quote:

Has Jamison licensed Midway to sell reamers to be used to make rifles covered by the Jamison patents? If not, then using a Midway reamer to make such a rifle would be an act of patent infringement.

I'm having trouble following that one. From this I would take it that I would be at fault or anything I bought and used that the supplier hadn't obtained the proper license. If so then everyone needs to have a Patent attorney. I bought a part for my Harley Sat. Do I need to do a patent search to make sure I'm not in violation???

paul,
nope.. but if there was an investigation, whoever ulimatly MADE the part would need one.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
paul,
nope.. but if there was an investigation, whoever ulimatly MADE the part would need one.

You actually make sense here. Whosoever made the part, the finished product that was in violation of patent laws. Not the person who made, sold, or bought the tools, i.e. reamer, used to make the part or product.

Holding the maker or retailer of the reamer liable for use of said product without a proper patent licensee is like the liberals trying to hold firearms makers liable for those who use their products illegally.

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:

quote:

Has Jamison licensed Midway to sell reamers to be used to make rifles covered by the Jamison patents? If not, then using a Midway reamer to make such a rifle would be an act of patent infringement.

I'm having trouble following that one. From this I would take it that I would be at fault or anything I bought and used that the supplier hadn't obtained the proper license. If so then everyone needs to have a Patent attorney. I bought a part for my Harley Sat. Do I need to do a patent search to make sure I'm not in violation???

I don’t think that is what was said at all. You as the end user making the product must have the licensee not the entity you buy the tools used to make the product.

quote:

I don’t think that is what was said at all. You as the end user making the product must have the licensee not the entity you buy the tools used to make the product.

Thanks for trying but I just get more confused. So I knew there was a reason I didn't like the WSM. I have no WSM (any longer) and there is a snowballs chance in he!! that I would ever own one. So I'll just stop trying to figure it out.

Ok I'm back after another cup of coffee. Is everyone saying that Midway selling the reamer would be the same as a company legally selling software that would allow someone to copy a "copy writed" DVD or VHS. That the company nor midway would be liable. The user would be liable because he used the reamer or used the software to make a copy in violation of the "copy write"?

So how do I know that any of the other rifles I've chambered are not in violation of a patent?

It seems that the patent is on the final product and not the part to make it. I did not see a reamer in the list in that patent

If the case was otherwise, the company that made the reamer for Winchester would have been named in the suit.

I would not argue with Dan and voice my opinons contrary to a patent attorney in an issue like this. It might be best to just keep quiet and listen. But then Jeffe said being over his head never kept him from posting.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Has Jamison licensed Midway to sell reamers to be used to make rifles covered by the Jamison patents? If not, then using a Midway reamer to make such a rifle would be an act of patent infringement.

Accountability would be to makers, not midways, nor midway's purchaser.

Not true. Anyone who makes, uses or sells, or offers to sell, the patented item without a license is subject to patent infringement liability.

If you purchase an infringing article from Wal Mart, then you (the consumer) can be sued, Wal Mart can be sued, and the manufacturer can be sued.

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:

quote:

Has Jamison licensed Midway to sell reamers to be used to make rifles covered by the Jamison patents? If not, then using a Midway reamer to make such a rifle would be an act of patent infringement.

I'm having trouble following that one. From this I would take it that I would be at fault or anything I bought and used that the supplier hadn't obtained the proper license. If so then everyone needs to have a Patent attorney. I bought a part for my Harley Sat. Do I need to do a patent search to make sure I'm not in violation???

If the Harley part infringes a patent, then the maker of the part can be sued for "making" the infringing article, your Harley dealer can be sued for "selling" the infringing article, you can be sued for "using" the infringing article, and if you sell the bike, the next owner can also be sued for "using" infringing article. (And you could be sued for "selling" it as well.)

The Uniform Commercial Code protects the retail purchaser to a degree with an implied warranty of non-infringement of intellectual property rights. That does not mean that the retail consumer will not have liability for patent infringement, however. It merely means that the retailer will be liable to the retail consumer for the amount of the retail consumer's liability under a breach of warranty theory.

