User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/28/2016 3:36:14 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Was that the vendor that got banned on the Hide for advertising without permission multiple times? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The barrel mounting design was stolen from another manufacturer and then claimed by DD to be uniquely their own. Falkor Defense I believe. Maybe the entire pipe-fitting industry stole F&D's ideas too? http://www.lbindustrialsystems.com/images/LB%20Positive%20Seal%20Ash%20Transfer%20Piping%20System_img_0.jpg F&D is a sue happy idiot. He sued LWRC and lost a few years ago Was that the vendor that got banned on the Hide for advertising without permission multiple times? Probably. The last time he was here they let him roll for a while knowing he was a retread because Mark Larue was fucking with him. It was glorious |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2016 11:14:15 AM EDT
[#2]
I saw on their website that they won patent rights from LWRC.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2016 4:03:45 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I saw on their website that they won patent rights from LWRC. According to a post, back when the LWRC lawsuit was raging, they both came to an agreement and the suit was dropped. Also, the employee that was posting here was terminated for his conduct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2016 4:12:50 PM EDT
[#4]
And FD got the patent rights
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2016 4:38:18 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And FD got the patent rights They were given a license to use the patent, they did not win ownership of the patent. Eta: original suit filed claimed LWRC did not own the patent. Agreement reached had F&D agree that LWRC is proper owner, in exchange for license. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2016 5:58:31 PM EDT
[#6]
So I went and asked about this and FD didn't claim that LWRC didn't own the patent. FD claimed to be a co-inventor.
LWRC then gave FD royalty free licensing of the patent. Judging from that result, sounds like FD had legit claims. I wonder what DD will do on the 4-bolt deal. Did someone say they were in a lawsuit over it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2016 6:43:26 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I went and asked about this and FD didn't claim that LWRC didn't own the patent. FD claimed to be a co-inventor. LWRC then gave FD royalty free licensing of the patent. Judging from that result, sounds like FD had legit claims. I wonder what DD will do on the 4-bolt deal. Did someone say they were in a lawsuit over it? Except for the fact that C_hall himself posted here, informing everyone that he was proceeding with a lawsuit over "correction of ownership" and laid claim to being the sole inventor of the patent. This is getting way off topic, at this point, but suffice it to say, F&D did not win anything but was granted a license. The only information I can see, in relation to the DD rail design, is a post on F&D webpage stating that DD pulled from them and that F&D was taking full credit for it, in relation to a magazine article on the DD 308 rifle. Edit for spelling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2016 6:53:05 PM EDT
[#8]
So in other words, you are confirming that it was a win for FD? They got rights to the patent. I just don't see how that's a loss, correct me if I'm wrong.
From the sound if it, FD is gearing up to challenge DD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2016 7:00:46 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So in other words, you are confirming that it was a win for FD? They got rights to the patent. I just don't see how that's a loss, correct me if I'm wrong. From the sound if it, FD is gearing up to challenge DD. No, it's a win for no one. A win implies it went to court and a judgement was issued. Instead, F&D and LWRC came to an agreement where they stated LWRC has full, and sole, ownership of the patent. LWRC, in return, gave them a license. Why this happened, no one will know save for the employees that came to the agreement. Mr. Hall was also terminated, which may have also been part of the agreement. Your implications that someone may, or may not, have been in the right over the agreement is stretching things. Agreements are struck all the time, when the defending party has no guilt. Eta: they got a license for the patent, not the full rights/ownership of the patent, which is what was the original goal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2016 7:06:37 PM EDT
[#10]
So FD was then allowed to manufacture those rifles and pay no fees to LWRC? Still sounds like a win to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2016 7:14:01 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So FD was then allowed to manufacture those rifles and pay no fees to LWRC? Still sounds like a win to me. A license on a patent is generally paid for. Seriously, that is your connection to F&D? It's getting quite old |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2016 7:28:04 PM EDT
[#12]
Hey man, I just like to fact check. I've been told 3 different things from 4 different people.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
