Sad state of affairs in the industry

[browningguy]

Well I don't think you should lock a thread you started just because everyone doesn't agree with you. I don't have a dog in this fight, because I like the tritium sights on my 1911 just fine, heck I wouldn't even consider a set of standard sights on my self defense pistols.

 

[Robert101]

No patent then no problem with a copy. I believe this to be a legal issue and not one of design originality.

 

[Greg528iT]

Even if there was a pattent, the fusion design is enough of a change to be acceptable. If you look up most pattents, they are modifications of existing pattents. It would have been smart of Fusion to buy the sights from 10-8 drill them for the inserts, call them their own and be good with it. It'd probably be cheaper that way than machining your own from scratch.

 

[Fishbed77]

All these 1911 custom builders have been making unlicensed copies of the work of another designer (John Browning) for years. Seems like a non-issue to me.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

All these 1911 custom builders have been making unlicensed copies of the work of another designer (John Browning) for years. Seems like a non-issue to me.

Ummm...not really. As in, not at all.

John Browning's patents for the 1911 expired quite a while back...like 1928 or so.

Which makes the issue of copies of the work of John Browning for the 1911 to be a non-issue as well.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Ever stop to think why KelTec didn't/hasn't/won't sue Ruger over that design?
For exactly the same reason Mr Yam cannot sue Mr Serva...........KelTec didn't invent a damn thing.

Because neither had a patent.

My point was that there is a prevalent hypocrisy in this crowd, where a similar unscrupulous act is decried in one instance, but rationalized (even lauded) in another.

I personally see the theft of intellectual property for monetary gain as a despicable thing in any instance, regardless legality, and regardless of my predilections (or lack thereof) toward either party.

Having said that, I see nothing wrong with copying a design for personal use, or with improving a design and marketing the new version for yourself. If it is true that Serva approached Hilton about adding Tritium and Hilton declined, leading Serva to make a significant alteration to the sight and then market it himself, I really see no problem. The addition of Tritium inserts is a fairly substantial change, albeit a simple one.

On a separate note, you can't get too bent in this day and age if your idea is stolen if you either A)didn't file for patent, trademark or copyright or B) didn't create a patentable/trademarkable/copyrightable item. It's just the way the world works. If you know your idea is worth protecting, then you'd better protect it. Not doing so would be no different from leaving valuables in your unattended car with the windows down and expecting people to simply be honorable. Good luck with that.

 

[ATLDave]

If you know your idea is worth protecting, then you'd better protect it. Not doing so would be no different from leaving valuables in your unattended car with the windows down and expecting people to simply be honorable. Good luck with that.

Not exactly. Because it's still illegal for someone to reach into your unlocked car and steal stuff.

 

[Urban_Redneck]

These sights make may a big splash but, it's a pretty small pond. I bet 10-8 had to sell a lot of sights to recoup development, advertising, inventory, and start up costs, selling retail.... Give up 25-35% of your margin to Brownell's and Midway and you need to sell even more.

All told, I doubt there's a pot of gold at the end of the fixed sight rainbow for either company, and that is what makes this exact copy business seem like really small ball.

YMMV

 

[MCMXI]

Patent law has changed recently. We had a patent attorney come to our facility to give a presentation and we were informed that it no longer matters who came up with the idea or who the inventor is. It's now down to who gets it patented first.

 

[dogtown tom]

MachIVshooter .....My point was that there is a prevalent hypocrisy in this crowd, where a similar unscrupulous act is decried in one instance, but rationalized (even lauded) in another.

If you search THR threads on the LCP you'll find numerous posts deriding Ruger for "stealing" the design from KelTec. But those same KelTec fanboys don't seem to get too upset that Keltec "invented" precious little, if anything, on the P3at.

If it's "unscrupulous" for Ruger, it's unscrupulous for KelTec.

 

[Fishbed77]

Ummm...not really. As in, not at all.

John Browning's patents for the 1911 expired quite a while back...like 1928 or so.

Which makes the issue of copies of the work of John Browning for the 1911 to be a non-issue as well.

I'm gonna go out a limb and guess that Mr. Lam does not have a patent for serrated notch sights either. If he does, the best venue for airing his grievances is probably the legal system and not Facebook.

Not that I am a Fusion fan or have any kind of horse in this race, because I don't.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Not exactly. Because it's still illegal for someone to reach into your unlocked car and steal stuff.

Kinda splitting hairs. Point remains, legal or illegal, if you don't take reasonable measures to protect your property, expect to lose it sooner or later. The more valuable it is, the more protection it deserves, whether it's intellectual or physical.

don't seem to get too upset that Keltec "invented" precious little, if anything, on the P3at.

