against Winchester? Some months ago there was buzz on the "shortmag forum" that he was suing Winchester for the shortmag concept. Wondering if anyone out there knows any of the particulars or where something was posted? "Use enough gun - but more common sense"

If it's true I should get some money from Leupold. I invented the Eclipse scope on a goat hunt 20 years ago. Albeit an inverted eclipse......

The suit was settled, on terms that have been sealed and can not be revealed.

Browning engaged me as a consultant in the case several months ago, and I can't get any details of the settlement. One of Browning's attorneys told me only "Browning is happy" with the terms of the settlement.

.

How in the world can he think he is the orignator of the short fat concept? I made a .378 Weatherby shortened to 2 1/4" and necked to 7MM at least twenty-two years ago. I used 96 grains of H870 to propell 130 to 3,330 feet per second. There was just no way I could match the velocity of my 7-.300 Weatherby's velocity. The bold would get hard to lift if I added even two more grains. I used 85 grains of IMR7828 to shoot a 150er at 3,525 feet per second. I don't believe the 26" barrel on the short fat was the reason it was that much slower than the 28" barrel on the long slim one.

And for accuracy either one would occationally shoot sub 1/2" groups. I worked up a compromise between the most accurate and highest velocity for both.

Rick apparently got a patent on the concept. IMHO, that was not a patentable idea. But the patent office apparently issued him one anyway.

Any number of people came-up with the same ideas years earlier � but the patent office apparently issued him a patent anyway.

My conclusion is that "Browning is happy" with the settlement because it could've been worse.

The patent is in Rick's favor. The many earlier cartridges with the same characteristics are contrary to Rick's favor. So it's easy for me to see how it could've been worse but wasn't.

I'm just relieved at no longer being caught between my friend Rick and my friends at Browning and Winchester.

.

Ken,

I just noticed the name on your post. Glad to see, or rather, read you again. There is a thread on "Christ at the campfire" asking about favorite theologian. I posted something to the effect they like people who write what they already believe (jsut like me). If I had thought correctly, I would have posted your name. I still refer to the copies of your stuff from a few months ago. Thanks.

for everything short and fat then he could very well be taking credit for me.......except I'm older than him. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

So this begs the question if he went after Winchester then why not Remington for their SAUM and Lou Palmisano and Ferris Pindell for their PPCs? Looks to me like he saw that someone came up with a great idea and wanted to profit from someone elses work. Kind of a chicken crap thing to do if you ask me.

Local Gunsmith Ralph Payne has been doing them on the 348 case with rim turned down and Wby radius shoulder since the 1960's. Another local, Dave Gentry, started his line on the 416 Rigby case in the 1980's... pretty fascinating stuff that Jamison has the hubris to patent a case variation let alone that the patent office would accept such.

Apparently the patent office doesn't know any more about guns and ammunition than the average news media person <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

I think perhaps Rick is setting a bad precedence. There's always one willing to sell out a group, for personal gain.

Kinda sad, in my book.

Say..... I think I'll patent a case for .22 Cal that looks like a miniaturized 30/06. Then sue Remington for an infringment on it with their obviously plaugurized .222 !!!

Mickey,

No offence intended, but do you think you would consider a New Years resolution to not change the subject line of any threads in 2006? It makes it hard to follow a thread when it keeps changing subject lines.

350Mag,
In 2006 ,why don't you stop whining
and just change the subject line back.
I don't care if you take offence!
Bart

Now that's funny <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Reminds me of Barak's Mom when she sends an e-mail message. I sit and puzzle over her first sentence every time. I know she does it, and yet never remember to look up to the subject line for the beginning of the thought. DUH! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

B'sW

Might not be the "short and fat" idea generally that is patentable, and probably not necking down or shortening any cartridge in general, but specifically necking down the .404 Jeffrey and shortening it to a certain length to fit in short action magazines might be specific enough to be patentable.

Rick did a lot of experimenting with necking down the .404 to various calibers in the mid-90's, these experiments were reported extensively in Shooting Times. Coincidentally, just a few short years later Winchester came out with a series of cartridges based on the .404 Jeffrey which were remarkably similar to what Rick had done.

IIRC there were a few posts on Shooters or maybe even this board condemning Winchester for "stealing" Rick's ideas without even bothering to give credit to his research, much less giving him any royalties or compensation.

