Apparently, they decided to sue all the manufacturers of drop-in triggers during the NRA Show:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/05/20/breaking-mossberg-suing-manufacturers-drop-triggers/
>In another instance of the firearms industry feeding on it’s own, it appears that Mossberg is exercising it’s control on the original Chip McCormick patent (US 7,293,385 B2), that it acquired a while ago, and bringing lawsuits against a number of manufacturers of drop in triggers.
>Mossberg currently licenses the design to the new CMC company, who has apparently decided to get Mossberg to go after their competition, i.e. anyone making drop in triggers.
Hopefully recent patent troll rulings will help the courts kick Mossberg's ass before some companies go out of business.
Since when is it a bad thing to enforce your patents?
>>30014414
This.
>>30014414
It isnt. That blog is dildos.
That big evil corporation, wanting to make money by enforcing patents they own.
>>30014414
Since they're suing companies that were making drop-in trigger packs BEFORE Mossberg bought CMC, and are only doing it because it'll fuck over their competition... who are all at the NRA Show and are therefore getting blindsided by this.
Also, patent bullshit like this is why American revolvers couldn't have fully bored through cylinders for DECADES, while European revolvers had them in the Civil War era.
>>30014414
>Since when is it a bad thing to enforce your patents?
>your patents
>that it acquired a while ago
The inventor has nothing to do with it.
>>30014488
Chip McCormick (as in the actual dude) got his financial compensation when someone else paid good money for the patents. If the patents were unenforceable then he obviously wouldn't have gotten paid.
>>30014458
This is also how innovation happens. If no body ever enforced their patents, revolvers, lever actions, pump actions, and other snowflake bullshit would of never been made to get around the patent in the first place.
America could have fully bored cylinders if some jew was willing to pay the inventor to use their ideal.
Or they could of ignored it like MERICA did with the 1903 and Mauser's patent.
Did you really expect mossberg to PAY for a patent and just let everyone else use it for free?
>>30014779
Fuck made it too small
>>30014294
1. I think enforcing your patents is good
2. I like Mossberg
3. This patent is bullshit
Feels conflicted
Did they even bother to offer to licensing out stuff before suing? Or is this the common way of getting people to pay for licensing instead of sending them a nice letter?
>>30014458
They have to do it. It's in the company best interest to do that.
Let's say you rip off one design of mine that I own the rights to and I don't do shit, it could come back to hurt me. If you or some one else rip me off on a dif design later on, I try to sue whi ever over that one, a court can and has thrown out cases, cause you were not truly watching out for what's best for the company.
You're clearly retarded.
>>30014909
>Did they even bother to offer to licensing out stuff before suing?
Nope, as far as anyone knows. The timing of the lawsuit also suggests they didn't, unless they literally went "you have ONE day to agree to a licensing agreement while a bunch of your people are off at the NRA Show."
>Mossberg
>Berg
>>30014435
Not the blog, it's the dipshit author "Phil W". Other TFB contributors are giving him shit.
>>30014458
They own the CMC patent. Just because the original inventor didn't have the balls or resources to sue everyone who copied his invention doesn't mean a company that buys that patent doesn't have the rights to. They own the patent, they can absolutely enforce it.
>>30014554
This. What's so hard for people to understand?
>guy is awarded patent
>people start stealing patented idea
>guy chooses not to go after them
>guy eventually sells patent
>new owner actually decides to enforce what they just bought
>???
>this is somehow evil and a bad thing
Why the fuck would Mossberg buy a patent they couldn't enforce? Why would patents even exist and be able to be bought/sold if only the original owner has the right to defend it?
>>30014859
How's it bullshit? AFAIK Chip McCormick invented and patented the idea.
>>30014909
Like someone mentioned in the article comments, it isn't Mossberg's duty to go out of their way and offer licenses to companies currently infringing on their patent. Those companies should have went to CMC and asked for a license before using the patented idea.
>>30015789
Does mossberg have the right to collect on stuff sold by others prior to them owning the patent? Can companies just change design and ignore them?
>>30015813
>Does mossberg have the right to collect on stuff sold by others prior to them owning the patent?
Why not? The patent was in effect before the other designs came out, and the new designs aren't licensed, so they have just as much of a right to go after them as CMC did.