"Invent" and "design" are similar, not synonymous. Though using existing principles and materials, Kelgren did design the P3AT from the ground up, and it really was a first. Many followed suit, but only Ruger ripped off the design.

If you're insinuating that the P3AT is a rip-off of the earlier Grendel P10/P12, well, Kelgren designed those, too. Can't steal your own ideas. In point of fact, George Kelgren actually is kind of a modern day John Pedersen; his designs tend to stray much further from established patterns than those of most other gunmakers.

 

[Jim K]

1858, it always has been. Patent law is not about inventing, it is about getting an exclusive right (a patent) to exploit an invention. So the first person to submit a valid patent application gets the patent, and AFAIK that is the way it has always been.

Jim

 

[Skylerbone]

Kinda splitting hairs. Point remains, legal or illegal, if you don't take reasonable measures to protect your property, expect to lose it sooner or later. The more valuable it is, the more protection it deserves, whether it's intellectual or physical.

Which leads us full circle back to the original post, a sad state of affairs. Anyone choosing to accept things as they stand has simply given up. Sad.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Anyone choosing to accept things as they stand has simply given up. Sad.

You can't change human nature.

A large percentage of people (perhaps even a majority) will not take something that isn't theirs, even if it requires no real effort and there would be no repercussions for doing so. This is the type that finds a wallet and contacts its owner, taking nothing from it, not even cash.

Another large percentage will take things that don't belong to them, if it's easy enough and the risks low enough. This is the kind that finds a wallet, takes the cash and probably won't bother returning the rest. But this type is also unlikely to deliberately defeat locks and risk punishment to obtain property. They may or may not be above shoplifting.

A small minority will go out of their way to acquire property that isn't theirs. This is the kind that breaks into your house and takes your wallet, along with all the other valuables he/she can carry.

Obviously there are folks who fall in between the main categories, but you get my point. These types have existed since the beginning of humanity, and though technology and laws advance, the human condition remains. You say accepting that some people will steal is giving up; I say not accepting it is living in a state of denial.

 

[Skylerbone]

You say accepting that some people will steal is giving up; I say not accepting it is living in a state of denial.

No, saying it is acceptable, there is no problem, others do the same, is giving up. How horrid for me to want for better and rebuke those who truly live in denial. This has never been about legality, it's about right and wrong. Some simply won't be moved. I'm moving on.

 

[MachIVshooter]

No, saying it is acceptable, there is no problem, others do the same, is giving up.

I never said it was acceptable, only that we must accept the reality that it will happen.

I don't see many others here condoning the act, either. I do see quite a few people, though, who feel that a significant change in design makes the product an improvement rather than a copy. Once again, if it is true that Hilton was unwilling to install Tritium in his sights at the request of a commercial customer, why shouldn't that customer (Serva) begin making his own sights with the Tritium his customers are requesting?

 

[tipoc]

Once again, if it is true that Hilton was unwilling to install Tritium in his sights at the request of a commercial customer, why shouldn't that customer (Serva) begin making his own sights with the Tritium his customers are requesting?

It may be useful to review the original points in the thread on what took place and re-read what both Hilton and Bob had to say about what took place.

Yam was not asked by Serva to install inserts in his sights. Yam did not refuse to do so or any thing along those lines. Fusion bought less than a dozen sights per year from 10-8. Fusion asked if they had any with inserts and 10-8 did not have them at that time.

Now Fusion could have spoken with 10-8 about producing sights with inserts on a larger scale and worked out a deal or asked 10-8 to make a run of the sights with inserts, etc. Fusion could have simply bought the 8 or so sights they were looking for and did what other smiths have done and install the inserts themselves. But Fusion did not do that. Instead, some months later, Fusion began producing a copy of the 10-8 sight under the Fusion name and in their packaging both with and without inserts and selling them for about 10 bucks less than 10-8.

This action is seen by some in the industry, Dave Berryhill for one and others, and some in the shooting community as a poor business move by Fusion. A move that also reflects a poor ethical choice by producing copies of the 10-8 sight behind the developers back. A longer term working relationship between Yam and Serva could have been developed had Fusion acted differently.

Yam will not be permanently damaged, his reputation and products are solid and popular. He is "disappointed" by the pirating but it doesn't look like he can sue (folks that are curious can always ask Yam why he did not have a patent).

Serva and Fusion are developing a reputation for producing other people's designs with out their consent and in the shallow end of the pool where Fusion and many custom smiths swim (Cylinder and Slide, 10-8, Wilson, etc.) that ain't good for Fusions' business in the long run.

tipoc