MagPul Sues Another Magazine Manufacturer: This Time Elite Tactical Systems

AR15-30C-2

On October 16th, MagPul filed a claim against Elite Tactical Systems for patent infringement in the Colorado District Federal Court.. The claim alleges that Elite Tactical Systems has infringed on three MagPul patents, 8,069,601, 8,635,796, and 8,839,543.

The initial claim is brief with few details, but nonetheless calls out all the magazines that Elite Tactical Systems currently offers:

Upon information and belief, Defendant Elite Tactical Systems Group, LLC
(“Defendant”) is a Wyoming limited liability company with a place of business in Tennessee, and a mailing address at P.O. Box 18511, Knoxville, Tennessee 37928. Defendant’s infringing products include, but are not necessarily limited to, the E.T.S. 30-round polymer magazine for AR-15/M16 rifles and carbines (with and without coupler), the E.T.S. 10-round, Pinned 30 Round Body polymer magazine for AR-15/M16 rifles and carbines (with and without coupler), and the E.T.S. 15-round, Pinned 30 Round Body polymer magazine for AR-15/M16 rifles and carbines (with and without coupler).

MagPul’s suit is a continued vigorous defense of their patents. Previously, MagPul had filed suit with four other companies for patent fermenting. We will follow the suit and keep you informed of the results.



Nathan S.

One of TFB’s resident Jarheads, Nathan now works within the firearms industry. A consecutive Marine rifle and pistol expert, he enjoys local 3-gun, NFA, gunsmithing, MSR’s, & high-speed gear. Nathan has traveled to over 30 countries working with US DoD & foreign MoDs.

Nathan can be reached at Nathan.S@TheFirearmBlog.com

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


Advertisement

  • anon

    Any details on why they’re infringing, or has magpul decided that they own the entire concept of the polymer mag?

    • hking

      Without knowing the specific points of contention its hard to say. Magpuls patents they are claiming are infringed contain many aspects of the design. They could be going the “sue anyone who comes close” or it could be a legit complaint, we will have to see.

    • Magpul

      The PMag has several areas of it’s geometry and design that took many years of our own testing and documenting. These areas of geometry and design have been granted utility patents. Magpul has to defend the patent or lose the protection offered from the patent. In the case of these patents, we have successfully defended them in court four other times this year.

      • Nicks87

        Sue away MagPul. I use your products exclusively in all my rifles so I totally agree with your actions. I am, however, still waiting on those metal reinforced AK mags we were promised. In time for Christmas would be great. I would also like a pony as well. Thanks in advance.

        • Ben

          Yea!!! PONIES!!!!……also, those AK mags would be a great stocking stuffer.

      • ttzx

        Yet these are offered in transparent and lock together without a separate coupler. Yep, looks like a knockoff to me…

      • John Yossarian

        Weak! Using the Government as thug enforcers for a product monopoly. What’s the matter, little baby scared of the free market?

        You got to charge more for your product when you were the first one to market. Great. Now you have to compete.

        So stop being such weenies and actually compete for customers rather than making your customers (who pay taxes) fund the use of force (the Government) against your competition!

        • Olson Ward

          I prepare patents on gun related inventions and felt compelled to pitch in on this topic. Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 8 of THE U.S. Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their Respective Writings and Discoveries….” This language established a Constitutional Right for Patents and Copyrights. These rights were enumerated PRIOR to the Bill of Rights being adopted, meaning that Inventors were granted the exclusive rights to their inventions PRIOR TO the time that ignorant blathering idiots were granted the right to free speech. There is a LOT of misinformation being spewed forth in these blog postings, few of which increase the knowledge level of the recipients. Patent rights are granted to those inventions that 1) have utility, 2) are novel, 3) are non-obvious in view of the prior art, and 4) which fall within the realm of statutory subject matter. It is neither easy nor inexpensive to get a patent to issue, so once it issues, it is deemed to be presumptively valid, but is always subject to invalidation. If ones chooses to copy the patented designs of another, they must pay to play either through a license or via litigation and damages award, at the prerogative of the patent holder. If the patent holder overplays its rights and asserts broader rights than it was granted by the language contained in the Claims of the issued patent, then the Defendant has the ability to seek redress from the court in the form of its attorney fees and sanctions. The Defendant also has the ability to attack a patent’s validity and enforceability as weapons against an improperly secured patent. That said, while the system we have in the U.S. does have checks and balances, it could be better. If we adopted the “loser pays” policy found in other countries, their would be a lot fewer frivolous lawsuits and would likely dissuade larger companies from bullying their smaller competitors.