>>30014294
There's a fundamental issue with the patent here, which is that the courts will throw out overly broad patents on obvious ideas. They took a trigger pack, and put a box around it. Big whoop. Any jackass could have done it; it was obvious. The first company that stands up to OFM is going to leave their lawyers crying in a corner. The timing is how it is so that they can get what money they can before the courts throw their patent out the window.
Patent owner rights aside. Is it possible that this is just a result of overzealous lawyers like the case of smith suing brownells without cooperate knowledge?
>>30014458
>waaaah they broke teh law before someone legally acquired the patent with the resources to sue the shit out of them and it was fine
>>30015874
>it was so obvious
>no one did it before
then it wasn't obvious m8. hindsight bias, look it up.
>>30015841
its called precedent.
in legal terms it means that something has been being done a certain way for a while and therefore thats the way it is.
by chip mcormick not enforcing the patent, an industry was allowed to flourish around the idea. Wilson, giselle, and timney make some of the best, high quality triggers out there, mossberg wants to enforce a patent which it only recently acquired that will hurt these companies.
In this case mossberg acquired the patents with prior knowledge that companies had been allowed to infringe on it. they KNEW before acquiring the patents that the patents were infringed and nothing was done so the patent might as well be void, mossberg is trying to make a quick buck on something they shouldnt have purchased in the first place and trying to fuck the industry over to do it
fuck mossberg
>>30015945
>waaaah they broke teh law before someone legally acquired the patent with the resources to sue the shit out of them and it was fine
yeah, again its called a "precedent"
>>30015984
>>30016005
So you're saying in patent law it's totally normal for precedent to make a patent worthless if the original owner doesn't protect it for some arbitrary amount of time? Sounds like a sack of shit to me. CMC not defending their patent for a while doesn't mean it's invalid. Now that Mossberg owns it they should be able to enforce it if they want.
>>30014779
>>30014832
JMB didn't design the Colt New Marine.
And you're missing the Winchester 1900.
>>30015984
>fuck mossberg
Yet another case putting me on that bandwagon. There are only 2 things I like about Mossberg at this point; 1, the 500 can be had cheap and will accomplish every fudd task under the sun (seriously, I have 4 fucking barrels for mine), and 2, they make a great selection of fudd guns for small shooters (women and kids). Those are their only redeeming qualities.
>>30015984
Geissele doesn't make any AR15 triggers with this type of drop in housing, so far as I remember.
When did Mossberg buy the patent? You say recently acquired but that doesn't really mean anything to me. I don't think CMC was ever such a big company that they could really expect to defend their patent, especially not against a literal horde of copycats, some of which are made by larger companies with better financial resources.
>>30015984
>mossberg is trying to make a quick buck on something they shouldnt have purchased in the first place
Why shouldn't they have though? They do make ARs and AR parts.
>>30016005
are you legitimately retarded?
Violating someone's patent and failing to license doesn't become OK just because they haven't gotten around to suing you yet.
These companies played fast and loose and just lost hard. If they had licensed the patent or bought it like mossberg, they wouldn't be 110% fucked right now.
>>30016084
>Violating someone's patent and failing to license doesn't become OK just because they haven't gotten around to suing you yet.
yes it does dipshit, thats exactly what happens when you dont enforce the patent. thats the way the law actually works
>>30016084
>they wouldn't be 110% fucked right now.
they arent.
mossberg is going to lose hard in court.
they're just trying to bully a few manufacturers into paying a license fee to avoid court costs.
they literally bought the patent to try and extort money, which isnt ok
>>30016118
>>30016167
>reeee why can't I just do things illegally ;_;
most drop in triggers made by timney and such are sub10 year old products, so there isn't any fucking precedent m8 besides flippant violation of patent law. A single individual not having the ability to enforce a patent, selling said patent, then said buyer, a large corporation with a big stick legal division, assraping the chucklefucks who utilized intelectual property illegally is common form.
>>30016030
This is why people have to enforce their patents, because if they don't, the patents become worthless.
The question is whether Chip's lack of enforcement occurred for long enough to render the patent worthless (and thus make Mossberg tremendous suckers).
The answer may be yes.
>>30016058
They make one for the Tavor, however, I can't be bothered to go read whatever Chip McCormicks patent is and see if that is something that only applies to AR's.... And assuming it does, then yeah, you are correct.