What I don't understand is why everyone is so down on Jamison. If he holds a proper patent he is entitled to compensation. Not only is that fair and proper it is legal.

And all of you who say you won't buy a WSM now because of the patent, do you have any idea how many patents exist on firearms and how much is paid in royalties to the holders?

quote:

if you purchase an infringing article from Wal Mart, then you (the consumer) can be sued, Wal Mart can be sued, and the manufacturer can be sued.

Dan,
I'll accept your word on this but for arguement sake can you give me just one incident where the end user of a consumer product has ever been sued for use of a wrongfully produced product?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

So, in short, if I have a WSM reamer, legally and lawfuly purchased, I can make whatever I like from them, as Rick has not established a univeral "use" patent.

Wrong. There is no back door trick to avoid patent infringement liability. If you make, use, sell or offer to sell the patented article, you are liable for patent infringement. It does not matter if the reamer is bought and paid for, stolen, or made at home with a nail file.

quote:

If the Harley part infringes a patent, then the maker of the part can be sued for "making" the infringing article, your Harley dealer can be sued for "selling" the infringing article, you can be sued for "using" the infringing article, and if you sell the bike, the next owner can also be sued for "using" infringing article. (And you could be sued for "selling" it as well.)

500gr so if that is the case how to I cover my butt on anything I do. Does "knowingly" come to play anywhere?

quote:

Originally posted by duikerman:

quote:

if you purchase an infringing article from Wal Mart, then you (the consumer) can be sued, Wal Mart can be sued, and the manufacturer can be sued.

Dan,
I'll accept your word on this but for arguement sake can you give me just one incident where the end user of a consumer product has ever been sued for use of a wrongfully produced product?

Individual consumers are usually left alone and compensation is typically sought from the retailer back up the chain. But business consumers are often named in patent suits because the further down the chain liability is found, the greater the royalty base (i.e., greater damages). For example, would you rather collect 3% of the retail price of a rifle, or 3% of the wholesale price?

quote:

500gr so if that is the case how to I cover my butt on anything I do. Does "knowingly" come to play anywhere?

"Knowlingly" would mean willful patent infringement, which would subject the infringer to treble damages and attorneys fees rather than simply a reasonable royalty or lost profits.

Life is full of risks and it is not cost effective to eliminate all of them. Many manufacturers will conduct a patent infringement search prior to introducing a new product, but most do not. However, when you have reason to be believe that a patent or other intellectual property is involved, it makes sense to start asking questions.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by duikerman:

quote:

if you purchase an infringing article from Wal Mart, then you (the consumer) can be sued, Wal Mart can be sued, and the manufacturer can be sued.

Dan,
I'll accept your word on this but for arguement sake can you give me just one incident where the end user of a consumer product has ever been sued for use of a wrongfully produced product?

Individual consumers are usually left alone and compensation is typically sought from the retailer back up the chain.

Dan, I deleted the business (commercial) purchasers of your reply as in the case of a firearm it's a consumer item for almost all of us.

Or to put it another way: The answer is No, you cannot name a single instance where the consumer has been sued for buying a infringing product.

Yes, not that there might be a first time but it historically just don't happen.

quote:

What I don't understand is why everyone is so down on Jamison. If he holds a proper patent he is entitled to compensation. Not only is that fair and proper it is legal.

Howard,

Only my take on this one. I think some blame him for Winchester closing. I personally don't view that the patent had anything to do with it.

To me the biggests issues are. Based on all the cases designed before. He added nothing. Yes he did get a patent but he didn't add anything. In my opinion he profited from the work of others. Up until him various wildcats, designs etc were pretty much all shared. No one stuck it to the other shooters. The PPC for benchrest. I never heard of a patent issue. The STW, STA, the various Wby cases. Never an issue. That I ever heard of. Should have Ackley or Whelen gotten patents? Legally I guess they could. Maybe the should have. I just prefer to share with my fellow shooters.

