Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 161 to 178 of 178

Thread: New AR stock that facilitates aimed bump-firing

  1. #161
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    North East PA
    Posts
    1,333
    Quote Originally Posted by RJ Shooter View Post
    I would like to see, in short, specific layman's terms, where a CAR/M4 bump stock is in "DIRECT" violation of any of your patents Bill.
    That's just it. I have a link to the 30 page patent and I don't see where.
    There's anger at something that happened over 6 years ago & was addressed already.
    The 2nd Amendment : Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.

  2. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadmos View Post
    It seems to me, and this is without having looked at the item up close, that a single trigger pull sets in motion the series of events which causes the gun to fire essentially full auto. If I have clear how it works, one pull causes it. And releasing the trigger (or running out of ammo) stops it. For all intents and purposes it's a conversion that makes the gun full auto.

    My understanding of the Akins device is that one could mount the stock in a vise, and with one pull of the trigger all the way back, and holding the trigger back, the gun will fire full auto.

    I get that some would rather call this "bumpfiring" due to legal issues with full autos, but frankly I'm not sure it qualifies.

    From what this other new product looks like, you must physically pull the stock forward in order to get the "full auto" effect. An action that seems much closer to actual "bumpfiring". It *seems* as though if that one were locked in a vise and given one squeezed trigger pull it would simply fire one time.

    While some of us may want these to be legal, it's obviously questionable, which is why both Akins and this other one both wrote to the BATF to get their opinion. Reason itself that the sniff test finds them questionable.

    If something is clearly legal, there is no reason to ask the ATF their opinion and to send a sample for them to examine. You wouldn't do that if you were making just any other stock.

    Granted it's good that they asked (well the first time at least), otherwise Mr. Akins could be typing this from prison.

    These guys are playing right up to the edge of the line, and I think they know that, it gets to where the question of legality becomes the opinion of one person, a risky proposition.
    Your understanding of how my stock worked is misunderstood. The trigger was never held down. It was functioned and then completely disengaged from the trigger finger and then re-engaged again, once for each separate shot fired. You functioned the trigger and then consciously held you trigger finger on the finger stop supports on either side of the pistol grip. That made your finger a bridge that after recoiling and completely disengaging the trigger from you finger, upon translating forwardly, the trigger would then engage your trigger finger again. One shot per each single complete disengagement of the trigger and separate function of the trigger. Exactly as the NFA stipulates. A picture is worth a thousand words so here is an animation of how it worked to clear up any confusion.



    Also for another poster (not Kadmos) who wondered how my patent could still be valid if the BATFE had ruled my spring actuated stock illegal. Here is how. If that other poster had read my Claim #1 like I asked everyone to and which was in Skorpion's post, then he would have seen that my patent is not limited to just using springs to translate the trigger back forwardly again. So although the BATFE may have ruled my stock with a spring in it to be illegal according to their ruling opinion (not the actual law) my patent is not just limited to using a spring. I could also use a rubber band, a superball, or I can also use human isometric tension. The language of my claim is very specific that there is a method for "biasing" the action back forwardly. It is not just limited to a spring. But all that aside, I was talking about infringers here from 4 and 5 years ago when my stock with a spring in it WAS deemed legal by the BATFE. And their spring loaded infringement stocks were very relevant then.

  3. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadmos View Post
    Yes, that's it exactly, you aren't allowed to make anything.

    You can't even legally take a crap, because someone did it before.

    Seriously?!

    NO!

    Some things (many) are public domain. The fork was invented centuries ago. Even if it had a patent, it has long since expired. IIRC patents are now good for 20 years, after that time anyone can make one.

    However, if the National Fork company designs a special decoration (pattern) for a fork and calls it the "flaming willow", and then patents it, you could not make an exact replica until the patent expires (actually it would probably a copy write issue, but hopefully you get the point)....lets say they make a fork with a second handle, a vertical foregrip for maximum control and are granted a patent, then you would not be allowed to make the same style without risking being sued.

    The patent office decides what is "patentable" using the laws as a guide, and it requires a ton of research to make sure it wasn't already patented by someone else or is in the public domain. It's a very cumbersome and expensive process.