That's okay, times change, memories grow short and now he's just a money grubbing whore.

Jim in Idaho,



I agree with you here.

Well, you're probably intelligent enough to understand that I was using irony there.

I vehemently disagree with you. You won't change my opinion and I won't change yours, so there it stands.

"now he's just a money grubbing whore."

I have to agree with that as well. For him to even think he was the first person to come up with the idea is so vain.

Jim, it seems to me that Rick would have been under contract with Shooting Times stating that any thing written or developed while working for Shooting Times would remain the property of Shooting Times. Same going for any development work done directly for Winchester or whom ever! If that wasn't the case shame on them. If Rick did the developement work and wasn't restricted by any such clause. Then he deserves his fair share, in both moneys and credit. On a side note back in the 80's and 90's the art of patent infringment grew all out of proporten. One case was with Catipillar I believe and their logo. And the rampant stealing of dot.com's that had be neglectfully not renewed. Even Bill Gates found this out when Microsoft.com had been forgotten about. The guy that re-registered it turned back around and sold it to him for $10, he had done it as a prank. Others weren't so lucky. I thought they had passed laws against such tactics. So the only thing I can see is that if the courts ruled in Ricks favor, then they must of had good cause. Or a settlement was reached to avoid bad publicty, high cost of a court battle, and possible large jury award. This also has turned into a new scam. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Phil

Is that patent online?

Is anybody here privy to the details and actual transcripts of the case, and is anybody here privy to the actual settlement in question?

Facts would be nice here instead of conjecture. I will be happy to reconsider my opinion if someone can present me with the actual facts of the case and the judgement of the court, which is the only "opinion" that really matters.

Until then, ALL other opinions, mine included, are simply that - uneducated opinions.



PS: I usually refrain from posting opinions, as mine is no more valid than anybody else's. I just get fed up with everybody throwing the "innocent until proven guilty " concept out the window and lynching everybody and his brother based on nothing. If someone can prove to me that Rick Jamison's case is totally baseless and Browning caved in solely to avoid a costly legal battle then yes, he is a money grubbing whore. But until anybody here does that, based on court records and only on court records, I will give the man the benefit of the doubt, just as I give it to anyone.

The only relevent issue is who was smart enough to patent the idea first. He might be a whore but the thing about whores and lawyers is that they always get paid! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> Better paid than being another sideline chump wishing you would have thought of the same thing. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

No one here is privy to any of the facts of the case � not legally, and probably not at all � unless he's party to the suit or an officer of the court, and even such a one can not reveal anything. The court papers pertaining to the case and the details of the settlement are sealed � secret, as in not available to the press or the public. As consultant to Browning on the case, I'm as close to it as any other outsider, and I can not learn the details of the settlement or the bases for it.

Fine with me.

But facts have little to do with the opinions of opinionated opiners, so go at it all you want.

.

Issued patents (not sure how far back they go) are online. The one and only live patent issued to a Jamison is this one, issued to John R., of Springfield OR:

Are opiners in the opossum family? Is there an open season?? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Denton,

If you search USPTO with Jamison as Inventors Name (IN) you will find (inter alia):

6,675,717
6,678,983

both covering ultra-short rifle cartridges.

At a quick reading I am not sure which claims were infringed by Winchester/Browning or Remington for that matter.

jim

Ken, not always sure if you're whipping me or patting me on the back. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

But that is my point - opinions too often have too little to do with anything factual.

Hopefully I will take a deep breath and settle down, and this will be my last post on this subject. Very little bothers me in this world, but injustice and prejudice is definitely in the "bother me" category. Too often I sit here and see peoples' names dragged through the mud based on nothing.

Craig Boddington is an a--hole. Elmer Keith is a pumped up egotist who lied about all his shooting feats. So and so is this and that, almost always negative comments and always by people who never met the folks in question.

That negative name calling just burns my hide and my integrity will not allow me to sit idly by and see this anymore.

Maybe the people in question are whores, a--holes, egotists and liars, and probably a very small minority of the "names" in the gun business really are one or more of these. But we don't know that and until it is proven to me that they are indeed nasty people, I will always assume the the best about people and speak out against those who don't.

Okay- my outburst is through. Too much Christmas spirit in conflict with too much negativity I see all around me.

Good find!!

