Whatever happened to Rick Jamison ? He used to write some pretty good reloading stuff but he seems to have vanished in the last several years.
dogdoc

Do a search, there are several hundred posts discussing Rick Jamison.

He obtained a patent on the WSM case design and than later sued Winchester for patent infringement and won. **Might not be 100% accurate, but it's close enough**

Either he's so rich now he doesn't need to write anything further, or more than likely nobody will touch him because of the crap he pulled.

ps: I enjoyed his articles as well

If Rick owned the patent, Winchester owed him since they were proven wrong. End of story.

i'm pretty sure short magnums pre-date that patent.

and it wasn't just Winchester.

That's kinda the irony of it, and I'm sure why no hunting magazine will touch him now.

Any one of us could go out and find something that's being widely used and if it didn't have a patent or a patent pending, we could apply for one and if it went through we could also sue anyone who used our idea. Doesn't make it morally right, but everyone's out for a buck.

Again, who knows maybe Rick is off somewhere sitting on a beach right now living the life. OR? maybe he never really thought his lawsuit out and the repercussions of it?

He might even be a member here------------Lee24 perhaps?

Pretty safe to believe that ain't the case...

Patents are rather difficult to get, generally, but very simple once you have one. You own it; the others don't. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or feels -- if Jamison had a patent on the design and Winchester wanted to use it, they had to pay him. They apparently believed differently, and lost.

Like I said -- it doesn't matter what any one of us, or all of us, might or might not believe, or think is right, or want to see, or anything else. The only thing that matters is holding the patent and responding to the patent.

Dennis

(ps...I couldn't give a rat's ass about the WSM cartridges, one way or the other...)

rick's patent was granted in 1998.

P.O. Ackley described in print short magnum cartridges in 1962.


http://www.chuckhawks.com/column18_death_short_magnums.htm

And local Smith Ralph Payne was doing them in late 50's and Dave Gentry had his own line in the 80's... only Rick Jamison had the gall and arrogance to take 100 years of handloading tradition and turn it on its head with his patent and litigation... likely he's a smart guy and did the "right" business thing, but its no wonder he's a pariah. I never did like his techy/dry approach to writing.

Jamisons lawsuit and subsequent revenue from WSM sales, both ammo and rifles, is the reason Ruger developed their own "short fat's"...

I remember reading Jamisons articles on his short mags created by cutting a 404 Jeffrey case to ~2.5" and necking to different calibers, I'm thinking that was ~97 and as mentioned he got a pattent in 1998. As I recall it came out in the court case that he'd approached various arms makers, including Winchester with his patented design. They said they weren't interested, as well as whatever other makers he approached.

Subsequent to that Winchester took the 348 win case, turned it into a rimless case, necked it to 270 and 30 cal and walla, the WSM. There was also a gunsmith in the mid 90's named Jim Brusha of Heavy Express rifles that did the same thing with the .348 brass, and was written up in some of the gun mags. But he didn't patent the design.

Winchester and others go on to sell short mags, and Jamison sues. He gets an out of court settlement for patent right violations.

Needless to say gunmags make their $ from advertising, and if they have a writer who has sued their advertisers, they are almost guranteed to loose out much of their advertising revenue.

There was a little more to it than that. Winchester actually was interested.

JB did you forget to finish the post or is that all the info you are comfortabe in giving out?
Ernie

Jamison presented the idea to Olin... they passed, changed his design slightly and hey-presto... WSM's!

That's all I'm gonna say.

Go back and read JB's posts on the earlier thread...

Why heck would anyone here come out in defense of Winchester (Olin Corporation) over a fellow hunter and , excuse me JB, "rifle loony"? What has Winchester ever done for you? I'm pretty sure their board of directors never made a descission that took your's, or anyone else's personnel well being into account.

I only know Mr. Jamison through his writing. I've never read anything to make me question his firearms and hunting experience and knowledge or his character. So how do you make the jump to "he's a money grabbing so and so"?

Fellas, we can argue the ins and outs, rights and wrongs all we want right here. Big it's just a fart in a hurricane. The thing is over. Rick Jamison is gone as a gun writer as effectively as if he were dead.

