Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'AR-15 Discussion' started by DFlynt, Mar 1, 2013.
Like the title says who owns those patents?
no one anymore. what is owned are the copyrights to various names like m16 ar15 m4 etc.
Thank you Jon for your answer.
And of the older copyrights. Many have been allowed to expire or challenged in the courts. I know a few years ago Bushmaster was challenged in the court by Colt for using the (M-4) designation. It cost Bushmaster a ton of money in courts but they won and freed the M-4 Designation for others to use if they choose. Colt also tried other companies for using terms like the words Government, Elite, Commando and others! Which they also have lost on many of those issues as well.
And JonM is on the money! The patents on the AR-15 and other weapons has long expired!
Soooo......you saying I could make me some money by reinstating that patent under my name since its technically nameless?
I believe by them now being in the public domain they can't be repatented(?) unless the law on patents are changed like they did with copyrights a few years ago.
Patents cannot be reinstated once they expire (it use to be 17 years).
That's almost a good thing then. I'd hate for some one to actually plan to and make money off someone else's idea(s).
Develop a "better" AR... "build a better mouse trap" and you can patten that.
A few years ago on "I think" Future Weapons... They showcased a new M4. It was select fire but what made it unique was that when flipped to "auto" the bolt stayed to the rear between trigger pulls keeping the chamber open and facilitating quicker cooling of the barrel. Flipping the selector back to semi disengaged this feature for "closed bolt" accuracy.
Pretty sure that guy has a patten.
the purpose of a patent isnt to give a person or family or heirs rights to an invention in perpituity, its to give the inventor a period of time in which to profit from their hardwork. once its expired its free game from then on out.
The weapon you are referring to was built by LWRC. The open bolt was to prevent cookoffs from an overheated barrel. Pretty cool. If I had enough to buy an NFA full auto, I would see if I could get a competent gunsmith to manufacture a fcg that would do that.
I thought is was a slick idea, especially for Infantry troops patrolling urban streets. Anyone looking to set a ambush will target the radioman first, then the heaviest weapon which is currently either the M249 or the M240, both belt fed and easily identified.
This system has some appeal because it makes it tough to distinguish between a riefleman and an automatic rifleman... But your still sacrificing a lot of fire power compared to tue SAW for that anonymity. I don't really see the service adopting it large scale, SOCOM maybee but not front line troops.
I think the concept was good for the units that didn't have a need for a dedicated machine gun, and had to remain relatively mobile. It would be also good to have for a combat support hospital, as they are barred from the Geneva Convention from having machine guns per se, but are allowed assault rifles for self defense, and come under heavier enemy fire than expected.
Full auto, hmmm. Hold trigger back, magazine empties as you smile, BHO locks bolt back. Slam in full mag, repeat if needed. Problem solved!
Patents are a funny thing. Take DuPont for example. They've owned the patents to just about every refrigerant used in AC systems, and when the patent expires there's always a study that comes out shortly thereafter showing how the recently expired patented gas is bad for the environment, thus forcing everyone to change to a new gas, which is convienently yet again a patent owned by DuPont.
Sounds like they have an excellent business model figured out
You got that right. Except that's not a business model, it's a racket.
Most likely doesn;t have the whole rifle patented, just the bits and pieces that are unique.
As far as patents go you might get the designed passed by an agent at the patent office as they aren't always that smart. However, you would most likely never see a cent from your re-patent as there is prior art. So you would lose money on lawyer fees for an inevitable loss.