>>30015318
kek
Mossberg might just be on to something, and it's bad news.
This is exactly the kind of shit Smart parts/the Gardiner bothers did in paintball. The quietly patented lots of ideas when quite a few guys were already using it. Then they sued those manufacturers once they got rolling. it fucking destroyed the paintball business...
protip
as we move into the future, and 3d printing technology improves and matures and people can, to a certain extent (combined with the internet and increasingly easy corporate espionage because morons cant into information security) download cad files to anything they please you will see the treatment of intellectual property and patent law as we know it cease to exist, probably resembling something along the lines of dmca that is already a joke. As such, business that are in the business of products, without the service to set themselves apart and justify the product someone else can make cheaper will have to evolve their service aspects as well or die
not necessarily a bad thing
stay mad patent fags
>>30016610
Yeah but....
Is that better for us consumers, and I kinda think the answer is no..
>>30016758
>is it better for consumers that anyone can produce a product and the legit companies case for survival is based on their service in addition to their product
Yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollin_White
the problem is that "drop in trigger" is kind of an EXTREMELY BROAD THING TO COMPLETELY ILLEGALIZE FOR THE ENTIRE CONTRY!!!!!!!
>>30014294
Is making a self-contained trigger group for the AR-15 even something that can be patented, or are there specific design elements?
>>30016610
You will never be able to make something as cheaply as a big manufacturer.
3D printing doesn't magically remove economics of scale.
>>30014414
Patents are shitty, and the antithesis of the free market. It's weeding out competition and halting innovation.
Patent Trolls are shitty human beings.
>>30017893
>patents
>halting innovation
What's it like being retarded?
>>30016261
hey i think patent law is great to, lets go patent the ar15 and cripple the firearms industry.
>>30017904
Competition drives innovation, not shitty fucking patents.
Corporations will always continue to look and seek for competitive advantage against one another by continually innovating.
Please give me a direct example of how patents benefited an industry... I'll be waiting to give you 10 examples for each one.
You stupid fucking prick.
>>30017921
>Competition drives innovation,
Uh, no.
Profits do.
Innovation costs money.
So you have to recoup your costs by having your innovation result in a product that sells better.
If everyone can just copy your innovation without having to spend money developing it, all you do is lose money.
Same question as before.
>>30017911
...I'm having trouble believing you are this retarded.
Colts patents on the AR15, bought from eugene stoner, all expired around 1980.
>>30017921
you obviously don't know much about guns then. Or how patents work.
>>30017904
It's a balance. Patents can be abused to starve out competition and prevent further advancement in the field. Especially reduction in price.
For every technology that patents have helped create, they've driven another into obscurity due to the manufacturer refusing to allow the free market to make it ubiquitous. For instance, the Robinson head screw.
>>30017934
How much R&D went into a box that holds already-existing AR-15 components? Especially considering the fact that other weapons platforms had used similar mechanisms for their FCG decades before?
>>30017934
>If everyone can just copy your innovation without having to spend money developing it, all you do is lose money.
>implying
It's not as if you don't patent something, somehow the entire specs and TDP are published for the world to see.
Oh hey look, a table of how many companies are just losing money.
Either way, no patents is just good for the consumer. Deal with it, Bitch Boy.
>>30017947
You don't have to rip off a patent to innovate.
Just look at all the different revolver designs of the 1800's
>>30017937
Can you please remind me how many variation of parts there are for the AR15? Or how many clones of the MP5 that you can find? Or Keymod? How many Keymod accessories there are available.
>>30017955
A non-zero number. Meaning anyone who copies it is taking advantage of them.
>>30017956
>It's not as if you don't patent something, somehow the entire specs and TDP are published for the world to see.
yeah, because reverse engineering is so difficult. :^)
>Either way, no patents is just good for the consumer. Deal with it, Bitch Boy.
Only in the short term.
In the long term it means no more R&D for better shit, because it's a waste of money.
>Deal with it, Bitch Boy.
Someone sounds mad.
Best evidence of losing an argument.
>>30017992
>yeah, because reverse engineering is so difficult. :^)
So you're just going to reverse engineer it, and offer the exact same products to your consumers? Or, are you going to reverse engineer, and make it better.
