Ruger LCP: Will it ever be CA approved?

[Pfunk]

Not really, pick a big company with money that you can't afford to fight, the name of the company is irrelevant. It happened to be ruger, but could have just as easily been s&w or beretta. The end result is the same. Pick a small company that isn't worth the money to fight even if you win, once again the name is irrelevant and the end result is the same.

That has been done before too, see skyy pistols.

So by your logic, there are only companies too big or too small to make patenting products worthwhile. Of what value is the patent system then? For examples of small guys making a killing on bigger companies, look at the computer industry. Again, patents are really easy to obtain relatively speaking, and they simply give you lots of options. You don't have to pursue any one case, but having a patent simply gives you a way to keep others out of your niche and an opportunity to make a ton of money at a later date. While there may be a case for not wanting to pursue a Ruger-sized company, there is no reason not to file a patent at all...especially given the volume Kel-Tec cranks out. If the market is as you say, so big that Ruger would want in, then the value of a patent to Kel-Tec is just as enormous. I totally fail to see your logic here.

Have you looked at the sales numbers kel-tec has? The unit cost might be low but kel-tec sells an amazing number of guns. Who wouldn't want a slice of that?

Yes actually, I have access to their sales numbers. I'm not being sarcastic. They sell a lot of units. And Ruger is going to sell a lot of units. Something Kel-Tec could have had a piece of or prevented altogether in the first place with a simple patent filing. Again, no reason not to have done so other than ignorance or oversight.

Once again, to what benefit? How many pistols does skyy sell? Have you even heard of them before? What return would you see from suing them?

You would prevent them from elbowing in on your market, and possibly recover money for units already sold.

We can speculate all day but at the end of it george kelgren has been designing things for many years. I don't think this is the case of someone just falling off the turnip truck and making a terrible mistake. I wish I were an IP lawyer and could speak with more authority but I would imagine that the design either is near enough to other browning linkless locked breech pistols that they didn't think it would be an easy patent to uphold or that they just never a benefit to them from litigation. In the gun world we see the same thing with holster makers.

If you think the design of the Kel-Tec P3AT is too close to that of another gun to patent, please back that up by pointing to a specific make and model.

Until then we'll go with prevailing opinion that the Kel-Tec P3AT was a ground-breaking pistol design. It's not speculation on my part to say that filing a patent on a unique design is a no-brainer. It's easy, and it protects you. There is no loss involved in filing a patent beyond a few hundred bucks, or if you don't know how and can't use Google, a few thousand bucks. By your own claims of market value assigned to the Kel-Tec model, you've proven the value of a patent in this case. Holster manufacturers are different than what we're talking about in that they are more easily able to design for suitable variance, unable to patent based on the shape of the gun they hold, and they make a lot less money than either a Kel-Tec or a Ruger. There's not really any money sitting around for lawyers. In the case of Kel-Tec, there's money for lawyers both in Kel-Tec's pocket, and in a winning case.

Is your only point in all of this that George Kelgren wouldn't make a mistake so it had to be a deliberate and wise decision?

 

[alamo]

And Ruger is going to sell a lot of units. Something Kel-Tec could have had a piece of or prevented altogether in the first place with a simple patent filing. Again, no reason not to have done so other than ignorance or oversight.

Until then we'll go with prevailing opinion that the Kel-Tec P3AT was a ground-breaking pistol design. It's not speculation on my part to say that filing a patent on a unique design is a no-brainer.

I'm certainly not a patent attorney but I don't see anything that Kel-Tec can patent. It's a locked breech pistol - that design has been around for a very long time. Kel-Tec didn't invent the locked breech design. If there ever was a patent on it, it expired long ago.

The made their locked breech pistol mostly of polymer, very flat, small and lightweight. I don't think those things can be patented.

Can they patent the shape, size and weight of the pistol? I wouldn't think so.

You seem to be adament that Kel-Tec should have filed a patent, a "no-brainer" as you say. Please tell us specifically what parts or "unique designs" they should have patented.

 

[Soybomb]

So by your logic, there are only companies too big or too small to make patenting products worthwhile.

Not at all but I think the market and the size of your company play a significant role in how realistic litigation might be for you.

Yes actually, I have access to their sales numbers. I'm not being sarcastic. They sell a lot of units. And Ruger is going to sell a lot of units. Something Kel-Tec could have had a piece of or prevented altogether in the first place with a simple patent filing. Again, no reason not to have done so other than ignorance or oversight.

I'm still not 100% convinced it can be done

You would prevent them from elbowing in on your market, and possibly recover money for units already sold.

Cost/benefit again though, how much would you spend going after them? From their performance so far I'd imagine it wouldn't be worth it.

If you think the design of the Kel-Tec P3AT is too close to that of another gun to patent, please back that up by pointing to a specific make and model.

Most modern handguns? What part of its mechanism is unique? Its a nice combation of materials and machining but its still a browning linkless locked breech pistol.

Is your only point in all of this that George Kelgren wouldn't make a mistake so it had to be a deliberate and wise decision?

Not george kellgren just as much as any experienced professional in their field isn't likely to make a very basic mistake. A designer not securing their IP would be like a mechanic driving your car out on its rotors. I guess it could happen...the sun might explode tomrrow...neither is likely. I just think the more plausible explanation is that an intentional decision was made to not patent it for reasons of futility or getting a patent.

I'm certainly not a patent attorney but I don't see anything that Kel-Tec can patent. It's a locked breech pistol - that design has been around for a very long time. Kel-Tec didn't invent the locked breech design. If there ever was a patent on it, it expired long ago.

What other patents on handguns are there? Glock has (had?) a patent on their unique striker mechanism. The desert eagle on its gas system. Early revolvers of course... I can't think of anything the p3at has on it that makes it unique from other modern handguns.

 

[Pat-inCO]

I don't think anyone (other than a gang banger) would want one.

Put hands on one today, could not get - two - finger grip on it, it WILL be quite "snappy" (9.4oz, even with .380 is not going to be fun to shoot) and it feels like a cap gun.

Not worth the $250 (NIB) they wanted for it.