in order to mislead the consuming public into believing that Bushmaster's products are comparable to Colt's
Bushmaster products are generally superior to Colt's.
posted on 04/22/2004 12:07:01 PM PDT
Is there a version of the "Ann Coulter rule" for gun articles?
posted on 04/22/2004 12:09:57 PM PDT
(Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing. - Ann Coulter 4/1/04, How 9-11 Happened)
Well I guess that Knight Armaments should sue Colt for copying the Stoner, hehehe.
posted on 04/22/2004 12:21:51 PM PDT
by George Smiley
(Is the RKBA still a right if you have to get the government's permission before you can exercise it?)
I disagree. My experience running Bushy parts on my M16 is that their bolts break a little more frequently and that their internal parts (at least the M16 parts) are out of spec more often than Colt parts. Every manufacturer puts out junk once in a while but the question is how good are they about servicing it? Bushy competes with Colt pretty well in terms of customer service but some of their stuff just isn't as nice.
Colt uses a different chamber size for each length of barrel and Bushmaster does not. Generally, the shorter the barrel the looser the chamber on Colt stuff. This has the effect of making their stuff cycle more reliably.
I used a Bushy 11.5" barrel on my M16 and it was very accurate and reliable. It also cost 30% of what a Colt 11.5" barrel would have cost and the gas port was out of spec and the chamber was a little on the tight side.
Colt has a good point in this case, although I think it's just sour grapes on their part. I'm no Colt fanboy or "pony licker" but their stuff IS generally better. It commands higher prices in the private sector and sells just as fast or faster than Bushy/RockRiver/ArmaLite/Oly/etc.
The right way for Colt to resolve this is through sales and advertizing. MAKE a better M4 and start selling a neutered semi-auto version once the assinine Cosmetic Feature Ban sunsets. Offer a semi-auto 14.5" barrel version to us mere mortals that live in states where we're adult enough to own them. I'd pay the $200 tax on top of $850 for a real Colt M4 short barreled rifle. They need to compete with Bush, Oly et al instead of suing them.
Note to the uninformed: Yes machineguns are legal. yes you can have them without a FFL/SOT in most states. you only need a CLEO signoff, photos, fingerprints, $200 and a 3 month wait. no you can't convert your junky post-ban neutergun until we get the 86 ban repealed.
Colt pulled this crap with US Firearms over their Peacemaker clones. It's probably only a matter of time before they try suing Kimber et al over the 1911.
Colt is dying a slow death, and turning to lawsuits against other gunmakers (who produce a better, cheaper product) will not warm the hearts of gun owners.
posted on 04/22/2004 12:29:32 PM PDT
(From each according to his inability, to each according to his misdeeds - DNC Motto)
No lie there.
posted on 04/22/2004 12:32:22 PM PDT
(KILL-9 needs no justification.)
posted on 04/22/2004 12:33:00 PM PDT
I like them both. My personal rifle is a Bushmaster, the one the govrernment lets me play with is a (usually badly mangled) Colt.
posted on 04/22/2004 12:42:36 PM PDT
(Are you a monthly donor? Why not? (the freeper formerly known as Britton J Wingnutx))
Not to mention that Bushmaster pricing has some real-world basis..
posted on 04/22/2004 12:58:17 PM PDT
Haven't we been here before?
1. The name "M4" or "M4 Carbine" is NOT trademarked by Colt. They put it on their rifles, but it's a MILITARY DESIGNATION, not a trademarked brand.
2. Colt won its lawsuit regarding the "Technical Data Package" over the individual features of the M4. Specifically, Colt's contribution was the addition of additional cuts in the lower receiver that match up to the feed ramps in the barrel extension. Everything else was a specification driven by the DOD.
Colt needs to give it up. The offer piss poor service on ARs and are losing market share due to their own negligence. Just go to the Colt and Bushmaster websites and see who offers the products and services that firearms owners want. You can hardly get a decent product description from Colt and they're like Henry Ford's Model T when it comes to models and options.
posted on 04/22/2004 1:06:06 PM PDT
M-4 is a good carbine for a weapon if you're shooting at targets under 100 meters. Over that and I hear the M-4 loses a lot of stopping power. The M-16 is much better at range shooting.
If I were buying an AR-15, I would definately make sure my barrel was at least 16 inches in length. Gives the 5.56 x 45 round adequate stopping power.
posted on 04/22/2004 1:08:42 PM PDT
("It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." -- Patrick Henry)
i'll take a bushmaster over colt all day long
posted on 04/22/2004 1:21:28 PM PDT
(saved by GRACE and GRACE alone)
Finally, a thread I can really get my teeth into! Guns and Intellectual Property law all in one!
Colt has a strong case on the trademark infringement issue, on the principle that one may not adopt the entirety of another mark. There are some defenses for Bushmaster and HK, but the Colt case is reasonably strong. I'd advise Bushy and HK to adopt other marks, but there is nothing wrong with them advertising that their products are equivlent to an M4. Just don't use it as a trademark on the rifle.
The look-and-feel case is iffy. I would argue that Colt's tolerance of dozens of other manufacturers of the same visually-identical pattern for decades shows that they did not consider it to be protectible trade dress. In the same way a trademark can be genericised and thus mo longer protectible if widespread misuse is tolerated (e.g. Aspirin, Escalator, Zipper), trade dress should be treated similarly. You can't sit on your hands.
Moreover, if Colt is arguing that the newer short barrel and profile of the M4 (as opposed to the M16) is protectible, they will have a hard time arguing against the principle that functional aspects are not protectible in this manner.
Colt is sounding desperate.
posted on 04/22/2004 1:27:09 PM PDT
by Atlas Sneezed
(Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
Bushmaster has been building and selling this same firearm for years. Why is Colt just now getting bent out of shape about it? And besides that, I thought patent protection only lasted so many years. Any lawyers on here that can explain Colt's decision to go after the other maufacturers? And I agree, the Bushmaster is better AND cheaper than the Colt version. I own both, and give me the Bushmaster any day of the week.
Closely held Colt seeks a court order to block Bushmaster and Heckler & Koch from using the M4 name or design in any of their products. Colt claims Bushmaster's XM-15 E2S ``M4 Type'' and Heckler & Koch's planned ``HKM4'' are ``identical'' to Colt's, according to the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Norfolk, Virginia.
``Bushmaster has intentionally copied the names used by Colt and the look and feel of Colt's M4 carbine in order to mislead the consuming public into believing that Bushmaster's products are comparable to Colt's,'' according to the suit.
So let me see if I have this straight. They're saying that they're "identical", but not "comparable"?
posted on 04/22/2004 4:01:00 PM PDT
by Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson