Colt M4/Bushmaster sell out/Law suit

[Karsten]

Mixed opinions but it appears Colt wants THEIR Rights back and then again stop sales to the Civie Sector like they once did before......LEO and Military sales only.

Pre ban Colt I can see, Post ban Colt CEO's owners fit in the Anti Gun platform in my opinion.

http://www.assaultweb.net/cgi-bin/ul...c;f=2;t=005232

Karsten

[Mus]

Ludicrous. In these times we need to be suing the bad guys not each other. How freaking stupid.

I also dont understand how Colt can trademark the government/military designation of its product.

[Kimber_man]

Colts= good guns and bad politics

[seventhsword]

I have a Bushy M4 and I love it!

[Code_3]

The area of intellectual property is an interesting area of law. A few years ago H-D Motor Co. got a patent on the distinctive "potato...potato" sound of its motorcycles.

If Colt feels others are infringing on their distinctive trade name/dress etc. then they have every right to ask the court for a ruling. I always try to look at these sorts of things as if what would I do if it were my property and someone was stealing or trying to steal it. Colt, like every other company, has a right and a responsibility to its stakeholders to protect and grow its assets.

[narkety]

You guys have to consider the fact that Colt specifically called its gun the M4. That name is a name, just like "desert eagle" is a name.

Would you think it was okay for S&W to make (without permission) a gun that looks exactly like a desert eagle, and call it a desert eagle? On top of that, hypothetically, it would be missing half a dozen reliability and quality control features.

That's what Bushmaster is doing. Partially as a consequence, people all over the internet claim that bushys are "mil spec" - which isn't true.

I think the real question is, why did Bushy and HK choose to use "M4" to name their gun??????

I think it's obvious. If it was some sh**ty rifle, they sure a hell wouldn't copy the name. They're doing so because they're riding coattails.

That being said, I still like HK and Bushy, and I own products from both companies...

[LIProgun]

Colt's received a trademark on "M4" on July 8, 2003 from the US PTO. It is a "words only" trademark, and not a "words and design" or "design" trademark.

[arbob]

Colt developed the product. They still own the patent rights on the M 4 technical developments. Colt developed the original carbine in response to a request from one of the Persian Gulf militaries. The US Gov`t requested a few minor changes developed at Colt`s expense,IIRC, and the M4 was born. Where the designation M 4 came from I don`t know. I do know Colt successfully sued both Bushmaster and the gov`t in the 90`s when the DOD gave the M 4 contract to Bushmaster. Bushmaster was forced to cease production, and the gov`t was ordered by the court to return the contract to Colt, who still owns the exclusive patent rights. Sounds like Colt is just protecting their intellectual property.

[Pat _Rogers]

There were three other carbines adopted, all in 7.62x33mm.
The M1 Carbine, a semi auto (as well as the M1A1 variant).
The M2 Carbine, a select fire version
The M3 Carbine, a NV capable version.
M4 is following in the numerical order.

Colt's owns the Technical Data Package on the M4. They did all of the work.
They have the rights to the gun.
You may not like it, but they are protecting their rights, and have successfully defended them in court before on this.

[narkety]

The M16 is every bit as much of a carbine as the M1A1...

[LIProgun]

It is not completely clear that Colt's has exclusive rights to the M4. It was developed by Colt's in conjunction with the US Government, and the US Court of Claims found an issue of fact as to who owned the M4 rights. The Court of Claims found "We leave open for further inquiry the factual issues this Ruling poses: specifically, whether the M4 rights belonged to the Government in the first instance...."

I don't think even Colt's would say that they "did all the work" since the design built on the M16 series. The Court of Claims found that the M4 was developed partially by the government at public expense, and partially by private expenditures on the part of Colt's.

The Court also determined that on June 30, 1967, Colt's entered into a technical data and patent license agreement with the Government, affording the Army limited rights to the M16 rifle and the XM177 submachine gun [sic]. Subsequent to the signing of the M16 licensing agreement, Colt's developed the M4 and M4A1 carbines, weapons derived from, and sharing a majority of their parts with, the M16 rifle. While there was disagreement as to what extent the Government contributed financially to the development of the M4 and M4A1, it was clear that Colt's committed its own funds to the project. In a letter dated March 5, 1985, Colt's informed the Army that, based on the fact that the M4 and M4A1 were derived from the M16, Colt's considered the M4 and M4A1 to be covered by the 1967 Licensing Agreement.