His actions just leave a bad taste in my mouth.


500grs- Thanks for the quick answers. Like you say. I have bigger fish to fry than worrying about someone's patent on something I bought.

quote:

Originally posted by duikerman:

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by duikerman:

quote:

if you purchase an infringing article from Wal Mart, then you (the consumer) can be sued, Wal Mart can be sued, and the manufacturer can be sued.

Dan,
I'll accept your word on this but for arguement sake can you give me just one incident where the end user of a consumer product has ever been sued for use of a wrongfully produced product?

Individual consumers are usually left alone and compensation is typically sought from the retailer back up the chain.

Dan, I deleted the business (commercial) purchasers of your reply as in the case of a firearm it's a consumer item for almost all of us.

Or to put it another way: The answer is No, you cannot name a single instance where the consumer has been sued for buying a infringing product.

Yes, not that there might be a first time but it historically just don't happen.

I detect some hostility here, and do not intend to engage in a pissing match. If the claim is based on inducing patent infringement, you can be absolutely certain the consumer will be named. I have not named a consumer in a patent suit, that does not mean much since the law allows it.

Something that just hit me, maybe Jamison wasn`t worried about Winchester or others producing his chambering as he hasn`t went after other companies that are chambering for it. Kimber for example. Nor is he chasing Olin for producing ammo. Maybe his bitch was with Winchester useing their name on it in place of his.......300 Jamison short mag, 270 Jamison short mag, ect. The suit was done a year ago I`m sure if he was after others Kimber wouldn`t have started their Short Mag line.

quote:

I detect some hostility here, and do not intend to engage in a pissing match.

My apologies as no hostility is intended nor is any pissing contest meant.

It's only my wish to draw the distinction between legal and practical.

My point is simply that if my smith will chamber a WSM for me (or I do it myself) I can be legally liable but the chances that any such actions will be taken are extremely miniscule.

This is simply for those that are willing to take the risk.....small as it might be.

quote:

Originally posted by duikerman:

My point is simply that if my smith will chamber a WSM for me (or I do it myself) I can be legally liable but the chances that any such actions will be taken are extremely miniscule.

I think that is generally true, although Mr. Jamison has already reached down to the gunsmith level. And keep in mind the most lawsuits are filed based on emotion rather than on purely rational financial calculations.

quote:

Originally posted by Ol` Joe:
Something that just hit me, maybe Jamison wasn`t worried about Winchester or others producing his chambering as he hasn`t went after other companies that are chambering for it. Kimber for example. Nor is he chasing Olin for producing ammo. Maybe his bitch was with Winchester useing their name on it in place of his.......300 Jamison short mag, 270 Jamison short mag, ect. The suit was done a year ago I`m sure if he was after others Kimber wouldn`t have started their Short Mag line.

Elsewhere it was stated that he did go after Kimber and they are now paying him a 3% royalty.

And as for Olin, an old news blurb:

quote:

John R. Jamison v. Olin-Winchester et al. (U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Oregon). Represent three co-defendants in this patent infringement case involving four patents-in-suit. The technology involves firearms and cartridges. The case is set for trial in June 2005.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

So, in short, if I have a WSM reamer, legally and lawfuly purchased, I can make whatever I like from them, as Rick has not established a univeral "use" patent.

Wrong. There is no back door trick to avoid patent infringement liability. If you make, use, sell or offer to sell the patented article, you are liable for patent infringement. It does not matter if the reamer is bought and paid for, stolen, or made at home with a nail file.

Dan,
Of course it matters if it was bought an paid for, rather than made. A question of retailer vs Manufacturer .. Manufacturer's are licensees, not wallyworld. Do you think wallyworld is a licensee for viagra? Or a distributor? nope, but a retailer.

cheers
jeffe

Jeff, any reamer manufacturer confirmed for you that they are licensed by Mr. Jamison to sell short mag reamers? I doubt they are. Mr. Jamison patented the rifles and ammo, not the reamer. But the reamer makers could be liable under an inducing or contributory patent infringement theory.