    • The dust-cover probably has something to do with it.

  • Marcus Toroian

    Without doing a single second of research, my guess would be that the issues are most likely the dust cover, floorplate, and location and style of the caliber marking.

    • nick

      Um, try the continuous curved geometry that makes these mags superior to their metal counterparts…

      • Lancer does that too, as do many companies that make polymer magazines.

  • plumber576
  • echelon

    Oh, FFS, come on Magpul. You have name recognition and you’ve been at it longer than anyone else. Just keep making good products at a fair price and you’ll always be making money.

    Competition is a good thing. Lawyers are of the devil – so stay out of their lair!

    Sheesh…

    • Joshua

      We have patents for a reason.

      • Corey

        Yeah, to stifle advancement of technology!

        Patent law is one of the most broken/screwed up things in this country. See Apple vs. Samsung for pure ridiculousness….

        I dont use Magpull mags. Lancer all the way. The steel feed lips are awesome.

        • Magpul

          In our testing on the M3 PMag we looked into secondary support structures for the magazine but the disadvantages substantially outweighed the advantages of a single unit design in production consistency and reliability.

          To see how exactly strong and reliable the current PMag M3 is check out the testing videos using high-speed 6000fps video and HK416 full auto testing. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLLtq9scclwKVYVSGUsrOsprdHo_TKJt7

          • ttzx

            OK, PMAG’s are obviously superior. Why not let the market decide which is best? You don’t offer a transparent or self locking magazine. Smells like attempting to stifle a competitive product.

          • ed

            That infringes on their patent. If the courts decide it doesn’t infringe on the patent, Free Publicity!! Yay!

          • Geodkyt

            Magpul isn;t challenging their right to make a transparent magazine, nor one that locks together.

            Why not make a transparent, self locking magazine that doesn’t steal the internal gemotery from another designer who has a TIME LIMITED patent on those specific features?

            Oh, yeah, because then, the magazine likely would be less reliable, because ETS isn’t about to spend the money to do the engineering work.

          • TomSanchez

            Fuck Magpul, Just another big corporation picking on the little guys and that’s all there is to it.

            I’m still fucking angry over the monolith arms buy out that completely ended the availability of FS2000 aftermarket parts and a lot of other cool innovative products because Magpul now owns the rights and won’t license them.

            I stopped using their magazines after that debacle, and if I get a new Pmag with a gun it goes sailing down range to become a target. I will never use any of their products on any of my guns period. I tell my friends to use GI magazines, and I won’t ever buy one of their ACR failures.

            Magpul wouldn’t even be what they are today without Ergo, another little guy that they decided to fuck over.

            Magpul is the Apple of the shooting world. And to a greater degree what’s wrong with this country.

            I’m going to order 10 ETS magazines before Fagpul takes them off the market just to spite those smug bastards!

          • Magpul

            Not too sure where to start on this answer but here goes,
            1. While Magpul is bigger than we have been in the past we are by no means a “large company” and we still have the founder (a format USMC recon marine) as President and CEO. This’s along with our first 5 employees hired a decade ago.

            2. Moniloth Arms was bought to acquire the talents of it’s owner and not any IP/Patents. This IP is open to license or for sale and one item was just sold this year for development into a product. If you are interested in producing the FS2000 grip please contact us.

            3. I have no idea what you are referring to regarding Falcon Industries (Ergo Grip). I talked to the owner just last week and we have sold his ladder panels for over a decade ( the only company we do this for)

            That said thanks for the comparison to Apple. Apple under Steve Jobs is still an inspiration to us.