Because at this point there is no reason for anyone to buy yours over the "Original", which typically has a much higher marketability than the "Second".
>No more Money for R&D
But you didn't even address the data which suggests that 90% of things that are regarded as extremely important technological developments were never patented. But there seems to be plenty of R&D going around. You know, things like the computer.
Or the estimations that net 97% of patents are useless.
Because nothing every innovates in the open source category.
>Best evidence of losing an argument.
Best evidence is someone not addressing the claims of the person they are arguing with. I'm waiting.
>>30017972
Once you've recouped your costs, patents do nothing but hinder further development of the technology. CMC didn't have to spend millions in R&D to make a trigger box.
Moreover, they let the companies sell the things for years before they suddenly decided to care about their patent. It is a blatant cash grab. I'd rather not do business with a company like that.
>>30017934
>So you have to recoup your costs by having your innovation result in a product that sells better.
>If everyone can just copy your innovation without having to spend money developing it, all you do is lose money.
this may make since when you are dealing with very elaborately designed and very expensive projects such as space rockets or a very specific production method.
the logic behind patent law brakes down when you are dealing with things and ideas that are simple, cheap, or broad. when the patent is for something simple, cheap, or broad, it begins to look more like monopoly enforcement then innovation.
>>30018025
>So you're just going to reverse engineer it, and offer the exact same products to your consumers? Or, are you going to reverse engineer, and make it better.
>Because at this point there is no reason for anyone to buy yours over the "Original", which typically has a much higher marketability than the "Second".
First of all, that's a complete fallacy, second of all, you can afford to sell the same product for less because you didn't spend any money on R&D
>But you didn't even address the data which suggests that 90% of things that are regarded as extremely important technological developments were never patented. But there seems to be plenty of R&D going around. You know, things like the computer.
I have no idea whether your unsourced table has any actual merit or real data.
And I don't see anything about "extremely important technological developments".
Which is of course because you added that yourself to make your argument sound better.
But assuming it does, there are plenty of reasons why you wouldn't patent something.
For example, it being something that doesn't meet patent requirements, is derivative of something else, or doesn't meet other legal standards.
And this isn't even an argument against my position.
You're arguing that patents aren't always used.
Which does nothing to support your position that they are bad.
>Or the estimations that net 97% of patents are useless.
I don't see that anywhere either.
But it's not an actual argument for your position anyway.
>Because nothing every innovates in the open source category.
?
>Best evidence is someone not addressing the claims of the person they are arguing with. I'm waiting.
I stopped reading after your first logical breakdown, because it was pointless to proceed.
>>30018036
>Once you've recouped your costs, patents do nothing but hinder further development of the technology.
Even if that were the case,
I'm not agreeing it is, but even if it were,
It certainly doesn't hinder R&D more than not having patents at all.
Because then people have far less motive to do any R&D
>CMC didn't have to spend millions in R&D to make a trigger box.
>Moreover, they let the companies sell the things for years before they suddenly decided to care about their patent. It is a blatant cash grab. I'd rather not do business with a company like that.
Which is why they'll probably lose in court.
>>30018077
>this may make since
I cringed a bit there.
>when you are dealing with very elaborately designed and very expensive projects such as space rockets or a very specific production method.
>the logic behind patent law brakes down when you are dealing with things and ideas that are simple, cheap, or broad. when the patent is for something simple, cheap, or broad, it begins to look more like monopoly enforcement then innovation.
It's a temporary monopoly on an idea no one ever had before.
And if competitors want to stay competitive, they will have to come up with their own ideas.
As I've said before, look at revolvers of the 1800's
>>30018099
Not making the case that all patents are bad and shouldn't exist, just that they need to be tied to the cost of development and impact rather than some arbitrary time period.
>>30018025
>world without evil patents
>make widget
>don't patent it
>company B also starts making widget
>doesn't improve or change a single thing about it
>still takes a significant chunk of your market share
>no recourse to make them fuck off
revolvers are a perfect example of this. Colt invents the cam and ratchet revolver mechanism, patents it, fly by night assholes copy it 1:1 and try to make money, colt rightly sues the shit out of them, has 21 years controlling the patent and licensing it companies who pay them their pound of flesh, recoups development money and has extra R&D capitol to fuel further innovation. meanwhile other companies work at developing different mechanisms, some dead ends, some successful.
without patent law we'd rapidly get stuck in a period of stagnation for certain items because advancement would become commercially unsound when you're in effect being the pro bono R&D department for your direct competitors.
