Comments on: Robinson Arms sues Remington, Magpul and others http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/ Firearms not Politics Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:19:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: PatentAtty http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-24740 PatentAtty Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:22:01 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-24740 Unless you know what you are talking about, you really should not attack anyone. It's the same as in self defense. If you saw someone hitting a woman, would you shoot them? What happens if afterward you found out that they woman was a thief and shot someone? Unless you have at least some semblance of understanding of patent law, just remain silent on such issues. As Nill points out, the property rights of a patent are defined in the claims. This is a very limited patent on a particular magazine catch system. Infringement looks pretty close to me. In any case, dismissing this out of hand is wrong. Patents often take 3 or more years to obtain from the US Govt, and in this case took about 5 years. The inventors clearly put a lot of time into this, and saying that folks should be able to use their invention under some odd theory of "we are all gunny people" is wrong. Name your favorite firearms manufacturer and then ask whether they would sell what they do if they didn't make money at it. Endgame: this is a business just like any other, and theft of intellectual property should be treated like any other property theft. If we don't reward inventors for their ingenuity via patents, eventually they will throw in the towel. The Founders of our great nation would turn over in their graves if they heard the comments about patent rights being made here. Unless you know what you are talking about, you really should not attack anyone. It’s the same as in self defense. If you saw someone hitting a woman, would you shoot them? What happens if afterward you found out that they woman was a thief and shot someone? Unless you have at least some semblance of understanding of patent law, just remain silent on such issues.

As Nill points out, the property rights of a patent are defined in the claims. This is a very limited patent on a particular magazine catch system. Infringement looks pretty close to me. In any case, dismissing this out of hand is wrong. Patents often take 3 or more years to obtain from the US Govt, and in this case took about 5 years. The inventors clearly put a lot of time into this, and saying that folks should be able to use their invention under some odd theory of “we are all gunny people” is wrong. Name your favorite firearms manufacturer and then ask whether they would sell what they do if they didn’t make money at it. Endgame: this is a business just like any other, and theft of intellectual property should be treated like any other property theft. If we don’t reward inventors for their ingenuity via patents, eventually they will throw in the towel.

The Founders of our great nation would turn over in their graves if they heard the comments about patent rights being made here.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: DRod http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-23955 DRod Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:52:14 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-23955 To those claiming you can patent such a thing as modularity or some other broad scope of ideas, take a minute and research the Smart Parts patent fiasco that happened a couple of years ago in the paintball world. THAT was total BS. But legal just the same. Boobery like this can and will change things just like it did in paintball. To those claiming you can patent such a thing as modularity or some other broad scope of ideas, take a minute and research the Smart Parts patent fiasco that happened a couple of years ago in the paintball world.
THAT was total BS. But legal just the same.
Boobery like this can and will change things just like it did in paintball.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Chris P http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-23954 Chris P Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:46:31 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-23954 It's funny to me that so many people (especially on the AR15 forums) are upset at Robinson Arms about this. It's like being mad at the banks for taking bailout money from the government. It's the government, acting far outside its constitutional authority, that people should be upset with. Robinson is (sadly) acting 100% rationally within a flawed system. Unfortunately, the patent system, unlike TARP, actually is constitutional. That doesn't mean it's a good idea though. For more on the absurdity of so-called "Intellectual Property" check this out: <a href="http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm" rel="nofollow">Against Intellectual Monopoly.</a> It’s funny to me that so many people (especially on the AR15 forums) are upset at Robinson Arms about this. It’s like being mad at the banks for taking bailout money from the government. It’s the government, acting far outside its constitutional authority, that people should be upset with. Robinson is (sadly) acting 100% rationally within a flawed system.

Unfortunately, the patent system, unlike TARP, actually is constitutional. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea though. For more on the absurdity of so-called “Intellectual Property” check this out: Against Intellectual Monopoly.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Wuulf http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-23950 Wuulf Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:29:27 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-23950 So, is this what its coming to? I think I haver read about five of these patent suits in the past six months, and every time I shook my head and asked "Why would some dumbass think they could get away with this?" So, since we are no longer trying to do something truely innovative, and resorting to just suing the big (popular) companies over something the rest of the world has long since taken for granted as being pretty much public domain, I believe I shall file a patent for the use of all materials other than wood and steel on a firearm. Because hey, if you can sue over a number, or an ambidextrous mag release (which pistols have enjoyed for a while, nothing super innovative about how they work) then I stand a shot at someone approving it. (This post was not meant for trolling, just my sarcastic ranting) So, is this what its coming to? I think I haver read about five of these patent suits in the past six months, and every time I shook my head and asked “Why would some dumbass think they could get away with this?”

So, since we are no longer trying to do something truely innovative, and resorting to just suing the big (popular) companies over something the rest of the world has long since taken for granted as being pretty much public domain, I believe I shall file a patent for the use of all materials other than wood and steel on a firearm.

Because hey, if you can sue over a number, or an ambidextrous mag release (which pistols have enjoyed for a while, nothing super innovative about how they work) then I stand a shot at someone approving it.

