Question About "Milspec" and "TDP" - M16 vs. M4

[tpelle]

This has been bugging me for a long time. Here's my question:

Regarding the "M16", the US Government somehow came to own the Technical Data Package. (That must be a story in and of itself, as the U.S. Government didn't, as I understand it, fund the design process and the construction of prototypes as they do for, say, a missle or airplane,) So, if the military wants to buy new AR15s they publish the bid spec, wait for builders to submit bids, evaluate the bids, and award a contract. Since the military owns the TDP they can buy M16s from whoever they want. Witness the contract going to Colt's or to HK or to FN, etc.

For M4s, however, I understand that Colt's actually funded, with private money, the development of the deviations from Milspec (TDP?) to convert the 20" rifles to 14.5" carbines. These changes obviously included the M4 feed ramps, the different weight buffers, different action springs, etc. They also copyrighted the name "M4" so nobody else can use it. So Colt's "owns" the M4 design, not the Government.

So, if the government owns the TDP for the M16, how did they come to let the M4 be a single-source privately owned product?

If the "M4" particulars are patented by Colt's....well, it seems to me that M4s have been around for a long time. Hasn't the patent expired? Why can't HK or FN or Fred's House of Rifles and Screen Doors just reverse-engineer the M4 changes and go into business making M4s?

If a private builder advertises a rifle or a receiver or whatever as an M4, isn't that violating Colt's patent? (Of course the owner of a patent has to bear the legal costs of defending the patent, and I guess Colt's cant sue the whole firearms industry.)

And what the heck is the distinction between the milspec and the TDP? (I'm guessing that the milspec is included as part of the TDP?)

Help me out here, so I quit waking up at night thinking about this stuff!

[Gun]

Isn't it better to just enjoy these rifles in any configuration that you so choose to assemble, than to worry about such details?


btw, I just received a LPK, WITHOUT a hammer or trigger pin. So much for the total package having all the parts.:mad:

[Mamba6]

From what I understand, Colt owns the M16 TDP but licenses certain rights from the TDP to the government in the 1967 License Agreement (due to government funding to improve the XM16E1). Colt had developed the M4 without government funding on and off between 1967 and 1990 when the M4 was accepted by the military. During legal disputes, it was deemed that the Colt M4 has several critical and unique parts not covered in the 1967 License Agreement, which were an effort to make the weapon lighter and shorter. Because the critical parts had not been developed with Army funding, they were propritary to Colt, and the government had to enter into a sole source agreement with Colt which was contracted in the 1997 M4 Addendum.

Mil-spec is different from the TDP because it is only a specification of the physical and/or operational characteristics of a product to make it compatible and interoperable with other equipment. It is defined in MIL-STD-961. The TDP defines the specifications, materials, dimensions, properties, etc of the product and is proprietary to a company minus licensing agreements.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

[tpelle]

So Colt's DOES have sole proprietorship of the M4? I asked this on another forum, and a guy responded with a picture of an FN lower that had been remarked as an M4 Carbine. But since none of the unique M4 modifications to make a rifle an M4, I bet that is exactly what it was - an M16A2 lower that was already in the government's possession that just had an M4 upper pinned on it, but had to be remarked for "paperwork " reasons.

[Mamba6]

Yes, the M4 is sole proprietary property of Colt. I would venture to say yes, that is why it was remarked.

Colt also owns the TDP for the M16 but does not have sole source rights, and licenses other rights to the government, because Army funding was used to develop/improve the XM16 and XM16E1. Under the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), FNHI was able to pick up M16 supplier contracts at some point.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

[CarlosDJackal]

I thought Colt had let the patent expire on the M4 which is why other companies are able to make "M4s". Bushmaster actually won out on the litigation Colt filed against them for using the "M4" designation.

[Mamba6]

i'm sure the patent has expired by now, I don't happen to know offhand though. Although I seem to recall that was trademark litigation, and Bushmaster won because "M4" was a generic term due to common usage, or some such.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

[markm]

Isn't it better to just enjoy these rifles in any configuration that you so choose to assemble, than to worry about such details?


I agree. Buy a good gun, and shoot it.

[tpelle]

I thought Colt had let the patent expire on the M4 which is why other companies are able to make "M4s". Bushmaster actually won out on the litigation Colt filed against them for using the "M4" designation.

It's not a matter of Colt's "letting" the patent expire. Patents are only issued for a set term of, I believe, 12 years. A company can apply to have a patent expended if, for instance, some condition beyond their control prevented them from profiting from a patent, but this is rare.

Let's say that you were working on some design for, say, the government, and patented key elements of the design. Let's say, then, that the government let the purchasing decision making process drag out for a number of years, so that you would not have a chance to reap the profit from your intellectual property. You could then file for an extension to your patent so that you had a sufficient time to recoup your investment before the patent expired.

Of course, just holding a patent is only half of the battle. You are obligated to defend your patent in court against anyone else who violates it.

The purpose of a patent is to allow the originator of an idea an opportunity to profit from it. They can do so by either manufacturing and selling the patented item themselves, or they can choose to sell the patent rights to someone else, usually for a lump sum plus a royalty payment. That's exactly how Colt's came to own the AR15 design. Armalite was really an idea company, not a manufacturing company, and didn't have the series production ability to meet the projected demand for the AR15. So they sold the design to Colt's for $75,000 plus 4.5% royalty on future sales.

[tpelle]

I agree. Buy a good gun, and shoot it.

Some of us just enjoy the history of it, too. It usually makes for a good story.

[Mamba6]

Indeed history is facinating, and the evolution of firearms even more so.

Although FYI, I belive the minimum term of protection is 20 years for a patent.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

[Gunrunner]

There seems to be some confusion here regarding patents and trademarks. The patents would cover the design of the M4 (the TDP). The trademark (use of the name) M4 is not the same as the patent. Other companies calling their guns M4s has nothing to do with Colt's TDP or rights to use it.

Colt did try to protect the name M4, but was not successful. It was determined that the Government gave it the M designation as it does just about everything military, so there was no way they had excluive use of it. You will note that Colt does not try to use the "TM" designation. In fact you will not even see the M4 name on any of their commercial products.

I hope this helps.

[Stickman]

If you guys were aware of what happens in the politics of the weapon industry, and all the backdoor dealings, you would think it was a back alley of Columbia....

[FortTom]

If you guys were aware of what happens in the politics of the weapon industry, and all the backdoor dealings, you would think it was a back alley of Columbia....

Perfect example: The Berretta 9mm. Enough said about backroom politics.

FT

[aekoh]

Hi I just came here just to ask if this forum site has a topic regarding on Ontario Patent (http://www.patentaxis.com/Business_Approach.html), I hope somebody could help me. Thank you!