Checkout this text of one of the Jamison patents

United States Patent 5,826,361
Jamison October 27, 1998
Short-action chamber and bolt assembly for high power firearm cartridge

Abstract

A firearm cartridge case capable of withstanding internal gas pressures of at least about 50,000 psi has two substantially cylindrical portions of significantly different diameters interconnected by a frusto-conical shoulder portion. The case has a ratio of its overall length to its diameter, at a location 1.25 inch from its base, of no more than about 4.2, giving it an unusually short, fat profile. The base of the case has a rim with an outer diameter substantially no less than the case diameter at the aforementioned location, to facilitate reliable feeding of the cartridge from the magazine. The corresponding firearm chamber which matingly accepts the cartridge is capable of withstanding internal gas pressures of at least about 65,000 psi. A short-action bolt assembly smoothly and reliably feeds and chambers each cartridge by providing an extractor grippingly engageable with the cartridge by movement of the cartridge transversely to the bolt face when the bolt is in its unlocked position, so as to grip the cartridge while the bolt pushes the cartridge into the chamber.
Inventors: Jamison; John R. (84784 Christensen Rd., Eugene, OR 97405)
Appl. No.: 818440
Filed: March 17, 1997

Current U.S. Class: 42/25; 42/16
Intern'l Class: F41A 003/00
Field of Search:



Looks to me like the Winchester/Browning Patent Attorneys goofed.

HBB

Rick Jamison invented a modem interface? Is it a short fat one?

Sorry -- but that's the patent I came up with when I clicked on the link... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> "copy and paste" -- what a concept -- that works! Pretty interesting reading -- He does reference Palmaisano and Pindell, but claims a unique combination of case, chamber and bolt design to make it all work.

You know -- I don't think you can fault the guy for being smart enough to put the patent application together and make it stick. And if he patented it before Winchester/Browning developed their WSM line -- then the law is on his side, whether it makes sense or you like it or not.

As an old friend in Wyoming used to say:

"It may not be right, but it is so."

In this case, it may even be right...

I reworked my post and just put in the text of the Patent Info



HBB

Umm- so just how does this affect the buying public? Last I checked it still was the 300 WSM and not the 300 Jamison or anything else - 99% of the buying public will never even be aware of this.

Methinks there are other things more important - like how come I can't get a Ruger M77 Mk II (crf) with the tang safety? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

And I reworked my post to point out that if I had followed your directions to copy and paste I would have found the right patent <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />...

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

HBB

If "Browning is happy", I guess it is case closed.
I still don't agree with it, but it is not my business.
BTW, glad to see you back and posting ,Sir!
cat

It's been an established principle in the gun world that metallic cartridges are public domain, open to anyone's tinkering. It's a figgin brass cylinder shaped and reshaped... "intellectual property" doesn't enter into it except for mental midgets. Jamison was savvy enough to patent "his idea" and savvy enough to sue... he should, however, be hounded out of the shooting community for violating established principles of behavior.

Brad,



Positively I agree. One of the posters listed some adjetives to describe some folks in the shooting business. It seems to me most apply to our unfriend Rick.

I don't think it is right to be too tough on Rick.

If he made no new contribution to the state of the art, his patent cannot be enforced. The fact that he was successful in enforcing it, even in an out of court settlement, says that he probably did make such a contribution. If he hadn't, the attorneys would be pounding his claim out of existence with "prior art" or "obvious to anyone skilled in the art".

If he did make a contribution, however slight, he's entitled to the proceeds of his contribution.

It's fairly easy to get a patent, but they aren't worth much until you have successful enforcement.

I talked to a friend who works for an outfit here in San Diego that does a lot of applied research, and patents a fair amount of stuff. He says they budget $500,000 a year for patent defense, and consider that they not very aggressive.

Reading the text of the earliest patent, I found the arguments made "not compelling". I could not get all the figures to come up, and those that did were showing a Ruger M77. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

It would be interesting to get at least the details of the law suit. I expect that is public information, even if the settlement is sealed.

jim

Mr. Howell,


This got me to wondering if you ever patented your many cartridges?
If not perhaps you should. You have made a great many contributions to the field.
Oh yeah, the sling swivels too.

lewis

and consider the resolution presented to the Board and it passed unanimously. No offense taken.

You mean like Pat Riley and the "Three peat" that got him royalties? He thought to copyright the phraseology first and made big bucks in doing so.

