F&D has in-house counsel with no time-punch.
Here is the press release regarding the LWRCI and Colt acquisition and its relation to F&D:

New Braunfels, Texas - February 28, 2014 - In light of recent events surrounding the pending acquisition of LWRCI by Colt Defense, it has become necessary to release the following statements regarding F&D Defense’s current litigation against LWRCI.  To avoid further confusion and misunderstanding by the public, F&D Defense is providing the following list of events and facts surrounding its position and reasons for action against LWRCI, which began several months before any discussion of Colt acquiring LWRCI. Detailed information and court filings regarding our case is openly posted at our website at http://www.fd-defense.com/index.php/home/fd-news, which serves as a preemptive defense of all our protected (but diminishing) First Amendment Rights.

In 2006, Corby Hall performed major engineering work for Jesse Gomez (VP of Engineering, LWRC). This work performed was regarding LWRC’s signature 308 auto-loading rifle which was the then called "SABR" and now called "REPR".



In 2009, after designing the FD308 and FD338, Corby started F&D Defense.



In 2013, in the midst of an intense forum debate, the subject of Corby’s design work for LWRCI was brought forward by an independent party on a forum.



In 2014, the legal team amassed by LWRCI continues to stall the process thereby allowing damages caused by the defamation to continue exponentially.



As a company, we would like to make it clear that it is our goal to seek restitution for damages caused by a much larger competitor acting as the aggressor. We would also like to make it clear to the public that we are defending ourselves from those who would seek to maliciously benefit from our work and talent without due authorization.F&D made a good faith effort to resolve the issues with LWRCI early so both companies could focus on their original work of manufacturing fine weapons, just so happens to be that ours are finer ;-)

As individuals, it is our intent to be open and honest regarding this matter.  We hold our name and reputation in high regard and intend to defend it when attacked or painted in a questionable light. We would humbly ask the public and our customers to consider the facts (now in public record) before making a presumption regarding our integrity or intent.  Detailed information and court filings regarding our case is openly posted at our website at http://www.fd-defense.com/index.php/home/fd-news. We view this action against LWRCI as a defense of First Amendment Rights and an attempt to preserve those rights from an aggressor who threatens use of the legal system and publish intentional falsehoods in a manner that would otherwise suppress those rights against others.

About F&D Defense, LLC
F&D Defense, LLC is a designer, manufacturer, and innovator of world class AR rifles, including the FD308 short-action and FD338 long-action platforms.  F&D utilizes its own designs, manufacturing process, and innovations to enhance the AR platform to produce rifles of the highest quality, style, and performance.  Only the finest materials and products are used to produce F&D’s line of weapons. F&D continuously strives to innovate and improve upon a well known platform in order to offer operators every available advantage.

Press Contacts:
Brian H. Shirley
CFO, Manager – F&D Defense, LLC
405-380-4346
[email protected]

I do loves a good IP pillow fight

With the Colt purchase being finalized, will Colt join in on the IP pillow fight?

I haven't read anything on Colt's or LWRCi's web page . Have others seen this OFFICALLY advertised somewhere ?

Doubt it. Colt is not known for engaging in drawn-out legal battles.

In my opinion, it would be a loosing battle considering that their newly purchased IP from LWRCI is about to be challenged on the basis of lacking novelty and/or non-obviousness.
If I am wrong and they do want to engage, then no problem; F&D has an in-house patent attorney who doesn't bill by the hour.

Maryland/Connecticut boys vs Texas boys.... Good luck Yankees, I've water-logged my pillow.

Since there's no response yet from your thread in GD, tell us all how you're affiliated with F&D, because we all know you are.



 

According to the documents posted on your affiliated groups site, they are challenging it on the grounds that Mr. Hall invented the tech and not the basis of lacking novelty... Which is it?

I do not doubt Mr. Hall had some sort of input in LWRCI but I'm curious if he signed a document giving up rights to all intellectual properties created, while working for said company. This is standard practice across the country at any corporation. At my job even, I was told to sign a document that stated any ideas I have, while on the job, is the property of Microsoft.