        • Sadler

          Patents sure stifled innovation in the firearm world in the early 20th century, huh?

          Patent law isn’t screwed up at all. If you have a patent, you’re required to defend it or you lose rights to it. It was much worse back when you had to prove that you were the first person to design something.

          • Kevin Craig

            “Patent law isn’t screwed up at all. If you have a patent, you’re required to defend it or you lose rights to it.”

            That is exactly one of the most screwed up things about patent law.

        • RocketScientist

          “Yeah, to stifle advancement of technology!”

          Patents do the complete opposite. I’m guessing by your comment that you’re not an inventor/engineer/developer etc? Patents do a few things that are crucial to the advancement of technology. First, they guarantee the inventor the ability to profit from his invention. Who is going to spend years of their life and lots of their own money to develop a better widget, if they knew as soon as it goes on sale every competitor would be able to capitalize on his hard work? Lack of patent protection would have a huge stifling effect on innovation. Second, patents require detailed public disclosure of an invention (thats why they are called ‘patents’, as in patently clear how the invention works). The only way you are granted exclusivity for a period of time is if you disclose exactly how you accomplished your invention. This allows competitors to study in depth your invention, allowing them to develop improvements/advancements on the design. They can either patent these on their own (if worthy of one) or wait until your patent expires and sell it as a cheaper/better version of your invention. This is PROMOTING advancement/innovation. The alternative is a “trade secret” (think secret recipe for Coca Cola), where the inventor makes no public disclosure of his invention, and relies on secrecy to maintain his exclusive ability to market it. At my company, we have several trade secrets related to our products, which is a large part of what allows us to charge the gov’t millions for them. Noone else can make what we make, and we’re not telling them how. Good for us, bad for the consumer (taxpayer in this case).

          • raz-0

            Patents for IP certainly aren’t helping with the advancement of technology. A magazine is not IP though, and in this case patents are working much more as intended. That being said, there are elements of those patents that I don’t think magpul is entitled to, at least a sole features. Also, even engineers and inventors will tell you the patent office is FUBAR, especially with rule changes like first to file rather than respecting prior art.

          • RocketScientist

            I agree, especially with the statement about issues with the patent office etc. I was just trying to address the attitude in ‘Corey’s’ post (that I have seen echoed in a lot of places) that patents in general stifle innovation and are some sort of tool for corporations in collusion with the gov’t to abuse the consumer.

          • Cymond

            I generally agree, but want to offer a simple opposing argument.

            Patents (even on inventions) can stifle innovation in some circumstances. For example, look at the case of Rollin White. If White hadn’t agreed to license his bored-through cylinder to S&W, it could have delayed the development of self-contained metallic cartridges in revolvers for decades, as he attempted to stop other companies from making similar revolvers.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollin_White

          • RocketScientist

            I definitely see your point, but I think it tends to argue for my ultimate point. It was the patent protections that allowed White to profit from his invention/development (by licensing the design), otherwise S&W could have just done it without paying him a dime. If that was the case, what would have been the motivation for him to tinker around with old colt cylinders and develop his idea in the first place? Its possible that without that motivation he would have never bothered and decades would have gone by before someone working at a major company had come up with it. I know some people like to tinker and invent for the mere sake of it (I’m one of them), but most people are motivated by more than altruism or dedication to the field, or at least want to have something to show for their hard work. I guess I could have stated my premise a little better: patent law allows for an environment friendly to innovation and development (by providing the public with details of new inventions and allowing them to be copied after a certain amount of time) while still protecting the ability of those who developed them in the first place to get the rewards for their innovation. But yes, very interesting point about Mr. White. I’m always amazed at how many revolutionary ideas in hindsight seem so obvious.

          • Cymond

            Oh, I totally agree, but every system has cases where they utterly fail or become completely counterproductive to the original intent of the system.

            The case with White turned out well in the end, but it could have gone badly. His patent was barely similar to how it was used in the end. His patented invention was a complete failure, and only one small section of it was useful at all. And of course, that section was extremely simple hole. I’m a little surprised that a straight hole can be patented.