Funny,
why answer questions with questions...

Do you think wallyworld is a licensee for viagra? Of course not. Do you think JDJones would waste a second suing a reamer maker for making one for one of his cartridges? Of course not.

Has Jamison gone after midway, ppg, clymer, and manson? No. Has is told them to CnD? no.

No case, the end

have a great day
jeffe

I work in managing an IP portfolio for a major oil company, and I believe that individual users could be sued, but likely wouldn't be. It would simply make no sense to sue an individual over 415 or 20 dollars.

500 grains is correct on the reamer issue. The patents appear to be for the rifle and cartridge. How you make it is of no consequence. In fact, my first reaction would be that the reamer manufacturer doesn't need a license.

Someone made the statement that no one else has done something like this. I think there are examples. I believe JD Jones has patented and protected his entire line of Thompson Center based wildcats such as the 375 JDJ. The barrels are either supplied by him or Thompson Center. I can think of other examples of proprietary cartridges I believe have been treated this way in the past. The general result has been to really limit the popularity of the round.

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:

quote:

What I don't understand is why everyone is so down on Jamison. If he holds a proper patent he is entitled to compensation. Not only is that fair and proper it is legal.

Howard,

Only my take on this one. I think some blame hime for Winchester closing. I personally don't view that the patent had anything to do with it.

To me the biggests issues are. Based on all the cases designed before. He added nothing. Yes he did get a patent but he didn't add anything. In my opinion he profited from the work of others. Up until him various wildcats, designs etc were pretty much all shared. No one stuck it to the other shooters. The PPC for benchrest. I never heard of a patent issue. The STW, STA, the various Wby cases. Never an issue. That I ever heard of. Should have Ackley or Whelen gotten patents? Legally I guess they could. Maybe the should have. I just prefer to share with my fellow shooters.

His actions just leave a bad taste in my mouth.

The key phrases in your post are, “I never heard of a patent issue……………….The STW, STA, the various Wby cases. Never an issue. That I ever heard of†That could simply mean that the royalty fees where worked out ahead of time and contracts were signed and there was no dispute.

Anyone else notice that for years the only factory rifle, at least to my knowledge, chambered for Weatherby cartridges was Weatherby rifles? Is it possible there was a patent and it expired?

My point is we don’t know just how many patents exist in the firearms industry.

We all to one degree or another profit from the work of others.

other than jamison, the only other person (and I repeat, PERSON) who goes after anyone for making rifles in a "propietary" round is JD Jones.

No reamer maker will make you a XX-JDJ reamer, period, as he WILL sue them. Over copyright, not patent.

Midway is selling WSM reamers RIGHT NOW, fellas.


And Art is correct. No one, in their right mind, will go after a smith making 5-10 guns, for a 3% royality, when all he has to do is say "see you in court" and the person looking for that check is now out 10-12K in legal fees.

jeffe

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

And Art is correct. No one, in their right mind, will go after a smith making 5-10 guns, for a 3% royality, when all he has to do is say "see you in court" and the person looking for that check is now out 10-12K in legal fees.

jeffe

I believe they (the patent holder) can sue to recover legal fees can't they Dan?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
other than jamison, the only other person (and I repeat, PERSON) who goes after anyone for making rifles in a "propietary" round is JD Jones.
jeffe

And you know this how?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Midway is selling WSM reamers RIGHT NOW, fellas.
jeffe

I am typing very slowly here, maybe it will sink in. The patent is for the product, the rifle/ammo, not the tool used to chamber the rifle. Do you get it?

quote:

Originally posted by malm:
I believe they (the patent holder) can sue to recover legal fees can't they Dan?