>>30018077
>it's just a camming rachet bruh
>I'd totally think of that, even though I didn't..
hindsight bias m8, look it up. It took dozens of the worlds top scientists to split the atom in the 40's, but now elementary schoolers can explain a basic gun-type nuclear bomb.
It took over 153 years across several engineers and inventors to discover the munroe effect, but now the secret of modern antitank rounds can be found in an infographic.
things always appear simple when someone else discovered it for you.
>>30018143
Well maybe, but I don't really have enough faith in our courts to do that properly.
>>30018078
>First of all, that's a complete fallacy, second of all, you can afford to sell the same product for less because you didn't spend any money on R&D
Except the money it took the Reverse Engineer the product, develop it, manufacture it, market it, then get it to market, all while the other company is controlling the market. Your argument is ridiculous.
>I have no idea whether your unsourced table has any actual merit or real data.
http://pascal.iseg.utl.pt/~depeco/wp/wp092013.pdf
Please feel free to critique the actual study. Maybe reading into any aspect of the discussion we are having will shine even the tiniest shiver of light into your underdeveloped brain.
My argument is that patents are so ridiculous, that not only are widely regarded "important innovations" in our society patented at a measly rate of 10%, but that 97% of patents out there are useless, not even used, and only come up years later like the following case.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/newegg-sues-patent-troll-that-dropped-its-case/
The 97% number is published by the US Patent Office, and is widely regarded as common knowledge by anyone who has ever researched this in any capacity.
Now, getting back to your argument which was, if something isn't patented, non one will allocate any resources for R&D, because they are just losing money, and that Patents promote innovation. Except, I can provide multiple examples of the complete opposite being true, and you haven't provided one to support your argument.
In recent years a staggering number of Patent trolls have come out of the woodworks, and I'd love to know how firms spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees is helping drive innovation forward.
>>30015318
The suffix "berg" literally means mountain in most Germanic languages. O.F. Mossberg was a Scandinavian immigrant to the U.S. and was not in any way a Jew.
Many kikes have Yiddish surnames and Yiddish is a hybrid language consisting of Semitic and Germanic influences, but you should at least try to look up the people you are referring to before assuming that they are Jewish based solely on their surname.
>>30018172
>Except the money it took the Reverse Engineer the product, develop it, manufacture it, market it, then get it to market, all while the other company is controlling the market. Your argument is ridiculous.
Unless reverse engineering it is somehow more expensive than the R&D to make it, you're still clearly way ahead of the people who invented it, since they had to do all the same shit.
Think before you post.
This is getting embarrassing.
>>30017911
Even if the AR-15's patent didn't expire decades ago, someone buying it and forcing all the shitty companies that make AE-15's to pay or stop making AR's would hardly "cripple the market". If anything it would force some innovation in a stagnant market
>>30018099
>Because then people have far less motive to do any R&D
"In a world with no patents, no one would do anything"
Can you please explain to me how any open source project ever works?
Can you please explain to me all of the different companies in the gun industry that have developed attachment methods like MLOK and Keymod, with no licensing fees or suing everyone who tried to use their method?
>>30018113
>It's a temporary monopoly on an idea no one ever had before.
Because Ideas have huge R&D costs, am I right?
>>30018146
Or, you could have multiple different companies working on the design without being extorted, further developing the mechanism and with more people working on the same design, furthering it in the 21 years, than what had been done, benefiting everyone except the company that had a state sponsored monopoly. And people would have still worked on different designs, same as they always do.
>without patent law we'd rapidly get stuck in a period of stagnation for certain items because advancement would become commercially unsound when you're in effect being the pro bono R&D department for your direct competitors.
Please provide me with actual information to back this claim up, and not "feelings".
>>30018187
And they still have the advantage of time on their side. Please address any of the other lines in the post where you get absolutely ass-devastated.
>>30018219
>Can you please explain to me how any open source project ever works?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=open+source+advantages
>Can you please explain to me all of the different companies in the gun industry that have developed attachment methods like MLOK and Keymod, with no licensing fees or suing everyone who tried to use their method?