            Regardless, thanks for the discussion.

          • TomSanchez

            Bullshit, plain and simple capitalistic bullshit.

            “First, they guarantee the inventor the ability to profit from his
            invention.”

            Let’s go back and let Ford vigorously enforce his patent on the automobile, in doing so we all drive model Ts to this day. Let’s also allow people to enforce their ridiculous notion of owning an idea on everything else in life. All of a sudden you’re stuck using a 30 year old IBM, 100+ year old firearms, and flying on the airplane that the wright brothers flew. Sure sucks don’t it?

            “Who is going to spend years of their life and lots of their
            own money to develop a better widget, if they knew as soon as it goes on
            sale every competitor would be able to capitalize on his hard work?”

            Someone who isn’t a greedy asshole and actually cares about the advancement of Humanity.

            “Lack of patent protection would have a huge stifling effect on innovation.”

            The Chinese are poised to take over the entire globe. They have no patent protection. But but.. their culture is so stifled!!! Freedom Murica’!

            “Good for us, bad for the consumer (taxpayer in this case)”

            And you’re proud of this shit?

            You’re a prime example of why people hate capitalism. We’ve tried it your way and it’s failed. Let’s do something different for a change.

          • RocketScientist

            Can’t tell if you’re serious or just a troll. I’ll waste a little time answering your ‘arguments’. First, patents expire, the protections they afford last for a specific, limited amount of time. So no, we wouldn’t do be driving model Ts or using old computers or flying on Wright brothers airplanes. Those patents would have expired decades ago. Second, the Chinese economy is booming, but you’ll notice very little of what they make is designed/invented there. They do an excellent job making other countries inventions, largely because of amazingly cheap labor. And your last point, the example I gave where the company I work for is able to charge millions for their products by being sole supplier is specifically because they do NOT have patents on these innovations, they keep them secret, so no one else can produce them. You’re proving my point. Your criticisms of capitalism are entertaining, but I’ll respect the no politics rule and refrain fromfrom addressing them

          • TomSanchez

            Yes I criticized your company because in the perfect world the government would force you, with violence if need be, to divulge these so called trade secrets in order to save the tax payers money.

            Your defense of capitalism is entertaining, yet WE are winning election by election. Your kind will never hold office in this nation again, you cannot deny this fact! Soon there will be no where for 1% scum like you to hide.

            Soon people like you would be happy to trade your silly patents, and trade secrets for your old way of life. Fortunately.. you will be given no quarter.

          • RocketScientist

            Ah, OK. You ARE just a troll. Now I feel bad for feeding you. Well, have a wonderful evening. This was fun.

          • TomSanchez

            Ah, OK. You ARE out of touch with reality. I almost feel bad for someone like you who lives in a perpetual echo chamber surrounded by the last remnants of his own kind. My are you in for a surprise come 2016..

            We are not going away, we are the so called “FSA” who wash your cars, deliver your food, and clean your homes. We are everywhere, and we will win this fight.

          • D

            Anarcho-capitalists actually are against patents and all copyrighting / IP protection. Government protection of a business is not capitalism. It is corporatism, aka fascism in which government and the corporate entity work hand in hand.

            See here for details. You might be pleasantly surprised.

            http://mises.org/daily/468/

          • Geodkyt

            Which is why patents have expressly limited periods.

            Once the patent period expires, it’s fair game. Which is why you can get an AR15 from just about anyone. (And the fact that Colt held the patents on teh AR15 at the time is why Stoner created the AR18’s at-the-time unique operating system – and therefore the operating system for lots of derivative rifles.)

          • Anon. E Maus

            If you genuinely think that China is going to take over shit then I don’t know what to tell you.

            Judging by how you fawn over China and cry over Capitalism, I’m going to take a shot in the dark and guess that you’re a Communist. Yeah, lets try something different, lets try out this idea that was tried intermittently during the 20th century, where every time it was tried, people died, people were oppressed, people starved, and nothing got done, where people cheered and celebrated when it was gone.

