GLOCK Suing Polymer80 For Patent Infringement!

[Racer88]

This is regarding the patent on the Slide stop / release lever for the G43 (940SS).


View: https://youtu.be/4obcoLUjMSw

 

[USApat]

****Glock's Light Bulb
Gee... if the darn 80% market wasn't there, we would have all the revenues in this industry.
Q. How can we get all the DIY 80% builders and customers to graduate from buying just Glock parts and instead buy a full registered Glock gun?

A. I know how!
Let's sue P80 for a patent infringement on a pissant part. Simultaneously, it will bring good graces to Glock from the ATF.
We're Glock.
Everyone will Luv us.

Can you hear the backfire?


View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oC26SYxaih8

 

[Racer88]

Gee... if the darn 80% market wasn't there, we would have all the revenues in this industry.
Q. How can we get all the DIY 80% builders and customers to graduate from buying just Glock parts and instead buy a full registered Glock gun?

That would presume that P80s are built INSTEAD of buying a Glock. And while that might be true for SOME, it wasn't for me. I already owned 3 factory Glocks before I started building P80s. If P80s were taken off the market, I would not resort to buying more factory Glocks... since that's not the reason I build P80s.

A. I know how!
Let's sue P80 for a patent infringement on a pissant part.

It affects the presumably less popular PFSS (G43) model. Big whoop.

On the other hand, the cost of a settlement or court-ordered penalty (treble damages) may be enough to sink P80 as a company.

Simultaneously, it will bring good graces to Glock from the ATF.

Will it? And does Glock even need that?

 

[brian]

That would presume that P80s are built INSTEAD of buying a Glock. And while that might be true for SOME, it wasn't for me. I already owned 3 factory Glocks before I started building P80s. If P80s were taken off the market, I would not resort to buying more factory Glocks... since that's not the reason I build P80s.

Great point - I own 4 factory Glocks. I can't imagine buying a serialized firearm and experimenting with Cerakote, etc on it or otherwise making "SWAG" guns. Granted, I've put together a few with all Glock OEM save for frame, rails and pins for the fun of making the gun and wanting something reliable.

It is curious that that this suit is filed after years of P80s (not sure when the P80 SS was released?) - the conspiracy theorist side of me wonders if something more it up.

Knowing what I've spent on Glock OEM slides and lower parts, Glock has sold a TON more to me than they would have other wise. They aren't doing that math very well...

 

[USApat]

That would presume that P80s are built INSTEAD of buying a Glock. And while that might be true for SOME, it wasn't for me. I already owned 3 factory Glocks before I started building P80s. If P80s were taken off the market, I would not resort to buying more factory Glocks... since that's not the reason I build P80s.


It affects the presumably less popular PFSS (G43) model. Big whoop.

On the other hand, the cost of a settlement or court-ordered penalty (treble damages) may be enough to sink P80 as a company.

Will it? And does Glock even need that?

Most of my post implies (even if not written) that the 80% market in general is not a target market for Glock and their products. Not even close. Even if they think 80%'ers are a target market. The backfire video is the "implied" lost sales in Glock slides, and lower and upper parts pieces. Although they really probably loathe supplying the parts and probably want to sell full guns.

I will not buy a full working Glock. You can build one better than they make 'em. If 80% were outlawed, I would buy the Glock lower so that any 80% firearm wasn't a boat anchor.

I think the two primary motivations for people that build 80% firearms is
1. They are tinkerers and enjoy tinkering.
2. They don't want the whole registration process with Big Bro.
(Order of importance and priority varies with the two.)

3. They want custom looking firearms.


This same type of market segmentation exists in motorsports. There are drivers and guys that like to build cars and there are drivers that prefer to pay for their time on the track and have no interest in wrenching, hauling, storing and dealing with the car.

 

[Racer88]

Most of my post implies (even if not written) that the 80% market in general is not a target market for Glock and their products. Not even close.

I think you're right about that. I think there is SOME cross-over... like me. I started with "real Glocks," and I like them very much. So building a pistol that's based on a platform and manual of arms I'm already familiar with was an easy "transition."

Although they really probably loathe supplying the parts and probably want to sell full guns.

But, if the target market for their complete guns isn't the P80 fans, then selling parts is an ADDITIONAL revenue stream rather than a competitive challenge, right?

I think the two primary motivations for people that build 80% firearms is
1. They are tinkerers and enjoy tinkering.
2. They don't want the whole registration process with Big Bro.
(Order of importance and priority varies with the two.)

3. They want custom looking firearms.

1 and 3 for me. 2 is sort of a bonus, though I don't think of it as "registration." I have plenty of serialized guns... and my lifestyle is not one which needs to be "below the radar" in that sense. But I'll admit that it's "kinda cool" to know I am exercising my 2A Right to a more complete extent.

 

[USApat]

P.S. BTW, that's a bridge-ported rotary in the video. It's the first thing I searched for when looking for a backfire video. My first engine was a bridge-ported rotary that I ported when I was 13 years old. Very similar to probably grinding out the curved area of a P76% lower trigger pocket. In fact, identical type work except the porting is steel and aluminum where you grind in a rotary.