I think it has already been stated that the plaintiff would have to prove that the defendant knowingly infringed on the patent.

somebody just needs to bust a cap on this obnoxious a**hole. He has his fifteen minutes of fame, and his life in the industry is over...terminally so.
I hope thing go badly for him over in Oregon.

JMHO, can I patent that?

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
other than jamison, the only other person (and I repeat, PERSON) who goes after anyone for making rifles in a "propietary" round is JD Jones.
jeffe

And you know this how?

Singular Notoriety, do you have evidence otherwise? Then I think we agree.
JD Jones is WELL KNOWN for his antics, in protection of his IP.. and goes after reamer makers.

To recover legal fees, one must win the suit.

ALL of you have said the patent is worthless, which leads one to assume said suit is unwinnable. Further, if it is on weak grounds then multiple appearences in court would further errode it's support.


Now, since the practice (not science) of law has vaiable outcomes, depending on one's legal team and the court of jurisdiction, do you honestly think jamison is going to go after joe the gunsmith, for chambering a WSM (he doesn't OWN the wsm name, mind you) with the potential for Joe's LOCAL court to find against Jamison, giving Olin grounds to counter sue?

LMAO..

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:

quote:

Originally posted by malm:
I believe they (the patent holder) can sue to recover legal fees can't they Dan?

I think it has already been stated that the plaintiff would have to prove that the defendant knowingly infringed on the patent.

That's my point. If he can prove it, he wins, and he gets his legal fees paid. So Jeffe's "see you in court" attitude should be done with a certain amount of caution. It wouldn't take much for a sleeze bag to set someone up, just to prove he can do it, or, to set an example. Of course that could be suicide.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

Singular Notoriety, do you have evidence otherwise?

Good grief you made the statement its up to you to prove it accurate not me to prove it wrong. But we both know you can't.

A long, perhaps somewhat silly, read on jamsion's patent in "wildcats"
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/...=608105993#608105993

Howard,
please, by all means, be my guest, call SSK Industries and tell them you are selling reamers of their cartridges..... on second though, I don't know you, and i wouldn't wish it on anyone.

jeffe

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:
I think it has already been stated that the plaintiff would have to prove that the defendant knowingly infringed on the patent.

So let me get this right here....ok?

If I chamber a WSM I can be sued by Jamison for patent infringement and further if it can be shown that I knew it was not legal to do so I can also be forced to pay his legal fees for the suit against me!

However he cannot be granted his legal fees to sue me unless he proves I knew it was wrong!

Is this correct?

As I understand it, if you make or use any patented item for your own use and not for resale, you have committed no legal offense whatsoever.

That is likely why folk like JDJ go after the commercial reamer makers, NOT the end user.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
As I understand it, if you make or use any patented item for your own use and not for resale, you have committed no legal offense whatsoever.

quote:

Originally posted by 500 Grains
Wrong. If you make, use, sell or offer to sell the patented article, you are liable for patent infringement.

Yup.....this sure is clear as mud!

Well, my hobby is inventing things. (Mechanical things, not stories.) So, two years ago I took a year of patent law just to keep myself on the safe side. Amongst the people also attending there were the inventors of a total of over 100 patented inventions, ranging from toilet seats to rocket fuels.

Their conclusions, in discussion, were that patents don't offer much protection to the inventor, in part precisely because of what I said above. It is NOT illegal or a violation of patent law, to make anything for your own use. The offense occurs when you try to market something for which patent rights are held by someone else. The object of patent law is, after all, the bestowing of Market Rights to ideas...to the originator(s), and the key word there is MARKET. If you do not market what you are making, it is not covered.

Now, you don't have to believe that just because I said it. Almost every major city (and many small ones) have "inventors' clubs". Attend one of their meetings and ask there. Or, if you want to pay for advice, ask a patent attorney.

quote:

It is NOT illegal or a violation of patent law, to make anything for your own use. The offense occurs when you try to market something for which patent rights are held by someone else.

This is the impression I was under until this thread. However, as you see there's statements made to the contrary.