            If you’re a Communist, you are lobbying for a concept that has consistently proved itself a catastrophic failure for everyone involved whenever it was done. Eat dirt, Capitalism rules.

        • Ben

          The AK platform was never patented and that has blossomed wonderfully over the decades.

        • RaftGuidePhil

          Lancer mags suck

      • ttzx

        Sure enough. And along comes a similar product that offers features (transparent and self locking together) that the original design doesn’t. Other than material construction, how does this “infringe”?

        If you substitute “improve” for “infringe”, I think you would be closer to reality.

        • ed

          How does this new product infringe? Reading Magpul’s response above, it seems Magpul is alleging that Elite is using, without permission, features that Magpul holds the patent to. That would be what “infringing on a patent” means. I’m sure Magpul would have no problem (or at least no legal recourse) with Elite producing a transparent mag that’s self locking and doesn’t utilize Magpul’s patents.

    • Miami_JBT

      Actually Thermold was making polymer mags before Magpul’s Pmags were even a thought.

      • echelon

        Yes but they gained a reputation for not being reliable…hence Magpul has the name and rep currently as the de facto leader in polymer mags.

        And taking the idea even further, why then didn’t Thermold take Magpul to court? Did they not patent their designs? I mean if you can freaking patent a geometric shape for a box magazine for a certain kind of weapon and use that argument to win court cases and fend off competition, then it seems to me I need to go patent some geometric designs right now so I can sue Magpul, etc. when they decide to infringe on my geometric shapes in any of their forthcoming products.

        Win/Win ???

        • raz-0

          Don’t confuse you sucking at reading a patent with the reality of what magpul patented. Yes, it has a lot of vague talk about general mag geometry, but that is more or less to separate the general characteristics of a magazine from the stuff unique to a magpul mag.

          Some points I don’t think they deserve any consideration on, like the over-insertion stop. Yeah there’s is shaped different, but they are FAR from the first magazine implement an over insertion stop by making part of the magazine exceed the dimensions of the mag well. The floor plate that locks the base plate has a lot of prior art as well.

          However, molding in the internal track, the unique follower shape that permits the track to be used, the anti tilt geometry of the follower, and a number of other things were definitely unique to magpul at the time. It’s not like software IP, where because someone invented the phone, someone else seems to think they can patent a device for using a switched network to call beloved relatives on a holiday, and the patent office grants it, and courts entertain that stuff.

          They patented the secret sauce for making a reliable polymer magazine. An idea that plenty had, but failed to execute successfully.

          • echelon

            Did I ever say I even read the patent? And even if I did, I already stated that my problem is with what can be patented, not in the patent itself.

            You providing the minutiae of the patent, while well stated, is useless for my purposes.

            I can be wrong. And I’m fine being wrong. Maybe if I spent money on designing some super cool follower shape I’d want to defend it vigorously as well.

            But I’d much rather be first to market, have a superior product and customer service and have the best price possible. Competition is healthy. It drives innovation and keeps companies honest. Making anything and putting it into the public domain is going to be a risk and it’s always going to be copied.

            Heck I look at a company like Mission First Tactical and then I read this article and I guess I just can’t understand why Magpul isn’t suing MFT for basically “company infringement”…it’s like a mirror image.

            OMG their polymer AR buttstock looks like ours and uses our patented thingy. OMG! Call the lawyers – sic em!

          • raz-0

            It’s not the minutiae. It’s what is actually patented. Note they patented it AND were first to market, AND have a superior product, AND have competition.

            You are protesting imaginary ills to the appropriate uses of patents and conflating them with patent trolls, either that or you imagine the superiority of some kind of economic darwinism that doesn’t actually exist.

            Did you ever consider that some of the companies out there not being sued may have paid magpul licensing fees? Also, if you manage to improve something sufficiently, you can file for an improvement patent, which gets you around a number of issues.