Colt's later sought the Army's confirmation that the M4 Carbine was not covered by the licensing agreement. In support of that contention, Colt's offered evidence that a number of the M4's parts had been developed, tested and refined solely at Colt's expense. So, it seems that the licensing agreement does not confer any rights to Colt's that Colt's can assert against a commercial manufacturer. Colt's was probably seeking to remove M4 from the licensing agreement so that it could assert full ownership rights in the M4, instead of sharing them with the Government.

The Army concluded that Colt's did have proprietary rights in the M4 technical data. But this seems to be rights to the tech data for purposes of government proposals and contracts, and not necessarily anything to do with commercial IP rights. Moreover, the very issue as to whether Colt's actually had proprietary rights was explicitly not settled by the decision. Even assuming a subsequent decision (which I have not yet located) resolved this in Colt's favor, Colt's rights to the technical data package may not preclude commercial manufacturers from marketing a carbine with M4 features.

However, Colt's clearly holds the trademark on the words "M4," although (as noted above) they got it less than a year ago. So Colt's is probably is on good ground going after others for calling their models "M4." Further, there are intellectual property issues such as trade dress that could well be in play.

[Mus]

Thanks LIP.

[Pat _Rogers]

Hi Rob!

You are certainly a SME in this matter. I'm just a trigger puller, and not up on the nuances of litigation.
However, the mindless hammering of Colt's in this matter is somewhat disturbing.
They haven't done everything right, but neither have they done all wrong.
The courts will make the decision. All the rest is just so much conjecture.

Then again, without that there would be little on the errornet...

[Karsten]

I have read more about this and it is taking a Anti Gun Silk Lining perspective in view of up coming times and events.

Colt sells very few Post ban AR-15's these days and doesn't have the greatest following on POST BANS to the Civie sector.

BM is maketing a Barrel Profile and not double cut feed ramps.....Profile was there to mount USGI gear. The Dodge Viper looks kinda sorta like a Corvette....they are both sleek and fast........Maybe Chevy should sue.

They do market to the US Gov and that could soon run out as the soul provider and open up a whole can of worms.

So Colt sues, wins the USGI deal, stops DPMS, BM, KAC, RRA and a number of others from making AR-15 type rifle and guess what.....Colt again goes LEO/Mil Contract only and no more Civy AR's.

Karsten

[narkety]

So Colt sues, wins the USGI deal, stops DPMS, BM, KAC, RRA and a number of others from making AR-15 type rifle and guess what.....Colt again goes LEO/Mil Contract only and no more Civy AR's.

Most likely, Colt will win, and everyone will just have to quit call their guns "M4". So, hopefully, no one is hurt. They probably shouldn't use the name anyway, since they're not the same spec.

[Mus]

Originally Posted by narkety

Most likely, Colt will win, and everyone will just have to quit call their guns "M4". So, hopefully, no one is hurt. They probably shouldn't use the name anyway, since they're not the same spec.

Stop calling them M4 types and start putting full length thin profile barrels on their carbines. Shed about half a pound. We cant own no stinkin grenade launcher, so we dont need no stinkin barrel cut!

[dsk]

Originally Posted by Pat _Rogers

There were three other carbines adopted, all in 7.62x33mm.

7.62x33mm?!? Geez Pat, you almost made the puny little .30 Carbine sound like an actual weapon.

[Mus]

Originally Posted by dsk

7.62x33mm?!? Geez Pat, you almost made the puny little .30 Carbine sound like an actual weapon.

LOL.

[Col. Colt]

Here we go again guys - old "Colt isn't going to sell to Civilians" claptrap being regurgitated as fact without supporting evidence once again.

This is simply a fight over trademark and intellectual property rights (who spent their own money to design what and thus has exclusive right to market it under that actual name). Does anybody here think that Bushmaster would allow Colt to make and sell a shortened, long handguard AR and mark it "Dissippator", or even call it a "Dissippator" type weapon? Not for an instant. That is a Bushmaster "Trademark".

Their is a principle in trademark/copyright law that says that if you fail to protect something you trademark or copyrighted, you lose the right to that name and feature set as a unique product, then anyone can use it. Ask Kleenex brand tissues or Xerox about their fights to keep their own names, as their own.

And the M4gerys are just that, an attempt to look like a model Colt spent their R&D money to develop, even to the point of using the term "M4" in the other company's catalogs. If that isn't trademark infringement, I'm not sure what is.