(This post was not meant for trolling, just my sarcastic ranting)

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Vitor http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-23944 Vitor Tue, 19 Jan 2010 03:05:18 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-23944 Given the 1:9 twist and the hefty price tag of the ACR, Robinson has nothing to worry about. Given the 1:9 twist and the hefty price tag of the ACR, Robinson has nothing to worry about.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Bandito762 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-23921 Bandito762 Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:37:48 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-23921 This is almost as ridiculous as the Russians getting upset about people copying the AK... This is almost as ridiculous as the Russians getting upset about people copying the AK…

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Johnny C http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-23910 Johnny C Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:29:47 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-23910 Had a partner take one of Alex's XCR rifles out to Blackwater for a week long course. It didn't last a half day before it was given up as an absolute failure. Buddy sold is the next week. Alex is a visionary and good engineer but ability to execute and support is poor and now this shows lack of support for an industry that is very much one that leapfrogs. IMHO that's where this is going, they took a concept and improved upon it and now it's sour grapes on the part of ROBARM. Had a partner take one of Alex’s XCR rifles out to Blackwater for a week long course. It didn’t last a half day before it was given up as an absolute failure.

Buddy sold is the next week.

Alex is a visionary and good engineer but ability to execute and support is poor and now this shows lack of support for an industry that is very much one that leapfrogs. IMHO that’s where this is going, they took a concept and improved upon it and now it’s sour grapes on the part of ROBARM.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Wut? http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-23896 Wut? Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:03:38 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-23896 People seem eager to comment before checking out the story. The patent and lawsuit only cover Robarms style ambi controls and the specific way they function. Legalese makes it look crazy and overreaching, but the enforceable claims are actually pretty narrow. Mudslinging over junk lawsuits, software patents, trademark disputes, and broad, unpatentable generalities not only has little to nothing to do with this case but ends up sounding downright silly and fanboyish. People seem eager to comment before checking out the story.

The patent and lawsuit only cover Robarms style ambi controls and the specific way they function. Legalese makes it look crazy and overreaching, but the enforceable claims are actually pretty narrow.

Mudslinging over junk lawsuits, software patents, trademark disputes, and broad, unpatentable generalities not only has little to nothing to do with this case but ends up sounding downright silly and fanboyish.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Steve http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-23894 Steve Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:48:52 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-23894 jdun1911, thanks for the link. jdun1911, thanks for the link.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: KP http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-23891 KP Mon, 18 Jan 2010 07:04:12 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-23891 You know I've never heard anything GOOD about Robinson Arms. Probably because they try so hard to be like this. You know I’ve never heard anything GOOD about Robinson Arms. Probably because they try so hard to be like this.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Edward http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-23890 Edward Mon, 18 Jan 2010 06:57:48 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-23890 This would have been so much easier if Armalite/Colt had shouted from the rooftops, "FIRST!" Then again, the M4-type weapon designation in turn has become so prevalent that that itself became generic, after the Colt vs. Bushmaster/H&K lawsuit. This would have been so much easier if Armalite/Colt had shouted from the rooftops, “FIRST!”

Then again, the M4-type weapon designation in turn has become so prevalent that that itself became generic, after the Colt vs. Bushmaster/H&K lawsuit.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Destroyer http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-23876 Destroyer Mon, 18 Jan 2010 05:20:29 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-23876 bollocks to Robinson arms...keith, good example. you cannot patent something that broad... somebody is a sore loser... bollocks to Robinson arms…keith, good example. you cannot patent something that broad…

somebody is a sore loser…

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Jeff m http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-23868 Jeff m Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:32:22 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-23868 Legal thuggery, civil extortion, call it what you will... Legal thuggery, civil extortion, call it what you will…

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: LurpyGeek http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-23863 LurpyGeek Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:36:25 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-23863 The patent issue does not concern the modularity or user customization. "Multi-caliber ambidextrously controllable firearm" is just the name of the patent. The issue is concerning the ambidextrous bolt release design that Robinson patented which is also a design feature of the up and coming ACR. The patent issue does not concern the modularity or user customization. “Multi-caliber ambidextrously controllable firearm” is just the name of the patent. The issue is concerning the ambidextrous bolt release design that Robinson patented which is also a design feature of the up and coming ACR.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Me http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-23861 Me Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:18:26 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-23861 Wow. This isnt good. Its one thing for an industry such a computer hardware and software, to begin mud slinging and claiming the ridiculous under patents. In light of how huge they are, they can afford to be petty. Example: http://ticc.uvt.nl/~pspronck/ridiculouspatents.html But the firearms industry has a lot more to be concerned about IMHO, than wasting money this sort of petty apples vs oranges stuff. Plus really shouldnt Armalight or Colt be the ones who can claim this? Seriously I have always considered the AR/M16/m4 platform to be modular. Granted its only been recent since we have had so many options etc. Also is this Robinsons response to the ACR? That would be my guess. The players they name are all part of it arent they? Wow. This isnt good.

Its one thing for an industry such a computer hardware and software, to begin mud slinging and claiming the ridiculous under patents. In light of how huge they are, they can afford to be petty.

Example: http://ticc.uvt.nl/~pspronck/ridiculouspatents.html

But the firearms industry has a lot more to be concerned about IMHO, than wasting money this sort of petty apples vs oranges stuff.

