HuntingNet.com Forums - Don't Shoot the Messenger... TC vs CVA-Traditions

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)

- Black Powder (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/black-powder-23/)

- - Don't Shoot the Messenger... TC vs CVA-Traditions (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/black-powder/352283-dont-shoot-messenger-tc-vs-cva-traditions.html)

I am a big fan of Smith and Wesson revolvers. I even like some of their semis.

There was an argument on another forum about a year or so ago. So I looked up all that information to settle that argument. TC actually added alot to the stock price of Smith for a short time. Then the stock dropped off a good bit. Actually from $20 to $5. Tom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by a1smokepole (Post 3867430)

I like buying american it helps everyone here if tc is right then go for it put them out of business just my 2 cents americans helping americans :busted: stop buying there goods

I wanna ask you something.

most of the importers have distribution systems that supply americans with jobs. if you put them out of business AMERICANS will lose jobs. so in the long run, americans are helping americans.

as for the law suit, this stuff happens everyday, someone feels like been wronged they that action.

the motive I see in this is to have bpi/cva and traditions pull products or put something on the label saying an tc copy and use it as consumers pay extra for the other companies products. that is my 2cents

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountainDevil54 (Post 3867541)

whats this

Good question what is it?

looks like some type of law suit. but does not make since to me. knight v modern muzzloader inc.

if I been reading right didn't modern muzzleloader inc buy knight? or am I thinking of another company

How about we look at the actual claims? There are six claims of patent infringement:

1. 781 -- break-open action [a la encore/triumph]
2.694 -- a muzzle-loading firearm having a breech plug, a barrel with an initial portion, and a deformable seal in front of a threaded engagement [part of speed breech]
3.138 -- a firearm having a hammer and a spur” and “teaches using a removable fastener to allow the spur to [be] moveable among [a] plurality of positions [Swing Hammer design]
4.311 -- a lever-operated muzzle-loading firearm and a method of discharging a muzzle-loaded firearm having a barrel with a breech-end and incorporated therein a removable breech plug [speed breech]
5.030 -- a method for making an improved barrel for a muzzle-loading firearm” and “teaches using [a] tool to enlarge the muzzle end of the barrel to provide a smooth muzzle end that is slightly larger than the rifled section of the barrel [QLA]
6.981 -- an improved barrel for muzzle-loading firearms [??]

Are any of the claims valid? Note that this is not a complaint to federal court, it is a complaint to the US International Trade Commission (ITC) asking that the ITC start an investigation, which I think it has. Also, this was filed this past May, so it's not exactly new news.

i saw this one coming. CVA and Traditions introduced their easy out breechplugs soon after TC.

Quote:

Specifically, the ‘781 patent “is directed to a muzzle-loading firearm having break-open action that allows access to the breech plug.”

I don't think the part about a break action gun allowing access to the breechplug will fly in court but the easy out breechplug will likely fly. The QLA thing may fly too.

Awhile back there was an article in the newspaper about a patent infringement lawsuit, but it was a big deal because one of the companies was local. There was a side article that in a nutshell basically said patent are infringed on every day and patent lawsuits are filed just as frequently. Unless a design is copied 100% with no changes it's pretty hard to win one.
My guess, and I'm sure I'm probably wrong, is they're bored. They don't have any new ideas for guns (really, what's a new design they can pursue that hasn't been done before?) so might as well work on making money off the old designs, however it has to be done?

The patent system is completely hosed in this country. A break open gun is nothing new and applying it to BP is obvious to anyone skilled in the industry which is the test for a valid patent. From my understanding the speed breach is using a technique that other industries use and its application to BP could be argued as obvious as well. Yea, TC was the first to use it, but someone had to be first.

I am not defending or criticizing TC here, just making a point that the patent system is screwed up and in no way reflects if someone truly innovated or someone truly infringed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HEAD0001 (Post 3867537)

Here is a little information for you guys. S&W bought Thompson Center for $102 million dollars. At the time TC was doing about $70 Million a year in sales. S&W was a good bit larger than TC. Over 3 times as large(in gross sales). At the time of purchase S&W was doing over 210 Million a year in sales.

So the companies were not equal. S&W was a good bit larger than TC.

The reason S&W bought TC had absolutley nothing to do with black powder firearms. Smith bought TC for two major reasons. The first reason was the ability of TC to make rifled barrels. And their facilities to make those rifled barrels. Smith wanted to get into the long gun business. And make their own barrels.

The second reason was investment casting. TC is very good at investment casting, and Smith was better at actual machine tooling of steel. So this gave Smith inroads to investment casting which Ruger had, but Smith did not. Ruger is a very advanced company in investment casting, and Smith wanted that technology.

The two companies had zero synergies, which was another plus. Smith and TC products did not compete with each other. So TC immediately added to the bottom line for Smith. This was also a real plus for doing the deal.

There is no partnership here. Smith is the company. But elected to keep the Thompson trademarks for obvious reasons. All this information is available since Smith is a publicly traded company, and at the time TC was not.

Muzzleloading products have little to nothing to do with the deal between the two companies. However it did open up a new market to Smith because it was a market they were never in before. The main reason was the ability and tooling to make rifled barrels. Thus immediately opening up the long gun market to Smith. Tom.

Tom your findings are spot on...