What makes the M4 special isn't just the short handguards, removable carry handle and folding stock. It is a package of internal modifications that make the M16 Series reliable with hollowpoint or softpoint bullets - since terrorists are not signitories to the Hague Accords, the military can and should use more efficent rounds for the safety of our troops. The barrel and upper reciever are specially "throated out" with guide channels for hollowpoints.

Karsten, where do you come to the conclusion that today's Colt's Manufacturing intends to stop selling to civilians? One of the main reasons that Colt's Manufacturing was sold off as a seperate entity by Colt Industries was the old corporate group's discomfort in selling "assault weapons" to the civilian market. Since that restructuring, our shop has always been able to get civilian legal Colt ARs for anyone who wants one.

Colt's Manufacturing has no problem selling ARs to the public. If you doubt that, look on the civilian www.Colt.com website and count how many CIVILIAN ONLY models of AR-15 Colt currently sells, over and above it's law enforcement and military models. They even give you a choice of barrel twist rates and the closest possible civilian semi-auto M4 - the Colt "civilian" M4 has the proper feed ramp modifications, a civilian legal chrome lined 16" barrel, and is available to anyone to purchase.

I checked out "AssaultNet.Com". Great positive name for a gun related site, right everyone? Who are they going to be assaulting (besides Colt)next? Not a very intellectually sophisticated bunch, by their writing styles, mostly. Their opinions and understanding displayed on this issue at least, are largely at the high school sophomore level - with a few sharp guys in there somewhere, thankfully.

If I was Colt, I would have had about enough of having models I paid to develop copied and sold without royalties, too. How close is a "Gold Match" to a "Gold Cup" in the customer's eyes? Besides the ARs, Kimber and Springfield now sell 3" Defender Clones. The irony there is that Kimber said a 3" 1911 would not work - then copied the design when Colt proved it would work quite well. And let's not forget the Colt designed "Schwartz Safety - now known as the Kimber Series II lockwork! Thankfully for Kimber, the Colt patent expired long ago. Do these guys ever have any useful original ideas?

Quite the opposite reasoning may apply here. Colt may want to go into the "Assault Weapons Ban Sunset" as the only company that can call an M4 that, or use the correct, real M4 design features. Does that stop Bushy or anyone else from making short barreled ARs with folding stocks? No, they just won't be able to call it that or use the Colt special ramps. A pretty minor point - just use a different name in your catalog.

Warmly, Col. Colt

"Beware of Counterfeits & Patent Infringements" - Samuel Colt, from a mid-1850's Colt Newspaper Ad.
Some things never change - like people making cheap knockoffs of Colts and pretending they are the same thing. The Manhattan percussion revolvers were the "Kimber/Bushmaster/Springfields" of the mid-19th Century. They looked just like Colts, too. And they lost in court, by the way.

cc

[scubie02]

That whole only selling to Gov't and LE thing they did before left a bad taste in my mouth last time around, not to mention various times when QC was somewhat on the decline. For those reason's I've not been super eager to buy Colt anyway. If they end up going out of business over all the stupid crap they do, so be it. Sort of a shame, though.

[FreeAmerican]

When did Colt stop selling to civilians? I never saw it, I've bought ar's and 1911's through the 80's, 90's, and 2000's. Many of which I wish I had kept.

[Col. Colt]

Scubie, Colt FIREARMS has never stopped selling guns to the civilian market. This is an urban legend from the 1990 period (as I recall) that has only one small grain of truth in it. The people responsible were all Colt Industries Board Members, who ordered, for a short while, (from their New York Board Room, I'm sure) Colt Firearms Division to suspend sales of ARs to the civilian market during heated debate on the original Assault Weapons Ban.

I immediately called Colt Firearms Division in Hartford the day the suspension was announced and talked to the head man in charge of Public Relations at Colt. He assured me that he and everyone at Hartford was just as mad as I was, and that they were working to quickly reverse this decision by their Corporate owners, since the assault weapons ban had not yet passed and Colt Firearms management felt it was wrong to restrict sales to civilians so long as ARs were a legal product.

Very shortly thereafter the Colt Industries Board was convinced, by Colt Firearms management, to reverse themselves and AR shipments resumed. Check the Serial Number lists of "civilian" AR models and you will see there was no significant lag in civilian production.

