Posted: 5/11/2017 8:22:44 AM EDT
|
Interesting read here: Steyr files lawsuit against SIG for patent infringement
I purchased a Steyr L9A1 at the end of February of this year and once I finally stripped down the frame, I through to myself "uh oh...there must be a story here!" The Steyr design, to the best of my knowledge, predates the SIG 250 chassis design by at least 5 years. Of course, it would be several more years before SIG would see this through as a striker fired design. It seems to me that the only significant departure here is the serialization of the chassis itself, which the Steyr does not have. Most of us know that the designer of the Steyr M/S/C/L pistols was Wilhelm Bubits, and that he was previously a designer at Glock. He also designed the Caracal. He was active on SteyrClub.com and still has a special section dedicated to direct engagement with him, but it's been radio silence since 2011 or 2012. I am left with the impression that Bubits works under contract as a firearms engineer and is not an employee of any company per se. When I first saw the Steyr chassis laying before me, it left me with more questions than answers. Was Bubits involved in the SIG P320 project, hence his cessation of web activity some 5 years ago? Did SIG, in fact, copy this design from Steyr? I've already read some comments from other posters online that Steyr is just looking to cash in, sour grapes, etc. Obviously, "cashing in" is one of the main reasons to get a patent. Another is to ensure that your competition can't just take your IP and run with it. For those who maybe don't know, Steyr is nowhere close to the manufacturing giant that SIG Sauer is. People seem to have a lot of emotional response to this news, but it's basic business in the manufacturing world. Supposedly Steyr has already sued Beretta over the same issue; the Pico uses the same type of chassis arrangement, and it looks like APX does as well. This is gonna get interesting.... 
|
|
Quoted:
The little Kel Tecs use that design as well, and Taurus and Ruger both copied those. Link to Steyr's patent on the chassis. This will play out colorfully, for sure. It wasn't long ago that the US Gov't was pissed at Steyr for allegedly selling firearms into nations that supported terrorism. It seems like if they really wanted to, they could delay the M17 program another year just to screw Steyr out of the licensing revenue from that program. |
|
Well, I think we're all idiots. Someone could've been selling, and we could've been building, 80% Steyrs for a couple of decades now. Instead, we're just getting started w/ the SIG 250/320.
Holy smokes. Did you say the trigger module/slide rails DOESN'T have a serial number, it's on the plastic frame that has no rails? We are complete idiots. We could have plastic 80%'d that 25 years ago before the AWB. |
|
Quoted:
Patents basically give you the right to sue. Whoever has the deepest pockets generally wins. One could argue the Tokarev with its removable hammer/sear package predates them both. It usually boils down to whether or not the patent has been infringed, not who has the most money. The cash can make a lawyer dance in front of a judge, but either the case has merit, or it does not. |
|
I wouldn't guess that Sig is overly concerned about the lawsuit. Some similarities with the two patents, and some differences. The biggest difference is a difference in utility. With the Sig, the removable unit is the firearm itself; with the Steyr, the removable unit is part of the firearm. That's a huge difference.
Sig has a patent for their FCU/chassis, and their filing and publishing dates predate Steyr's filing date and publishing date, though Steyr does have an earlier "priority date." Here are the patents (pay attention to the dates): Sig: https://www.google.com/patents/US6234059 Steyr: https://www.google.com/patents/US6260301 |
|
Quoted:
I wouldn't guess that Sig is overly concerned about the lawsuit. Some similarities with the two patents, and some differences. The biggest difference is a difference in utility. With the Sig, the removable unit is the firearm itself; with the Steyr, the removable unit is part of the firearm. That's a huge difference. Sig has a patent for their FCU/chassis, and their filing and publishing dates predate Steyr's filing date and publishing date, though Steyr does have an earlier "priority date." Here are the patents (pay attention to the dates): Sig: https://www.google.com/patents/US6234059 Steyr: https://www.google.com/patents/US6260301 Fuck steyr |
|
Quoted:
Haha, I knew SIG would have had their shot together before producing a new gun. Fuck steyr Quoted:
Quoted:
I wouldn't guess that Sig is overly concerned about the lawsuit. Some similarities with the two patents, and some differences. The biggest difference is a difference in utility. With the Sig, the removable unit is the firearm itself; with the Steyr, the removable unit is part of the firearm. That's a huge difference. Sig has a patent for their FCU/chassis, and their filing and publishing dates predate Steyr's filing date and publishing date, though Steyr does have an earlier "priority date." Here are the patents (pay attention to the dates): Sig: https://www.google.com/patents/US6234059 Steyr: https://www.google.com/patents/US6260301 Fuck steyr |
|
What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. That's ultimately going to boil down to a technical discussion of the merits of the patent infringement case, not a GD style "F Steyr" session.
The SIG patent referenced above is a good find and adds something to the discussion. It appears that SIG's patent lacks verbiage related to the actual striker-sear interface, whereas this is included in Steyr's patent. |
|
Quoted:
What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. That's ultimately going to boil down to a technical discussion of the merits of the patent infringement case, not a GD style "F Steyr" session. The SIG patent referenced above is a good find and adds something to the discussion. It appears that SIG's patent lacks verbiage related to the actual striker-sear interface, whereas this is included in Steyr's patent. On the subject of Sig vs Steyr, I kept going back-and-forth about the seriousness of the lawsuit. And I agree with you that it'll boil down to who has better lawyers and technical experts. But I did a little digging into prior art, and I think Kel-Tec's 1995 production of the P-11 will help Sig quite a bit, if they decide to argue down that line of reasoning. Steyr's patent is not quite so novel once the Kel-Tec P-11 is examined: 
http://www.1bad69.com/keltec/disassembly.htm |
|
Quoted:
Good info, I don't have any experience with the little Kel-Tec P32 and its brethren. It looks like both the Steyr M and the Kel-Tec P32 were introduced in 1999, but when it comes to patents, its all about who gets it filed and approved first. From what I can see, all of Kel-Tecs patents surround the design of their shotgun, plus another one for a folding bayonet. It's probably safe to assume that Steyr will go after Taurus and Ruger as well. Link to Steyr's patent on the chassis. This will play out colorfully, for sure. It wasn't long ago that the US Gov't was pissed at Steyr for allegedly selling firearms into nations that supported terrorism. It seems like if they really wanted to, they could delay the M17 program another year just to screw Steyr out of the licensing revenue from that program. |