Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 56
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    47
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Ohh and I also wanted to say that removing the back leg was actually an improvement in performance because it prevents the follower from breaking even in crazy impacts like a 20 ft drop. Previously, there were rare times when a follower would break in a severe impact because the strain of the 30 rounds slamming into it would be too much. Now that the back leg is gone, the follower moves slightly lower, causing the spring to fully support the follower at the point when it bottoms out, preventing it from cracking.

    Just wanted to throw that out there. And I assure everyone that the awesome anti tilt function of our follower is completely intact in the new version.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    3,198
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    i think becose all the mental anguish that Magpul did to my wallet you need to send me one of this for my .22lr SPR
    $300 and 10 Pastrami Sandwiches and a case of Diet Coke. ( UWone77)

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    7
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Just for perspective, back in 1998 when I first had the idea for the original Magpul, the very first thing I did was hire a guy I knew who just passed the bar as a Patent lawyer to review the invention and file for a Patent. This was before I even had Magpul set up as a company. This was the first patent I ever had issued (http://www.google.com/patents/US6212815)

    Without the protection of the Magpul design being "patent pending" I would have never risked the $12,000 capital (my entire savings) to build tooling and Magpul would not exist as is is today.

    So in short Patents help the little guy survive as much as the bigger ones.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    4,522
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    I've been wondering how they can go after ETS and not MFT, Hexmag, promag (EDIT I see they did go after promag), tapco, ect.

    Quote Originally Posted by ETSGroup View Post
    Ohh and I also wanted to say that removing the back leg was actually an improvement in performance because it prevents the follower from breaking even in crazy impacts like a 20 ft drop. Previously, there were rare times when a follower would break in a severe impact because the strain of the 30 rounds slamming into it would be too much. Now that the back leg is gone, the follower moves slightly lower, causing the spring to fully support the follower at the point when it bottoms out, preventing it from cracking.

    Just wanted to throw that out there. And I assure everyone that the awesome anti tilt function of our follower is completely intact in the new version.
    Good to hear.
    Ground Defense 1, Blade Defense 1, Defensive Pistol 1 & 2, Aliance Shoot House, When Things Go Bad, YSINTG, Carbine 1, DART Medical, NRA Range Safety Officer
    david@damagephotos.com
    Damage Photos on Facebook
    @damage_photos on Instagram
    Use DAMAGE15 to save 15% at Third Pin Threads
    Save 10% "JOINORDIE" http://cmttac.com/

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    N Carolina
    Posts
    424
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ETSGroup View Post
    Now that the back leg is gone, the follower moves slightly lower, causing the spring to fully support the follower at the point when it bottoms out, preventing it from cracking.
    I was wondering how well that would work. Sounds like an upgrade

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    7
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Thanks for joining the discussion and providing your input Magpul. Like many others, I've spent a lot of time and money with Magpul products. Remember selling the original Magpul out of the house? I'm sure there's plenty of folks who don't know how the product line evolved or how it started. I hope to see ETS flourish as well. Competition is good for the consumer.
    Just for perspective, back in 1998 when I first had the idea for the original Magpul, the very first thing I did was hire a guy I knew who just passed the bar as a Patent lawyer to review the invention and file for a Patent. This was before I even had Magpul set up as a company. This was the first patent I ever had issued (http://www.google.com/patents/US6212815)

    Without the protection of the Magpul design being "patent pending" I would have never risked the $12,000 capital (my entire savings) to build tooling and Magpul would not exist as is is today.

    So in short Patents help the little guy survive as much as the bigger ones.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    13,916
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Magpul View Post
    Just for perspective, back in 1998 when I first had the idea for the original Magpul, the very first thing I did was hire a guy I knew who just passed the bar as a Patent lawyer to review the invention and file for a Patent. This was before I even had Magpul set up as a company. This was the first patent I ever had issued (http://www.google.com/patents/US6212815)

    Without the protection of the Magpul design being "patent pending" I would have never risked the $12,000 capital (my entire savings) to build tooling and Magpul would not exist as is is today.

    So in short Patents help the little guy survive as much as the bigger ones.
    I think I've spent more than 12K in Magpul Products alone!

    Thanks for the tid-bit of history.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,940
    Downloads
    3
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by UWone77 View Post
    I think I've spent more than 12K in Magpul Products alone!

