2009 SHOT Show Threads

[Littlelebowski]

We did very well with the BE Meyers lawsuit.

I think it would behoove you NOT to comment on a lawsuit against your company when said lawsuit is taking place right now. Do not be surprised if your posts on forums come back to haunt your company. I know at least one SureFire employee on this site and he's keeping his mouth shut as he should.

[rsilvers]

The BE Meyers lawsuit is over. They lost.

I get your point but I don't wish to have misinformation on the internet either and we have to decide what balance we want to strike.

[Littlelebowski]

Then if you're speaking as "we," (AAC) I'd strongly advise very carefully choosing what you're going to say. Nothing negative, just the facts. Don't get into pissing matches, take the high road and let your products talk for you in the meantime.

[No Bananas]

Again, this was not a continuous full auto test. It was the same test AAC cans are tested with.

Can you put up on you tube, here, silencertalk or whatever sight a continuous video of an AAC can going through this test? If not, why not? I'm not trying to be negative Nancy here, troublesome or start argument. As a consumer considering a can, I am interested.

Also, out of Curiosity, what was the BE Myers lawsuit over. I'm assuming it was a FH. If nobody can (or shouldn't) talk about this, then I respect that.

[rsilvers]

They claimed the BLACKOUT violated their flash hider patent. Rather than ask us about this, they filed in federal court.

As I remember, they submitted 'evidence' in the form of photographs that claimed to show they had better flash reduction (they do not). The photographs were labeled one way, but we demanded the original digital photos and inspected the meta-data. Our investigation learned that they shot the BLACKOUT with more exposure and a different setting than they had labeled the photos. We showed them that between the altered photos and the fact that they were wrong about the patent, they had three days to drop it with prejudice. They withdrew their claim the next morning. They must have had bad advice from their lawyer or someone because they lost the ability to file again, and hence -- lost their patent protection from AAC.

[rsilvers]

We have no video of an AAC can being tested that way. The first large-scale tests we were not allowed to video it. The tests after that we were just not set up to.

I do have this -- no outer-tube!

[Iraqgunz]

IIRC there was another issue concerning some photo(s) and allegations being thrown around about photo-shopping of a product, etc.... My question is what exactly caused this rivalry to become so nasty? Why does it seem that only one company appears to be banging the gong and not the other?

I am sure that I can speak for quite a few people when I say that the last thing anyone wants or needs is a lot of drama. I think people simply want the facts so that an intelligent and informed choice can be made when it comes selecting a product.

[rsilvers]

I believe SureFire took notice after AAC started winning a few of the latest contracts.

[rsilvers]

April 13, 2009

SureFire LLC denied Preliminary Injunction against AAC.


SureFire LLC had filed a lawsuit claiming false advertising, by way of the Lanham Act.

A United States District Judge denied their motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Here are some quotes:

Whether The Statements Were Deceptive – Per the above reasoning, the Court finds that SureFire has not shown a likelihood that it will succeed on this element of the claim. Because SureFire has not successfully demonstrated a likelihood that AAC's advertisement was deceptive, it is unnecessary to consider this element of the Lanham Act.

The Court again reiterates that SureFire has not made a strong showing that the advertisement contains false statements, the advertising misleads consumers, or that it will suffer injury as a result of the advertisement.

The Court finds that SureFire has not shown a robust likelihood of success...

Here is the full document:

http://www.silencertalk.com/docs/SF.PDF

[Derek_Connor]

April 13, 2009

SureFire LLC denied Preliminary Injunction against AAC.


SureFire LLC had filed a lawsuit claiming false advertising, by way of the Lanham Act.

A United States District Judge denied their motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Here are some quotes:

Whether The Statements Were Deceptive – Per the above reasoning, the Court finds that SureFire has not shown a likelihood that it will succeed on this element of the claim. Because SureFire has not successfully demonstrated a likelihood that AAC's advertisement was deceptive, it is unnecessary to consider this element of the Lanham Act.

The Court again reiterates that SureFire has not made a strong showing that the advertisement contains false statements, the advertising misleads consumers, or that it will suffer injury as a result of the advertisement.

The Court finds that SureFire has not shown a robust likelihood of success...

Here is the full document:

http://www.silencertalk.com/docs/SF.PDF

*yawn*

exactly what does this and pictures of some chick have to do with pictures of a SF failed can?

once again, your willingness to air your dirty laundry rehashes the "drama".

You defeated SF on their own injuction, congrats. Accept it like mature adults instead of flaunting it.