What do Miley Cyrus and the AK-47 have in common?
The answer? They are both victims of piracy, or at least that is what the Russian media would have you believe. The issue, from the Russian perspective, is the reverse of the allofmp3.com controversy. Russia accuses the United States and other governments of being complicit in the piracy that costs them $2 billion per year. The issue caused a minor diplomatic incident with Pakistan at a Turkish defense expo last month.
Historical Context
To understand the legal history of the AK-47 you need to understand the intellectual property history of the Soviet Union. Contra to popular belief the communists did not oppose intellectual property (IP). Our Soviet comrades were encouraged to think up inventions, they just has to give the invention to the state! After the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution private ownership in general was abolished but IP was overlooked. This oversight was corrected in 1931 when private ownership of IP was banned and the state automatically inherited all rights to inventions. The inventor received some small remuneration in return, presumably only if the invention was used by the state in some capacity.
AK-47 / AKM clone made in Las Vegas by Arsenal Inc.
The Avtomat Kalashnikova 1947
Fast forward about a decade and a young sergeant named Mikhail Kalashnikov starts designing weapons for the Red Army. In 1946 his rifle wins a competition for the next standard issue rifle of the Soviet Union. During the following year the military began adopting the rifle and it was given the infamous designation AK-47, now a household name worldwide.
The Soviet Union was quite happy to allow other communist states to produce the rifle, with many other state and non-state entities around the world producing clones.
The flag of Mozambique featuring the AK-47 alongside a hoe and a book.
The AK-47 patent. Better late than never.
After the fall of communism the Russian Federation and eight other former Soviet Republics formed the Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPC). Izhmash, manufacturer of the AK-74 and AK-10x rifles (AK-47 successors), filed a patent with the EAPC. From the Google Translation of the patent (emphasis added):
Title of invention:
Automatic weapons “Kalashnikov”Patentovlalelets (ltsy):
Open Joint Stock Company “Izhmash” (RU)Inventor (s):
Mikhail T. Kalashnikov, Yuri Alexandrov K.,
Bezborodov Nikolai, Viktor Kalashnikov.
Azariah I. Nesterov, Paranin Valery Nikolaevich (RU)The Eurasian application N: 970145
Priority of invention:Date of filing of the Eurasian application: July 24, 1997
Date of registration of the Eurasian Patent
in the Register of Eurasian patents: October 10, 1997
The patent was filed over 50 years after the invention! The patent does not mention when the rifle was actually invented. Under United States law patents expire after 20 years. It seems ridiculous that a company can expect to patent an invention half a century after its invention especially at a time when it is so common that people build it by hand in caves!
Ironically the AK-47 is also the weapon of choice for the modern sea pirate.
US Government purchases of AK-47 rifle
Prior to the recent decision to switch the Iraqi Army over over to the M16 and M4, the US Government was purchasing a lot of AK-47 rifles to supply the fledging Iraqi Army. Russia was not happy about the US purchasing AK-47 clones from manufactures who were significantly under cutting Izhmash. From Novinite.com:
The Americans have allowed Bulgaria to built a plant producing the Kalashnikov sub-machine gun to be sold in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Director for Special Assignments of the Russian Rosoboronexport State Corporation Nikolay Demedyuk stated on Wednesday cited by ITAR-TASS.
…
The Russians stated that the “Arsenal” production was undercutting the gun prices on international tenders citing as example a 2003 tender for the supply of 40,000 sub-machine guns for the Iraqi army for USD 65 each won by Arsenal and lost by the Russian “Kalashnikov” manufacturer.
Russia has claimed it loses $2 billion per year from counterfeit production with only 10% of AK-47 rifles being produced under license.
Iraqi Military Policeman Training with AK-47 rifle.
Last Month in Turkey
There was a minor diplomatic incident last month at the IDEF ‘09 defense expo when the Russian delegation discovered that Pakistan Ordnance Factories had AK-47 clones on display. When confronted the Pakistan stated owned defense manufacture refused to remove the display.
Anatoly Aksenov, a senior advisor to the director general of Rosoboronexport (Russia’s sole export intermediary), said in a press release “Russia will ask IDEF-2009’s administration to impose sanctions on Pakistan’s delegation if the counterfeit weapon is not removed from the booth by tomorrow … is piracy and we will struggle against it.”. The Turkish Ministry of Defense, who organized the expo, acted swiftly and the following day the rifles were removed from display.