Because the concept of attaching something to a gun isn't something you can patent.
>Because Ideas have huge R&D costs, am I right?
Often times, yes.
>Or, you could have multiple different companies working on the design without being extorted, further developing the mechanism and with more people working on the same design, furthering it in the 21 years, than what had been done, benefiting everyone except the company that had a state sponsored monopoly. And people would have still worked on different designs, same as they always do.
Software development =! everything else in the world.
>Please provide me with actual information to back this claim up, and not "feelings".
Go look at what China does.
>And they still have the advantage of time on their side.
How does that stop them from being undercut by another company with no R&D costs to cover?
You understand that market share is a limited thing, right?
>Please address any of the other lines in the post where you get absolutely ass-devastated.
It looks like all you did was sources the graph, not source the 97% claim, and then make a bunch of grammar errors while trying to say that just because some innovations aren't patented, none of them should be.
What exactly am I supposed to say to that other than just pointing out how stupid you are?
It's not worth my time, since I've already done that multiple times before.
>>30018219
>further the design
>mechanism the same in 1836 as it is in 2016
that other guy is right, this is getting embarrassing.
>benefiting everyone
except the people who invented it. And society as a whole, due to a glut of shitty revolvers bandwagoning on a concept they got proven for free taking money out of the pocket of the company actively developing a product.
>most patents are unused and barely anything patented ends up a big winner
>patents stifle commerce/development because they keep people from advancing all those ideas kept to the people who pioneered them!
well which is it faggot?
Patents do exactly what they are supposed to. If others want to use it, they have to pay for it. This isn't a new or difficult concept to people who aren't cutthroat assholes.
>muh mlock and keymod
keymod is trying to become an industry standard attachment system. it in and of itself does not make any money, becoming ubiquitous does.
Same for Mlok. magpul wants to you to buy Mlok forends, receiver covers, etc. to replace your old magpul fixed picatinny ones... with more magpul.
>>30018278
It isn't quite as simple as paying for licensing. A lot of companies will refuse to license for any price so they can corner the market for as long as possible. This is especially prevalent in the pharmaceutical industry.
>>30018253
>Because the concept of attaching something to a gun isn't something you can patent.
It absolutely is. And who are you to deem what can and can't be patented?
http://www.google.com/patents/US6826864
http://www.google.com/patents/US20110146128
http://www.google.com/patents/US7797875
And for the other points:
>feelings
>random point that somehow negates everything that is true in the world
>China; the Country that isn't globally competitive in many aspects, and is facing issues with continuing the growth of its GDP because Consumer Electronics can only do so much
>How does that stop them from being undercut by another company with no R&D costs to cover?
Because being first to market with a product is a huge competitive advantage. Being first to market with anything is a huge advantage, but you can't solely expect to ride that initial wave forever. The other company is going to have a certain period of time to develop and fledge out their product. And once they accomplish that, company 1 will have to continue to adapt and remain competitive in the market place, the outcome of which is the consumer wins.
Jesus christ, this can be seen in the most basic of concepts. Why the fuck does anyone buy Fruit Loops, when Tootie Fruities are the same damn thing, and much cheaper? How the fuck can Kellog be 23 Billion dollar company when so many people are "ripping off" their cereal?
>B..bbut, you made s... spelling mistakes!
And you're a dumb cunt.
It is incredible that someone so obviously ill-informed about all of this ends his posts with some self claimed victory.
>>30018290
>you just activated my trap card.jpg
wewlad, in the pharmaceutical industry almost the ENTIRE cost of a drug is due to years, if not decades of development and testing. Making a pill is practically free, which can be seen by the fact that generic drugs are dirt fucking cheap. A company has 20 years to offset R&D and turn a profit on a new drug OKed by the FDA, after that it's open season.
Pharmaceuticals are a purely intellectual idea at it's final form of conception. Without patents the development of new medication simply wouldn't happen, since any chucklefuck with a spectrometer could figure out how to make the same thing and instantly undercut you, down to selling it for pennies a pill.
>>30018312
>muh cereal strawman!
>yfw fruit loops, corn flakes, etc. were all patented at one time or the other
you're an idiot
>>30018278
The basis of the design is the same, the execution will change. Someone can always make something stronger, better, faster, cheaper, etc.
>except the people who invented it.