    Thanks for the tid-bit of history.
    I'm at maybe $1000. I sucks.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,672
    Downloads
    3
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ride4frnt View Post
    I'm at maybe $1000. I sucks.
    I'm right there with Ya

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    790
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Magpul View Post
    Just for perspective, back in 1998 when I first had the idea for the original Magpul, the very first thing I did was hire a guy I knew who just passed the bar as a Patent lawyer to review the invention and file for a Patent. This was before I even had Magpul set up as a company. This was the first patent I ever had issued (http://www.google.com/patents/US6212815)

    Without the protection of the Magpul design being "patent pending" I would have never risked the $12,000 capital (my entire savings) to build tooling and Magpul would not exist as is is today.

    So in short Patents help the little guy survive as much as the bigger ones.
    Exactly... I want to point out that people stating "What about the little guy?" and giving the rhetoric that because of the size of another company they should concede their right to protect their interests are no better than the people who sat in downtown Manhattan spewing "We are the 99%" as if they were entitled to something that wasn't theirs. If Magpul had stolen the IP from ETS then those same people would be screaming for retribution from Magpul for ETS, so why is it you think the reverse isn't any more acceptable? Just sayin...

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    38
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I can understand the money invested thing (In my industry it's $20k to patent a design) but what strikes me more is that certain manufacturers in the firearms industry act like highschoolers. This market is already under a microscope as is, no need to give the wrong group of people an edge in the fight we're battling already. This industry should embrace innovation and forward thinking because the bigger it gets the harder it is to knock down.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Twin Cities
    Posts
    975
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Vel View Post
    I can understand the money invested thing (In my industry it's $20k to patent a design) but what strikes me more is that certain manufacturers in the firearms industry act like highschoolers. This market is already under a microscope as is, no need to give the wrong group of people an edge in the fight we're battling already. This industry should embrace innovation and forward thinking because the bigger it gets the harder it is to knock down.
    I'm not being snarky when I say I have no idea what the above advocates. I can read the statement two ways: That the industry should truly innovate, not just tweak someone else's concept. Or the opposite: That strengthening the industry is worth accepting some minor patent infringement.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    7,592
    Downloads
    10
    Uploads
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Uffdaphil View Post
    That the industry should truly innovate, not just tweak someone else's concept.
    I agree with this, but not the opposite. I don't think ETS infringed on Magpul's patent on purpose, but Magpul did not do anything wrong by defending what is their's.
    DEUTERONOMY 6:5
    flickr
    facebook
    The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power - Nikola Telsa

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Newyorkistan
    Posts
    606
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    The only thing m upset about is I never bought stock in Magpul, then I could be the 1%

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    47
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I think one thing that we have been wondering is why us? The claim they sent us when they first filed their complaint was claim 23 of the 8635796 patent. This claim states a couple of things, to break it down, a magazine with a rectangular housing with a constant internal curve and a ridge centrally located on the inner front wall of the housing. It also has a follower that is a platform with 2 legs, front and rear. A floor plate capable of interfacing with the housing. And a spring between the follower and floorplate, wherein the legs on the follower limit rotation(tilt) within the housing.

    Ok, that's pretty simple to understand. Lets take a look at the newish (it came out before our mag) H&K polymer translucent AR mag.

    Does it have a housing that is rectangular with a constant curve internal geometry and a ridge centrally located on the front inner wall? Check...



    Does it have a follower with a front and back leg, and do they limit tilt in the housing? Check...



    Does it have a floorplate that interfaces with the housing? Check...



    Does it have a spring between the follower and floorplate? Of course it does...

    So, as can easily be seen, the HK polymer mag does violate Magpul's patent...question is why haven't they been sued? Magpul keeps stating over and over that they have to aggressively protect their patents or they lose their right to do so, if that is the case then why hasn't HK been hit with it? There are other examples, but I think this one is a good easy one for everyone to understand...

    Below is a copy and paste of Claim 23 of the '796 patent i am referring to.



    23. An ammunition magazine comprising:
    a. A casing having a mostly rectangular cross-section with fore and aft sides and two longer lateral sides and first and second open ends, the casing further comprising a ridge, centrally located on an interior side of the fore side and extending to a terminus located in the vicinity of the first open end, the casing further comprising a constant internal curve through a majority of the casing;

    b. A follower residing within the casing, said follower further comprising a follower platform with two opposite tines at fore and aft positions that extend generally perpendicularly and distally therefrom;

    c. A floor plate capable of interfacing the casing at the second end; and

    d. A follower spring residing between the follower and floor plate; wherein the tines limit rotation of the follower within the casing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •