Results 31 to 45 of 56
-
27 February 2015, 11:20 #31
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.
-
27 February 2015, 11:43 #32WEVO Spell Checker
- 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)
-
27 February 2015, 11:51 #33New Member
- 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.
-
27 February 2015, 12:16 #34Ground 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/
-
27 February 2015, 12:47 #35
-
27 February 2015, 14:30 #36New Member
- 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.
-
3 March 2015, 21:16 #37
-
4 March 2015, 08:53 #38
-
4 March 2015, 09:04 #39
-
4 March 2015, 19:09 #40
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...
-
5 March 2015, 05:19 #41
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.
-
5 March 2015, 05:44 #42
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.
-
5 March 2015, 05:59 #43
-
5 March 2015, 06:20 #44
The only thing m upset about is I never bought stock in Magpul, then I could be the 1%
-
5 March 2015, 07:58 #45
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.