How can some comapnys rip off the designs of others

I am sure that there are some ar brands that simply stamp their logo on whatever lower they can get, put it together with the least expensive parts to complete the rifle, and call it their own with a hiked up price. How would a first time buyer avoid such an animal? Today's marketing has proven to be able to sell anything these days in other industries.

The whole idea of patents is to TEACH a new/better/improved/novel way of doing things. The incentive to innovate is that a patent grants the owner of the patent exclusive rights to sell items based on his idea - BUT ONLY FOR A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME, after which everyone else is free to copy the design, presumably advancing the overall state of the art.

This is expected and tacitly encouraged.

Colt brought out the 1911 - but there are many makers whose "1911 copies" are better than anything that ever came out of Hartford. Other examples are all around (e.g., the CZ copies mentioned in the OP) - and we're better for it.

Now, if someone is selling a knockoff while the patent is still in effect - that's another matter entirely. Unfortunately, I've been told by company lawyers that litigating this at the corporate level is likely to cost in the neighborhood of $3,000,000 - and up. And if the copy is from OUS, it becomes more complicated.

And if someone invents something truly novel and fails to patent it . . . that's a mistake. Maybe a big one.

grter said:

Ruger quality is why Rugers are not being copied. There is just no shortcuts to making products the Ruger way.

My impression is Ruger's manufacturing methods are not practical to setup for quick fly by night knock off operations that want to make knockoffs the cheapest, easiest way possible.

The truth is I don't know but maybe someone here can tell me. I think it's a good guess after my brief web study on how Ruger researches, chooses, and makes the steel for their firearms.

Also a lot of Ruger firearms are uniquely of Ruger design with a few exceptions granted like the 1911 they make and there are probably lots of other non Ruger designs that sell well enough and are much easier for these knock off companies to tool up for.

Hard use should quickly reveal the difference in some perhaps most instances between cheapies and the real ones provided the real ones are not inferior to begin with. Then there are those that only look the same on the outside but are nothing alike inside. I think it can swing either way with those.

Click to expand...

I don't think Ruger product quality is anything special. They make heavy-duty (if inelegant) guns, but they're not Korth or some would say, even S&W or SIG.

Ruger is an excellent copier. For a while it seemed like Colt and Kel-Tech were Ruger's R&D facilities.

Ruger doesn't make steel. They do a lot of investment casting though.

I'll keep my Norinco 1911, thank you. It has worked just as reliably as any Colt I have ever used.

george burns said:

Some guys may remember the old saying when the Japanese started making cars back in the late 60's, that they never had an original idea, but could copy anything made and sell it cheaper.
They proved that with all or the Japanese cars that culminated in the Infinity brand, which I myself was guilty of buying when they first came out.
It was unheard of to have a Luxury 4 door sedan that did 0-60 in 6 seconds, with a luxury interior and appointments.
But my family didn't speak to me for a year. My dad understood, but my uncles were all with Eastern airlines, Republic, Auto lite, etc., needless to say, you were supposed to buy American in their world
But I said that if the American car builders could build such a car, I would be the first in line for one. They were making the same ugly underpowered boring K car sedans back then.
The gun world should be different only because it appears that most of the market for civilian firearms is here in the States.
I guess that it doesn't pay for them to gear up for such a limited market, which is good for us. I don't want a Honda 50 cal, or a Suzuki 15 round 9mm pistol in my safe, none of the other guns would speak to it.
But I wonder what innovations would occur if there were more competition in the field.
Maybe a self cleaning gun, throw it in the oven at 500 for a half an hour, lol

Click to expand...

There are a few reasons why bigger players don't get into gun making. First, companies like Norinco which might really be able to create some competition are not allowed to do business in the US.

Guns are also a highly taboo product. Were they not and if they were easier to import (thanks GCA of 1968), I suspect companies like Wal*Mart, Sears and sporting goods manufacturers would get into the business of making and/or importing them.

If those barriers did not exist, I suspect high quality Glock knock-offs would be available for between $99 and $199.99.

Ya' know how American companies that build in America and pay American workers a fair wage have to charge more for their products? And in turn, they generally get full protection of their intellectual property when infringed by other American companies and if they are infringed sufficiently by foreign concerns, those products will get taxed or blocked from entry?
So when foreign companies are infringed by other foreign companies and whose parent countries can offer no protection, it doesn't bother me in the least.
Another reason to pay a bit more and buy something made in the U.S.
B

I don't think Ruger product quality is anything special. They make heavy-duty (if inelegant) guns, but they're not Korth or some would say, even S&W or SIG.

Ruger is an excellent copier. For a while it seemed like Colt and Kel-Tech were Ruger's R&D facilities.

Ruger doesn't make steel. They do a lot of investment casting though.

Click to expand...