I'm also struggling to understand how he invented the tech that underlies ALL of LWRC's piston offerings, when he supposedly only worked on tech drawings for the SABR/REPR, which, at it's heart, simply uses the same piston setup that LWRC had been using for years before that.



 

Based on correction of inventorship.
No assignment of IP was ever made to LWRC. But you are correct, that is how situations like this are normally conducted.

Ask someone at LWRCI how carrier-tilt issues were solved...
Then implemented on all their products. Hmmm.

So, back to your exact connection to F&D?



 

Aww... are the facts being presented here making you a little nervous?
Perhaps I'm making you question everything you assumed about LWRCI for so many years?

Speaking of First Amendment...
You demand out of one side of your mouth that all sides should have their say, but out of the other side you say F&D's statement is not credible because it came from the very person who has direct knowledge of the facts.
What hypocrisy!
When you say let the court determine the truth... what you are really saying is "everyone be silent on this issue so LWRCI can do damage control".
Well its too late for that, LWRCI has already damaged itself extensively on this matter with its various actions and malicious threats.

Perhaps if the facts of the case were restated through someone else without knowledge, then it would be credible right?
And exactly where is LWRCI's statement on this? They have known about these issues for many months now... but not a peep as far as a public statement goes.

If you don't like me posting here, take it up with Jorge, which I have already engaged with him about setting up an industry partner plan for F&D.

No one is getting upset about you speaking your voice but you'll have to understand that you come here with an aura of bias. Your affiliation with F&D will automatically set you with a slanted view, the same could be said if LWRCI came in here and started saying contrary comments.

Speak your piece, I don't mind but expect individuals to look at your evidence with an aura of suspicion and don't insult the members for it. That is just bad form.

Lulz.  You are making arguments with me that are really out there, Mr. Hall.  I said your statement is biased.  By definition, since you are a litigant in this matter, it IS biased.  I didn't say you shouldn't have your say, just pointed out the bias, and that your filings and statements are not, and cannot be, by definition, objective.

Second, don't try to put interpretations in my mouth.  I said let the courts decide what the facts are, rather than letting a litigant try to make his side the entire story.  That's what courts are for.  You are clearly spinning when you try to make that a statement that it isn't.

Third, why would I expect LWRC to put forward a huge amount of statements, that's not the norm for ANY corporation with competent legal advisers when confronted with a lawsuit.



Last, who said I didn't want you posting?  I just want you to be honest, and not to expect us to take your inherently biased statements as if they were established fact, which you seem to be trying to do.



 

All,
Except when specifically stated as opinion, my statements are fact because F&D faces imminent counterclaims from LWRCI if they are not.
That in itself is makes the statements objective for the direct risk of legal action.
On the F&D website, I have provided uncontroverted evidence that has been presented to either LWRCI or the Court supporting these statements.

Of course you may state your opinions, just as I may challenge them.
I don't have the authorization to suppress your statements, and if I did have that authority I wouldn't exercise it for the sake of allowing dissemination of truth to the interested public.
Since many members of this forum also have a bias of support for LWRCI, all unchallenged statements should be equally suspect, as hundreds (if not thousands) of individuals and dealerships across the country profit from and have a specific interest in protecting LWRCI.

After 9 months of litigation, F&D is still the only side who has publicly presented evidence supporting its position.
So... if you want to continue arguing about merits, lets get to the merits!
LWRCI representatives are welcome to participate at any moment! But I promise you, this is NOT something LWRCI wants discussed in the open.

No offense but no major corporation, or even small one, really ever wants to talk about anything in the open, when a pending court case is active. Their attorneys often gag them and gag them fast. Please keep in mind, I'm not stating you're lying here but please stop attempting to be-little or berate the other posters. It really is unbecoming of an individual, especially one that is attempting to garner support.

Spin.  Spin and bluster.



