2009 SHOT Show Threads

[rsilvers]

A few points:[*] Much of the court's reasoning rested on the argument that the suppressor pictured in the advertisement couldn't be readily identified as a Surefire product.

No. Page 6, line 16.

"The Court Finds that AAC's alleged statements were not literally false on their face [with or without knowing if it was SureFire] or by necessary implication [if it was known as SureFire]."

Page 7, line 15.

"However, SureFire fails to provide evidence that the advertisement's implicit messages are false."

This is independent of who the "competitive" suppressor is.

[rsilvers]

All I'm saying is that the appearance from a reasonable person is that AAC is finding time to video and test other suppressors doing a VERY hard test of durability, yet they are unable to test and video their own suppressors doing it. Which appears self-serving, in the extreme.

Again, there is no video of the SureFire suppressor.

[Littlelebowski]

Again, there is no video of the SureFire suppressor.

How about pics? How about pics/video of other brands?

[decodeddiesel]

No they are running a much better ad now! Surefire needs to back off a lil competition in the markets a great thing to have it makes a better product! No need sueing each other. I think it was lame of surefire to sue if thier product is so much better prove it to us the consumer dont just make thier dumb videos with tacticool operator shooting 5 rounds through thier cans with lasers and more crap bolted on to guns than a gun porn mag. AAC has torture testing videos of thier cans on youboob.

Add can be found here!
http://andysapp.com/blog/wp-content/..._potato_ad.jpg

Keep it up AAC you guys make a product above the rest!

Was that English?

[ToddG]

Much of the court's reasoning rested on the argument that the suppressor pictured in the advertisement couldn't be readily identified as a Surefire product.

No. Page 6, line 16.

"The Court Finds that AAC's alleged statements were not literally false on their face [with or without knowing if it was SureFire] or by necessary implication [if it was known as SureFire]."

That's a perfect example of you being misleading. The next two sentences of the court's decision reads, and I quote:

"As correctly stated by AAC, SureFire's assertion the the advertisement disparages SureFire's suppressors rests on the notion that the suppressor can be positively identified as SureFire's. However, because the advertisement makes no specific mention that the inferior suppressor is in fact a SureFire suppressor, the Court finds that the statements at issue are not literally false on their face." (emphasis in original)

So I say again, the crux of the decision was that SureFire failed to prove that the suppressor being shown was a SureFire suppressor.

Page 7, line 15.

"However, SureFire fails to provide evidence that the advertisement's implicit messages are false."

Again, taken out of context. What the court said is that SureFire didn't present evidence that spot welds are as good as or superior to circumferential welds. It passed absolutely no judgment suggesting that AAC's claim was true ... it simply said that SureFire hadn't presented evidence proving the claim was false. That is a huge difference.

[Littlelebowski]

I still note the deafening silence from Surefire folks. Very smart on their part.

[decodeddiesel]

I still note the deafening silence from Surefire folks. Very smart on their part.

Agreed. Being drawn into an internet pissing match is not something I see Surefire ever doing. Even is they are getting some schmutz flung their way, better to take the high road here.

[rsilvers]

The quote says "SureFire fails to provide evidence that the advertisement's implicit messages are false"

..and you claim this is misleading because the real truth is that, as you say, "it simply said that SureFire hadn't presented evidence proving the claim was false. "

You nearly just repeated the quote. One would expect SureFire has to prove the claim is false in order to win. They are the ones who filed suit.

[Ring]

Tests like this make Baby Jesus cry.

Both the M16 and M4 are not rated for torture like that, let alone putting a can on the weapon (publicly documented and open-source):

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTR...c=GetTRDoc.pdf

this is the test done by the .mil for the SCAR and the cans used on the SCAR, a gemtech that had this same test done to it compleaty fell apart

[SHIVAN]

this is the test done by the .mil for the SCAR and the cans used on the SCAR, a gemtech that had this same test done to it compleaty fell apart

Yes, and we have no empirical/video proof that AAC's suppressors can withstand it either, do we?

So as it stands right now, all we really know is that one Gemtech can, and one Surefire can, tested by AAC personnel, have been defeated. Sample sizes of one only tell you about that ONE unit. When it is repeated, with variables reduced, or eliminated, then you can indicate a trend.

A single data point can not show a trend up or down, can it?

If AAC would like to put this issue to bed, they should post an unedited video doing this exact test with their products as well as a few more samples of the SF and Gemtech products.