You use S&W as a superior product example and then blast Ruger as a copier. Funny that between the two companies, S&W is the one that actually had to go to court over their ripoff of Glock with their Sigma line.
And Sig who models their line from CZs and makes 1911s.

I have no beef with any of these companies and like many of their products respectively, but lets not go burning the straw man here.

Once upon a time a high end knifemaker came up with a novel new way to lock the blade into position. It's arguable that we even need blade locks on a pocketknife, but guys like me have gotten used to having them on knives as we abuse them doing things we shouldn't.

Well, said maker did not patent his design, and it was quickly copied by the better makers. That spread as popularity rose, and it became the defacto standard for new designs world wide pretty quickly. From there other makers engineered a derivative that has proven even more durable and which offers even more variations.

I'm talking about Walker's liner lock - and the framelock knife design that came from that. If you were part of folding field knife design and use from the early 90's on, the liner lock in all it's variations of quality and reliability has become the standard for modern knives. Good or bad it's one part of why we have so many different ones today and why the market has grown exponentially.

Had Walker patented it he's likely be much more wealthy licensing the design, and we would be about 15 year behind on seeing Chinese knockoffs - but that is about all that would be different. The patent holder gets to have an exclusive on the design until it expires, IF he is willing to protect it in a court of law.

If it's just the lines of the knife or a particular embellishment, not so much. The drop point recurve American tanto blade is pretty new, Strider Knives was the early adopter and maybe even the innovator, don't know as it's been around awhile. But quite a few lower priced ones are on the market now and the blade shape is actually pretty useful.

Had either been patented we'd still be using lock backs, or axis locks, and the market maybe wouldn't have grown so big. Same as the bolt action rifle - would we have gone thru the customization of hunting rifles based on Mauser actions or it's copies in the 1950s, with wildcat rounds becoming shelf staple items if it was all patented up with legalistic trade restrictions?

Would the internet be what it is today if IBM had stuck to their guns and not released the details of their desktop computer design for others to copy? It became a world wide standard and is why we even discuss issues like this. They gave it up, and we benefited.

I see the complaint based on a lack of understanding that American business is based on discovering what the best selling trend is and going after the market with another similar product. Is Swiffer the only item like it for floor cleaning now? Nobody seems to mind there are a number of competitors out there leeching their business with disreputable copies stealing their business.

Look into your favorite products and like as not, they aren't the original nor did they innovate the design. If we really applied a view into respecting intellectual design and never accepting anything other than the original with no changes as a measure of respect, we'd only be buying Mauser bolt actions and Colt 1911's. The rest of the market wouldn't exist at all, thieving leeches are what they are.

The only polymer gun would be the HK VP70, and that is what we'd be used to on the hip of LEO's since the 1970's.

Interesting alternate reality that I'm glad I don't live in. My family couldn't even afford Converse hightops growing up, it literally was a matter of buying cheaper shoes or dinner than night.

Glad I got both, even if it was Spam roast.

And Kalishnikov must be rolling in his grave watching the dirty capitalist pigs in the USA of all places COPYING his design without even saying thanks, never mind sending money...

Click to expand...

Seems he lived out his later years in comfort from the income produced by the royalties from Kalashnikov vodka, So I'd wager he warmed up a bit toward capitalism

jlr1962 said:

I hear ya George. Buy the original if it pleases you. All industries have the same problem or competitive spirit. Sometimes the original is improved upon by the imposter. I don't know enough about the gun industry to know who is who.

Who made the original ar?
Who made the original 1911?
Who made the original revolver?
Who made the original plastic striker fired gun?

Click to expand...

Patent trolling is a lucrative business!

Functional patents last 20 years from the date of applicaton. Design patents last 15 years.

Mike

Walker was no stranger to patents (he he holds at least 20 patents and trademarks). He trademarked the name "Linerlock" but he certainly knew the basic design had already been patented in 1906: http://www.google.com/patents/US825093

Mike

george burns said:

I understand that China, Korea, make knockoffs of everything, but they aren't being sold by American company's like Buds. If they "Buds" are actually paying to have knock offs made, we should boycott them. Turkey has growing anti American constituency . These Country's don't even like us, and we are buying guns from them, something is wrong with that. We can get all the guns we want from either our own country or friendly Governments and out allies, "not just allies on paper", we give the Pakistani's 2 billion in aid and the had Bin Laden, living there under military watch.
Please don't bring up Glock, as the Austrian people are friendly to the west, as are many other country's we do business with, and they are not copying our products. Same for military weapons, that war was fought and most of them are allies or have a decent relation ship with the West. But Korea, China, and several others want us dead.
The best one is that CNN, "my uncles used to call it the Commie network" , has a commercial, that says Invest In Kazakhstan, I find that to be out of a bad movie, last time I checked that was a stronghold for terrorist organizations and a strong alignment with Turkey who has a growing anti American sentiment.
And we are buying guns from them.

Click to expand...