    You can't just draw a circle on a piece of paper and say "you know, for cars" and try to patent "the wheel".

    It has to be something new, or a substantial "improvement" to something old.

    But if the patent office does approve it and grant a patent, then for that 20 years, it's yours...no one else can make one, either for personal use or to sell without getting your permission first. Because it is your property, yes it's intellectual property, rather than physical property, but its still yours...for a limited time

    This is as much of a fundamental property right as owning land, if someone wants to use your device they either need to
    1. buy the product from you
    2. get permission from you to make one for themselves
    3 wait for your patent to expire.

    This gives the inventor a chance to market their own design, hold off competition, and even gives him time to make improvements (which may also be patentable) to establish himself in the marketplace.

    It was due to his skull sweat, and quickness to patent, that the idea is out there, so it makes sense to give him a bit of time to make the most of it.

    Without this, there would be much less incentive to make something new, or to make improvements on existing products.
    Thank you Kadmos, you nailed it exactly. Finally, someone who understands. Thank you again.

  4. #164
    Junior Member Biz's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    U.S.S.A - Southern Province
    Posts
    16
    Yah....... i'll pick up a coupe of his "could be" domain names off the net for pennies......all that will be on the pages will be his rants/screen shots, and BS cut downs on other members about "infringing" upon his brainchild........
    i just figured i would give your "potential customer base" an idea of what a mushroom shaped appendage you are.


    Quote Originally Posted by 1 Patriot-of-many View Post
    I would have to agree with that. Alienate your prospective customers and see what your patent gets you.
    Let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living being is only a species of the dead, and a very rare species.
    -Friedrich Nietzsche-

  5. #165
    ADMIN | LOGIC POLICE RJ Shooter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    SW Florida
    Posts
    12,079
    Again, just ask Glock and Robinson Arms... I guess the obvious is just lost on some. Arrogance is not always correct, and just because someone used a spring to make the weapon move forward again, does not constitute patent infringement. Just ask other, multi-million dollar firearms manufactures!!!!!

    Just because you (or Kadmos) believe it so, does not make it so... Sorry, I'm done with this ridiculous thread.
    The Guns Network | Often Imitated - Never Duplicated!
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  6. #166
    Guns Network Lifetime Member #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    8,846
    Quote Originally Posted by slamfire51 View Post
    You like typing I see.
    NO WAY IN HELL I'm reading all that jibberish.
    A suggestion would be to shorten your replies, get to the point and quit rambling about possible infringements.


    Geeze.
    Only problem is he didn't use paragraphs. It shows him to be much more honorable than his partner, and the crap he went through. I don't have any beef with him, aside from his alienating home tinkerers. He got screwed more than we imagined both by his partnet, the ATF, and the kangaroo courts. It's sad the law isn't the law if certain segments of the "justice" system are allowed to punt.

  7. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadmos View Post
    You gotta see it from an inventors point of view.

    He works for months or years to design the idea, pays 10-20 grand or more to patent it. Spends another several grand to have some test pre-production models made. Spends time working out how to market it and make a business plan. Spends a shit ton more cash to have stock made, tooling, materials, distribution, advertising.

    All told I would guess Akins spent at least 2 years and 50 grand to get the project to market. (quite probably a good deal more, but just a wild guess)

    Then some guy sees it, tinkers around in his workshop and makes his own for next to nothing...that's a loss of at least one sale.

    But to make it much much worse, that hobbyist posts on a website to tens of thousands of other hobbyists directions on how to make their own "copy" and lists the $10 worth of common parts to make one in half an hour.

    Now it's 2 years and 50K down the drain, after all who is going to pay a grand for Akins product if they can make their own with $10 in parts and a few hand tools?

    And of course that (probably or possibly) never would have happened had it not been for all the work he did.




    Most inventors do work in secret for just this reason. If you are a hobbyist and just out to impress the guys on the forum with your skills, or share your interest with friends it's no big deal, but if it's your livelihood, it becomes a very big deal



    Granted, he is being rude. But essentially people are infringing on his property in such a way as to ruin his business...how nice would you be to people doing that to you?