Colt Industries Board decided that they did not want to continue to own a gun division in the face of what seemed like inevitable "legislation and regulation out of existence" and sold off the "Colt Firearms Division", which became the "Colt's Manufacturing Company" of today. Ironically, it was the original Colt's Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company which grew into Colt Industries - and which is now back on it's own as a firearms manufacturer, period. And I don't think the current firearms company is willing to write off the large and healthy civilian firearms market as long as they can make a profit there.

Their have been cutbacks in models that were less profitable to make (primarily revolvers) and Colts in general have occasionally been in short supply because their new, modern factory has less production capacity than the massive old Armory. If you make more profit on a 1911 than a Detective Special and you only have so much manufacturing space, which one would you make? But does Colt sell guns to civilians? Yes, over 30,000 a year. In a 365 day year that is a lot of guns going out the door to you and me, every day. But in a country of 260 million, it isn't a lot of guns.

And yes, Colt's current primary income is from US and foreign Military sales and they are selling a lot of ARs to law enforcement, who recognize Colt's higher quality and don't quibble about the price. (Talk to any experienced LE firearms trainer about their experience on the range with AR clones and you'll find that in general, it's pretty grim. They don't hold up well, particularly when you go full auto and/or shoot 5,000 rounds in a week.) Colt's ARs are an entire level higher in quality than even second best (Bushmaster) with better materials, real proof testing and mag checking of all barrels and bolts along with more tightly held GI specs. Nothing else is even close.

Hope this helps you understand that the people you should be mad at (besides the Democrats that proposed the Assault Weapons Ban in the first place) have not been associated in any way with Colt's Manufacturing for many years. You're unjustly kicking the wrong guys for the wrong reason, my friend.

Warmly, Col. Colt

Certified Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor
Glock, Colt and Remington Certified LE Armorer

[Pat _Rogers]

DSK- we'll, sorta' like a weapon. I write a lot of internal documents, so i have to be specific.
FWIW, NYPD used .30 carbine w/ 110 JSP and did very well with it.
Like 9x19, ammunition was a limiting factor.

All- i spend most of my time teaching carbine/ tactics. I get to shoot a few rounds, and watch a few other rounds downrange.
While most of this is M4A1, a portion is strictly civilian/ cop.
Gile Stock and i talk about this often, and while there will be those who disagree with our observations (remember that Giles was truly one of the voices in the wilderness preaching the carbine way back when most of the so called "fathers" were stating that it would be responsible for killing loads of people a mile away....) both of us only own carbines that say Colt on the side.

Now, i only get to see what i see. And some of the Tier 2 and Tier 3 makers turn out some very good and very poor guns.
Some of them turn out some horrible guns.
Some makers guns show up a lot. Bushmaster is a second choice, but parts issues can be problamatic, and the non spec receiver extension is aggravating.
I don't see many RRA, Wilson or KAC. Those few i have seen ran well, but 2 or 5 or 10 don't make a sufficient statistical sample.
I have seen a lot of carbines over the years, and i have a fair understanding what works.

I won't have a working gun without a chrome lined barrel. I won't have a gun from a maker that doesn't Magnaflux the parts, or buys them in bulk from - somewhere else.
I have seen enough broken bolts at the bolt cam pin hole to make me very wary.

Talk to the Colt Armorer Instructors- Ken Elmore or Dean Caputo- and listen to the specifics, rather than the advertising hype.

Colt is not perfect. But i have been shooting the M4 since 1986, and the M16A1 Carbine prior to that, and another version prior to that.
I won't deal with a company who, when advised there was an issue with a gun, stated that it was because of the "altitude".

Jumping down Colt's throat because they want to protect their rights isn't bad- it is admirable.

What is bad is putting on the tinfoil underwear, drinking kool aid and monitoring the skys for chem trails and black helicopters.

The errornet is exactly that. Because it is written, does not necessarily make it correct.
The courts will decide the validity, and the others will comply or have action taken against them.

[Rob96]

monitoring the skys for chem trails

PAt not to take your post off topic, but I had to laugh when you wrote that. I have the priviledge of dealing with a guy in the hospital I work at, who swears the gov't is spraying us with these chem trails. He is even running a website about it, along with alien abduction.

[Pat _Rogers]

Rob- Yup...

Chem trails. Decals on highway signs. Black helos.
Sigh......

Sadly, there are a lot of very strange people about. But glad you were able to laugh!