China wants us dead? They are making trillions off us and do not want it to end. Must be hard to live when you think everyone wants to kill you. Some people have to cut thru the plastic sheeting and duct tape around their rooms and come out. Every gun is a copy or refinement of what came before it from the first gun made to present. Every bolt action is a copy of a mauser etc. and now the savage design is being copied big time.

The twin aims of our patent system are to:

1. Encourage and reward innovation by giving monopolies of fixed duration; and
2. Encourage the dissemination of technology by requiring that patents be publicly disclosed and having the monopoly come to an end.

Businesses are supposed to be copying after patents expire.

Patents aren't worth nearly what they used to be. They are now much, much harder to defend. The person adopting patented technology can now sue the patent holder in a distant court, and make the patent holder come there to defend the patent. Our company has a couple of very good patents that were rendered practically worthless by this and other changes.

"Imitation is the sincerest for of flattery" and S&W gave it a shot in 1994 with the Sigmas: SW40F and SW9F. Glock filed a patent infringement suite, the case was settle out of court in 1997 and S&W along with making a payment of undisclosed amount to Glock agreed to made changes to the Sigmas. So much for flattery as a profit maker.

Patents have a specific lifetime and after that designs are up for grab. Non Glock Glock-like designs are a bit like generic drugs.

http://www.inventionstatistics.com/Patent_Protection_Time_Periods.html

The same could be said about Glocks. Sure, when S&W tried to clone it way back when, it ran into legal issues. If it happen today, Glock would be laughed out of the courts because hi-cap striker poly guns are ubiquitous.

george burns said:

. . . I don't want a Honda 50 cal, or a Suzuki 15 round 9mm pistol in my safe, none of the other guns would speak to it.

Click to expand...

Do you by any chance own a Browning Citori, Cynergy, BLR Lightweight, BLR Lightweight '81, A-Bolt II, X-Bolt, BT-99, BL-22 Rifle, Auto-22 Rifle, T-Bolt, BPS, Gold 10 ga, or a post-1976 Auto-5?

How about a recent vintage Winchester 1885 HWTH, 1892 Trapper, or 1886?

They're made by Miroku.

Guess what country Miroku is in.

This seems to be a thread about one man's bigotry more than about manufacturing

Thanks Arizona I was aware of those older knives, didn't make the connection.

I see the real issue as someone taking exception to a copy of what they perceive as a higher end item they might own to embellish their masculinity. I've read remarks from Rolex and authentic Cobra owners, there's a lot of phrases tossed about dealing with intellectual concepts and provenance. Boil it right down to functional excellence and Rolex is just making a nice $500 movement with a $9000 price tag, and the Cobras are actually mid 60's Ford engines shoehorned into an import British copy of the '54 Ferrari Barchetta. A copy of some other sports car.

Just be real careful talking about it a car show, there's a lot of macho ego invested in them. Anyone with a knowledge of their actual workings can get a more precise watch or faster car for far less money.

It's not about the leeches ripping off the design, it's about someone invested into the charisma and warm fuzzy ego enhancement of owning something that takes money to buy. Like buying all new clothes at the Mall in high end brands.

Me, I pick them up at DAV after they have been donated, for pennies on the dollar. North Face goretex hikers? Took a pair down the Grand Canyon two years ago, 8.99. Alpha N3B parka, 14.99, wore it all day yesterday fixing my daughter's car and hauling her a washer and dryer in 20 degree temps.

For all the sniffling about ripping off designs I find the high end consumer tosses them aside for nothing when they see they have become commonplace and mundane. They can't tolerate them when they see the masses possessing them. The real intent isn't their originality as much as they have one and you don't. Once that image as been sullied by continued sales and copies emerging on the market, they aren't loyal and drop them like hot potatoes.

It's not about the IP aspects at all, it's about their image and what it takes to continue maintaining their place in the social pecking order. They don't really give a rip about it. They just have more money to propup their image.

Bring on the copies and used stuff. I get to use it until it wears out, and do so for a lot less money than others pay being "better" than me.

JRWhit said:

You use S&W as a superior product example and then blast Ruger as a copier. Funny that between the two companies, S&W is the one that actually had to go to court over their ripoff of Glock with their Sigma line.

Click to expand...

What I actually said was "they're not Korth or some would say, even S&W or SIG."

JRWhit said:

And Sig who models their line from CZs and makes 1911s. I have no beef with any of these companies and like many of their products respectively, but lets not go burning the straw man here.

Click to expand...

The fact remains that no one has copied others as extensively as Ruger. While Ruger is known for making strong, often overbuilt firearms, they are not known to have the highest product quality in the market.

Look at all those thieving thieves making guns that fire bullets out of self-contained metallic cartridges! Those bastitches are blatantly ripping off Louis-Nicolas Flobert's brass cartridge design from 1845! HOW DARE THEY.