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

This just came out... I saw it another forum...

It is kinda old but should spark some discussion... that i think most of us have said all along.

http://www.martindale.com/international-trade-law/article_Oblon-Spivak-McClelland-Maier-Neustadt_1284038.htm

tc hurtin for money. all that is

check out the lawsuits against knight for copyright infringement.

This goes on all day long

And I hope they win . Nothing worse than stealing someone's design and then make their stuff in another country and then import the cheap imitation.

I'm with you on that brother!!!

HA

That could really change the game.

I remember when Tom Jennings sued alot of bow manufacturers because they stole his patented yoke system. It about put High Country Archery out of business. And made Tom lots of cash when he won the law suit.

I think patents should be protected. If TC can prove it then the others should should pay. However normally the only one that pays in the end run is the consumer. But I guess that is just the way it is.

I know if I invented something I would want the credit(and the cash) for it. Tom.

Who do you think will be paying the lawyers fees?

hopefully those that infringed and not the consumer:D:D

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

That should be in the settlement if it gets that far...

Has nothing to do with T/C hurting for money, they have plenty of it. remember who owns them.it's a legitimate lawsuit and i hope they win it. CVA and others have made a lot of money off T/C designs.

I don't think TC has lots of money. Why did they sell to S&W?

S&W has lots of money. Somehow I feel S&W is behind this.

Geezzzzzzzz, why do you debate about things that make no sense lol. T/C and S&W are one in the same. before T/C sold, they were a small company and probably did not want to spend the cash and did not have the inclination to sue. asking why T/C sold out is like asking why Barnes did. they both made a ton of money selling lol.it's also a lot easier for a larger company to compete in the global market, especially when you main competition copied about everything you made and did so with cheap overseas labor. for the record T/C and Barnes both were making a profit when they sold..do some research and you will find all the above to be factual:arms:

They aren't one and the same. S&W owns it all.

S&W owned TC long before the lawsuit.

Do some research yourself.

I did and how long S&W has owned T/C has absolutely nothing to do with anything.. since they are in fact one in the same!!!only difference is they have different names!!owner the same lmao.. S&W has the pistol recognition and T/C has the M/L recognition.again owners the same!!

I don't think you understand the buy/sell thingy.

btw The topic IS the lawsuit.

I don't think TC has lots of money. Why did they sell to S&W? your words old timer..T/C has as much money as S&W, since there owned by the same corporation.S&W can sink as much money into a T/C lawsuit as they see fit, again since the owned by the same corporation.only difference is the names.. and S&W wouldn't change the T/C name, since it has name recognition.and visa versa.what do you think T/C can only use it's profits to pay for the lawsuit lol? nuff said

Answer this.

Did S&W buy half of TC and consider them partners, or did they buy the whole company and just keep the name to make it easier for customers to understand. Are TC employees being paid by TC or S&W?

It doesn't seem that TC has much say so in what's happening.

S&W is calling the shots.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...plant-closing/

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.

Thanks for that info Tom. So its safe to say that this is clearly not a "hurting for money" issue for Smith & Wesson. Sounds like a company that is protecting there patents but who knows I just buy the stuff lol.

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.

whats this

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

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.

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.

Tom your findings are spot on...

What's this, not much info!

The document at the link is dated May, 1011. Anyone have the current status on this?

That's called a 'dodge and deflect'. A classic, albeit cliché debate tactic.


Honestly, I doubt much will come from the lawsuit, but I think we all know that CVA/BPI just copies TC's designs. I'm sure CVA has lawyers that work with the designers to ensure they're ok when things of this nature happen.

A screw in breech plug is hardly a new idea that TC thought of. They made it easy to remove, but that would be a natural progression for any company. It's my understanding that you need to make something a little different to be considered "not a copy". I forgot the percentage. I know it's not that much. 10%?

Great exposure for a company that could be down on ML sales !!!!

I still think they are liable for "royalty" fees even if they change 1 thing. The initial design concept is still being used so they still get paid, how much is up to the attorneys. This being an international case as well will be interesting in seeing how those laws will be affected. I do not think it becomes an infringement of US patents until it reaches the US and is sold here in the market. My understanding with the other companies is all the work is done in the other countries and brought here in the states to be assembled, there may be a loop hole here that states it is only an infringement of US patents if made in the USA and sold here, if made in another country that patent does not technically apply unless they have filed for patent in that country or so I think. It will be interesting to see what happens, I remember when I first saw the break-open and finger removable breech plugs and now you see them everywhere. Someone will end up paying the piper but I do not want to see those companies wiped out, their products have come a long way.

TC copied CVA's QRBP design big time.

Its about time they nail them copycats to the wall.

Lol, impossible since they were the original designers of the speed or quick release BP, whatever you want to call it..:confused0024:

no they had the 1/4 turn plug with the rubber seal and o rings.

The speed breech 3 that tc came out with recently is a big time copy of cva and traditions plug.