(Only met him once, two years ago. Was NOT favorably impressed.)

mw406,

When did I say anything in "defense" of Winchester? All I was dfoing was commenting on the story as I heard it, from various sources on both sides of the question.

seams these short mag been around long before, that 284 comes to mind ,along with 264 win, a long with the rem 350, along with 308win, seem close to 300 savage,there lot more. ricks i belive was 25 cal 300 case called 25 pronhorn

Mule Deer, I didn't mean to imply that anyone needed to defend anybody else. I look back at what I wrote and realize that I had actually "dised" Winchester in exactly the same way that I was complaining about. I'm usually smarter than that, usually. Anyways, it was the underlying current of the earlier comments that got me going. That is, just because an individual is involved in a law suit, does not mean they're just seeking monetary reward. He may have been standing up for himself and doing what he felt was right. I do not know, and I have no way of knowing one way or the other.

I did enjoy Jamisons writing though.

I don't know who was right and who was wrong in this deal, but this reminds me of the story, apparently true, about the guy who came up with the idea for the intermittent windshield wiper. He stupidly took it to GM (or Ford?) and offered to sell the idea. Probably for a pretty small sum. They "blew him off" but, a year or so later, they came out with this new idea, an intermittent wiper. He sued them. They had dozens of lawyers on call and he had almost nothing. He kept at it, literally years and years, and finally, after all the appeals were exhausted, he won!

There had to be more to the story than has been discussed here. If all Jamison did was to duplicate earlier work, then even if he had been granted a patent through the oversight of the patent office, Winchester could easily have gotten it voided based on prior art. Does anyone know the patent number? We could read the patent.

If you google up "Rick Jamison patent" you can read the patent disclosure and the patent itself, #6,354,221.

The patent actually cites the work of Mashburn and others. According to the disclosure, it does not attempt to copy the "short fat" concept in general, but mentions certain ratios of length to diameter plus shoulder angle as being necessary for the purpose of maximizing powder burning efficiency and minimizing throat erosion.

In otherwords, he patented a certain shape for short fats and explained why, in his opinion, that shape was optimal.

Read it yourself. I think we may be giving him a bum rap.

Here's the patent..

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=6SgQAAAAEBAJ&dq=jamison+cartridge


Very difficult to defend against patents from what I hear. Typically runs $100k in the software industry to fight even a stupid one, and it's rampant here with obvious patents everywhere you look. Winchester might just have looked at the books and paid him off, they were going to lose money one way or another even if they were right.

I very much liked the guy's writing and techy approach to shooting. He had every bit to do with my love of the 45-70 and the Marlin 1895.

I miss his stuff.

Mule Deer,

Do you know Rick Jamison well enough to let us know if he's is doing well or not? That would be my concern if he has been "black balled" as a gun writer. Assuming that is why he isn't writing for magazines?

After reading the patent I understand how it covered a new
invention. If a particular case shape indeed increases the
energy by 10% that is new.
Good Luck!

Rick has apparently been blackballed by the shooting press. I never saw where he did anything wrong. He came up the hard way like most of us. On the other had, it seems as if Jim Zumbo has been forgiven and welcomed back with open arms, at least by the phony outdoor TV shows. If given a choice, I would take Rick every time.

I agree 100% with that statement..

AMEN!

Ricks articles were the main reason I bought Shooting Times over the years.. Don't buy it any more..

Maybe a dumb question but does Rick Jamison own "Jamison International Brass"?

idahoguy,

I haven't seen Rick since the last time he was at the SHOT Show several years ago, but hear through the grapevine that he is doing OK.

An over sight by the US Patent Office is very, very unlikely. It takes years for an engineer or scientist to become proficient in a giver area of patent review. Intense research is conducted by the engineer or scientist in charge of the review & after making a preliminary decision is reviewed by superiors. I have friends that work for the US Patent Office as engineers with over 20 years experience. This is not a typical inefficient government agency. Who every is applying for the patent has to pay for the research leading up to the granting or denial of the patent. Our employment office places patent attorneys & secretaries with private law firms. In this case Mr. Jamison would have hired a patent law firm to research if a basic for securing a patent even existed. This is not a cheap investment. If the patent firm decided there was a basis for a new patent then a very complicated & costly submission would be made to the US Patent Office. The US Patent Office makes a profit each year & employees reviewing patent applications have a quarterly & annual goal.

