybe not 90% of the time, but certainly far greater than 51%.
If Robarms didn't try and work this out before going to court than they are fools.
Now your catching on to the reason I asked the question. If RobArms tried peacefully to resolve this it should be an easy fact to state. Pending suit or not.
justin_247
01-19-10, 04:06
It looks like Bushmaster/Remington/Magpul have royally screwed up the ACR... it's heavy, has a crummy barrel, and is super expensive. Somebody got a little too greedy...
As a form of punishment, I hope they pay dearly in this suit.
ChicagoTex
01-19-10, 04:50
It looks like Bushmaster/Remington/Magpul have royally screwed up the ACR... it's heavy, has a crummy barrel, and is super expensive. Somebody got a little too greedy...
I'll give you heavy, but just because it has a 1/9" twist doesn't mean it's a crappy barrel, it just means it isn't suited to shooting 70gr+ bullets that no one in the military is shooting anyway. Moreover, it costs the same as an FN SCAR and will be a damn sight cheaper than the HK MR556 if/when it ever makes it over the atlantic. Now you can argue that all those rifles are ridiculously overpriced, and you'd get no argument from me, but it's at least priced competetively with it's current breed of competitors.
As someone who doesn't run supressed F/A SBRs I could really give a crap about this new breed of piston wonderguns that are the answer to a question no one actually asked - you can build an epic DI AR-15 for $1500 or so.
Littlelebowski
01-19-10, 06:47
It looks like Bushmaster/Remington/Magpul have royally screwed up the ACR... it's heavy, has a crummy barrel, and is super expensive. Somebody got a little too greedy...
As a form of punishment, I hope they pay dearly in this suit.
Hello, troll! How many production ACRs have you handled? Be specific.
I'll give you heavy, but just because it has a 1/9" twist doesn't mean it's a crappy barrel, it just means it isn't suited to shooting 70gr+ bullets that no one in the military is shooting anyway. Moreover, it costs the same as an FN SCAR and will be a damn sight cheaper than the HK MR556 if/when it ever makes it over the atlantic. Now you can argue that all those rifles are ridiculously overpriced, and you'd get no argument from me, but it's at least priced competetively with it's current breed of competitors.
As someone who doesn't run supressed F/A SBRs I could really give a crap about this new breed of piston wonderguns that are the answer to a question no one actually asked - you can build an epic DI AR-15 for $1500 or so.
No one in the military is shooting bullets >70 grains? Man, that will be news to Black Hills. :rolleyes:
Mk 262
The Mk 262 is a match quality round manufactured by Black Hills Ammunition made originally for the Special Purpose Rifle (SPR). It uses a 77-grain (5.0 g) bullet that is more effective at longer ranges than the standard issue M855 round.
Two versions of the round have been procured to date. Initial production runs, designated Mark 262 Mod 0, lacked a cannelure. Subsequent production, designated Mk 262 Mod 1, added a cannelure to the bullet for effective crimping.
According to US DoD sources, the Mk 262 round is capable of making kills at 700 meters. Ballistics tests found that the round caused "consistent initial yaw in soft tissue" at 300+ meters. Apparently it is superior to the standard M855 round when fired from an M4 or M16 rifle. It evidently possesses superior stopping power, and can allow for engagements to be extended to up to 700 meters. It appears that this round can drastically improve the performance of any AR15 platform weapon chambered to .223/5.56mm. Superior accuracy, wounding capacity, stopping power and range power has made this the preferred round of many Special Forces operators, and highly desirable as a replacement for the older, Belgian made, 5.56x45mm M855 NATO round.
As for the separate posts on Romney, a lot of you forget that George W. Bush said he would sign a renewal of the AWB if it crossed his desk.
How many of you voted for Bush not once, but twice???? (I did)
ChicagoTex
01-19-10, 08:11
The Mk262 is a specialized cartridge used exclusively in SPRs in the US Military, it is not manufactured for, used, or intended to be used in normal service rifles. As using an ACR as a platform for an SPR would require a barrel replacement ANYWAY, it is reasonable to believe that BM/Remington/Magpul will produce a 1/7 barrel for that application, should the military desire it.
Outside of that, the military has no demonstrable widespread need for a more aggressive twist rate than 1/9.
