I have seen several posts regarding Rifle Manufacturers dropping the WSM cartdidges from product line ups due to royalties having to be paid to Rick Jamison for each one they produce.In fact......each one the EVER produced. I have a few questions regarding this & maybe someone here has answers.

1. Why is Jamison entiteld to anything?

2. How long do roalties have to be paid?

3. Any idea of how much per rifle they are talking about? (Is it a big hardship to the manufacturer?)

4. Why then do we not have the same thing going on between manufacturers with the "270 Wnchester", "7mm Remington Mag" and "300 Weatherby".........with manufacturers paing royalties to each other?


It just seems to me as another nail driven into our domestic manufacturers at an already hard time. We have already lost Winchester. This can only make matters worse for the others. And ultimately will drive up prices even further. The fact that Jamison was awarded retroactive entitlemants makes this a much harder pill to swallow for the people who have already made 1000s of WSM rifles. Now they must RAISE prices to cover these unforseen losses. I view Jamison as a jerk for this point. I understand him wanting money. And MAYBE even being entitled to some. I just wish he'd have dropped the retroactive portion. This way manufacturers could decide how they wished to proceede........and adjust unit costs accordingly.

JAmison is such a dry & boring writer............I guess he dicidded he needed another way to make money I most likely will never buy a WSM rifle because of it.

Well, maybe this breaths life back inti the SAUMs. I think they ares lightly better design for true short actions.

Try the search function for "Jamison," and "patent."

Jaywalker

If Jamison gets a W2 then I think (I am not a lawyer) the intellectual property belongs to Primedia. If he gets a 1099, then I think it belongs to him. It will be interesting to see what happens with respect to Primedia. I am sure certain advertisers and PR companies are thrilled to death...

When you work for someone, you don't own the ideas that pop into your head; your employer does.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
If Jamison gets a W2 then I think (I am not a lawyer) the intellectual property belongs to Primedia. If he gets a 1099, then I think it belongs to him. It will be interesting to see what happens with respect to Primedia. I am sure certain advertisers and PR companies are thrilled to death...

When you work for someone, you don't own the ideas that pop into your head; your employer does.

That depends on the specific terms of his contract regardless of how he is actually paid..

AllanD

Well Allan, let's put it this way...unless an employer specifically indicates that intellectual property belongs to an employee, I would think the ownership rests with the employee.

On the other hand, I am aware of other writers who have had good ideas, taken them to manufacturers, and gotten "screwed." So without knowing the details, who knows what is going on here. I just think it is kind of pissing in the soup.

I understand that Jamison's suit against Winchester is the primary reason, far more than the union problems, for Winchester's demise. I also understand that he doesn't have a patent on the WSM cartridge, but on the feeding mechanism, that is, the modifications to magazine, follower and rails that are necessary to get the stupid little cartridges to feed. How idiotic. At any rate, Jamison is suing everybody in sight (the number I heard of individual gunsmiths on his to-be-sued list is 2,700), and no sensible gunmaker is ever going to build a WSM again.

I can forgive Jamison the damage he has done to the firearms industry, but I can never forgive him for that hairdo.

I agree on the RSAUM cartridges. Much better design.

The various standard magnum cartridges were released to the trade very early on. There is a lot more money in ammunition than in rifles, so the various manufacturers don't mind if someone else chambers for their "baby". Also, that street runs both ways. Winchester gets to manufacture the 7mm Rem Mag, but Remington gets to manufacture the 338 Win Mag, etc. Jamison only manufactures painful prose, so there was nothing to restrain his hand. He may have overplayed that hand, though; a lot of WSM's will not be made now, he is not popular in the industry and he doesn't get a cut of the ammunition profits. Rightly or wrongly his name will be associated with putting USRAC under and stifling the proliferation of a class of cartridges that quite a lot of people have really taken a shine to.

LD

The term Greedy Bastard jumps to my mind...

Well, to contribute one more stream to the soup...

If Jamison is truly an 'employee' - salaried and with benefits - all proceeds from whatever settlement he/they received go to the employer. However, Jamison is listed on ST's masthead as a "Contributing Editor", which is one of the code phrases for "freelancer". As a freelancer, even if under contract, he is a 'private contractor', not an employee. (Yes, he would get a 1099, maybe a great number of them.)

This difference in employment status is important. As a private contractor, Jamison would retain any patent or copyright except as specifically granted to another entity. A publisher normally copyrights entire publications, including all text and pictures. Doing so protects them from unauthorized republication, or "piracy". But - unless there is some other license or agreement (e.g., contract) - the creator, whether writer or photographer , retains all the original interest except as part of that specific publication, compilation or digest. He may otherwise license (sell) the material at will. Thus the various writers' syndicates and stock photo agencies, etc.