    It really is somewhat equivalent to someone going to your place of business and wrecking the place...except in that case you would get to call the cops and have them dragged off...the most he can do is watch the market to see if someone is infringing on his property, or watch the forums, and then start a lawsuit or threaten one.

    The finical hardships are just as real, but the protections aren't nearly as good.
    Thank you again Kadmos. Again you nailed it exactly. There is hope for people here to understand. Again, thank you for explaining that. I've tried to say the same thing but people are so busy villifying and demonizing me, they don't listen to the facts I tell them. I think they are listening to yours and I thank you again for setting the record straight on this. It is encouraging to know there are some people who understand and care about the patent holder's intellectual property point of view. By the way, your cost estimate was way low. Just our molds alone cost us $70,000 and the time factor was much longer than 2 years. From the time I applied for my patent until I received it in 2000 and then finally got to market in 2006, it took 8 years.

  8. #168
    ADMIN | LOGIC POLICE RJ Shooter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    SW Florida
    Posts
    12,079
    Quote Originally Posted by 1 Patriot-of-many View Post
    Only problem is he didn't use paragraphs....
    Just wait till his "memoirs" come out... :rollseyes:
    The Guns Network | Often Imitated - Never Duplicated!
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  9. #169
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    North East PA
    Posts
    1,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Akins View Post
    Also for another poster (not Kadmos) who wondered how my patent could still be valid if the BATFE had ruled my spring actuated stock illegal. Here is how. If that other poster had read my Claim #1 like I asked everyone to and which was in Skorpion's post, then he would have seen that my patent is not limited to just using springs to translate the trigger back forwardly again. So although the BATFE may have ruled my stock with a spring in it to be illegal according to their ruling opinion (not the actual law) my patent is not just limited to using a spring. I could also use a rubber band, a superball, or I can also use human isometric tension. The language of my claim is very specific that there is a method for "biasing" the action back forwardly. It is not just limited to a spring.
    What page of the patent describes this?
    I'm looking at all 30 pages now.
    The 2nd Amendment : Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.

  10. #170
    ADMIN | LOGIC POLICE RJ Shooter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    SW Florida
    Posts
    12,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Akins View Post
    ...but people are so busy villifying and demonizing me...
    Actually, they we're reactively responding to your vilification and demonization!
    The Guns Network | Often Imitated - Never Duplicated!
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  11. #171
    ADMIN | LOGIC POLICE RJ Shooter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    SW Florida
    Posts
    12,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Moebrown20 View Post
    What page of the patent describes this?
    I'm looking at all 30 pages now.
    THE COPIES ARE USING A SPRING TO RETURN THE RIFLE FORWARD!!!!!!! I guess Barret's gonna have to pay up too! Their Barret M82's use a mechanism VERY SIMILAR to his...

    I looooong to see that suit! LOL!
    The Guns Network | Often Imitated - Never Duplicated!
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  12. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by Moebrown20 View Post
    I had to look at this Patent US6101918.








    The design in the patent & the one KKKrupski displayed are not the same.
    That is not correct. The pictures you have shown are not in my patent. My patent only has drawings of several examples of types of AA stocks covered by my claims. One of those drawings in my patent is of a two piece stock Ak47 variant stock. My Ak version operated exactly like the Tapco stock that MrRiddick showed everyone here how to make. The barrel/receiver action recoiled rearwardly compressing a spring and removing the trigger from the shooter's finger. Then the spring decompressed and translated the trigger back forwardly again so it would re-engage the shooter's finger again. People are confused and do not understand that my patent covered various different ways I could make an accelerator stock. I was not just limited to using springs or even one particular type of firearm. My patent claims covered a specific method of operation and one that was not just limited to using a spring. This is why I have repeatedly told everyone to read at least my first of 19 claims that Skorpion posted in this thread. But no one will read it.

