Most of the examples you named, such as the AR15, can be copied because the patents are expired. Patents only secure a finite period of protection. Also Samsung was ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to Apple over the iPhone design patents, though SCOTUS recently reversed the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. IP litigation is one of the most expensive forms of litigation, and the consequences for violating IP rights are typically measured in millions of dollars. Also much of what you are talking about pertains to trade dress rather than patents.
Re: LCP, How Does Ruger Get Away With It?
- Thread starter Speedo66
- Start date
- Status
I don't think I even used the word patents all that much. Since none of the Kel Tec patents have ever come into litigation, the real emphasis over the last five years discussing IP and the Ruger has been "doesn't it look like a copy and what can be done about it?"
As said, unless millions of dollars are on the line, it's very hard to prove an IP case. Therefore most don't even attempt a defense, and as noted, you can never tell when you are dragged into the next court of appeal and your victory quashed by a superior court decision.
All my examples are just that - nobody sued and more competition fills the market with look alike goods. IP is a fantasy notion in business.
As said, unless millions of dollars are on the line, it's very hard to prove an IP case. Therefore most don't even attempt a defense, and as noted, you can never tell when you are dragged into the next court of appeal and your victory quashed by a superior court decision.
All my examples are just that - nobody sued and more competition fills the market with look alike goods. IP is a fantasy notion in business.
Your argument is logically analogous to saying, "because I see crime, there are no laws." However, hundreds of thousands of incarcerated folks would disagree. Similarly, because you see what you believe to be infringement, you assume intellectual property is a fantasy, but defendents who have collectively paid out billions of dollars for infringement would disagree with you. Just because you do not understand it does not mean it is not real.
Additionally, with regard to Kel-Tec, there does not appear to be a patent being violated, and we are also blindly assuming there is not an agreement behind the scenes, such as a licensing agreement. That is often the case when you see what appears to be a copy.
Additionally, with regard to Kel-Tec, there does not appear to be a patent being violated, and we are also blindly assuming there is not an agreement behind the scenes, such as a licensing agreement. That is often the case when you see what appears to be a copy.
Also, regarding the mention of patents, I was addressing your eroneous comment that "if there is no patent or copyright, then there is no intellectual property" and then your numerous examples of infringement, most of which are neither patent nor copyright issues.
justsoIcanupvotethis
Member
Payback for the Tech 22? Pretty sure that was using a Ruger patent or two.
helitack32f1
Member
I am always amused by these threads about how the LCP is an EXACT copy of the Kel-Tec. I guess I have to agree since, other than the different weights, heights, widths, and lengths, and the fact that the vast majority of parts are different and the grip shapes, sights, trigger guards, extractors and magazines are different and that the slide contours and frame contours are all different, these guns are absolutely identical! Oh, and I forgot to mention build quality.
The fact is, if Kel-Tec was capable of creating a good finished product, they wouldn't be open to other manufactures using their design as a starting point to create a much nicer and better product.
The fact is, if Kel-Tec was capable of creating a good finished product, they wouldn't be open to other manufactures using their design as a starting point to create a much nicer and better product.
Yo Mama
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 3,230
If you think the Ruger is a copy, check out the sccy version. 
There is history there though, because the guy who runs sccy worked for keltec also.
So us keltec fans are used to the following: keltec designs a great platform, then lots of "keltecs suck man", then 3-4 other manufacturers try to beat each other to copy the design as quick as they can to make it "betterer".
There is history there though, because the guy who runs sccy worked for keltec also.
So us keltec fans are used to the following: keltec designs a great platform, then lots of "keltecs suck man", then 3-4 other manufacturers try to beat each other to copy the design as quick as they can to make it "betterer".
GBExpat
Member
My P3AT has been my welcome companion for over 11 years. I like it very much.That said, the LCP (which I have never owned, btw) has always impressed me as being a more "finished" piece of kit.
EDIT:
BTW, I have always figured that if George Kellgren is not obviously upset with parts of the design being borrowed, I am certainly not going to waste any concern on the Issue.
Last edited:
I'm a member of the Kel-Tec Owner's Group, www.ktog.org . The belief is that KT may not have the money to get into a protracted lawsuit with Ruger.