As suggested above, many freelance writers and photographers are under contract, and Jamison may be under contract to Primedia. Increasingly, these contracts specify that all publishing rights for material contributed by freelancers belong to the publisher in perpetuity. (Why this is so, and why it is bad for writers and photographers, is an interesting issue and worth researching by anyone actively contributing to publications or 'wannabees'. If your present contract doesn't contain very restrictive residual or digital rights clauses, the next one probably will.)

I have seen a few of these contracts. Any intellectual property provisions have referenced copyright only. Nothing concerning patent rights. Most of these have been a publisher's 'standard' creator/contributor contracts, applying ambidextrously to writers and photographers. It would seem most unusual if Jamison's contract- the one in effect before all this came down - has anything at all regarding patent rights.

He's probably reading all this and laughing his butt off. Feel free to jump in, Jamison, and tell us where we're wrong and why. I won't hold my breath.

quote:

I can forgive Jamison the damage he has done to the firearms industry, but I can never forgive him for that hairdo.

Now THAT is funny

BUt I still could not forgive him.

Rick Jamison did some cartridge development work, wrote about it, and got a couple of patents regarding the shape of short, fat cartridges. You can look them up on the Patent Office website.

The royalties are due to the patent holder, the amount is negotiable.

As I heard the story, Mr. Jamison took his deisgn to Winchester -- who were not interested. Later they brought out the .300 WSM and the other short, fats. Then they got sued, and settled out of court.

I have worked in industries with intellectual property commonly patented, what Mr. Jamison did is not a big deal. There have b een thousands of firearms patents, usually for firearms design. I don't hear anyone saying JM Browning was a turkey for patenting his designs. Most of teh gun patents have long-since passed into the public domain.

If you have a gripe here, it is with the Patent Office for granting the patent in the first place.

jim

Keep in mind that Jamison hasn't been awarded anything, yet. He sued USRAC and their parent company for patent infringement and the company chose to settle out of court. That is far different than prevailing in a law suit, which would set the precedent for others to be forced to pay. If other manufacturers choose to fight the suit on the basis that his claims are bogus or that the patent was invalid, he may lose and end up with nothing. USRAC/Browning elected not to fight and chose to reach an agreed settlement rather than pay the potentially huge cost of fighting the suit and possibly still losing. My hope is that the other manufacturers could join forces and take him on since I am quite confident that Rick was not the first person to envision the short fat cartridge design, and in my opinion trying to patent a wildcat cartridge design is kind of silly. At this point, I believe all he has done is have his attorney write threatening letters to everyone connected to the WSM cartridges in the hopes of scaring them into following Browing/USRAC's lead and offering to settle with him. Ultimately, the manufacturer's won't pay him - WE WILL! So I guess I won't be buying any more short mag rifles to join my .270WSM. I used to enjoy his writing, too. And have heard that Rick really is a nice guy. Can't believe he helped kill my favorite rifle...

I sat next to a lawyer on a flight Thursday night. He was telling me about a case in which he and his partners sued Corning for breast implant problems. He told me they got an award of $30 million for their clients; others got much more. His share was 2.5 million. He was rich. At that point I interrupted him, knowing the rest of story...

"Let me guess," I said, "you didn't get a penny, because the settlement caused Corning to go bankrupt."

"That is exactly what happened," he said.

quote:

HunterJim: If you have a gripe here, it is with the Patent Office for granting the patent in the first place.

True enough - patent ease swings back and forth, and right now it seems particularly easy to patent things that probably shouldn't be patented. Software code and the human genome spring to mind...

Still, Jamison will be linked forever with USRAC in our minds, and as they say, "There's no faux pas like bad timing..."

Jaywalker

There is one bright side: maybe Jamison gets rich and doesn't have to go on free hunts supplied by various PR firms, etc. At least he will no longer be accused of being a whore, since I seriously doubt he will get another freebie again.

quote:

Originally posted by meplat:
Well, to contribute one more stream to the soup...

If Jamison is truly an 'employee' - salaried and with benefits - all proceeds from whatever settlement he/they received go to the employer. However, Jamison is listed on ST's masthead as a "Contributing Editor", which is one of the code phrases for "freelancer". As a freelancer, even if under contract, he is a 'private contractor', not an employee. (Yes, he would get a 1099, maybe a great number of them.)

This difference in employment status is important. As a private contractor, Jamison would retain any patent or copyright except as specifically granted to another entity. A publisher normally copyrights entire publications, including all text and pictures. Doing so protects them from unauthorized republication, or "piracy". But - unless there is some other license or agreement (e.g., contract) - the creator, whether writer or photographer , retains all the original interest except as part of that specific publication, compilation or digest. He may otherwise license (sell) the material at will. Thus the various writers' syndicates and stock photo agencies, etc.

As suggested above, many freelance writers and photographers are under contract, and Jamison may be under contract to Primedia. Increasingly, these contracts specify that all publishing rights for material contributed by freelancers belong to the publisher in perpetuity. (Why this is so, and why it is bad for writers and photographers, is an interesting issue and worth researching by anyone actively contributing to publications or 'wannabees'. If your present contract doesn't contain very restrictive residual or digital rights clauses, the next one probably will.)

