Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/18/2004 4:57:40 AM EST
What's to stop anyone from buying the tooling, blueprinting Glock's molds, and churning out "Clock 17" handguns? Or Derettas, or whatever? (Ok, you'd have to use a name that was very different, since trademark protection applies to brand names -- but that doesn't do anything for the engineering.)

I know Ruger stopped AMT from making "AMT Lightning" 10/22 copies, but the "AMT Lightning" copies of the Ruger Mk.II were still on the market even after that. I remember when the .50BMG "uppers" first came out, two or three places started making near-copies within a few months -- some guy from Montana had a table at the WAC show for a while.

Is it useless to design your own rifle and try to market it, or is there design protection short of coming up with something patentable?
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 5:09:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By 71-Hour_Achmed:
What's to stop anyone from buying the tooling, blueprinting Glock's molds, and churning out "Clock 17" handguns? Or Derettas, or whatever? (Ok, you'd have to use a name that was very different, since trademark protection applies to brand names -- but that doesn't do anything for the engineering.)

I know Ruger stopped AMT from making "AMT Lightning" 10/22 copies, but the "AMT Lightning" copies of the Ruger Mk.II were still on the market even after that. I remember when the .50BMG "uppers" first came out, two or three places started making near-copies within a few months -- some guy from Montana had a table at the WAC show for a while.

Is it useless to design your own rifle and try to market it, or is there design protection short of coming up with something patentable?



It's not quite that simple. Glock isn't going to give their drawings to you, so in order to reproduce their gun, you'll need to thoroughly measure every aspect of every part (down to the last pin), AND figure out what it's made of, AND figure out what thermal/mechanical/chemical treatments have been done to it, AND figure out how close you need to be when you make it so it doesn't fall apart or break.

Then, to make it, you'll need to make your own fixtures, figure out the right order to perform each operation, and then MAYBE you can start making [C]locks.

Or, you could design your own, better gun and have not much more work to do.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 5:28:03 AM EST
When you mentioned making a Glock clone, were you thinking along the lines of making an exact copy, or one that functions internally like the Glock, but is not a 100% knockoff?

If I was to produce a firearm that used the same magazine (in unmodified form) as another firearm in current production, would there be licensing issues?
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 5:29:25 AM EST
Same as any consumer product, trademarks, copyrights, and patents.

S+W lost a lawsuit over "copying" involving their Sigma's to Glock.

XD-9's, and XD-40's have some similarities to Glock, but not enough to get sued.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 5:38:51 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 5:45:12 AM EST
Yeap, patents. Once the patent runs out (17 years comes to mind), its free game to copy. And, the patent application must even describe the most effective way to manufacture the item, which becomes public domain after the expiration of the patent.

Thus, AR15s and 1911s all over the place.

Kharn
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 5:55:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By Brisk322:
It's not quite that simple. Glock isn't going to give their drawings to you


Really? But Gaston *promised* . . .

No, I meant making an exact copy of the design. Glock's U.S. patent has run out (or is just about to, I forget which). But I wasn't thinking of copying the Glock anyway, just using it as an example. (Ok, looked it up: Glock 17, I think.)

BTW, patents are 20 years from the date of application, now. (It can be extended under a few circumstances, though.)
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 6:03:45 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 1:15:20 AM EST
But most incremental improvements don't get patented. For the rail system, any efforts to patent the idea would probably be rejected on the basis of obviousness, since rail mounts have been used for generations. Generally speaking, if you can glue two inventions together to make a third, and if those two are well-known in the art, then the "invention" is not patentable.

Is "look and feel" something that can be protected under the unfair competition laws? Or does anyone have a reference to the Ruger vs. AMT (might have been under their other name, what was it, ICI or something?) lawsuit?
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 6:12:11 AM EST
Top Top