I find the discussions interesting because for all the protestations about IP nobody posts specific court decisions.
Lets take the AR15. Armalite designs it, Colt owns it, and they sold the Government the OP for the TDP on the M4. Yet the market is filled with AR15's of every description, price, and caliber. I have every certainty that Colt paid for and owns the "idea" of the AR15. Yet how is it that they aren't suing left and right to protect it?
We ARE talking guns that literally will exchange parts - and for that, an entire industry in selling parts and kits exists which assembled will produce a functional firearm. I've built two. I am completely unaware of any fees or licensing paid to Colt for their "intellectual property" use. And for that matter, I am also aware that some of the parts offered for sale are not Made in the USA, either. Same as a growing handful of 1911's, too.
Rather than protest IP exists, explain how it doesn't in the face of those two firearms. When the subject comes up vis a vis government contract with Colt, Remington, and FN, it seems to be a lot of publicity but little done.
And that brings us to Bushmaster, the first to offer an AR15 clone. If Colt owned the IP lock stock and barrel, they would have never gotten to first base. In fact, because of the numerous and crowded field of examples where IP is deliberately and specifically copied for others use and resale, I believe that there are two different concepts involved which are legally separated.
What are they?
Nope, the LCP isn't pirating theft of design from Keltec. However, for the point of the discussion, lets go for a gun that specifically does - and the industry even brags about how their parts are mechanically and functionally interchangeable without alteration or further fitting whatsoever. Drop in replacements.
IP theft or what?
I will say it again, without copyrights or patents, IP doesn't exist. If you can't enforce it in the courts then you are open prey to the competition.
Lets take the AR15. Armalite designs it, Colt owns it, and they sold the Government the OP for the TDP on the M4. Yet the market is filled with AR15's of every description, price, and caliber. I have every certainty that Colt paid for and owns the "idea" of the AR15. Yet how is it that they aren't suing left and right to protect it?
We ARE talking guns that literally will exchange parts - and for that, an entire industry in selling parts and kits exists which assembled will produce a functional firearm. I've built two. I am completely unaware of any fees or licensing paid to Colt for their "intellectual property" use. And for that matter, I am also aware that some of the parts offered for sale are not Made in the USA, either. Same as a growing handful of 1911's, too.
Rather than protest IP exists, explain how it doesn't in the face of those two firearms. When the subject comes up vis a vis government contract with Colt, Remington, and FN, it seems to be a lot of publicity but little done.
And that brings us to Bushmaster, the first to offer an AR15 clone. If Colt owned the IP lock stock and barrel, they would have never gotten to first base. In fact, because of the numerous and crowded field of examples where IP is deliberately and specifically copied for others use and resale, I believe that there are two different concepts involved which are legally separated.
What are they?
Nope, the LCP isn't pirating theft of design from Keltec. However, for the point of the discussion, lets go for a gun that specifically does - and the industry even brags about how their parts are mechanically and functionally interchangeable without alteration or further fitting whatsoever. Drop in replacements.
IP theft or what?
I will say it again, without copyrights or patents, IP doesn't exist. If you can't enforce it in the courts then you are open prey to the competition.
mgmorden
Member
Intellectual property falls into three categories: copyrights, patents, and trademarks.
Patents protect HOW things are done. Copyrights protect information. Trademarks protect brand identities.
So if you took a Coca-cola bottle, the fact that it uses a screw on cap could be patented (if no one had done that before). The name "Coca-Cola" and the shape of the bottle could be trademarked. The advertisement that the bottle is printed in would fall under copyright.
If you look at that layout - there's not much basis for Kel-tec to do anything. There's likely very little in the P-3AT that patentable. It's mostly stuff that's variations of things done tons of times by other companies. What little patents they might could claim Ruger could work around.
Trademarks? Ruger isn't printing any Kel-tec logos on it and the general shape isn't distinctive enough to warrant a trademark.
Copyright? Typically a mechanical design can't be copyrighted. This type of protection typically applies to informative works.
When you get down to it unless the design is very novel (ie, it uses a new type of barrel lockup, or introduced some specific feature, etc), there's simply nothing that a company can really do to keep another company from creating a roughly equivalent product as long as it's branded by the company actually making it.
