New Remarms 700 production?

Varminterror said:

This is pretty standard business practice. Ruger isn’t honoring any warranty work on pre-Ruger Marlins either, are you so incredulous about that? New Winchester brand owners aren’t warranting old Winchester models - is that as equally egregious?

Companies don’t buy that kind of liability - there’s no business sense in buying the mistakes someone else made. There’s nothing dishonest about that.

Click to expand...

I disagree. If you want to trade on the Good Will of a brand, then you should fulfill the spirit that established the reputation you seek to exploit. Why do you excuse dishonest business practices just because it's "standard practice?"

upptick said:

I disagree. If you want to trade on the Good Will of a brand, then you should fulfill the spirit that established the reputation you seek to exploit. Why do you excuse dishonest business practices just because it's "standard practice?"

Click to expand...

There’s nothing dishonest about it.

Two different companies make two different promises to back two different products. It just so happens they use the same brand name - legally.

If I told my neighbor I would build him a shed, then I moved away, would he knock on the front door and ask the new owner to build him a shed, based on the promise I had made? Nope. Equally, would you be so angry if the newspaper ran a story talking about the new owners moving into town, and “neglected” to shun the new tenants had no intention of building the shed for their neighbor that the former tenant had promised? Doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it?

Be pissed about blue skies if you want, but there’s no reason a buying company is ever obligated to pick up warranties of the company they purchased out of bankruptcy. Some DO, and some companies are in position to negotiate continued warranty coverage as terms of their negotiation during acquisitions or mergers, such as when Remington purchased Marlin, but none are obligated to do so, and legal and market standard proves they don’t have to.

This is why brands should die for real. Ruger making Marlin Lever-Actions is a fine example, other than the designs of the guns (that are in the public domain now anyone could make and sell Marlin 1894 patterned rifles) there is nothing else the same as when Remington owned Marlin and we are even more removed from the original Marlin. Ruger is almost certainly not buying the raw steel from from the same suppliers and having other companies make any forging and using different suppliers for wood than Remington or Marlin did. The old employees Remington and certainly Marlin are all gone. A few of the machines are the same from the purchase but it would not surprise me if in standing up the new Ruglin manufacturing line those machines were stripped down to their basics and much of the specialized fixturing and tooling reworked and even replaced to fit with Ruger's manufacturing priorities not Remington's. Its all a sham hidden behind the brand name, but alas the marketing sham works well enough to make it a wise investment for Ruger.

At least with Rem Arms LLC they are making 700's on the same machines in the same building with at least a subset of the former Remington employees. Unfortunately they kept the senior leadership too.

The idea someone expects a new company even Rem Arms LLC that is a stripped down copy of the original Remington to honor the warranties of a defunct company seems unrealistic to me.

If Ruger suddenly started making an exact copy of the Remington 700 (but called it the Ruger 7000) you would not expect them to honor a warranty claims on a Remington 700 made by the former Remington Outdoor Company. There is really no difference between that and Rem Arms LLC and Remington. Or for that matter Ruger honoring a Remington or JM Marlin warranty claim. The best you should expect is that their version is similar enough that you can get parts to fix your old gun and bonus if they are willing to work on your old guns for a fee.

Varminterror said:

There’s nothing dishonest about it.

Two different companies make two different promises to back two different products. It just so happens they use the same brand name - legally.

If I told my neighbor I would build him a shed, then I moved away, would he knock on the front door and ask the new owner to build him a shed, based on the promise I had made? Nope. Equally, would you be so angry if the newspaper ran a story talking about the new owners moving into town, and “neglected” to shun the new tenants had no intention of building the shed for their neighbor that the former tenant had promised? Doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it?

Be pissed about blue skies if you want, but there’s no reason a buying company is ever obligated to pick up warranties of the company they purchased out of bankruptcy. Some DO, and some companies are in position to negotiate continued warranty coverage as terms of their negotiation during acquisitions or mergers, such as when Remington purchased Marlin, but none are obligated to do so, and legal and market standard proves they don’t have to.

Click to expand...

Varminterror said:

There’s nothing dishonest about it.

Two different companies make two different promises to back two different products. It just so happens they use the same brand name - legally.

If I told my neighbor I would build him a shed, then I moved away, would he knock on the front door and ask the new owner to build him a shed, based on the promise I had made? Nope. Equally, would you be so angry if the newspaper ran a story talking about the new owners moving into town, and “neglected” to shun the new tenants had no intention of building the shed for their neighbor that the former tenant had promised? Doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it?

Be pissed about blue skies if you want, but there’s no reason a buying company is ever obligated to pick up warranties of the company they purchased out of bankruptcy. Some DO, and some companies are in position to negotiate continued warranty coverage as terms of their negotiation during acquisitions or mergers, such as when Remington purchased Marlin, but none are obligated to do so, and legal and market standard proves they don’t have to.

Click to expand...

Trademarks are technically "source indicators," signaling to the market that a certain product is associated with a certain manufacturer and meets certain standards. Shady companies constantly try to exploit and pirate famous trademarks because of public recognition and the perceived quality associated with that mark. If a mark is licensed, the licensee is held to the standards of the original mark and if the licensor does not police and enforce it's mark, it risks losing it because of the loss of recognition and brand dilution / confusion that occurs in the eyes of the public. When a trademark is assigned (like in the recent cases of Remington and Marlin), the Good Will associated with that mark is also assigned and the value of the mark is directly related to that Good Will, which operates as a market proxy for the quality of the goods. It is possible to purchase a mark and to also explicitly disclaim the liabilities associated with the previous owner of the mark. RemArms and Ruger are not technically pirating the trademarks REMINGTON and MARLIN because they actually own them, but they sure as heck are not the spiritual inheritors of the generations of inventors and gunsmiths who built those brands. Yet, they still want to pretend that they are...until someone with a slightly older rifle asks them to fix it. That strikes me as dishonest and since there are plenty of other quality firearms manufacturers who are not trying to deceive the public, I see no reason to buy from posers.