Plus really shouldnt Armalight or Colt be the ones who can claim this? Seriously I have always considered the AR/M16/m4 platform to be modular. Granted its only been recent since we have had so many options etc.

Also is this Robinsons response to the ACR? That would be my guess. The players they name are all part of it arent they?

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Nill http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-23853 Nill Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:52:35 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-23853 If you think that patent is convoluted then you need to read more patents. They're all this way, even the earliest ones. The overwrought language actually plays a part in limiting the claims. Patents are usually far more narrow in scope than a quick glance would have you believe. For example, this filing didn't patent the "idea" of a modular, multi-caliber rifle, or even Robarms implementation of one. Skip straight to the Claims section at the end and you'll find that all 25 claims deal solely with their version of ambi magazine and bolt-catch controls, spelled out in excruciating detail. What this means is that the only thing this document protects are mag releases and bolt-catches that function in the same exact manor as implemented on the XCR, nothing more. Not the "idea" of ambidexterity, not the simple location of controls, and definitely not abstracts like modularity or customization. The big question, are the ACR controls mechanically identical? In the few cross-section images available they do appear similar, and it'd be naive to think both companies haven't been in contact about this issue for quite some time or would enter costly litigation lightly. So why the lawsuit and why now? A safe presumption is that a licensing agreement wasn't settled upon for any number of reasons during development and the ACR is now, finally, after many delays, entering production for an immanent launch. You simply can't charge infringement until the other party actually tries to make money on it. If you think that patent is convoluted then you need to read more patents. They’re all this way, even the earliest ones. The overwrought language actually plays a part in limiting the claims.

Patents are usually far more narrow in scope than a quick glance would have you believe. For example, this filing didn’t patent the “idea” of a modular, multi-caliber rifle, or even Robarms implementation of one.

Skip straight to the Claims section at the end and you’ll find that all 25 claims deal solely with their version of ambi magazine and bolt-catch controls, spelled out in excruciating detail.

What this means is that the only thing this document protects are mag releases and bolt-catches that function in the same exact manor as implemented on the XCR, nothing more.
Not the “idea” of ambidexterity, not the simple location of controls, and definitely not abstracts like modularity or customization.

The big question, are the ACR controls mechanically identical? In the few cross-section images available they do appear similar, and it’d be naive to think both companies haven’t been in contact about this issue for quite some time or would enter costly litigation lightly. So why the lawsuit and why now?

A safe presumption is that a licensing agreement wasn’t settled upon for any number of reasons during development and the ACR is now, finally, after many delays, entering production for an immanent launch. You simply can’t charge infringement until the other party actually tries to make money on it.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Eightball http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-23850 Eightball Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:17:49 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-23850 Magpul Sued by ARMS for patent infringement Sued by VLTOR for patent infringement Sued by Robarm for patent infringement I see a trend developing Magpul

Sued by ARMS for patent infringement

Sued by VLTOR for patent infringement

Sued by Robarm for patent infringement

I see a trend developing

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: jdun1911 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-23841 jdun1911 Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:04:55 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-23841 There is a large discussion on AR15 about this lawsuits and the merit of it. http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=984754 There is a large discussion on AR15 about this lawsuits and the merit of it.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=984754

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Nathaniel http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-23830 Nathaniel Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:27:24 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-23830 Not content to be just an arsehole who makes a fancy new FNC copy, he's got to then impair the progress of the firearms industry as a whole. The patent system is at best totally jacked up. If Robinson's claim isn't ridiculous enough for you, then check out these: http://www.google.com/patents?id=OfwkAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=T2QKAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=hhYJAAAAEBAJ Robinson has hopefully picked his last fight here. I hope FN, Cerberus, Magpul, and whoever else he's trying to sue collectively countersue his pants off. Not content to be just an arsehole who makes a fancy new FNC copy, he’s got to then impair the progress of the firearms industry as a whole.

The patent system is at best totally jacked up. If Robinson’s claim isn’t ridiculous enough for you, then check out these:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=OfwkAAAAEBAJ
http://www.google.com/patents?id=T2QKAAAAEBAJ
http://www.google.com/patents?id=hhYJAAAAEBAJ

Robinson has hopefully picked his last fight here. I hope FN, Cerberus, Magpul, and whoever else he’s trying to sue collectively countersue his pants off.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Rex http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/18/robinson-arms-sues-remington-magpul-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-23822 Rex Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:44:56 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=10446#comment-23822 If I had to guess, it's not the "modularity" that they're suing over, it's the bolt catch mechanism. The two mechanisms are identical in that they are right next to the trigger guard (actuated ambidextrously with the index finger of the firing hand) and are identical in function. But it's just a S.W.A.G. so whatever. At least they're not suing over a number. If I had to guess, it’s not the “modularity” that they’re suing over, it’s the bolt catch mechanism. The two mechanisms are identical in that they are right next to the trigger guard (actuated ambidextrously with the index finger of the firing hand) and are identical in function.

But it’s just a S.W.A.G. so whatever. At least they’re not suing over a number.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]>