As noted before, there is much to this story, both favoring and disfavoring Jamison�s position. He did experiment with a cartridge concept that used ratios of length and volume to increase efficiency; and he patented this concept. Further, he did a considerable amount of experimentation and documented the results which formed much of the basis of his patent application.

Prior to this, Mashburn, Ackley, and others experimented with the short fat concept, although they did not define it as such, nor patent it; Jamison did. One close situation is that of Roy Gradle who developed the 7mm Gradle by removing the rim of the 348 Winchester and cutting an extraction groove in the case, blowing it out and necking it down. However, the patent process requires that the patent examiner examine all relevant patents (may be several hundred or more) to see if the pending patent�s claims infringe on a prior patent or claims made therein. The examiner, however, cannot know of any �prior art� or undocumented experimentation unless he (or she) is thoroughly familiar with the field and not just with existing patents.

I�ve worked with (not for) the Patent Office for several years and have not met a single person who shoots (undoubtedly there are some, but I�ve not met them (although Stuart Otterson who wrote the excellent book �The Bolt Action� was a shooter and reloader), so it is unlikely that most patent examiners reviewing Jamison�s claims would be aware of any �prior art� by others. This �prior art� might have been determined to be in the area of common knowledge and therefore un-patentable. One example of such common knowledge is starting a fire using gasoline and a match; this has probably never been patented but if I try to patent it, my claim would be denied, since it is such common knowledge.

Had a knowledgeable shooter who was familiar with the �prior art� been the patent examiner, the result might have been different in granting the patent. Jamison certainly experimented with cartridge shape and ratios and documented the results. He made a claim that resulted in a patent that he defended. The result financially hurt the company infringing on the patent. However, was it Winchester (USRA) or Olin (Winchester Ammunition) that paid the claim?

As an aside but related Mic McPherson has a patent for a shoulder angle case volume size relationship. I think Savage does or did chamber guns for his design and someone was supplying brass and maybe ammo. So Jamisons approach although new isn't unique.

The patent process is a crap shoot. You might get a patent examiner who really has a lot of experience in that field, and you might get some dolt. The policies on patents change, too. Until a few years ago, you couldn't patent software or any "mathematical algorithm", and very few processes. Now, they issue patents for software methods that have been common knowledge for 30 or 40 years.

Then they will deny a patent on something that has nothing remotely like it. I saw a very novel device for gently transferring severely burned patients with multiple fractures from on gurney to bed, and to wheelchairs. It was denied, because, "it could be used for sunbathing." What!

But when a patent fight gets into court, there will be deeper examinations of prior art, and there is more involved than the patent. When the parties had discussed licensing the design, then one goes off and uses the design without a contract, there is going to be a host of issues.

� FWIW, a mutual friend told me that Rick's latest wife is a very wealthy heiress.

� If Rick'e share of Winchester ammo's income were a threat to W's bottom line, there'd soon be no more infringing ammo from Winchester.

does she have a sister?

Has that claim been verified by actual experience? When I read the patent it sounded like a bunch of BS to me.

A �quick search� in the USPTO database (http://patft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html) shows that a John R. Jamison of Eugene, Oregon, has a number of patents related to short magnums. In �Term 1� of the query, enter �Jamison-John-R.� In �Field 1� of the query, select �Inventor Name.�

Listed below are many of Jamison�s patents. In parenthesis are the filing and granting dates for the patent.

6,678,983: Ultra-short-action firearm for high-power firearm cartridge (February 21, 2003 - January 20, 2004)
6,675,717: Ultra-short high-power firearm cartridge (February 21, 2003 - January 13, 2004)
6,595,138: High-power firearm cartridge (April 4, 2002 - July 22, 2003)
6,550,174: Short-action firearm for high-power firearm cartridge (November 13, 2001 - April 22, 2003)
6,397,718: Device for reducing the eccentricity and non-uniformities among cartridge cases (May 11, 2000 - June 4, 2002)
6,354,221: High-power firearm cartridge (July 29, 1999 - March 12, 2002)
5,970,879: High-power firearm cartridge for short-action chamber and bolt assembly (April 17, 1998 - October 26, 1999)
5,826,361: Short-action chamber and bolt assembly for high power firearm cartridge (March 17, 1997 - October 27, 1998)
5,531,113: Ballistics measuring system (September 22, 1994 - July 2, 1996)
5,357,796: Ballistics measuring system (October 1, 1993 - October 25, 1994)

After reading some of the abstracts, I wish that I had filed patents for these �inventions� after Remington came out with its 350 Magnum and 6.5 Magnum in 1965 and 1966.