Look, the evidence MAY bear you out.  That's not for me to decide.  But to say that you can be objective about ANYTHING in a case in which you are a litigant is so completely divorced from reality as to make me question anything you put forward.  It calls your credibility into question that you deny that any statement made by a litigant, made about the litigation, is inherently biased.



You also try to claim that LWRC's lack of public statements on the matter are somehow damning, which is patently false to anyone who knows anything about what a competent legal department will advise in any kind of suit.  To claim that their silence supports your point of view is intellectually dishonest.
 

How about you identify your association with LWRCI, and your reason for attacking F&D's public statement as biased?
Shall we not see a shade_1313 also posting "unbiased" support for LWRCI on its forum? And attacking F&D in the same breath?

27 Feb 2014 - In Reply to Darren Mellors (fact witness for LWRCI):

1 Mar 2014:

Don't try to dance with me son. Your statements above are the most biased yet posted on this Board, by far.
If you are now LWRCI's public representative you may want to go have a lengthy discussion with Jesse Gomez at this time.

Ha.  You going to try to use me in your suit?  That's funny, right there.  What's next, the admit or deny questionnaire to LWRC that asks if "shade_1313" is a representative or spokesman for LWRC?











Okay, laughing boy, I'll play along and answer your questions.





My association with LWRC is as a customer, going back to 2009 or so.  I did a bunch of research on piston ARs and went with what seemed to be the best quality.  I purchased a CSAT M6A1-S (no little lower receiver shelf, by the way, and never a hint of carrier tilt...that's a hint, the "shelf" you claim ownership of isn't really necessary).  Followed up with purchases of a PSD pistol, then a 16" REPR.  Damn fine guns, both, although I routed a form 1 for an ARFCOM lower receiver and have the PSD upper on that.  I've also purchased an M6AK, an M6A1, a 10.5" M6, a Mjolnir REPR, an IC, and a Six8 SPR.  I bought all of those because (ta-da!) I was so impressed with the quality and customer service of the company.  IF you had a part in the design of the REPR, good job, man.  I say IF, because that's not established, no matter how much you stamp your feet and insist your statements on litigation you are involved in are, somehow, objective.





The reason I attack your statement as biased?  Because it is.  You're involved in a legal dispute, anything you say is, inherently, biased.  Any statement they were foolish enough to give in spite of their legal team's advice would also be biased.  That's the intrinsic nature of a dispute.  Now, it may come to pass that one, or both, parties have a bias that is found to be correct, but to try to pass off anything said by a litigant as being without bias...well, there are enough fucking idiots in this country that I'm sure you could find someone who believes that to be possible, but that doesn't make it so.





I like LWRC.  I like, specifically, their product, the quality thereof, and the customer service I've received.  Sure, I'm biased.  But it's not just a lie that my statement, as mined from their forum, is more biased than those by you, a litigant in the suit, it's moved up to a damn lie.





Last thing.  My Father was a man who served his nation for 26 years, in the Navy and the Air Force.  He retired honorably after serving two tours in Vietnam, part of that as an eyewitness to the Tet offensive.  He passed four years ago.  HE got to call me "son".  You don't.  You haven't remotely got the right.




 
 

Son, my address is on the F&D website. Feel free to deal with me in person as you feel necessary.
You lost that battle by not producing your bias upfront, as I DID by the very nature of my username C_Hall.

To move on to your carrier tilt assertion... then WHY, my friend, spend all that time and money getting a patent on it?
Facts are: pre-shelf units were still subject to carrier tilt. One way to mask the issue is to add a large shallow-angled lead-in chamfer on the carrier's rear-end.

That did NOT solve carrier tilt, again, all it did was visibly mask the issue. "LDub" customers have presented pictures on your forum showing evidence of carrier tilt wear despite this "masking".
These units were still susceptible to inconsistent cyclic rates due to the "jump" from the extension threads to the buffer tube inner diameter, which in-turn can effect accuracy.
The issue was not truly "solved" until the shelf was implemented.