According to Mr. Aksenov Turkey is looking to purchase Russian short and medium range anti-aircraft systems, which no doubt gave the Russians much leverage with the Turkish Ministry officials.
The Russian media was quick to point out that the World Trade Organization worries itself with Western music, firms and clothing, but not Russian weaponry. From Lenta.ru (Google Translated):
Piracy in the music and film industry, protection of brand clothing manufacturers, food, tobacco and alcohol have long been one of the nabivshih oskominu so when discussing the economy nowadays. Combating concerned authoritative international organizations such as WTO, and thousands of bureaucrats. The trials against the creators of file-networks follow one after another and stable outside the top list of hot news. And the weapons you can not only forge in the huge quantities, but also opened it to show, without fear of any sanctions or condemnation, or loss of reputation.
Will this be resolved?
Russia wants to join the World Trade Organization. Prior to joining the diplomats will have to define the parameters for recognition of patents. It is unlikely the WTO members will want to open themselves to lawsuits from Russian firms over 50+ year old inventions.
It is funny that they are griping about lost sales. It was an arms race. Let it go. I was reading about the development of the sidewinder missile, a air to air rocket. The thing is, the Russians got a hold of one when it failed to explode and then basically copied the design. Should the States or China sue on account of loosing Vietnam?
The Russian are stupid. Whatever rights on the AK they had is long gone. No nations will honor the AK patents at this late of the game.
If the Russian somehow is successful. You can bet that the marketshare of the AK will shrink down further.
The Russian economy is gone. Destroyed. Their hatred for the USA and freedom in general undermined their own prosperity. You reap what you sow.
The country that copied the B-29 is whining about non-russian AK-47’s?
Now that’s funny.
One last thing. The buyers always has the leverage because he/she has the money. The sellers has leverage if their products is the only game in town.
Turkey can give the Russian the finger and buy the American version. The Russian will learn really fast what free market economy is all about.
jdun1911, in major arms deals of high tech technology there is usually a lot of diplomacy behind the scenes and often the seller who has the power. American gear may well to to expensive or to politically sensitive to be sold.
in all fairness, isn’t the AK basically a knock-off of the MP44? so, if we’re following the russian logic, shouldn’t the germans be asking for some royalty checks as well?
Sean, you could extrapolate that even further. Why not pay royalties to the inventor of the first smokeless powder, first centerfire primer firing pin and first brass cartridge
If they want to go back 50 years, why not 75, 100 or 150
I just think the whole thing is patently ridiculous.
The insidemechanism of the AK are different from the inside mechanism of the MP44.
Russia, (on Behalf of the USSR) has forfeited the right to complain when they flooded the world with the rifles, and the means to make these rifles.
Will the Russians share the “money” with Mr. Kalashnikov?Ha!! Think not! Not that they will get anything this late in the game….
The MP44 uses a wedge lock to lock up the bolt and the AK uses a rotating bolt system.They both use gas to function.
Ken, nope, I don’t think he ever got much money out of it directly, although he did get a Hero of Socialist Labor and Order of St. Andrew, as well as a good career. Stoner got money but no recognition.
Personally I don’t know which I would prefer.
Since the reintroduction of capitalism he has started cashing in on his name, even lending it to an AK clone! ( http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/10/16/gsg-22-kalashnikov-ak/ scroll down for a photo of him)
I read several articles and books on Kalashnikov.His design basically was the “states” and he got very little money. Kalashnikov got a pension and that was about that. He did get jealous of Mr Stoner slightly because he got royalties and even had his own plane due to his wealth. Kalashnikovs son on the other hand was irate at the Soviet government because of the lack of compensation. His son ended up being a gun designer himself and if memory serves me correct,he made the bizon submachinegun.
I would take both money and fame myself…lol
A patent is an artificial monopoly. It goes against the very idea of the free market, where anyone should be allowed to build and sell any product or service, competing with others in performance and/or price.
So yes, this is a ridiculous claim. And so are all other patent claims.
gee, US$65/rifle?
