LOL, Roundhill LLC, aka RemArms LLC aka the new Remington is sueing Ruger.

Status
Not open for further replies.
mcb

mcb

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
8,738
Location
North Alabama
A friend sent me this, thought you guys would be amused...

https://cases.primeclerk.com/remingtonoutdoor/Home-DownloadPDF?id1=MjEwNzk1NA==&id2=-1

Apparently Ruger's lawyers bought two patents related to a rotary magazine similar to the 10/22 magazine (but with bolt hold open features) from the former Remington Outdoor Company estate during the bankruptcy auction, in addition to Marlin. The new magazine was going to be used in the replacement to the 597. Roundhill/RemArms apparently caught unaware during the auction wanted the right to use the IP with a free licence and had a supposed tentative deal, they thought. Now Ruger is not following through and Roundhill is sueing. Since the patents are legally now owned by Ruger I don't think Roundhill is in a very good position. (in Ruger's best Vader voice): I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.

Now that Ruger legally owns this IP that would help produce a rifle that would be a direct competitor to the 10/22 why does RemArms think they would/should allow a licence let alone a free license is beyond me.

Rem Arms LLC run by a fudd, a fudd with little business sense and less engineering sense.

Patents in question:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10254063B2/en?oq=10,254,063
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10718584B2/en?oq=10,718,584

Notice the are currently assigned to a Ruger, though it was designed by Remington here in Huntsville.
 
Last edited:
Why make those of us who are acronym/abbreviation naive look up so many things to understand your post?
597= Remington 597 simi auto rifle. IP= intellectual property. Fudd= Someone who owns firearms but does not understand that the 2nd amendment is not about hunting (I think).
 
20. Roundhill did not want to close until all issues with the Ruger License were resolved, but representatives of the estate pushed very hard to close and asked that Roundhill accommodate their schedule. Soura Decl. ¶ 17. On October 12, 2020, Chris Killoy, CEO of Ruger and Chris Metz, CEO of Vista had a call and agreed that Roundhill would have full use of the Patents and that counsel for the parties could work out the details over the coming week. Id. Roundhill accommodated the estate’s desires to close quickly based on these promises.
Click to expand...

Never, ever, close the deal before the details are worked out and on paper. Unfortunately they knew better but went forward anyway.
 
dtwalters said:
Why make those of us who are acronym/abbreviation naive look up so many things to understand your post?
597= Remington 597 simi auto rifle. IP= intellectual property. Fudd= Someone who owns firearms but does not understand that the 2nd amendment is not about hunting (I think).
Click to expand...
Sorry, I normally don't use too many abbreviations without defining them but I am doing this all on my phone, I am away from computer/keyboard and was not going to get back to one for a few days.

Yes your definition of fudd is correct and the CEO of Rem Arms LLC is a picture perfect example of a fudd.
 
JCooperfan1911 said:
If you go by the gun rags reviews, Rem Arms LLC is now producing the finest quality 870s in history.

In reality, lots of complaints of poor fit and finish, just like the old Big Green before the bankruptcy.
Click to expand...
Not to defend Ren Arms but the few reviews of the new 870 Fieldmaster so far have been more good than bad. As I have said before you could roll a $100 up, put it in the chamber of a new 870 and I would not give you $80. But my angst against Rem Arm has far more to do with the leadership and their business practices than the actual product.
 
mcb said:
Not yet.

Very dark and poorly kept ground last time I drove by a few weeks ago ...
Click to expand...
Sounds like a good spot for some Urbanex.....:D

Oh, sorry, DT.
Urbanex= urban exploring. Basically tresspassing in abandoned/ post-apocalyptic buildings for the purpose of obtaining clicks, likes, and subscriptions on ones YT channel.

YT= Youtube.
:p
 
Last edited:
mcb said:
Not yet.

Very dark and poorly kept ground last time I drove by a few weeks ago ...
Click to expand...

Was there any confirmation that when Remington shuttered Bushmaster+DPMS to make the attempted Navajo sale that they didn't sell the equipment?
 
arsterling180 said:
Was there any confirmation that when Remington shuttered Bushmaster+DPMS to make the attempted Navajo sale that they didn't sell the equipment?
Click to expand...
Ken D'arcy did shutter Bushmaster and DPMS in late 2019. He sold off most of the related parts for pennies on the dollar in the run up to the second bankruptcy but it was unrelated to the Navajo sale. The Navajo Nation was never as serious as some sources reported, mostly the speculative/research work of one person within the Navajo financial originization.