Jesse Gomez's "extensive engineering experience" allowed him to come to the conclusion that adding a "4 degree angle to the piston key strike face" would solve carrier tilt.
From an engineering perspective, this is the most ludicrous thing I have every heard anyone say regarding piston systems.
But hey, if it convinces our otherwise ignorant customer base that we know what were doing, let's just go with it.
Coming from that same "extensive engineering experience" that required him to subcontract a substantial portion of his engineering work out to a 24 year-old nobody.

If carrier tilt was truly solved, then why now, have all LWRCI's products incorporated the shelf support feature?

In my opinion, much of what comes out of the LWRCI "sales & engineering" team is complete BS.
I group you into that category by your attempt to conceal that association.

Tells me everything I need to know about the nature of your character, or lack thereof.



 

Does that mean our light-hearted conversation is over?
Come on, lets keep this going!
The more we converse, the more LWRCI's lawyers have to read.
And I've got 30 more minutes till my machines are ready for change-over.

Please don't feel hurt...

Okay...?

Okay... I'm sorry for calling you "son". It wont happen again.

Wow what a douchebag.

ETA: Not you shade.

Seriously what a fucking asshole. I'm even pissed now. Complete lack of respect. *Click*

Tell me why I should respect someone purporting to be an uninterested passer-by who is actually conspiring to promote LWRCI's legal positions?
Whether or not that promotion be in a passive-aggressive manner...

You coming on here trying to intimidate us with talk of lawyers is not going to scare us. Also coming on and disrespecting members is not going to give you any points either. I've seen way more intimidating things in my short life that most people will never hear of or will see the light of day. Trust me when I say this you swinging the L word around doesn't scare me or many others here in the slightest.

No one has threatened anyone regarding anything about lawyers here.
Go read the court filings and find out who has actually been using the L-word for intimidation!

Good gods...do you even reality or lucid thinking, kid?  Conspiring?  Quick quiz, tell me what you think happened on 9/11?



Is there ANYONE who spends any time in the piston subforum who had the remotest confusion about my appreciation of LWRC rifles?  Anyone?  Anyone who might have thought I was, in any way, "uninterested" in LWRC?  Bueller?  But I'm an evil agent of your legal nemesis, conspiring against you on this forum, because I point out that, by definition, a litigant's point of view on litigation is biased?  How about the moon, did we land there?
 

Don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. My job for a living is analyzing information to include being able to extract the subtleties of what someone is saying.

If, in fact, your claims and statements are unfounded, then LWRC was right to take legal action to stop you from making false claims.



If, in fact, your claims are correct, then they should, rightly, be found at fault.
The problem is you state the one, and expect us to take it at face value, presenting only your own side of the litigation and your own publicity.  Which, again, is inherently biased.  AGAIN, as I said earlier, your bias may turn out to be correct and ruled in favor of in a court.  Or, it may not.  Either way, the bias is an intrinsic part of your statements, it cannot be otherwise.



 

And are yours, for your direct association with a fact witness for LWRCI, and for specifically pointing out my "bias" and continuing to harp on it rather than attempting to address the merits.

BTW, how can a statement of fact be biased anyways?
What specific statement from F&D are you saying is biased? Just the letter as a whole? Or specific pieces?

When a statement of fact is made, it remains fact until contested with opposing evidence.
"Potential for bias" alone is not a position for the introduction of opposing evidence.

I can just imagine how, if you couple of goobers where their attorneys, LWRCI would get up on the stand and hang their hat on that defense...

The following is satire:
LWRCI: BIAS your Honor! He cannot be trusted because he is BIAS!
Judge: Okay... and what other evidence would you like to present the Court at this time?
LWRCI: BIAS! just Bias... isn't that enough your honor? We rest our case. Bias.
Judge: So you rest your case?
LWRCI: One more time... Bias! Just in case.

Hmmmm.

What.
The.
Heck?

Are
You
Talking
About!

Weirdo.

How about you learn to analyze information for the purpose of figuring out what someone is ACTUALLY saying.
It would be much easier on you that way, and people wont think you're a weirdo anymore.

