Re: Roedale Muzzle Brakes - EuroOptic copy
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pete Lincoln</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mirnyx. I think there is a difference between an inspired similar product and a direct copy. If you go back to my original posting, the reason for posting this thread at all. My only intention was to make customers aware that the brake bieng sold by EuroOptic was not ours, it is a copy of ours. Thats all i wanted to achieve.
It would be absolutely dispicable of me to manufacture a direct copy of the AICS and then advertise it and sell it as an AICS.
That is not what I did.I manufactured a chassis for the Howa, and then for the Tikka,I also manufactured a chassis for our Avenger I rifle action because it was impossible to make the AICS fit it and all 3 chassis can be fitted with AICS side skins or Viperskins.
This thread has grown out of all proportion.
Mr Irwin. my previouse post was perhaps a little aggressive, for that I appologise. I am fairly sure it wasn't you with whom i corresponded but i swear am telling you the truth about contact with AI.
From memory it must have started around 2004-2005 when i had correspondance with Accuracy International with regards to AI manufacturing Howa versions of the AICS.
I can imagine that at the time there was a lot going on, with the liquidation of AI in 2005 that my requests where considered to be of little importance.
In fact it took quite a while to get any email response at all, and any response i did get was patchy.
I was responded to on only 2 occasions by email and was told that Accuracy International saw no market for a Howa version of the AICS and didnt consider it to be a viable project. I was also told to contact Sporting Services for any parts requirement as they where my (bieng a civilian based in Europe) port of contact for any dealings with AI.
I also recieved exactly the same answer when i asked the same questions 2 years running at the AI stand at the IWA in Nürnberg. ( that would have been the last 2 years that AI exhibited there, that could have been 2003-2004, I asked directly at the stand if AI couldn't manufacture a chassis for the Howa, did they have anything against me manufacturing one.I even showed them an AICS chassis that I had re-machined to fit a Howa and the reps on the stand genuinely seemed impressed by it. I was told face to face, no go ahead. and for parts i should contact sporting services in the UK.
I was already a customer of Sporting Services, this is where i procured some of the AICS stocks I was re machining to fit Howa 1500's.(I also aquired some through a large UK retailer)
At some point I contacted Sporting Services and asked if they could have any influence regarding the manufacture of AICS for the Howa 1500. I was told I should contact AI direct for such matters. I responded that I already had at the IWA and via email and was directed to them, I enquired about supply of components for the eventuality that I could manufacture a chassis that would fit the Howa 1500. I also commented that I had had a very patchy response from AI direct.
I was told that they where surprised that I got an email response at all and that thier emails didnt get answered half the time either. ( I can imagine there was a lot going on at that present time which would make this understandable).
I directly asked Sporting Services to request that AI look into the possibility of manufacturing a Howa AICS, (at the time I considered Sporting Services to be the Civilian branch of Accuracy International, bieng at the time unaware of the exact orbat of the AI company)
At some point i was told that the copyright on the AICS had not been renewed and that there was nothing to be held against my manufacturing a Howa chassis. I was told I could be supplied with the parts I required.
I also actualy wrote a letter to AI. I sent it registered post to Portsmouth England. The content of the letter basicaly added up to another request for AI to manufacture a Howa AICS and that if they still didnt see a market viability for this product, was there any objection to my manufacturing a chassis and procuring parts that i would require from them through thier civilian agent. i closed the letter with a statement that If i didn't recieve a letter of objection back from them within a certain time frame I would consider their lack of reply as a statement of no objection.
Needless to say i didnt recieve a reply and several months later the 1st chassis for the Howa was produced and fitted with AICS side pannels, cheek piece, spacers and buttpad.
At some point and due to the write ups of the RCS I on Snipershide Mr Irwin and I conversed with eachother covering the subjects in my earlier post above.
It could be that Mr Irwin has no knowledge of my earlier conversations with Accuracy Itnternational both via email and at the IWA, but that does not mean i am bieng untruthfull.
The fact of the matter is that I treid on numerous occasions to motivate AI to manufacture an AICS for the Howa 1500 and I was unsuccessfull in that attempt. I had the decency to enquire about AI thoughts on my manufacturing a Howa chassis in person, via email and in writing and I asked for thier objections if any to be made known to me.
I have an absolutely clear conscience in this matter.
regards Pete Lincoln </div></div>
There is nothing wrong with letting people know that somebody else makes a copy of your poduct. I would likely do the same. As to the effect of this ammouncement - I'm not sure. If you do not have patent, you have no fighting chance in principle. It appears that you could not be able to get utility patent for this brake in the first place, as this brake, per disclosed info, appears to be somewhat of compilation of known muzzle brake designs, including the ones used for artillery. I'm not saying you didn't contribute to its design/tuning, I just don't know exact details, but can these details become solid elements of the claims portion of such patent? On the other hand, you could have made an attempt at U.S. design patent, which also may be cheaper to prepare and file than utility patent. But, it's too late for anything like that anyway. If product developer does not care to attach patent or, at least, patent pending status to the product, other interested parties will not hesitate to do what they consider to be in their best interests.
In regard to your saga with AI - based on my own experience, it may be difficult to get two way communication going with AI, unless you're lucky enough to find a right person inside the company. AI is a good company, which is certainly very busy with their own products. Not exactly sure what is their communication procedure, but I also didn't get any replies from them for nearly a year, until I've got in touch with Tom Irwin thru SH. Tom replied right away, called me on the phone within an hour after my PM and although I didn't get an exact result I wanted, he treated me with respect and in very professional manner. In any case, Tom's reply was sufficent for me to make a decision for the near future.