Why would you shut down an AR brand less than a year before a presidential election? Seems like a quintessential Fudd move. So is having to sueing Ruger for IP your own R&D group generated, Darcy should have known about, and procured during the bankruptcy auction. A good CEO would know what new products his R&D group was working on. Clearly he did not.
 
That wasn't very smart of RemArms. Then again I don't think this 870 Fieldmaster is a good idea either. I want to see RemArms succeed and get back to their roots of making quality Remington firearms. But the more time that goes on the less I think that is going to happen, unfortunately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcb
I hope Ruger gets justice and RemArms gets so darned smote. The Cabal can’t ruin just one company, they need to try and bleed Ruger as well? Wouldn’t it be nice if this caused a financial investigation of everyone involved except Ruger?:evil:

If I sold a Faberge egg for seven dollars in a yard sale, I would want it back too.
I would also be just a stupid to think I’d get it back…;)
 
mcb said:
A friend sent me this, thought you guys would be amused...

https://cases.primeclerk.com/remingtonoutdoor/Home-DownloadPDF?id1=MjEwNzk1NA==&id2=-1

Apparently Ruger's lawyers bought two patents related to a rotary magazine similar to the 10/22 magazine (but with bolt hold open features) from the former Remington Outdoor Company estate during the bankruptcy auction, in addition to Marlin. The new magazine was going to be used in the replacement to the 597. Roundhill/RemArms apparently caught unaware during the auction wanted the right to use the IP with a free licence and had a supposed tentative deal, they thought. Now Ruger is not following through and Roundhill is sueing. Since the patents are legally now owned by Ruger I don't think Roundhill is in a very good position. (in Ruger's best Vader voice): I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.

Now that Ruger legally owns this IP that would help produce a rifle that would be a direct competitor to the 10/22 why does RemArms think they would/should allow a licence let alone a free license is beyond me.

Rem Arms LLC run by a fudd, a fudd with little business sense and less engineering sense.

Patents in question:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10254063B2/en?oq=10,254,063
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10718584B2/en?oq=10,718,584

Notice the are currently assigned to a Ruger, though it was designed by Remington here in Huntsville.
Click to expand...
It will all boil down to whether or not ". . . right to use the IP with a free licence and had a supposed tentative deal . . ." can be proven. If it can it would be the first time something like this has happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcb
Demi-human said:
I hope Ruger gets justice and RemArms gets so darned smote. The Cabal can’t ruin just one company, they need to try and bleed Ruger as well? Wouldn’t it be nice if this caused a financial investigation of everyone involved except Ruger?:evil:

If I sold a Faberge egg for seven dollars in a yard sale, I would want it back too.
I would also be just a stupid to think I’d get it back…;)
Click to expand...

Not a Faberge egg, but a $2M star sapphire for $10. Don't know if the seller recovered any funds, but buyer said since seller set price, he owes him nothing. I have a feeling Remington will recover the same.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-11-12-mn-29195-story.html
 
Last edited:
Speedo66 said:
Not a Faberge egg, but a $2M star sapphire for $10. Don't know if the seller recovered any funds, but buyer said since seller set price, he owes him nothing. I have a feeling Remington will recover the same.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-11-12-mn-29195-story.html
Click to expand...
I recall this story and there was an outcome of a lawsuit by the seller of the stone - as I recall - where the buyer was ruled to owe the seller a large part of the value of the stone because it was determined that the buyer, a precious stones expert, had taken unfair advantage of the amateur rock-hound.
My google-foo is off today and I have been unable to locate the story regarding the lawsuit. I will continue to look, though.

However, the Remington suit is different because the Owner of Remington - I THINK - would be considered by the court to be an expert in his business and have access to experts within his business and should have been considered to have made an informed decision. Unlike the saphire story.
JMHO, of course.

ETA: Research found this update from SNOPES: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rock-star/
I am not a big SNOPES fan about most things, but this also references additional articles from multiple sources. Apparently the saphire was not precious gem quality.
Still looking for the article about the lawsuit, tho.
 
Last edited:
One thing we know with absolute certainty: There’s a lot to this story about which we have no clue.

The “whole”, within limits, story is somewhere, somehow, in the thousands of pages of documents, records, and notes each side’s lawyer has by now been assembling, cataloging, and analyzing for some time in preparation for this litigation.
 
Yes, we are willing to declare or decry the outcome, but nobody except the litigants has access to the paper trail, testimony or record.
I will say that Ruger's and Vista's legal teams seem to have gotten the better of their opponents from the outside looking in.
 
Given my interaction, limited at those may be, with Ken D'arcy I am not surprised in least.

The funny part is Ruger owns the IP, Remington wants it back and yet neither company has the brain behind the IP. He has moved on to a completely different industry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top