Why should the person who simply thought of something be able to own that. The person who executes it better, should be the one to profit from the endeavor, not simply someone who thought of something. Or maybe you two assholes are confusing with how something should idealistically work versus how the current system actually works.
>Patents do exactly what they are supposed to. If others want to use it, they have to pay for it. This isn't a new or difficult concept to people who aren't cutthroat assholes.
Please only talk on this subject if you've actually dealt with the US patent system first hand. It's obvious that you two haven't.
>keymod is trying to become an industry standard attachment system. it in and of itself does not make any money, becoming ubiquitous does.
But I thought nothing would have precious R&D Bucks poured into it unless it can be patented? I'm still waiting for anyone to prove that claim.
>Same for Mlok. magpul wants to you to buy Mlok forends, receiver covers, etc. to replace your old magpul fixed picatinny ones... with more magpul.
Except, they made it open, so anyone can produce MLOK rails and accessories, therefore crippling the business by your standards.
>>30018328
I'm not saying they weren't patented, what I am saying is that currently, they are not patented, and cheaper alternatives on the market, yet Kellogs is a thriving company. How can that be possible when companies are selling the same product cheaper, by your logic?
Oh look,
>NPE litigation made up two-thirds (66.9%) of District Court cases initiated in 2015, compared to 61% in 2014.
Non Practicing Entities made up a majority of the Companies filling suit in Patent Cases in 2015s. Just poor old inventors who can't catch a break.
>NPEs initiated 95% of cases in the E.D.Tex, the largest venue for patent litigation.
Again, those poor old inventors aren't getting their deserved pound of flesh!
http://unifiedpatents.com/2015-year-end-report/
Can someone post the patent?
>>30018382
>US 7,293,385 B2
http://www.google.com/patents/US7293385
>>30018338
>why should innovators make money!
>I deserve the fruits of others labor!
>I still don't understand why patents are a universal thing
see >>30018318
medicine costs almost nothing to manufacture, millions to develop.
>REEE KEYMOD HURR MLOK
keyhole slots are ubiquitous and unpatentable, as are flat slots. the locking hardware for them is akin to https://www.google.com/patents/US2875663, which under US patent law expired a good 40 years beforehand.
>>30018358
>the people who buy the patent should just let people use it for free!
amazingly large corporations have more money to throw at financing lawsuits. 1000 billable hours on a concept that will make 50 million dollars over 20 years would cost ~2-500,000. We know you're an idiot, but maybe you'll understand that one guy might not have half a mil laying around to fight off major patent violation cases. Or the production facility and infrastructure to capitalize on his patent, which is why he sells it for a fixed sum or a percentage of total profit.
>>30018428
>keyhole slots are ubiquitous and unpatentable, as are flat slots.
Except, you're wrong on that as well.
>>30018428
>amazingly large corporations have more money to throw at financing lawsuits. 1000 billable hours on a concept that will make 50 million dollars over 20 years would cost ~2-500,000. We know you're an idiot, but maybe you'll understand that one guy might not have half a mil laying around to fight off major patent violation cases. Or the production facility and infrastructure to capitalize on his patent, which is why he sells it for a fixed sum or a percentage of total profit.
And you just displayed again, for everyone, that you are an idiot with no familiarity on how the system actually works, just rationalizing things as best as you can in your tiny brain without any real world examples.
I'd give a gold star, but unfortunately it's patented and trademarked.
P.S: You've changed your argument from "Patents Drive Innovation" to "muh fairness and fruits of others labors".
>>30018439
ps, several people think you're an idiot.
>hurr ur wrong
If you could patent keyhole slots Noveske would have gotten their asses sued over keymod. But if someone did get "slot shaped like a key end" patented, they'd be told to fuck off if they attempted to enforce it since it's a universal method of mounting.
>ur wrong
how. that is exactly how it works. explain to me how a patent should magically become invalid because someone sells it to a big ebil;_; corporation. explain to me how that company enforcing that patent is somehow wrong.
yes patents do drive innovation, as several people have told you and provided examples of.
yes patents are in place because people like to make money for their work.
Mossberg will lose. Tons of companies have been using the drop in idea for years, maybe even a decade now. It has become so widespread and commonplace that the court will throw out any bullshit.