I've always enjoyed Rick Jamison's writing. His monthly column in Shooting Times was always worth the price of the magazine, and kept me a subscriber for many years. His book, 'The Rifleman's Handbook', is one of my favorites.

As far as the whole Winchester WSM deal goes....I think it's a shame how he's been treated. He took a concept, refined it, recieved a patent for it, presented it to Winchester, they were interested, entered into a contract with him and then they stiffed him.

He sued and won.

But now, instead of being considered an example of a stand-up 'little guy' that took on Corporate America and won....he's been crucified by the industry and the shooting public in general for doing no more than standing up for his rights.

Rick Jamison gets blackballed. But they're making a movie about the guy that Ford did the same thing to on intermittent wipers.

Jim Morrison had it right: "People are strange....."

I must be the only one on the forum who didn't enjoy his writing. First, he replaced Bob Milek whose writing I really appreciated. Then, he seemed to go off on some technical kick for a few columns and then move on to some other technical kick for a while, etc. I still remember his attempts to improve bullet performance by using fluid in the end of a hollow point bullet and sealing it in. I think he also wrote about using a small bb or piece of shot in the hollow point cavity to enhance bullet expansion.

As far as the law suit, I still believe he patented what others had already done before him for many years. Opportunist at best. Parasite at worst.

this predates Jamison's patent by a healthy margin, yet seems to infringe?

Nope, I'm another!



Agree.

I still have the magazines and articles where he touted what he patented, specifically stating the lower capacity of the 338 Jamison equalled the 338 Win Mag. I built at least two of them, maybe more as I don't recall, and they are no different in performance than any other lesser capacity cartridge and case. They all still follow the laws of physics, less capacity, less performance whether it's the short/fats or the rounded shoulders of the 'venturi effect' Weatherby's.

We can debate whether the 'Short/Fat' patent should have been granted until the cows come home. Personally, I don't think it should have. But that's neither here nor there to the lawsuit.

Here's what people seem to lose sight of: It wasn't the 'patent', that Jamison sued Winchester over. It was Winchester's actions involving the use of the idea (that he brought them) that triggered the lawsuit.

Effective 'spin' isn't solely confined to politics.

Sometime today, I'll be loading some 300WSM ammo. I'll think of Mr. Jamison as I do this and tip my hat to him.

Good shootin'. -Al

Back on page 1 of this thread I made it pretty clear I disliked his writing and thought his lawsuit was a farce

I enjoyed Jamison's writing, though his more technical stuff sailed above my right-brained head. Don't have ANY of the facts about why he's no longer around the writing game.

It's kind of odd some folks here, a purportedly conservative bunch, think he should have simply "shared the wealth" with the firearms industry.

Seems to me, the difference between Jamison and many others who run out and cry "Eureka!" "It's Alive!" or "Looky What I Done" is that he patented his idea and, possibly, has profited.

Consider Elmer Keith, who worked for decades on load development and wrote endlessly on the subject of heavily loaded .44 Specials. He lobbied gun and ammo makers to just go ahead and load the thing and manufacture handguns strong enough to handle it. Yes, I know other folks were working parallel tracks.

But how much did Elmer ever receive in cash, goods or services for being the "father of the .44 Magnum"? Probably a few N-Frames, a few cases of ammo, etc. But did he receive a royalty?

Speaking of Keith, in his 1955 work "Sixguns" on page 105 he extolled the virtues of a particular kind of sight for fast target acquisition and aerial shooting.

On page 107 that sight is illustrated by son Ted, along with a number of other sights.

"One variety...is the wide angle English V rear sight with a platinum center line, and not over a 20-degree angle to the sides of the V...This ...sight is fast with either a post or bead front sight...tipped with red or gold."

