US Army Loses Suit for Stealing M855A1 EPR Bullet Design from Liberty Ammunition

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shawn Dodson

Shawn Dodson

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
3,233
I just became aware of this recent development:

"U.S. Federal Court of Claims Judge Charles F. Lettow filed a decision Dec. 19 in which he found the federal government had infringed on Liberty's patent for its copper-core, steel-tipped ammunition. Lettow ordered the government to pay two levels of damages, the first being a $15.6 million lump payment. The government was also ordered to pay a 1.4-cent royalty on every bullet it purchases and receives for use. It will make those payments until Liberty's patent expires in 2027."

Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/2015/01/11/5574467_bradenton-ammunition-maker-wins.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy
 
I wonder if Liberty new about the similarity to the Halo logo. I could've been presented such by a designer and never known it wasn't original.
 
The silly thing is that ammo woild have sold just as well with many other logos.
 
Good for Liberty. This would seem to be a pretty blatant procurement violation of part of the government.

Liberty does deserve a spanking from Microsoft for trademark infringement, however.
 
The article linked above explains it. They tried to trademark "Halo Point." Microsoft contacted them. They changed the name "Liberty Ammunition Civil-Defense." That's a short version anyhow.
 
The next question being who is the army firing for violating intellectual property rights and exposing the .mil to liability? Or court martialing -- seems like Conduct Unbecoming to me. I'm guessing no one, though I'd say that's messed up.
 
I don't know the details of this particular case, but if this ammunition or any other product was created by a private company or individual, and then the government started copying it without permission or a license or royalties, would you really want the outcome to have been any different? I don't really understand the negative comments in this thread.
 
cluttonfred said:
I don't know the details of this particular case, but if this ammunition or any other product was created by a private company or individual, and then the government started copying it without permission or a license or royalties, would you really want the outcome to have been any different? I don't really understand the negative comments in this thread.
Click to expand...
Nobody is mad at Liberty here.

The animosity is because we are now stuck paying huge amounts of money for something that most people didnt want in the first place. Not only is M855A1 super expensive, now more so, but the increase in chamber pressure from 55k to 62k PSI is going to increase wear on the rifles and cost us more money.

Also the USMC had already adopted the Mk318 which is cheaper, more accurate, has good terminal performance, and operates at normal 5.56 pressure.
 
$$$ + $$$$$$$

Don't forget the final paragraph:
In due course, Liberty may apply for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses under 28
U.S.C. 1498(a). Proceedings related to any such request for attorneys’ fees and costs shall be
deferred until after any appellate process has been concluded or, alternatively, after the time for
taking an appeal has expired.
Click to expand...
 
Kind of disturbing how the cited findings notes you can only sue the federal government because it consents to let you do so and there's no punitive penalties or similar allowed.
 
The Army has infringed on intellectual property before. Wiggy's lost a great deal of business for sleeping bags and insulated winter wear. The whole point of adopting Scorpion camo is to sidestep the licensing of Multicam and avoid paying royalties.

Others have noted that the .Gov pays when it decides to, not according to contract provisions. Some have gone months with no cash flow because of it and the results were they had to close the doors.

Uncle Sam is not a friendly customer and the seller should approach the transaction with caution.
 
Funny in retrospect.

Reading DUDED's comment as to the "windfall" for Liberty.

I can't help but imagine that whatever compensation that they get in a back-door law suit is likely better (all things considered) than had they gone through the interminable process of having the round accepted formally through the front-door.

My only reservation is enriching more attorneys.:evil:

Todd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Father Ashcroft protects us from porn
2 3
Replies
63
Views
2K
Andrew Rothman
A
Back
Top