Baylorhenry, yep, it you buy then by the ton
“The country that copied the B-29 is whining about non-russian AK-47’s?”
That’s a good point but I have a more recent one. Has anyone seen the Russian reusable spacecraft? It’s a clone of the Space shuttle in every way. If they had the money it would still be flying. They steal a lot and now want everyone to stop making a 50+ year old rifle. Yeah right!
Don’t forget the Soviets blatant copy of the Concord. Just about every single piece of technology “developed” by the Soviets was an illegal copy of something designed somewhere in the west, as it is with Chinese forgeries today. This is definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
It’s highly probable that if Kalashnikov had been living in the occident when he designed his rifle, which is really just a copy of a Garand when you get down to it, he probably wouldn’t have been able to sell it, much less get a major military power to adopt it. The thing that drove western arms innovation was superior range and power, and the thing that drove Soviet arms innovation was economy and firepower. Most western military officials scoffed at the AK when they first encountered it, and continued to deride it for a long time. It’s reputation has been built up over decades and decades worth of encounters with it, all over the world. Even if it had been adopted in the west, it would have been abandoned as obsolete decades ago. Witness the Galil/R5, the Valmet 76, etc.
People who spent the better part of their youths trying to destroy private property in all its forms have some nerve complaining that their intellectual property rights aren’t being respected. Kalashnikov should continue to try to make a buck off of his name, and not his design. That ship has sailed, been attacked by pirates, and sank.
@ Carl:
You’re completely wrong about patents. Why would someone try to start a business based on an inventive idea if larger, better financed companies could simply take that idea and flood the market with it before the inventor got a chance to produce it or make a profit? Patents protect inventors, but only for a certain amount of time. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a free market, because there’d be no property rights for individuals, just large corporations who would never be challenged by small businesses and new innovations. That’s why the Soviets fell behind, a lack of innovation through competition. Patents protect innovation and invention and create competition. A lack of competition leads to the the death of free markets, not their growth. Read “Atlas Shrugged”.
I’m not even gonna try to explain why free market monopolies are a good thing. That’s advanced economics. Only state-sponsored monopolies are bad, like the Post Office.
Where the hell can I get one of those $65 Turk AKs?!?
Last one I bought was closing in on $400 and was a cheap Romanian SAR1
Matt: A patent is a state-sponsored artificial monopoly. As opposed to natural monopolies such as that of physical property. Patents are completely arbitrary (scope, duration, required “unobviousness” etc), and spawns hordes of lawyers, government bureaucrats and mountains of red tape. All this costs money and effort that is virtually free for big corporations but very costly for the lone inventor.
How can an inventor succed without patents? How about just doing it? Just manufacture and sell your product without asking for favors from the government. Given the fact that you are the inventor you will always be a step ahead of the competition. They might produce copies, but with the deep knowledge of the fundamentals of the product the inventor will always produce the superior product and always be the first with improvements.
And what if the competition should manage to produce a better product? Well, if they do, why shouldn’t they be allowed? Why should the government use force against he who makes the best product? That makes no sense whatsoever.
@ Carl:
So, what you’re saying is that someone can have an idea, but not have any capital to put that idea into effect. Then they’re supposed to go out and tell the world about it so that they can get investors to help finance the facilities, equipment, labor, transportation, and materials to produce that idea, but there’s no risk that one of the already wealthy, already established firms or individuals will not steal his idea and copy it wholesale even though he has NO LEGAL CLAIM to that idea? How preposterous!
A patent IS an artificial monopoly that PROTECTS THE INVENTOR from unfair competition. What is unfair competition? How about if you invent a new kind of internal combustion engine that runs on air by buring the oxygen. You don’t have access to Forges, CNC Milling Machines, squads of experience machinists, Engineers, Marketing, or anything else necessary to produce a major product like an engine. You pitch your idea to a wealthy industrialist, who unbeknowst to you, owns a major percentage of Ford Motor Company. He decides not to invest in your idea, but hands it to his friends at Ford, and they have a working model in production before you have enough investors to buy your first CNC machine AND they owe you NOTHING.