Fast forward 40 years and a company was begun by a Texas law enforcement officer making just those type of sights except with white beads and center stripes of white. Got some on my own fighting guns. But Keith was never mentioned as an inspiration.

Ironically, that enterprising cop was later aced by the money guys at his company and now pens a few articles a year for...a gun mag.

Friend of mine had a noted pistolsmith make a three-dot front-and-rear sight system for him � but didn't patent it. Now three-dot handgun sights are an international stamderd.

Nearly a hundred years ago, my dad didn't patent his design for s universal (collet-type) shotgun choke. Later, Poly Choke did.

What was the original idea that he brought them?

If you compare the date the patent was applied for to the date that Winchester anounced the WSM's the patent was applied for after the cartridge was announced. By several months. I think Winchester looked at the cost of fighting the patent against sales of the rifles/ammo and just decided it was cheaper to settle out of court; even if this meant paying Jamison a "royalty" on the rifles already built. If they were already planing to discountiue those calibers they wouldn't be paying the "royalty" for very long.

I don't see this as anybodys business but Winchester and Jamisons....

God is great, beer is good and people are crazy!

And the people who have to pay the extra $30 for a rifle chambered to a WSM. Or the people who buy ammo for them. Or the people/companies who already had a short magnum design in play long before Rick claimed it as his idea...

You mean Winchester wasn't going to try to recoup their R&D investment?

Or do you mean they didn't have any investment? Hmmmm.

Maybe the WSM fans should thank Rick Jamison.

I agree 100%, Ray--for people on the Campfire to speculate or pick sides without knowing the whole story is about like getting your "hard" news from the tabloids at the supermarket.

So what else is "new?"

Where did you see the word "original" used?

Palmissano and Pindell could probably have slammed the door on the 'short/fat' wannabe's in 1975, had they chosen to do so. And Remington's Jim Stekyl had already been working with the BR case design since the later 1960's. Heck, the 284 Winchester (a short/fat in it's own right) has been around since 1963.

There have been one or two "original" cartridges lately, though the WSM's were not among them. Most of the "originals" are such niche cases (pun intended) that they're hardly ever seen by the public.

And I agree with Ray, John B. and Dr. Howell that it's best left to the parties involved. I probably shouldn't have said a thing and given the benefit of hindsight....I wish I wouldn't have.

I do miss his writing and appreciate the stuff he gave us.

Good shootin'. -Al

I can't prove it. But it's my best guess that
Rick Jamison posted here as "Wisegezzer".

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/ubb/userposts/id/6037/view/posts/page/2

I know if I had a wife that was an heiress I wouldn't work...........I,d be hunting all the time!!!

That's what a former friend of mine thought � and tried � until she dumped him because he was freeloading instead of working.

Her family owns banks in Dallas and big ranches in the Texas hill country. His daughters are still entitled, but he isn't.

I wonder if the person who came up with the idea of
bottled drinking water is still making money.

The fellow who came-uo with the waxed-paper carton for milk and other liquids became very wealthy on a very small per-unit royalty.

Nope, Wisegeezer is another gun writer who writes very regularly nowadays.

--Bob

Yes, Ford paid a bundle for the intermittent windshield wiper infringement, but the inventor never worked again. Such is life and a good parallel to Jamison.

Care to offer a hint of who?

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/495297

In the case of John R. Jamison versus Olin Corporation, Winchester Division; U.S. Repeating Arms Co., Inc.; Browning; Browning Arms Co.; and G.I. Joe's Inc., the U.S. District Court in Oregon rendered a judgment in 28-Sept-2005:

http://www.websupp.org/data/DOR/3:03-cv-01036-525-DOR.pdf

It's an interesting story. Jamison claims that there was an agreement to develop a Jamison-Ruger-Winchester (JRW) cartridge and to announce the "300 JRW" at a hunt in Texas on 22-February-1999. Olin wanted Jamison to agree to no royalties. Jamison withdrew from the hunt but unfortunately did not object to the hunt proceeding without him. Writers were asked not to write about the cartridge and the JRW Project was later terminated after failed negotiations. In September 2000 and at the 2001 Shot Show, Olin and Browning announced the 300 WSM which Jamison claims is a "JRW-type" cartridge.