I have seen a few of these contracts. Any intellectual property provisions have referenced copyright only. Nothing concerning patent rights. Most of these have been a publisher's 'standard' creator/contributor contracts, applying ambidextrously to writers and photographers. It would seem most unusual if Jamison's contract- the one in effect before all this came down - has anything at all regarding patent rights.

He's probably reading all this and laughing his butt off. Feel free to jump in, Jamison, and tell us where we're wrong and why. I won't hold my breath.

I haven't written anything for Primedia, but I did write a few things for Petersen's HUNTING before Primedia bought it. Back then you signed away all rights.

quote:

Software code and the human genome spring to mind...

Come on Jaywalker, my software patents(pending) are paying for my safaris - they sure aren't coming from writing income.

Yeah, I know. I have to review all the literature and avoid logical constructs that might infringe. I figure it triples the cost of code. OTOH, if I could patent the "do loop" i could quit now.

Jaywalker

quote:

Originally posted by lawndart:
I can forgive Jamison the damage he has done to the firearms industry, but I can never forgive him for that hairdo.

His hair surely is lawsuit material... As is his bad prose.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But didn't Jamison sue the Olin corp. which is the parent of Winchester ammunition and the designer of the WSM series and not USRAC?

Someone correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Jamison's design not even the same as the WSM just the concept? If the greedy bugger gets royalties for every rifle chambered in WSM I think all the manufactures should drop them and start chambering in the SAUM's. I'm glad I bought my 338 RUM instead of the 325 WSM

quote:

Originally posted by DavidReed:
...didn't Jamison sue the Olin corp. which is the parent of Winchester ammunition and the designer of the WSM series and not USRAC?

The case is/was Jamison v. Olin-Winchester et al., in the Oregon Federal District Court, probably Eugene. We can probably assume that one of the et.al.s was USRAC. At least one of the law firms representing Olin was Holland and Hart, a large Denver firm. Some additional details of the case might be available from the federal courts' PACER system (fee for use, requires registration/login). One of you smart fellas already having a PACER account, please investigate and report back!

Jamison, as inventor, apparently is an active fellow. He has had at least eight firearms-related patents approved since 1998:

#6,678,983 Ultra-short-action firearm for high-power firearm cartridge
#6,675,717 Ultra-short high-power firearm cartridge
#6,595,138 High-power firearm cartridge
#6,550,174 Short-action firearm for high-power firearm cartridge
#6,397,718 Device for reducing the eccentricity and non-uniformities among cartridge cases
#6,354,221 High-power firearm cartridge
#5,970,879 High-power firearm cartridge for short-action chamber and bolt assembly
#5,826,361 Short-action chamber and bolt assembly for high power firearm cartridge

Despite the turgid prose, in scanning through these from the earliest Jamison's progression of ideas is clear and well reasoned. It's apparent he is a very smart guy, having a wealth of interesting ideas extending well beyond the 'short and fat is where it's at' concept. Further, his patent applications were professionally written and drawn; by no means a 'back of the envelope' scribbling. Big bucks went into these applications.

With considerable credence, it seems to me, we can say that nothing much has changed in the basic technology of the brass cartridge case since the 1850s. But according to the Patent Office,anyhow, Jamison's ideas are original enough to qualify. A patent clerk letting one slip through on a bad day - maybe. But eight patents issued in as many years is no fluke. Jamison is the real deal, whatever we might think about his exploitation of Olin - Winchester - USRA - FN's situation.

Read 'em all by searching on the patent # at the website of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Take your lunch... unfortunately, they don't make for light reading! For example, here's the abstract of #5,970,879:

- - -

5,970,879 October 26, 1999 High-power firearm cartridge for short-action chamber and bolt assembly

Abstract - A firearm cartridge case capable of withstanding internal gas pressures of at least about 50,000 psi has two substantially cylindrical portions of significantly different diameters interconnected by a frusto-conical shoulder portion. The case has a ratio of its overall length to its diameter, at a location 1.25 inches from its base, of no more than about 4.2, giving it an unusually short, fat profile. The base of the case has a rim with an outer diameter substantially no less than the case diameter at the aforementioned location, to facilitate reliable feeding of the cartridge from the magazine. The corresponding firearm chamber which matingly accepts the cartridge is capable of withstanding internal gas pressures of at least about 65,000 psi. A short-action bolt assembly smoothly and reliably feeds and chambers each cartridge by providing an extractor grippingly engageable with the cartridge by movement of the cartridge transversely to the bolt face when the bolt is in its unlocked position, so as to grip the cartridge while the bolt pushes the cartridge into the chamber.

- - -

Got that, everyone?

Here's one of the something like four or five pages of drawings that accompany this one patent. Not much, but enough to get the idea that he's well beyond the short - fat idea just because it might make a good marketing gimick. Again, see the rest of them at the PTO site linked above (gotta have Apple Quicktime installed on your machine):



Enough for one night.