Varminterror said:

I got a video yesterday from a guy who spins barrels for my PRS rifles of a bolt from a new production R700, and a gauge in the bolt head clicks back and forth like it had a detent - thing looked like a 3 on the tree shifter! These screen shots show the “click” positions… not exactly inspiring, not much reason to think a case would be held true to the bore.

Click to expand...

Show me the same test on a Ruger 77, old model 70 or a Mauser... lol

DM

upptick said:

REMINGTON and MARLIN because they actually own them, but they sure as heck are not the spiritual inheritors of the generations of inventors and gunsmiths who built those brands.

Click to expand...

Nor have been the folks operating under the Remington or Marlin brand names for a couple decades already…

upptick said:

When a trademark is assigned (like in the recent cases of Remington and Marlin), the Good Will associated with that mark is also assigned and the value of the mark is directly related to that Good Will, which operates as a market proxy for the quality of the goods.

Click to expand...

Purchase out of bankruptcy isn’t a licensing agreement, and the enforcement of Good Will is ONLY defined by the terms agreed in the purchase agreement. There remains no other enforcing entity of the Trademarks other than Ruger and Rem Arms, as the former entity is no longer.

Varminterror said:

Purchase out of bankruptcy isn’t a licensing agreement, and the enforcement of Good Will is ONLY defined by the terms agreed in the purchase agreement. There remains no other enforcing entity of the Trademarks other than Ruger and Rem Arms, as the former entity is no longer.

Click to expand...

You're apparently unfamiliar with the distinction between licensing and assigning intellectual property. The former is a covenant not to enforce the trademark (or patent) against the licensee; the latter is the actual transfer of ownership of the IP. Purchasing assets in a bankruptcy proceeding is an assignment, not a license. Starting to feel like you've brought a knife to a gunfight yet?

Varminterror said:

Nor have been the folks operating under the Remington or Marlin brand names for a couple decades already…

Click to expand...

Which is why knowledgable folks who want to buy high quality firearms from an ethical company get a Bergara if they want a new Remington 700 and if they want a new lever action they get a Henry or (FN Miroku) Winchester or Browning.

upptick said:

Purchasing assets in a bankruptcy proceeding is an assignment, not a license.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point - the Obligation of trademark defense and ability of the “licensor” only applies in a licensing agreement - that’s NOT THE CASE for Ruger’s and Rem Arm’s purchase of the Remington Trademarks and IP.

Licensing, acquisition, and sale of IP is how I make my living, your original message is conflating Licensing agreements with the transfer of ownership.

The fact remains - there’s no obligation of the purchasing party to uphold warranty on products manufactured by the former unless described in the assignment agreement - which in the case of this bankruptcy, it’s pretty obvious no such terms were included. There’s equally no obligation for the new assignee to retain design consistency even such parts would be interchangeable, and new models and designs can diverge from the transferred IP with no infringement. So as Ruger and Rem Arms change whatever they choose to change, potentially causing incompatibility with old production, that’s just part of life for these brands.

upptick said:

Which is why knowledgable folks who want to buy high quality firearms from an ethical company get a Bergara if they want a new Remington 700 and if they want a new lever action they get a Henry or (FN Miroku) Winchester or Browning.

Click to expand...

It’s a pretty long stretch of the imagination to imply Ruger’s doing anything unethical here by buying and rebuilding the Marlin product line. Nor really Rem Arms, other than the shady dealing we know the leadership has done in the past, and the ugly appearance of a distressed capital manager negotiating in bankruptcy to buy the company he bankrupted… But Ruger’s acquisition here doesn’t seem nefarious at all - they bought a company, product line, and corresponding IP, bought manufacturing gear, and they’re adapting the line to match their manufacturing model - what’s unethical there? Certainly though, an interesting recommendation - pot calling the kettle black - to recommend Henry thereafter, or Winchester/Miroku since both of those companies are also selling rifles on brand names which were designed and reputations built by people and companies which have no affiliation with their current companies or manufacturing bases.

The one catches in this discussion is Rem Arms LLC does not own the Remington trademark. That is technically owned by Vista Outdoors. Rem Arms has some arrangement with Vista to use the trademark on the firearms. I believe a similar arrangement to how FN uses the Winchester Trademark on firearms but Olin Corp owns the trademark and sells Ammo branded as such.

The other thing, there is vanishingly little IP in any of this break up of the former Remington Outdoor Company. Nearly all the Remington and Marlin designs are long out of any patent protection. There are a few patents but most of those went to parties other than Rem Arms or Ruger. Although Ruger swiped a couple parents related to a new semi-auto 22 rimfire very similar in some ways to the 10/22 Remington was working on and is blocking Rem Arm from finishing. Ruger's lawyers where way more aware and savvy than Rem Arms during the auction. Rem Arms even sued them over it and lost...

I feel sorry for the honest employees who keep trying to make a living working for whatever is "Remington" these days. I have no well wishes for the self-dealing management and private equity people who brought the company and brand down over the years in order to unduly benefit themselves.