  13. #173
    Conributor 09/13 slamfire51's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The South
    Posts
    8,200
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Akins View Post
    That is not correct. The pictures you have shown are not in my patent. My patent only has drawings of several examples of types of AA stocks covered by my claims. One of those drawings in my patent is of a two piece stock Ak47 variant stock. My Ak version operated exactly like the Tapco stock that MrRiddick showed everyone here how to make. The barrel/receiver action recoiled rearwardly compressing a spring and removing the trigger from the shooter's finger. Then the spring decompressed and translated the trigger back forwardly again so it would re-engage the shooter's finger again. People are confused and do not understand that my patent covered various different ways I could make an accelerator stock. I was not just limited to using springs or even one particular type of firearm. My patent claims covered a specific method of operation and one that was not just limited to using a spring. This is why I have repeatedly told everyone to read at least my first of 19 claims that Skorpion posted in this thread. But no one will read it.
    If it is illegal for "us" to possess one, then why the Hell are you ranting about your supposed patent infringement? If someone somewhere wants to make one exactly like yours, there's not a damn thing you can do as long as it's not publicized.

    What is the point of you discussing this. I see NO reason why you are.
    Are you just searching for someone to sue for a supposed patent infringement?

    I say go invent something that is legal for the public to buy legally, and stop the whining.
    There's no problem an AK can't solve...........


    GUNSNET Member Since 2003
    CCW Permit
    03 FFL

  14. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by mriddick View Post
    Kadmos have you seen the various stocks in question? Do you have the original posts?

    I will say again even at the time I posted my stock I had not heard of nor had Akins released his stock to the public, all my work was done without knowledge of Akins. At the time I posted I too had been working on the stock for quite a few years (started the project sometime in 1996-97?). My stock did not just appear 4 months before Akin released his stock, that post was the end of a long design process itself.
    It does not matter when I "released" my accelerator stocks for sale. What matters is the issue date of my patent which was Aug 15, 2000 as well as the fact that I patented it when no one else did. Elisha Grey got to the patent office one day after Alexander Graham Bell. Bell got the patent and Grey did not. It would not matter if Grey had been working on his version before and longer than Bell had. What matters is Bell got the patent.

    Quote Originally Posted by mriddick View Post
    Then you have the object of the spring and using the movable AR stock which were features I did not get from Akin but was a feature I noted at the time of "bump shooters" since the mid 1980's (the moving parts were basically an exact 1 for 1 take off of the 1980's design). I did not claim to of "invented" the spring loaded AR stock as much as I adapted what I had seen others doing since the 1980's from the AR to the AK.
    The features in your infringing AR stock were identical in operation to the AK version drawings of my accelerator that are in my patent. Take the time to look up patent 6101918 at the U.S. patent website. Download the program that allows you to view the drawings on patents. Then look at my AK version's drawing in my patent. Your Tapco infringement was exactly like my AK version. I patented a method of operation that was not limited to any one specific type of firearm nor limited to just using a spring. This is clear in my Claim #1, but again, no one here will bother to read it. It does not matter what you had seen "others" doing back in the '80's. They did not patent it. I did, and you infringed upon my patent and then proudly posted it here with a complete tutorial of how to make it with photos and everything and then encouraged everyone else to make one. And many did in spite of my informing you of your and their infringment. Funny, no one would listen to me, but now that Kadmos is telling people the very same thing I did, they are starting to listen to him.

    Quote Originally Posted by mriddick View Post
    Can you patent an idea that's in the public domain already for 20 plus years? Since the whole thing has now been declared illegal does it even matter?
    If it had been in the public domain for 20 plus years, then the U.S. patent office examiners would never have issued me a patent. But it hadn't been and they did issue it to me. My whole patent has not been declared illegal. Just the spring loaded version. Again people do not listen. I have posted upteenth times that my patent was not limited to just using a spring. It's language also allows it to use human isometric tension as a means of "biasing" the action back forwardly again. So although the spring version of my accelerator may have been ruled against by the BATFE, that does not make my patent itself illegal. Just the spring version. And my patent is not limited to just a spring activation. So yes it does matter very much.