So you protest, but nothing comes of it, because you have no legal claim to your idea. But eventually, you actually get the finances to build a nearly identical, but slightly superior version of that engine. You have no vehicles to put it in, and Ford begins a multi-million dollar advertising campaign claiming theirs is the original, and that the proof is that they’ve been producing this design for YEARS. Next year, they incorporate all of your improved features into their design, and because of economies of scale, they are able to produce more engines faster, cheaper, and in larger quantities. Know what happens then? You die in poverty trying to keep the doors of your company from closing, or you sell your business to Ford to keep from starving. THAT’S unfair competition.
Oh, but you will have to hire a lawyer to protect your patent, but the best lawyers on Earth and hundereds of them cannot protect your property if you do not have proof of ownership, and that proof of ownership is called a PATENT. Lawyers cost money? So does theft. It takes money to make money, but you can’t make money if you don’t have something to offer. A product, a service, an idea. A product you can display, a service you can perform, but an idea requires PROOF.
There is no such thing as a “Natural Monopoly” on physical property. You have ownership over that which you can prove by law, and that which you can maintain by force from those who do not accept the law. There is no way to maintain complete and total ownership over a physical entity. Monopolies can only exist in theory. The Communists attempted a monopoly on all physical property, didn’t work out, did it?
Competition DOES produce better products, but only because patents do not allow a blatant copy to be made for at least 20 years. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be any kind of competition at all. You’d either be an already establish firm, let’s call them “The Winner”, or you’d be a nobody with a really good idea, let’s call them “The Loser”. The purpose of government is to provide a level playing field for competitor, and sometimes that requires force. The best product will never get built if companies with long histories of corruption, inefficiency, poor quality, and high prices like GM are allowed to simply steal the best ideas and best designs from individuals and start producing it. “Coming soon from Government Motors: The Aptera! The vehicle which will change the way we move.”
By advocating the dissolution of patents and intellectual property rights, you’re advocating for the same thing the Soviets did, the dissolution of private property in all its forms in order to produce the best products for “the people”. Not for profit, but for “the greater good”. Free Market competition cannot exist without the rule of law. Without the rule of law, there are no rules, and the Free Market dissolves into anarchy and turf wars without that level playing field.
Patents should not be confused with the ridiculous state of copyright law which extends much further than it should. Nor should patents in general be confused with software patents which are being heavily abused.
Patents exist for society, not the inventor. If the inventor is not protected then he won’t invent stuff and society loses out. Without patents most of at least many modern medication would not exist.
But it is a balancing act. A rifle should not be protected for 50 years. It would hold back innovation and society would lose out. Heck, if rifles were patented for 50+ years, the AK-47 would probably never have been invented.
Agreed. Copyright law is in need of reform, and software patents are goofy, which is why I use mostly open source stuff. I only pay for software that I’ve used for free for an extended period of time that I know works.
But the best way to better society is to protect the individual and not the collective. Nobody is advocating patents exist indefinitely, but they do need to exist for a long enough period that a productive inventor can benefit. 20 years seems fine to me.
I don’t understand why I can’t download a copy of The True Believer, published 1951, by Eric Hoffer, because there is still a copyright on it, 25 years after his death. Ownership of intellectual property should end when the inventor dies if that property has been held for at least 20 years. Otherwise it should be passed on to the family, but nobody should be able to maintain control over a work of the mind indefinitely.
Acutally, the Bulgarians built their AK plants back when they were under the Soviet thumb. Funny how the Russians are trying to rewrite history.
it’s not that hard to establish that you are the inventor, all you need to do is stick all the details into an envelope and address it to yourself and drop it in the mail, and do not open that envelope until you are in a court of law defending your claim of invention (if someone markets your idea, it’s still slander if they claim to be the inventor). The postmark will serve to establish that you invented it before anyone else did. Otherwise, as long as society values invention useful inventions will be rewarded. If society doesn’t value invention, it won’t be rewarded and invention will wane (or the testing and publication that goes with invention will…. people will still invent, but they won’t bother telling anyone)… if society values invention and fails to reward it, then the consequences are it’s damn problem. The simple fact is that once an idea leaves your mouth and enters my ear it’s as much mine as it is your’s, you have no right to request that “forget” what you said and if you wish to keep your ideas secret, you should of shut up while you where ahead.
“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”
– Thomas Jefferson