Echo1 banned from ShotShow

[MaciekA]

This thread is in extreme danger of going way off course.

Guys, care to redirect your direction to the possibility that this potentially cuts the market off from even "SCAR-like" rifles ? Has anyone checked to see if FN actually has a design patent on the shape and overall visual aesthetics of the SCAR?

That's what's at issue here. I respectfully encourage any folks who want to debate Apple's design patents or SCO vs IBM on the off-topic forum, or on Reddit / HN / Groklaw / etc

We're primarily interested in airsoft here.

[Dimitri]

Originally Posted by L473ncy

Although IRT to Apple, it could be said their main is their technology but the litigation is a sidebusiness for them.

Apple buys and copies technology from other companies, such as *****, Motorola, IBM, Intel, Samsung, repackages it, and claims its the best thing since sliced bread. If you dare do anything similar Apple has always been in the market for suing people for "infringement" since the 1980's when they actively went after clone makers. Nothing new.

Their going after their competitors who sold Mac compatibles is the reason why IBM not only took the business market, but also the home market, as it was easier, and more effective to copy the IBM, who allowed it freely as long as you rewrote your own BIOS software, then it was to face Apple's law suits.

Apple's market share dropped, people forgot about their lawsuits, and people more or less forgot about Apple, other then that it was the "cool" and "different" thing. When the iPod became popular and there was a slight spike in Apple popularity, their old business practices resurfaced quickly.

Originally Posted by L473ncy

PS: If I had the money I would love to have a MacPro workstation but even then hackintosh rigs with better specs for a cheaper price are probably where it's at.

Hack-intosh's (when compared to a Mac Pro Workstation) can be had for around 30% less or more, depends on how much cash will you just end up reinvesting in better components.

Edit ... Really? *****? X e r o x is on the damn censor's list?

Dimitri

[ThunderCactus]

Echo1 got what they deserved for trying to operate like a Chinese company in America lol

[ILLusion]

Originally Posted by Dimitri

Edit ... Really? *****? X e r o x is on the damn censor's list?

Yeah, we had a bit of a problem before with spammers using ***** in their posts and name. Easiest way to get rid of them and their automated account creation at the time was to do a blanket ban on the word.

[Jcotter]

I'm divided on the issue. Yes cybergun paid good money for the rights for the licenses but they sell a horrible product. Jag has to be one of the largest if not the largest distributor of airsoft in the US. Echo 1 has a superior product( in relation to anything cybergun ) Having both companies removed from the show is just bad for airsoft in general.

My big fear with companies like cybergun who buy up all the rights to products, is that they make a shitty product. If they put all of the companies who make good products out of business, all we are left with is a shitty product. Sure other companies can make their own style of rifle, pistol or whatever but isn't one of the great things about airsoft is it's realism?

all cybergun does is pay a fucktonne of money for license agreements, then paint shitty trades on even shittier guns. End result, customer pays more for a shittier product.

I wish the rights could be purchased and shared amongst manufacturer's and not be exclusive to one company.


**EDIT** another thing that scared me was SOPA and PIPA. I was wondering what if any effect it would have had on the Asian clone market and airsoft in general?

[Dimitri]

Originally Posted by ILLusion

Yeah, we had a bit of a problem before with spammers using ***** in their posts and name. Easiest way to get rid of them and their automated account creation at the time was to do a blanket ban on the word.

Ah, interesting, that makes sense actually seemed a little arbitrary banning that companies name. But that is interesting none the less. Spammers using ***** as a keyword. Who'd have guessed.

Dimitri

[HKGhost]

Any company that wants the license to those companies that Cybergun own, can buy it from Cybergun like what WE did. Because it cost more money and in turn the cost will be push onto the customers, most company won't pay for it. So if Cybergun doesn't only own the trade marks but the whole over all look of the guns, there might be more lawsuit going out. Cybergun is only rebranding lower end guns to make up the cost for the licensing. If they used better manufacturers, it won't be too bad.

[coach]

Originally Posted by Jcotter

I wish the rights could be purchased and shared amongst manufacturer's and not be exclusive to one company.

So you'd be okay with every other Tom, Dick and Harry selling the same products you are selling as long as they paid the same licensing and rights, meanwhile driving pricing down and shrinking your profit margins while also decreasing demand since the market will be over saturated with the same product?

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by MaciekA

This thread is in extreme danger of going way off course.

Guys, care to redirect your direction to the possibility that this potentially cuts the market off from even "SCAR-like" rifles ? Has anyone checked to see if FN actually has a design patent on the shape and overall visual aesthetics of the SCAR?

That's what's at issue here. I respectfully encourage any folks who want to debate Apple's design patents or SCO vs IBM on the off-topic forum, or on Reddit / HN / Groklaw / etc

We're primarily interested in airsoft here.

FN has trade dress rights to the outline of their more recent releases including the SCAR. I think the FAL predates certain aspects of trademark law, or at least predates the common practice of firearms industry to apply for trade dress exclusivity. Some years ago, I was looking at SystemA's TW5 (MP5 replica) when a couple reps from Brugger and Thomet happened by. B&T are licensed manufacturers of H&K designed firearms. They delivered the happy news that SystemA's new MP5 model was not covered under trade dress exclusivity, but the term MP5 was. SystemA promptly complied by not referring to their product as a MP5. They were quite relieved to find that their tools and dies weren't going to be turned into boat anchors.

Firearms industry are becoming increasingly aware that their work is attracting interest from airsoft manufacturers as well as real steel copyshops like Norinco. While patents are a useful way to protect the mechanisms inside a firearm, there are quite a lot of accumulated prior art patents which have expired. I think it is becoming increasingly more difficult to protect one's engineering under patent law because of this so I get the feeling that manufacturers are going to find trade dress protection the only remaining way to retain any IP on new gun designs. The weird thing is that trade dress has no expiry date (I think). Also, it is supposed to cover design features which are not practical, but one could argue that the general shape of guns is largely due to ergonomic considerations and therefore should not be covered by trade dress law.

[Jcotter]

Originally Posted by coachster

So you'd be okay with every other Tom, Dick and Harry selling the same products you are selling as long as they paid the same licensing and rights, meanwhile driving pricing down and shrinking your profit margins while also decreasing demand since the market will be over saturated with the same product?

Yes because a good rifle is more then just trades.

[MaciekA]

Originally Posted by MadMax

FN has trade dress rights to the outline of their more recent releases including the SCAR.

Firearms industry are becoming increasingly aware that their work is attracting interest from airsoft manufacturers as well as real steel copyshops like Norinco. While patents are a useful way to protect the mechanisms inside a firearm, there are quite a lot of accumulated prior art patents which have expired. I think it is becoming increasingly more difficult to protect one's engineering under patent law because of this so I get the feeling that manufacturers are going to find trade dress protection the only remaining way to retain any IP on new gun designs. The weird thing is that trade dress has no expiry date (I think). Also, it is supposed to cover design features which are not practical, but one could argue that the general shape of guns is largely due to ergonomic considerations and therefore should not be covered by trade dress law.

Wow thanks for this post. I looked it up and you appear to be correct -- trade dress does not expire.

Trade dress, like trademarks when you keep the registration active and the fees paid, do not expire but you can lose your rights by allowing the distinctiveness to you to be diluted. It usually does not take a court battle to defend your rights, just a strongly worded letter asserting your rights, evidence of those rights, a legal opinion of violation of those rights, and the credible belief in your opponents mind that the fight would not be worth it.

Given your above post and knowing nothing else, I don't think Echo1 stands a chance importing these things into the USA.

Copyright / patent / trademark infringement kills small businesses; Fuck Asia's unscrupulous business practices.

Companies that pay for trades, at least, are trying to play fair. They might make a shitty product, but at least they paid for the priveldge to copy someone else's intellectual property...instead of stealing it outright.

[bujitjit]

Hi people that interested in this topic,

for some reason i think we should start a group on facebook or any other thing like that and try to boycot cybergun in someway.

i understand they have the money to buy all the licences, but if we start a group that stop buying cybergun items, it should at least build some awareness.

or else sooner or later, they will be the monopoly of the market, and all of us will ended up buying their crap!

[Jcotter]

How does selling an Airsoft mp5 take money away from H&K? (pre umarex)

[MadMax]

There is precedent to show that repeated failure to prosecute trademark or trade dress infringement can be construed as abandonment. Maybe it's a stretch to say that failing to prosecute infringement on an airsoft gun would constitute abandonment in the real steel market, but I don't think any legal council likes to lackadaisically float out into undiscovered waters like that.