          • echelon

            I guess I’m just a romantic that way… 😉

          • Justin

            I’m not an expert on patents, but does this mean that Lancers’ an Troy polymer mags (which are both great reliable mags) did not infringe on Magpul’s patents while ETS did?

            I think competition is great as it drives prices down and drives innovation up, as long as you don’t copy someone else’s product exactly. Does Colt or Armalite no longer hold the original AR15 patents so that any company today can manufacture the same exact milspec AR without being sued??

    • Magpul

      Repeated from above because the answer is the same…

      The PMag has several areas of it’s geometry and design that took many
      years of our own testing and documenting. These areas of geometry and
      design have been granted US and Foreign utility patents. Magpul has to defend the
      patents or lose the protection offered from the patents. In the case of
      these patents, we have successfully defended them in court four other
      times this year.

      • echelon

        I guess that just puts the patent system into suspicion more than anything then.

        When designing a magazine for a specific type of weapon, in this case an AR-15 or similar design, how much different can you get on the geometry? If it gets to the point where other competing designs can be denied just because it’s a box mag of similar proportions, then the whole idea of the patent is just ludicrous.

        Good luck on your litigation I guess.

        • RocketScientist

          Theres no denying that magazines from different manufacturers and of different design work better or worse than others. There is a WIDE range of magazines that will fit in an AR magwell (and that only deals with external geometry, not even getting into the internal geometry of the mag). Go look up pictures of various brands of polymer magazines for the AR and examine them closely. You will see significant differences. If some of these differences are what make MAGPUL mags an industry standard, and another brand an ‘also-ran’, and these differences were arrived at over thousands of hours of labor and significant financial development cost, shouldn’t MAGPUL be allowed to profit from this work? If not, they would not have put in the effort in the first place, and we would be left with mediocre semi-reliable magazines. In exchange for the ability to make a profit for now, they had to tell all of us exactly how they did it. So in time, when the patent expires, everyone will be able to make mags with this geometry and we’ll all win. Yeah, thats a broken system… :/

          • echelon

            You’re assuming that the other company ripped off Magpul’s designs a priori. What if they did their own research and development and *gasp* found that the same internal geometries that Magpul “discovered” were, in fact, the best geometries in general for that specific kind of magazine? Shocking.

            That’s not something that should even be able to be patented. That’s like if Ford patented the shape and size of a car frame and then sued every other manufacturer for using their “patented shapes”. It’s ridiculous.

            Now, if Magpul uses a super secret sauce recipe for their polymer material that makes their product especially durable, etc. Then that is something that could and should be patented.

            In my industry there are companies that patent computer code that does a very generic thing and then sue other software companies whom they determine are “infringing on their patented code”, when in fact any 4th rate hack of a programmer could make that code…but no, by all means let’s just give the bloodsucking lawyers and the bloated court system more ways to rob us of our time and money for nothing…

            Yay ‘Murica! With Liberty and Justice For All!!!

    • Sadler

      Healthy competition isn’t stealing IP from other companies. Magpul is required to defend their patent, or they lose it.

      • echelon

        My bigger problem isn’t with Magpul “playing the game”, it’s with the definition of “IP” and the types of things that are allowed to be patented more than anything.

  • jess

    my guess is the internal rails

  • ColaBox

    Looks like Magpul is afraid of competition. They already own the polymer market, if they can complain about magazine designs what’s stopping then from suing another company over another product? Mako basically took the AFG and xenomorphed it, is Magpul going to sue over the fact Mako’s product is also angled? The world of law regarding these things is such a cluster f*ck.

  • SP mclaughlin
  • ttzx

    No problem. I’ll just order some transparent PMAGs. Wait, what is that you said…?

    • Geodkyt

      Hey, if you want a reliable, sturdy, transparent (or at least translucent) magazine, buy a Lancer. Which DOESN’T infringe on someone else’s patent.

      I use both Lancers and PMags, love ’em both.

      Do note, however, that truly transparent plastics (to use the “generic” term, chemical engineering pedants – just run with it, ‘kay? 😉 ) tend to be significantly weaker or more brittle.

