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.
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.
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-
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 ☣
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.
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.
The Guns Network | Often Imitated - Never Duplicated!
☣ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ☣
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
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.
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.
There's no problem an AK can't solve...........
GUNSNET Member Since 2003
CCW Permit
03 FFL
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 ☣
Bookmarks