  15. #175
    Conributor 09/13 slamfire51's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The South
    Posts
    8,200
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Akins View Post
    It does not matter when I "released" my accelerator stocks for sale. What matters is the issue date of my patent which was Aug 15, 2000 as well as the fact that I patented it when no one else did. Elisha Grey got to the patent office one day after Alexander Graham Bell. Bell got the patent and Grey did not. It would not matter if Grey had been working on his version before and longer than Bell had. What matters is Bell got the patent.



    The features in your infringing AR stock were identical in operation to the AK version drawings of my accelerator that are in my patent. Take the time to look up patent 6101918 at the U.S. patent website. Download the program that allows you to view the drawings on patents. Then look at my AK version's drawing in my patent. Your Tapco infringement was exactly like my AK version. I patented a method of operation that was not limited to any one specific type of firearm nor limited to just using a spring. This is clear in my Claim #1, but again, no one here will bother to read it. It does not matter what you had seen "others" doing back in the '80's. They did not patent it. I did, and you infringed upon my patent and then proudly posted it here with a complete tutorial of how to make it with photos and everything and then encouraged everyone else to make one. And many did in spite of my informing you of your and their infringment. Funny, no one would listen to me, but now that Kadmos is telling people the very same thing I did, they are starting to listen to him.



    If it had been in the public domain for 20 plus years, then the U.S. patent office examiners would never have issued me a patent. But it hadn't been and they did issue it to me. My whole patent has not been declared illegal. Just the spring loaded version. Again people do not listen. I have posted upteenth times that my patent was not limited to just using a spring. It's language also allows it to use human isometric tension as a means of "biasing" the action back forwardly again. So although the spring version of my accelerator may have been ruled against by the BATFE, that does not make my patent itself illegal. Just the spring version. And my patent is not limited to just a spring activation. So yes it does matter very much.
    I believe you were told to take this discussion to a one on one, PRIVATELY.
    There's no problem an AK can't solve...........


    GUNSNET Member Since 2003
    CCW Permit
    03 FFL

  16. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by circuits View Post
    The ATF didn't rule Akin's invention to be "illegal", ATF ruled it to be "a machine gun conversion"

    Mr. Akins is free to build and market his invention to anyone who can legally own a current-production machinegun conversion, provided he has a Type 7 FFL and Class 2 SOT.

    Said ruling does admittedly cut his market down severely, from what his business plans were expecting.
    Correct circuits73915. You nailed it. except that I can also sell isometric activated version of my stock also because the BATFE did not rule against that and my patent does not limit my stock to just using a spring to "bias" the action back forwardly again. I just haven't retro-fitted my stocks to do that yet. But I do have several prototypes of 10/22 AA stock versions that work using isometric tension without any spring.

  17. #177
    Conributor 09/13 slamfire51's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The South
    Posts
    8,200
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Akins View Post
    Correct circuits73915. You nailed it. except that I can also sell isometric activated version of my stock also because the BATFE did not rule against that and my patent does not limit my stock to just using a spring to "bias" the action back forwardly again. I just haven't retro-fitted my stocks to do that yet. But I do have several prototypes of 10/22 AA stock versions that work using isometric tension without any spring.
    So what's the hold up on you getting a Type 7 FFL and Class 2 SOT?
    Seems that would be the thing for you to do to get your "business" going again.

    And why haven't you retro-fitted your present stock configuration?
    There's no problem an AK can't solve...........


    GUNSNET Member Since 2003
    CCW Permit
    03 FFL

  18. #178
    ADMIN | LOGIC POLICE RJ Shooter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    SW Florida
    Posts
    12,079
    Alright, I think we've discussed this particular topic as far as we can, and nothing more is getting accomplished other than alienation, so, I'm locking this thread. If someone wants to take this conversation to the "private" level, because of accusations, they are more than welcome.

    If questions would have been answered with specific rebuttals, rather than page long, unseparated paragraphs, then maybe the answer would be more obvious. But it's not, so this single thread has run it's course. I personally asked for "short, specific layman's terms, where a CAR/M4 bump stock is in "DIRECT" violation of any of your patents" but that did not happen.

    If anyone wants to look at the patent, here it is... http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6101918.pdf
    The Guns Network | Often Imitated - Never Duplicated!
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •