Re: Mark Larue has thrown down the guantlet
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LaRueTactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JLharris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the suit in a nutshell:
ARMS patents #17 and makes a mount with that model #
Larue makes a LT-170 mount
ARMS sues.
Mark starts thwacking ARMS's nose over the internet at every possible moment. </div></div>
I want to play if this is the case. The sucky thing is that I had a Surefire light kit that wouldn't ride tight on any rail that I tried it on but no longer have it. I think I might have to break some A.R.M.S.
In a better nutshell ...
We were granted a patent for our system ... a good patent, that Swan & Friends immediately challenged. They got a couple of claims knocked-off, but the meat of the patent was left intact. That's what we build our stuff to, our own damn patent.
It appears to the casual observer, us, that after they didn't get the satisfaction of killing our patent, unbeknownst to us, they took the cheesy route of trademarking the numeral 17 and also the shape the shape of the old and well-used M139 / M140 boresight alinement device. The product ours looks like. A product of ours we call part numbers like LT-170, Lt-171, and LT-172.
The USPTO gives it to them ...could be related to the rumor they are using Indian nationals as contract folks for the patent office ... dunno.
Either way, without warning, they sued ... no cease and desist, no nothing, just sued.
It's on, and we're going all the way to the mat.
And unbeknownst to them, they ain't seen nuttin' yet.
LaRue </div></div>
Sad thing is that I had a weaponlight with a #17 mount that wouldn't ride tight on any picatinny rail I tried it on but unfortunately I don't have it anymore. I'm pretty sure that I have another one or two - Looks like I might need to go break some A.R.M.S.