Patents protect HOW things are done. Copyrights protect information. Trademarks protect brand identities.
So if you took a Coca-cola bottle, the fact that it uses a screw on cap could be patented (if no one had done that before). The name "Coca-Cola" and the shape of the bottle could be trademarked. The advertisement that the bottle is printed in would fall under copyright.
If you look at that layout - there's not much basis for Kel-tec to do anything. There's likely very little in the P-3AT that patentable. It's mostly stuff that's variations of things done tons of times by other companies. What little patents they might could claim Ruger could work around.
Trademarks? Ruger isn't printing any Kel-tec logos on it and the general shape isn't distinctive enough to warrant a trademark.
Copyright? Typically a mechanical design can't be copyrighted. This type of protection typically applies to informative works.
When you get down to it unless the design is very novel (ie, it uses a new type of barrel lockup, or introduced some specific feature, etc), there's simply nothing that a company can really do to keep another company from creating a roughly equivalent product as long as it's branded by the company actually making it.
GBExpat
Member
Ayup, I have been a member of KTOG for almost 10 years and can testify to the fact that speculation thrives there just as it does at all internet forums.
... but I have never read anything definitive on that site regarding Kel-Tec's/Mr.Kellgren's stance on this subject.
Tirod, how long do you think a patent lasts? (Hint: it has already been covered). That should answer some of your questions about 1911s and AR-15s. If you don't even know that much, you probably should do some reading rather than ranting. That's like talking about astronomy and not knowing that the earth is a planet, and the sun is a star.
I seem to remember reading that the Kel-Tec designs are loosely based on that of Frommer, the early 20th century arms designer that produced the Frommer Stop pistol, the standard Hungarian Army pistol of World War II. It seemed the Wehrmacht used quite a few as well.
It's really nothing like that, patents for the 1911 haven't been protecting it's design for over 80 years.
If there was something to protect, there would be a suit. There are no patents on the P3AT for Ruger to have infringed.
https://www.google.com/patents/US6368227
2002. Method of a boy swinging on a swing. Tell me you didn't do this yourself when you were a kid?
Shows the ridiculousness of the patent system.
2002. Method of a boy swinging on a swing. Tell me you didn't do this yourself when you were a kid?
Shows the ridiculousness of the patent system.
george burns
Member
It's not the patent that is almost impossible to defend, it's the litagation trying to prove to a judge that it was similar enough to your design, and different from every other similar type of gun ever made. Let's face it, guns are all pretty much similar when you speak of auto pistol or revolver action. Colt, Browning and then everything in between,If it was easy to defend you wouldn't have a new gun company coming out with a new version of what you already have in your safe every month. I heard of a suit on the radio yesterday, from a songwriter who said Led Zeppline's Stairway to Heaven,was a rip off of his song. They played it, and it sounded pretty much the same, other than a few riffs, but after hundreds of thousands later the Judge ruled that it was different. The guy lost, the song sounded the same to me, so who wants to take that kind of risk? You would think that that song was pretty specific, and yet, he lost, I will google it, http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/led-zeppelin-prevail-in-stairway-to-heaven-lawsuit-20160623, even rolling stone was amazed.
Phaedrus/69
Member
Eldon would be able to explain a lot more than I can but it's conceivable that KT might have a case for infringement upon "trade dress" but that's even dicier than most other forms. To maintain a claim on those grounds you must be pretty aggressive in holding those rights against other companies. And your product better be pretty distinctive. To non-gun-folks all guns look pretty much alike; it will take a remarkably close copy to get you in trouble.
HankB
Member
There may be something to that - I have a number of patents (assigned to my employer) and during a discussion about infringement, one of the attorneys said that, on average, it costs about $3,000,000 to litigate a patent.
I've seen that one before. Now consider this one: http://www.google.com/patents/US6960975
"Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state"
This is what you can get patented when you don't have to submit a working model.
OP
OP
Speedo66
Member
Martha Stewart moved to a town in Westchester Co., NY, Katona, and wanted to patent the name. Townspeople were not amused.
- Status