  • Andrew

    Magpul has the absolute right to defend their patents if they feel that have been infringed. Is it necessary? Probably not, they keep prices reasonable and make a great product. I even own about a dozen.

    That said, I still like Brownells magazines better.

  • David_TheMan

    Its a shame that you have people still trying to claim IP foster innovation when numerous studies have been released that show that simply isn’t the case historically or today.

    Here is a link to one of the foremost anti-IP writers and links to the studies I mentioned before.
    http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/yet-another-study-finds-patents-do-not-encourage-innovation/

    I would suggest if yyou are really interested read his book
    Against IP
    http://mises.org/document/3582/Against-Intellectual-Property

  • Jim_Macklin

    Development of a new patent costs a lot of money. The reason for patents and copyrights is protection of developers time to recover their investment. Ideas can’t be patented, an actual manufacturing process, machinery, tools and chemistry can be patented.
    Ideas published can be copyrighted, whether it is a novel, history, or just a dream written to a paper or a digital file.
    Many patents are “improvement” to an existing patent. Take the case of a magazine for an AR pattern rifle; the magazine has to fit in the mag well, the feed lips must be located in a certain manner, etc.
    An inventor, a team or a company may “invent” a completely new, never before seen product or an improvement to a product that they hold a patent or a patent owned by another. About 160 years ago S&W had the White patent on bored-through cylinders. Colt could not make a revolver until the White patent expired in 1873. Winchester had the Henry patent.
    A patent is not free, it cost time, paperwork and sometimes a working models. A book generally has to be published.
    The law provides a period of time where the “inventor” can earn profits on their own invention.

    • David_TheMan

      You do realize that again, your spouting the mantra of protection of inventor has been proven bunk, the inventors benefit comes from being first to market. On top of that IP protections limit innovation and hurt consumers with nothing more than a government granted monopoly on an idea.

      Now if you don’t think government monopolies are good for healthcare and other industries, I really don’t understand how you couldn’t see it is no good in this area as well.

  • ETSgroup

    Hello Everyone,

    Just so it doesn’t look like we are avoiding talking about it, we really can’t speak about the lawsuit at this point because we just don’t have enough info at this time.

    Thanks for everyone’s support and kind words. It really means a lot to us…

    • David_TheMan

      I will say this. Your company is now a company I will look towards to in the future over Magpul

  • wooo

    Oh cry me a river magpul.

    just because someone else wants to make yet another AR magazine that is see through, doesn’t mean you have to sue them.

    like the market isn’t already flooded with AR mags.

    go back to making overpriced plastic.

  • Oh Kay

    I have a few non magpul polymer mags. On more than one occasion I thought I bought a bad batch of bulk ammo. Only to have the same stuff work reliably in pmags.

  • BuzzKillington

    So many ignorant’s to the way patents work. In order to retain protection, you have to actively defend your patent. Let people get away with knocking off your design, and you no longer have rights to it. — Nobody here seems to recognize that prior to magpul, all there was on the market was aluminum mags that looked like this.
    http://www.extremeoutfitters.us/images/products/detail/556mag4ss.jpg

    Once Magpul came out with their polymer mags, everyone started copying the Waffle design. The waffle design is nothing more than aesthetics, and when the inventor of that design patents it, they have a right to keep thieves with no vision from copying their design in order to make money. It doesn’t matter if Pmags came with pink lips imprinted on the sides. If that’s what they patented, and Bubba’s Garage Inc started copying it because they know Magpul is making a bunch of money from selling them, then that’s theft. ETS’s mag coupling system is unique to them, and likely patented. If Magpul started using a similar coupling system on the Pmags, I would expect ETS to go after them for patent infringement, as well. Everyone has lost focus on what original magazines looked like, because ever since the Pmag rolled around, companies have done their darndest to copy toe the line and copy it as much as possible (aesthetically speaking). Now, polymer magazines all have similar features because everyone wants to get in on the game. Magpul is well within their rights to go after those sh*t companies making garbage magazines, hoping the lookalike aesthetics will carry it on to high sales.