>>30018458
>keymod works like shelving slots
Because a captive, self retained, reverse taper mounting system, with clearly designed recoil lugs, and designated measurements, is the exact same as warehouse shelving.
Because someone releasing a TDP for public use to another company would warrant them also going after them? You. Are. An. Idiot.
Your argument makes no sense. Case in point, picture attached.
>yes patents do drive innovation, as several people have told you and provided examples of.
There has not been clear evidence of this fact. Just simply offhand comments regurgitating bullshit about how "This was patented, so everything done around this was because that was patented".
Patents limit the amount of people who can work on something, restricting the amount of innovation that can occur with a particular item. Again, one simply has to look at the amazing things that have happened with the AR Industry in the last 10 years to see this in action.
You are also wrong in thinking that a patent can only be created by someone who has made something. You are completely ass backwards in your idealistic vision of how the Patent System should work, and again, not how it is actually being executed.
http://gizmodo.com/this-website-is-using-math-to-create-every-possible-pat-1770238710
![hkpacks[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/cwU84jn.jpg "hkpacks[1].jpg")
>>30014294
so when does HK sue the fuck out of mossberg
>>30018504
>is a keyhole slot a keyhole slot
yes
>ARs
because eugene stoner and colt both got theirs between 1955-73.
>AR innovation
Piston ARs are all different because each design is patented. here are two recent ones
http://www.google.com/patents/US20110094373
http://www.google.com/patents/US20140076151
Patents drive innovation. We'll see which version pans out the best, then when it goes off patent it'll become the most common/industry standard. Or everyone could shit out the first design produced because it's significantly cheaper than developing your own.
this is also why the AR platform is so ubiquitous in the first place.
>best example of that random word generator is completely nonsensical
>implying the patent office wouldn't just categorically deny that guys applications if he actually filed them instead of making internet art as a "statement"
>>30018531
HK must not have patented it in the US, didn't think to patent it, or there is a significant difference in construction between a G3 trigger pack and the idea of drop in trigger packs as per these lawsuits and this patent.
>>30015765
had an idea once. actually took a class on acquiring patent for said idea.
acquiring a patent is not as easy as it sounds and is expensive.
people should just allow anyone to take what they worked hard for.
sure sounds Bernie Sanders in here.
>>30018036
>not even trying to do the research
CMC Triggers is not the one bringing the lawsuit. They aren't even owned by Mossberg, Mossberg literally bought the patents off them, actually years ago. Furthermore, CMC Triggers is a separate entity from Chip McCormick, the 1911 magazine manufacturer, because Chip decided to sell the trigger design and patents way back.
And really it's not like CMC Triggers is such a big company that they can easily take all their copycats to court. They're arguably smaller than some competitors like Wilson.
So if I want to Gucci out my AR I will neeg to get a geissele drop in ASAP?
>>30019500
>Gucci
>Implying a trigger upgrade isnt the most important legitimate "upgrade" you can do to a bone-stock AR
>>30019549
It's not. Stock trigger and sear just need trued and polished
>>30019609
Combat trigger is best trigger. Polish it by firing a few thousand rounds until you become proficient.
>>30019500
Not sure why everyone here shits on ALG defence triggers. Unless you are setting up the ar with magnified optics as a target rifle a gucci combat trigger will serve the purpose just as well at less than half price. Call me a poorfag though.
>>30019809
A better trigger is a better trigger you retard.
Pretty sure the Tokarev invented the drop in trigger pack idea
Wew
>>30017864
The patent is quite flimsy, especially when viewed with HK's trigger packs of its stamped guns as prior art. If any of the defendants fight back there is a more than fair chance Mossberg's patent will be invalidated. Likely Mossberg is hoping to force settlements because last I checked most if not all the companies sued were small fish.
>>30015874
>>30015945
Didn't HK trigger packs do that DECADES before this one? The courts would use that as precedent that the patent is applying to a common idea.
Also, I'd laugh my ass off if IWI USA joins in a lawsuit, since the trigger packs they make and sell could be affected by this shitty patent.
>>30016610
>I have no idea what I'm talking about: The Post
>>30019500
geissele doesn't make drop in AR triggers, they only make normal install trigger. They just include slave pins to make installation easier.
>>30019809
t. Noveske
Isn't the 500 trigger assembly already a form of drop in trigger?