Imagine the money I could make if I copyright "Of course I respect you."

Lewis
At a seminar with a well-known furniture designer the question was asked about how he protected his many designs.

"I might worry about it a lot more if I thought it was going to be the only good idea I could come up with..."
art

Brad's earlier post is right on the money as far as I am concerned. I bet Mr. Jamison would not have gone after some fledgling manufacturer (even with his patent) but, a major manufacturer was simply easy money.

I wonder what Carmichael got from Remmy for "his" 260???

Huntr

The way I heard it was that Jamison went to Winchester/USRAC with his concept. I don't know if it was patented at the time. Winchester turned down his idea and apparently "that was that". At some time later, low and behold, the 300WSM is introduced and looked a lot like what Jamison had spoke of. So do we discredit him for sticking up for his idea? Or do we make Winchester the goat for apparently "stealing" his idea and claiming it to be their own?
I don't have a dog in this fight but it would be nice to get an accurate chronological overview of the events. Only then can we make an educated decision.

bizymocha,

Who wants to be educated to make a decission. Haven't you noticed we prefer ignorant predjudice? There is no need to defend oneself when one has a good ignorant predjudice to judge someone.

bizymoucha,

I have zero inside knowledge here, but Mr. Jamison got his first patent in '98, while Winchester introduced the .300 WSM in 2000. At that time I thought Winchester were being toads for claiming that it was an entirely new case and design when several wildcatters and proprietary case designs were out there in the public domain.

In particular Jim Busha's Heavy Express Magnum and HE Short Action Mags were being advertised in the Wolfe magazines.

jim

Jamison did approach Winchester with the short mag. From what little I have heard, Winchester was interested but Jamison wanted more money than Winchester was willing to pay. Jamison also insisted on Winchester naming the cartridge after him.

While I think there is a rather large ego involved, I would have done the same thing Jamison did. He had his time and probably his money invested in the development of his version of the short mags.

Who is Rick Jamison?

He's the guy who "invented" the short fat idea - which Winchester ripped off <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Naw - just stirring the pot - he is a writer and apparently a gun tinkerer of some ability.


I was thinking about this - not really being in the know - but I could see an instance where a guy has an idea and approaches a company to help develop it - an agreement is reached and then that company fails to uphold their end - perhaps on a royalty or some such thing.

Perhaps Rick went to Winchester with the WSM concept line or Winchester saw what Rick had done - offered some tweaking with powders avail to Win only or mfg changes and they agreed on a royalty or fee. Win (apparently) didn't hold up their end and Rick went after what was his and agreed on.

Seems a likely story as I just can not see a patent being the issue here --- some others would be lining up like crazy to say someone "stole" their wildcat.

I don't think we'll ever REALLY know.

God Love You, Ken, ain't that the truth.

BMT

One thing is certain, I bet that we won't see him writing any articles on Winchester products in the near future.

Well...if Rick did all the R&D, and was not employed by Winchester, then they did steal his idea. Think of how much money they made off the 300WSM, and he got nothing for it. Funny, because the engineers at Winchester got a lot of credit for being so brilliant in their discovery.

First of all, "Olin" developed the WSM's... NOT WINCHESTER AND NOT JAMISON. The R&D for the WSM's was in the 100's of thousands and was incurred by Olin. Jamison developed the JAMISON LINE OF CARTRIDGES and spent a couple thousand bucks (maybe) for drawings and reamers.

The guy's a boring writer. I'm glad he's got his retirement funded... now maybe he'll go away.

But doesn't Olin own Winchester? So what is the difference?

And didn't Olin start their R&D based off of his R&D?

NO and NO...

Brad,
Man you really don't like Rick Jamisom...
Did he steal your girlfriend or put sugar
in your gas tank?
How do you know he only spent "couple of thousand bucks(maybe)"?
You sound sure of yourself...So how do you know?
Bart

Nope, never cared for Jamison's "writing" and yeah, I did catch him filling the tank with sugar <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Developing a cartridge is simple... anyone with CAD can make the drawings on a home computer (or, like me, you can break out the drafting gear). Since Jamison is an engineer, it was simple matter for him to produce his own drawings. Reamers are cheap, even one-off's... check out Clymer's website. Pressure testing is cheap and easy for anyone with the gear (which Jamison has). Any knuckle head (me in particular) can design a "new" cartidge... it's called "wildcatting" and has been going on for at least two or three years I hear...