HelloLarry
01-19-10, 08:21
I'm not reading 11 pages, but the AR-15 features "... a magazine release that is manipulated by the trigger finger from within reach of the trigger guard... "
The Mk262 is a specialized cartridge used exclusively in SPRs in the US Military, it is not manufactured for, used, or intended to be used in normal service rifles. As using an ACR as a platform for an SPR would require a barrel replacement ANYWAY, it is reasonable to believe that BM/Remington/Magpul will produce a 1/7 barrel for that application, should the military desire it.
Outside of that, the military has no demonstrable widespread need for a more aggressive twist rate than 1/9.
Sorry, but 1/9 twist is a road to poor sales. There was absolutely no reason for this choice, unless they're trying to balance out the reduced accuracy of a piston system. 1/7 twist has demonstrable accuracy with 55 and 62 grain 5.56 in DI guns. The ACR is designed to be a general AR replacement, not a 300 yard prairie dog shooter.
Outside of that, the military has no demonstrable widespread need for a more aggressive twist rate than 1/9.
I admit I haven't kept up with the most recent changes to ammunition out of the military.
What replacement for M856 tracer ammo did they come up with since that's what necessitated the 1/7 twist to begin with?
ForTehNguyen
01-19-10, 10:53
i bet 90-95% of civilian buyers don't give a crap (or even know) about barrel twist. The amount of people on this website that are interested in barrel twists is not indicative of the typical civilian sale. If someone wanted to turn their ACR into an SPR, they would buy a new barrel in which they can get in 1:7" not use the out of the box barrel. That was the entire point of the design of that rifle, the modularity. Dont like the parts on it, go knock yourself out and change them with ease.
decodeddiesel
01-19-10, 11:05
What replacement for M856 tracer ammo did they come up with since that's what necessitated the 1/7 twist to begin with?
Yes. Although it is not particularly heavy, the length of the M856 projectile requires the more aggressive twist rate to stabilize correctly.
1/7 was the military standard twist rate for 5.56mm long before the MK262 was even a glimmer in an engineer's eye.
decodeddiesel
01-19-10, 11:08
i bet 90-95% of civilian buyers don't give a crap (or even know) about barrel twist. The amount of people on this website that are interested in barrel twists is not indicative of the typical civilian sale. If someone wanted to turn their ACR into an SPR, they would buy a new barrel in which they can get in 1:7" not use the out of the box barrel. That was the entire point of the design of that rifle, the modularity. Dont like the parts on it, go knock yourself out and change them with ease.
To an extent, but honestly I think the only people who are going to be willing to pony up the $2000+ for an ACR (when $1200 will get you a shit hot DI AR) are going to be "advanced users" who probably would care about twist rate.
ETA: Oh yeah, and Rob Arms = :rolleyes:
Belmont31R
01-19-10, 13:27
i bet 90-95% of civilian buyers don't give a crap (or even know) about barrel twist. The amount of people on this website that are interested in barrel twists is not indicative of the typical civilian sale. If someone wanted to turn their ACR into an SPR, they would buy a new barrel in which they can get in 1:7" not use the out of the box barrel. That was the entire point of the design of that rifle, the modularity. Dont like the parts on it, go knock yourself out and change them with ease.
At the same time someone who doesn't know the difference between barrel twists isnt going to plunk down upwards of 3k on a single gun either. That is the BM/DPMS market at the 700-1000k dollar AR.
So what you are saying is if I want to shoot match/262 type rounds out of an ACR not only do I have to pay 3k for the gun but then another few hundred for a new barrel, and then set the barrel up to work in the ACR which means more parts on top of the barrel cost.
So 3500 for the gun that shoots what bullets I want it to. Then I still have to buy optics, a light, forward grip, etc so now Im looking at $4500+-. That is significantly more than my SR15 cost including a light, optics, acc's, Triple Tap, etc, and actually has a barrel I can use with all my loads.
A simple novice looking to pick up a gun (maybe their only one) isn't going to plunk down that coin when they can get two AR's with optics for one ACR.
So they not only turned off novice buyers but also the more hardcore enthusiasts.
The Mk262 is a specialized cartridge used exclusively in SPRs in the US Military, it is not manufactured for, used, or intended to be used in normal service rifles. As using an ACR as a platform for an SPR would require a barrel replacement ANYWAY, it is reasonable to believe that BM/Remington/Magpul will produce a 1/7 barrel for that application, should the military desire it.
Outside of that, the military has no demonstrable widespread need for a more aggressive twist rate than 1/9.
Do you have any idea how many rounds of Mk 262 ammunition were produced for the DoD in the past 5 years? And you're telling me that they were fired exclusively through Mk 12 SPRs?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.