If you really want to see someone jump out of their skin , rev a bridge-ported rotary up to about 9,000 rpm in a grocery store parking lot and shut off the car where passer-bys are walking. Immediately exit the vehicle and walk away. Many, many seconds (8-10 seconds) later there will be an incredibly load bang and a huge flash fireball out the back where the dump of unspent fuel ignites inside the exhaust pipe. Much, much louder than this video. Yes, sorry to say, I was that obnoxious when younger. The sadder part, is I would do it all over again.

 

[Michele]

Thanks GLOCK let’s bilk more cash out of p80 so they can’t fight the ATF and other anti p80 monsters. Creeps !

 

[Bongo Lewi]

On that note: Holosun (which was funded by and is majority owned by the CCP) was caught stealing IP from Trijicon and settled. I wouldn't piss on a Holosun optic if it was on fire.

BTW: Swampfox suggests they are a Colorado company. Wrong. They are Chinese and also make optics equipment for the ChiCom defense industry.

Burris is owned by Beretta. Vortex makes its lower-end optics in the Philippines. Aimpoint is Swiss, Steiner is German. Crimson Trace is owned by S&W. I'm ok with that. I lean toward Viridian, Leupold, Trijicon. I'll pay a little more to not feed the enemy.

Patent lawsuits are pretty common. My guess is P80 agrees to change the design or they find some other way to settle. It all depends on how good P80's lawyers are.

I'm surprised that the patent for the slide latch for the G43 (and other Glocks) isn't expired. Maybe Glock should sue Lenny Magill for all the cheap knockoffs Glockstore sells.

 

[USApat]

Don't forget Primary Arms in your list.

Maybe Glock should sue Lenny Magill for all the cheap knockoffs Glockstore sells.

I don't know. Lenny's a pretty good shot. Maybe they've seen some of his videos. LOL

 

[Bcichlid]

Its not big deal at all
Recall reading that the reason P80 went with gen 1-3 frame kits design was because the patent on them expired (last max 15-20 yr).
Glock cant prevent them from selling their frames as the original G17 was released in early 1980s.
As far as G43 goes its different story, if the patent is from 2018 on new updated part P80 cant just take it copy without making some sort of a deal with Glock.
The interesting thing is that the reason back in 1990s that US adapted Beretta 92 over Glock G17 was because Gaston Glock didnt want to give up his patents on G17 design to the Pentagon as its part of the deal with them if they choose your firearm and give you the big contract.
And by the way, he Gaston (born in 1929) is still alive.

 

[Racer88]

On that note: Holosun (which was funded by and is majority owned by the CCP) was caught stealing IP from Trijicon and settled. I wouldn't piss on a Holosun optic if it was on fire.

BTW: Swampfox suggests they are a Colorado company. Wrong. They are Chinese and also make optics equipment for the ChiCom defense industry.

Burris is owned by Beretta. Vortex makes its lower-end optics in the Philippines. Aimpoint is Swiss, Steiner is German. Crimson Trace is owned by S&W. I'm ok with that. I lean toward Viridian, Leupold, Trijicon. I'll pay a little more to not feed the enemy.

Admittedly contributing to thread drift... I really like my Holosun 507 optics. Mind you, my first pistol optic was the venerated / gold standard Trijicon RMR. Purchased MANY years ago, when there was little to no competition. Paid $575 for that sucker! It's still mounted on my HD pistol.

I have to say... regardless of the price, the Holosun is BETTER. A LOT better. While conceding that the Trijicon is more robust in its construction and would likely fare better in harsh battlefield conditions... The Holosun is WAY better in terms of features and usability. I'm not planning to be on any battlefields or rolling around in the mud and rocks.

It does stink a bit, knowing Holosun's lineage. Sigh. But it is what it is. I like the optic, and there is nothing else on the market that compares, feature-wise, at any price. If Trijicon would catch back up technology and feature-wise, I'd be willing to spend the extra $$$.

Hey... let's start a thread on this:

MRDS optics: Chinese vs the rest.

I'm copying this from another thread. @Bongo Lewi On that note: Holosun (which was funded by and is majority owned by the CCP) was caught stealing IP from Trijicon and settled. I wouldn't piss on a Holosun optic if it was on fire. BTW: Swampfox suggests they are a Colorado company. Wrong...

www.patriotgunbuilders.com

 

[NavyVette]

Most of my post implies (even if not written) that the 80% market in general is not a target market for Glock and their products. Not even close. Even if they think 80%'ers are a target market. The backfire video is the "implied" lost sales in Glock slides, and lower and upper parts pieces. Although they really probably loathe supplying the parts and probably want to sell full guns.

I will not buy a full working Glock. You can build one better than they make 'em. If 80% were outlawed, I would buy the Glock lower so that any 80% firearm wasn't a boat anchor.

I think the two primary motivations for people that build 80% firearms is
1. They are tinkerers and enjoy tinkering.
2. They don't want the whole registration process with Big Bro.
(Order of importance and priority varies with the two.)

3. They want custom looking firearms.


This same type of market segmentation exists in motorsports. There are drivers and guys that like to build cars and there are drivers that prefer to pay for their time on the track and have no interest in wrenching, hauling, storing and dealing with the car.

4. They live far enough from town that they don't want to go in just for the only FFL part on an entire firearm.