How hard is any of this to figure out, seriously?

As to other sources, they shall remain nameless.

But, why is it you cannot see the guy's point of view at all? I am not saying Winchester stole his data and idea, but what if they did? You don't like the guy so all of the sudden he has no right to his R&D?

I bet if you invented the "30-Brad", and patented it, you would be pissed if someone like Federal came along and put their name on it.

� Parallel, independent development and invention are at least as old as the monk, Mendel, who experimented with genetics and statistics. Twain went broke backing the Paige type-setter, because Paige kept dinking around with "improvements" so long that Mergenthaler beat him to the market with Linotype. Parallel development has always been very common in the wildcatting of cartridges.

� "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this) has been recognized as a prominent total fallacy for a long, long time.

It is stupid, therefore, to assume that So-and-So-Two "stole" or copied So-and-So-One's cartridge because the later version is virtually or completely identical to the earlier version.

But logic, alas, has as little to do with the opinions of opinionated opiners as facts do � as many posts in this thread both prove and illustrate.

.

Dog, have you not followed any of the posts in this thread... there were MANY short-fats available before Jamisons, from Gradle, Payne, Gentry, HE, Lazzeroni, etc... only Jamison had the Hubris to defy 100 years of wildcatting tradition. As I said, he got his "pension" now he needs to be hounded out of the neighborhood.

I think we are being very hard on Rick Jamison here. We have no idea what the details are here, isn't Microsoft what it is today because basically IBM hired Paul Allen and Bill Gates to develop the first operating system for a home computer rather than do it themselves?
How is this different, Jamison patented his idea, therefore whether you guys agree or not he owns it.
ps I like his writing, and he never put any suger in my gas tank.

Say's you...

Ideas abound.

What are the facts?

Does anybody care?

.

I think he is a Bore and will not read the rags the money grubber writes for!!!!

I would like to think Rick got what he deserved, also Browning/Winchester got what they deserved.

As to Bill Gates, he sold a lie to IBM, in that he said he had the DOS operating system operational.

Gates and his team did not develop major parts of it. They got it (fairly) via Gordon Letwin, who left Heath to join Microsoft. Most of the kernel of MSDOS is HDOS. There's a big chunk of it for which Gates does not own the copyright.

When I first heard this story, it gave me a negative view of Rick. Now, providing what I have heard is true, I am in agreement with Rick.

----------------------------------------

Well said!

I have to change my opinion on this. I did a little research and talked to a few people in the industry and have determined that Jamison is nothing but a pain in the ass that needs to go away.

I think granting a patent for a specific cartridge, that does not introduce some new technology, is wholly inappropriate. A cartridge is basically a set of dimensions. Theoretically, if you had enough time and money, you could submit patents for enough combinations of dimensions, that every new cartidge would have to be named after you. What an achievement. I don't see any real technological difference between a .300 WSM and a 7 X 57 to justify a patent. Now all Browning/USRAC products cost a little more, but the lawyers are happy. Whoopee.

And the late Dennis Marshall got paid by Outers for inventing the Foul Out when he worked at Johnson Controls even though electroplating was in use long before then, and William C. Davis, Jr. was paid for his development work on VLD bullets when he ran Tioga Engineering even though Thouvenin's "carabine a' tige" used boattail bullets as far back as the Civil War.
How would any of you like it if someone came to your place and took something of yours? Apparantly that's how Jamison saw it, and apparantly that is how the issue was settled.
Jamison is a collegue and friend of mine and from day one I have found him to be one of the most modest people I have ever met. When we talk about guns and cartridges, it's never a conversation about him. He is also one of the more helpful and thoughtful men I have met in this industry, and wish there were more like him. He is one of the few writers out there with the talent and equipment to actually form an intelligent hypothesis and properly test and report on it and I hope he continues writing.

I think Rufus makes a good point here. ---2MG

Rufus made my point but made it better...

To me this is like in fly fishing when guys take an established pattern and substitute one material and then call it something different. A Hare's Ear is a Hares Ear if it has turkey flat on the back or peacock herl.

I could give a [bleep] about Jamison's Ambulance Chasin' ways('tis The Age of Litigation and all),but to every man I know,his writing is scoffed as pedestrian rambling.

He's an embarrassment,as an Ink Slayer,to anyone who ever popped a primer.................