6.8 SPC Forums banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,229 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,460 Posts
Companies that are not paying royalties. CMC and Wilson Combat are paying already and supportive of the suit.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,229 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
Companies that are not paying royalties. CMC and Wilson Combat are paying already and supportive of the suit.
Yes, just surprised me to find out that Mossberg held the patent on them. Also I guess I am a little confused. It says the Chip McCormick invented the trigger and CMC is his company right? So why does Mossberg hold the patent rights?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,474 Posts
Yes, just surprised me to find out that Mossberg held the patent on them. Also I guess I am a little confused. It says the Chip McCormick invented the trigger and CMC is his company right? So why does Mossberg hold the patent rights?
As we learned with the bolts fiasco it is not the company who invents them or even improves them but the company (or parasite) who is granted the patent first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,393 Posts
As we learned with the bolts fiasco it is not the company who invents them or even improves them but the company (or parasite) who is granted the patent first.
Not the same situation at all. Sounds like Chip McCormick filed the patent and eventually sold it to another company. That was either Mossberg or Mossberg later bought the rights. CMC pays royalties on their triggers as they should. Other companies making the same products that fall under the patent and are not paying royalties are in the wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,474 Posts
Not the same situation at all. Sounds like Chip McCormick filed the patent and eventually sold it to another company. That was either Mossberg or Mossberg later bought the rights. CMC pays royalties on their triggers as they should. Other companies making the same products that fall under the patent and are not paying royalties are in the wrong.
Thanks for explaining. I know parasites and cockroaches like the bolt idea thieve are not frequent but they are out there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,732 Posts
interesting info--- fostech-echo trigger states on their website "licensed through Mossberg" ---now I know why, because its a drop in style trigger (they would be one of the ones that is paying the royalty fee)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,874 Posts
interesting info--- fostech-echo trigger states on their website "licensed through Mossberg" ---now I know why, because its a drop in style trigger (they would be one of the ones that is paying the royalty fee)
That's also a good indicator of why we don't see all that many drop in triggers compared to non-drop types. Not many companies want to pay royalties on parts if they can avoid it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
That's a bunch of bull****. Some things shouldn't be copyrighted, this is one of them. Kills competition and innovation.

Guess I need to stock up on triggers before prices go up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,323 Posts
That's a bunch of bull****. Some things shouldn't be copyrighted, this is one of them. Kills competition and innovation.

Guess I need to stock up on triggers before prices go up.
Not true at all, it is a patent, not a "copyright", It does NOT "kill competition and innovation", just the opposite in fact, if there is no patent protection, there is very little reason to develop anything new with all the risk and expense, when you can just copy the work someone else did. If you don't want to pay for the rights to use someone else's development and engineering, invent something on your own.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
374 Posts
Yes, just surprised me to find out that Mossberg held the patent on them. Also I guess I am a little confused. It says the Chip McCormick invented the trigger and CMC is his company right? So why does Mossberg hold the patent rights?
Patent rights can be assigned--meaning that the owner of the patent isn't necessarily the inventor. Also, patent rights can be licensed and those licenses can be exclusive or non-exclusive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
374 Posts
That's a bunch of bull****. Some things shouldn't be copyrighted, this is one of them. Kills competition and innovation.

Guess I need to stock up on triggers before prices go up.
Copyright protects expression--like how a storyteller actually puts words, sentences, paragraphs and chapters together in a book. Patents protect new, useful, non-obvious ideas that are reduced to actual practice. The public gains by gaining access to the art taught within the claims and description of the patent and the patent-holder gains by having exclusive right to practice the art taught in the patent for a period of years. Essentially, the patent-holder gets an exclusive headstart on everyone else as the benefit of sharing his/her idea with the rest of us. We'll all get to use the idea for free once the patent's term runs out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,019 Posts
I agree in principle on patent rights but we need to update the patent rules to something like you need a working copy within X years or it goes away not just a patent on a vague idea. Something to get rid of patent trolls and patent holding companies that do nothing but search out companies to sue.

there should also be a cheaper cost alternative to challenge a patent's validity without making the burden of proof so onerous to small companies to prove the had the idea first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
374 Posts
I agree in principle on patent rights but we need to update the patent rules to something like you need a working copy within X years or it goes away not just a patent on a vague idea. Something to get rid of patent trolls and patent holding companies that do nothing but search out companies to sue.

there should also be a cheaper cost alternative to challenge a patent's validity without making the burden of proof so onerous to small companies to prove the had the idea first.
A utility patent can't be granted until the inventor "reduced the idea to practice". That means exactly that--a working version. It's often the case that no one will buy the idea from the inventor or license the idea, or the inventor doesn't have the money to make a go of it on his own. But patents aren't granted on "just vague ideas".