The court's mixed ruling of 28-September-2005 is: "Browning Defendants� Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Quasi-Contract Claim (#295) is granted in part and denied in part. Olin�s Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts 3 Through 8 (#328) is granted in part and denied in part. In addition, I allow plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice Counts 7 and 8 of plaintiff�s Consolidated Second Amended Complaint (#418)."

The thing is, R.J. may be a prince or a cad, but he apparently had his ducks in order in regards to his lawsuite. Meaning a major organization with lawyers out the wazoo were unable to disprove his claim, or to put it in another way, he proved his claim over the arguments of corporate lawyers.

Which means he must have documented his claims very well. If gunsmiths and shooters before had already invented whatever he claims to have invented, surely his claim would not have been upheld in court.

Basic fact is, he won. The case wasn't decided around a campfire or by a group of fans, it was settled with mountains of evidence and the weight and preponderance of that evidence.

As to why he's not writing, I guess it is payback, but I'm not sure to whom, since Winchester is out of business. Likely it's also influenced by the dozens of writers of R.J.'s ability waiting in the wings, and he's simply not necessary to any particular gunwriting task.

I also think that shooters who shoot WSMs are probably paying James for every round they put downrage.

So maybe Rick Jamison is responsible for Winchester going out of business

I thought they came up with new rounds to sell more guns. In Keiths books he mentioned several business deals where he came up short. I knew Bill Tilden the old Dever gunsmith. He got a dollar per M70 for his trigger improvement. When Redfield took over the Tilden mounts and rings he got a piece of the action.

I also think that shooters who shoot WSMs are probably paying James for every round they put downrage."

You think? Absolutely they are, and so it seems the industry seemed to go in different directions to avoid royalties IMO.

I agree with everything in your post EXCEPT the "Winchester going out of Business" part..

WRONG.

Winchester NEVER went out of business. USRAC did.. Big difference.

Read the legal briefs.. Jameson sued OLIN/WINCHESTER- the AMMUNITION COMPANY- NOT U.S.REPEATING ARMS- which is the actual company that ceased making guns in New Haven in 2006.

USRAC merely made guns under license and marked them Winchester.. They NEVER were "Winchester" itself..

They had NOTHING to do with Rick Jameson's lawsuit. His beef was with OLIN/Winchester -the ammunition company and holder of the origional trademarks.

It sure as heck does not seem to have phased them much.. They are making more different types of WSM loads now then they were at the time of the settlement and many companies(including FN which now makes the Model 70s) continues to chamber rifle for several of the rounds..

And, here is something no one has mentioned.. How do we know Jameson did not QUIT writing on his own? Would you continue to work your current job if you'd recently won the lottery? He married a rich gal and won a lawsuit with Winchester..I bet that was close enough.

Maybe he was done with writing dry, detailed technical peices for Shooting Times anyway??

a couple things stick out to me,

RJ must have had a very good patent attorney write his patent, this is the real secret to how well a patent can be enforced, you want to make it as broad and all encompassing as possible, it sounds like this is what they did and this is what they were granted in the patent.

the other in regards to why you don't see his articles, let me ask you this, how many of the gun rags don't have an ad in them from winchester or winchester ammo/olin, thats right NONE, all of the gun rags feature and ad from one or both companies in every edition. what does this mean, it means that if one of these companies see and article that is written by RJ, they make a call to the magazine and say something to the effect of ummmmm...........we don't like you publishing and RJ article, how about we pull our 25k ad in next months edition. get the picture?? this is how something like this plays out, its also why you don't see many articles trashing a brand or a new brands new offering.

There's better things to do, it's elk season.

We still don't know how much Jamison, the plaintiff, won or settled for. The U.S. District Court in Oregon made this ruling regarding one of his claims:

��plaintiff�s quasi-contract claim against defendants is not an attempt to obtain �civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.� ORS 646.473(1). Plaintiff�s quasi contract claim is accordingly limited to restitution for the use of materials, equipment, facilities, and his paid assistant.� (http://www.websupp.org/data/DOR/3:03-cv-01036-525-DOR.pdf)

This looks more like a breach of promise case than a patent infringement case. Are there any lawyers amongst us?

Probably drowning in it.

So good to hear the straight skinny from an insider who really knows how things work deep down in the guts of the operation!