Hall- piss off.

There's enough people that have served, or are serving, or had family members in the military that any inclination of disrespect without cause immediately casts any/everything in doubt that you spout.

You sound like a 3 year old getting involved in a high school debate, and has no ground to stand on except vague references and personal insults.



No, I don't have a cat in the fight- nor did I read much that you posted.  But your attitude towards others certainly did piss me off.

Excuse me?
What the hell does "serving" have to do with anything on this board.
I have "served"... and I would never stoop so low as to use it as a reason why someone should give me inherent respect.
The guy said I should give him inherent respect because his daddy "served"... that's even lower.
So go pound sand.

You bunch of pansy-pants are the ones sounding like 3-years.
Afraid to address the merits of your arguments for LWRCI.
The only tactic you can use is diverting and derailing the conversation.
95% of the people reading and not engaging in this can see right through it.

Perhaps you should go back and read where the personal insults originated.
From LWRCI's pet forum troll.

Mr. Hall, I don't know enough about the situation between F&D and LWRCi to make a determination as to who is right or wrong in this case, and may never be privy to all of it, but you are pissing in the collective cornflakes here on this forum.

My advice isn't legal, but it is good advice.

I would advise you to tone it down in respect to using the L towards a long established member, and in your attitude towards members here that mean you no harm, and are only looking for the truth.

You keep the up, and you won't last long here. This thread will get locked, and you will either get a time out, or a ban.

Oh,

IBTL-IBTB

This x2. And, for the first time ever for me:

IBTL IBTB

All I have to say is my LWRCi's work GREAT , look GREAT and LWRCi treats me AWESOME !


Ya Boy !!!!!!!!

Warn your other members.
Your members who have been identified as working with LWRCI to push an agenda.
No one on this website was EVER threatened (even by slight implication) by me regarding any lawyers. EVER.

Further, I have provided respect where it has been earned or otherwise warranted, but have been nothing but attacked.
I hold my own and I fight my battles, unlike some who would like to see this thread get locked or deleted into oblivion.

Everyone else would actually like to see what LWRCI has to say about it.

Need I bring up HipFiredGun, 3ShotBursts, CmdrColt, and LeitnerWise? All coming from the same IP address touting a Colt buyout and potential large military contract in 2008?
The few posters of this board (long time members or not) wreak of the lingering stench of deception with that fiasco on this Board which nearly caused a catastrophic meltdown of LWRC at that time.
Mr. Mellors. Mr. Gomez...
I know you are lurking.

And yes, you just got called out.

Mr. Hall, seriously this is going too far. I understand your frustration, if you are truly in the right, but you must understand that you are in a biased position.

LWRCI is as well, if they were to come to this board. It has been explained to you that any member that has something at stake is going to be naturally biased. Your information could very well be the truth but we can't know that for sure yet.

Please tone it down and stop trying to "Flush" out the boogie man. These are members that have recommended other rifles over the LWRC even, usually PWS or the LMT. But please stop with this attacking, it isn't becoming of an individual that is supposedly attempting to make friends....

And he didn't attack you, he merely pointed out that you have a bias, which, as you would say, is a fact. Sorry.

OK, now we know who you are. You're Alex Jones. Quit playing Mr. Jones, and go home, get some sleep. You're drunk.

So... would you like to hear what LWRCI has to say?
When LWRCI makes their statement (if they make a statement) will it also be automatically inadmissible for your determination of truth?
In which case, how will you determine what truth is?
Wait for a court ruling that might not come within 3 or more years?

Give me something to work with here.
I'm all for the personal (and irrelevant) attacks to go away, from both sides if you see it that way.

Sadly, waiting on a court decision is what you will have to wait for Mr. Hall. I know it sucks but that is the way our legal system works, the whole "Innocent until proven guilty" thing.

And again, I doubt LWRCI will ever make a statement on this, in the forums or publicly, their lawyers have told them to shut it. This is common practice for any corporation, they never ever talk about their case, even if they are completely in the right.