Frequently, large corporations will intentionally try to infringe or work-around a patent's claims, knowing full-well that the time will come when they will be sued for infringement and be forced to pay up. Sometimes this is the only way to get to use an idea that the patent-holder won't license. Courts will often grant forced licenses in such cases. In other cases, the corporations just simply try to ignore that the patent exists . . . the classic example being the intermittent windshield wiper. Every auto manufacturer ignored Robert Kearns, the patent-holder and they ALL were made to pay for their wholesale and blatant infringement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,019 Posts
Then how do we have so many IP lawsuits over patents that some small company has that only consists of lawyers and they are constantly suing others for using their patents? This is a big thing in software. Or is this a different type of patent?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
374 Posts
Then how do we have so many IP lawsuits over patents that some small company has that only consists of lawyers and they are constantly suing others for using their patents? This is a big thing in software. Or is this a different type of patent?
Where there are patents, there will be lawsuits. Period. Software patents are different in some ways and the same in others. Software has complexities and subtleties that are different than the average mechanical invention. Sometimes the work-arounds can be quite clever and establishing infringement can be a challenge. Corporations, IP attorneys, and Courts are all learning as they go in such instances. Also, keep in mind that just because you have a US patent, that doesn't mean you have a patent anywhere else. Inventors need to protect their ideas throughout the world, or at least in the portions of it where they feel their idea(s) will be important. An inventor might need to file with the EPO (European Patent Office), the USPTO (United States Patent Office), and scores of other official entities in order to see their rights protected. It's a huge undertaking. And then there's Asia--where folks often laugh at patent rights . . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
Not true at all, it is a patent, not a "copyright"
Copyright protects expression
Yes I know, difference between copyright and patent. Was in a hurry and said the wrong word. Still mean what I said though.

Design possibilities of an AR trigger are extremely limited. There is pretty much only one way to make a drop in trigger, it's the same basic design that every one uses. Sure their are minor variations on the design, but they are all basically the same. There is no way to design your own there. Even if you started with a bare receiver and and rolled your own, never having looked at a drop in trigger, you would end up with the same basic design that falls under that patent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,323 Posts
Yes I know, difference between copyright and patent. Was in a hurry and said the wrong word. Still mean what I said though.

Design possibilities of an AR trigger are extremely limited. There is pretty much only one way to make a drop in trigger, it's the same basic design that every one uses. Sure their are minor variations on the design, but they are all basically the same. There is no way to design your own there. Even if you started with a bare receiver and and rolled your own, never having looked at a drop in trigger, you would end up with the same basic design that falls under that patent.
I don't understand your point, patents were created to protect those that invent something, and do the engineering on it, otherwise people would sit around waiting for someone else to do all the work and invest all the capital, so they could steal the idea, which is exactly what frequently happens with the Chinese.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,883 Posts
I found this:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...5-triggers-proof-they-date-back-to-the-1990s/
Now what is really interesting: back in the late 1990s in Taiwan, a very innovate rifle was being developed without any fuss or fanfare. When it went into production the Taiwanese T86 (聯勤 Type 86) assault rifle was easily the most innovative AR-15 ever developed, featuring two major features: self contained piston gas system and a self-contained drop-in trigger group! The rifle was first shown to the public in 1996, its design was finalized in 1998 and it went into production into 2000.

Let that sink in for a moment. A full four years before Michael McCormick patented a drop-in triggergroup for an AR-15-style rifle, an unknown genius in Taiwan had already developed one. A full two years before McCormick's patent, this trigger group was in full production and being used by the Republic of China (ROC) Army.
Type 86 Carbine Version
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top