Anything they say can be used against them, even if they have done nothing wrong, (Keep in mind I'm not saying that here).

Attacking our long standing, and completely upstanding, members isn't going to make you popular or make people want you to even win. These are good folks here and they have assisted with others in purchase decisions as well as issues with their rifles. So please, as one individual to the next, drop the offensive and simply make peace.

You're going to come against some that are biased in favor of LWRCI, you should know this sir. They have been making rifles for a bit and a lot of people have been satisfied with their work. And, if what you say is true, they love the design modifications you did as well. You should take this as a compliment towards your work and not an assault on it.

That is my 2 cents at least.

Not yet, thinking of some Jack later however.

-you know where I stand
-you know I don't take anyone's crap
-and you know I fight my own battles

I now know who y'all are (vaguely), and you apparently don't like being deceived as well....

Now that we all know each other...
Let's work to get to the bottom of this.

What say you, LWRCI?

Without being offensive toward your position... (I now feel like I have to preface every post with this statement)
It just seems like a defeatist attitude you are portraying.
BTW, "innocent until proven guilty" applies only to criminal cases.

If I were a died-in-the-wool LWRCI customer and I put my neck on the line to promote their reputation, I would be wanting to know WTF chuck>

We do want to know wtf is going on. But we also know crying in a forum isn't going to get them to open their mouths.

I'm trying to stay neutral to it all sir, I'm not taking either side. Heck, I've even pointed out that you should be taking the love of the LWRC rifles, that people are showing, as a compliment to your work.

Honestly, this is my last attempt at trying to be the voice of reason. If you want to continue to stick it in here, beating your chest and "Taking the fight to them" as you call it, so be it. You're not gaining any ground and you're frankly just wasting your time.

And if you want, just to show you that I'm not some "concealed LWRCI employee" I'm willing to send you a picture of my Microsoft ID badge with a couple of things blurred out, if that will satisfy your blood craze sir.

IBTL

 Arfcom sure has a way of pulling out the professionalism in folks....I would be speechless about this thread if I hadn't been here long enough to have seen it many times before.

Not just the lack of professionalism - but the paranoia.

See that's what I'm saying guy... "ignorance of the public".
Not that you (or the public) are "dumb"... just ignorant by the token of not attempting to uncover facts for yourself, but waiting for someone else to tell you what they think the facts are.
I have presented the facts, please see the filings.
I did not ever say or imply that I "designed" their rifles.
That is an ignorant passer-by's interpretation.
I contributed very minor (in my mind) "design" elements to their prototype SABR. Which some time later, they then patented and implemented throughout their product line. So evidently they thought it was important enough to claim an invention on. The engineering work, on the other hand, was much more substantial and not only was I never given credit for that work, LWRCI lied about even the existence of it. That is not even where I drew the line... I drew the line upon receiving unwarranted legal threats from LWRCI.

And if you wish to remain a passer-by, then just keep going... don't review the filings, and stop arguing w me.
And please quit acting as if and portraying me as the aggressor, which I am not.



Nah, I've got all the IP's already. (...sarcasm...)

Again, all of your information collected is just one side of this story. You have everything to gain from the story being told just right to make it look like you're the one being victimized. I'm done here, and sorry sir but you are the aggressor, in this forum.

At your current pace, you truly won't last long. I genuinely wish you luck.

This is a comedy goldmine.

And you sir, have zero critical thinking or investigative skills. You're only skill seems to be this niche passive-aggressive personal attack.
I will long outlast LWRCI, on this legal battle and in the field of building quality rifles, that much is guaranteed.

I do apologize for not portraying myself properly or to your standards of a "victim".
Peacock suckage and "woeful me" is not how generally I roll.

Now that the trolls have been revealed and admonished, are there any takers as to the merits of any legitimate positions? (for the 8th time)

Wasn't Colt and LWRCI supposed to close their deal today?
Though I have seen no announcement by either side. Hmmm.
Perhaps Monday. Its probably been a long week for them trying to deal with me.