|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,475
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,475 |
Why do you think Ruger and Cooper quit chambering the PPC? Ruger lost a patent and/or trademark case as the inventors locked it up for royalties. So it’s not just Jamison, which by the way he was right. The only problem with the Jamison argument is there was a near identical cartridge that pre-dated his by 40 years or so. Jamison sued for contract violations AND intellectual property claims. People should read the actual complaint. It is floating around on the internet. https://casetext.com/case/jamison-v-olin-corporation-winchester-division-3
Last edited by KRAKMT; 08/03/22.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,638
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,638 |
Ha, not. Main claim Patent Infringement, secondary claim of misappropriation of trade secrets, third claim breach of contract. https://stollberne.com/case/jamison-v-olin-winchester-browning-arms-co/Stoll Berne successfully represented patentee of “short magnum” firearms and ammunition against major firearms and ammunition manufacturers Winchester and Browning. The lawsuit settled on the eve of trial, after Stoll Berne attorneys Rob Shlachter, Tim DeJong, and Jen Wagner obtained summary judgment on infringement. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914b5f3add7b04934775e7eJAMISON V. OLIN CORPORATION-WINCHESTER DIVISION OPINION AND ORDER GARR KING, District Judge Plaintiff John R. Jamison claims to have invented, developed and patented several revolutionary types of hunting rifles and cartridge concepts. Plaintiff brings a claim for patent infringement against U.S. Repeating Arms Co., Inc., Browning, Browning Arms Co. (the "Browning defendants"), Olin Corporation-Winchester Division ("Olin"), and G.I. Joe's, Inc. In addition, plaintiff brings a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets under the Oregon Uniform Trade Secrets Act against all defendants except G.I. Joe's, and claims for breach of express contract, breach of implied in fact contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional interference with economic relations against Olin. Finally, plaintiff brings a claim for breach of quasi-contract against all defendants except G.I. Joe's.
Swifty
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,520
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,520 |
Why do you think Ruger and Cooper quit chambering the PPC? Ruger lost a patent and/or trademark case as the inventors locked it up for royalties. So it’s not just Jamison, which by the way he was right. The only problem with the Jamison argument is there was a near identical cartridge that pre-dated his by 40 years or so. Jamison sued for contract violations AND intellectual property claims. People should read the actual complaint. It is floating around on the internet. https://casetext.com/case/jamison-v-olin-corporation-winchester-division-3It's been a while since I've read the actual opinion but my memory is Jamsion lost a summary judgment on the patent claims and what settled was a theft of trade secrets that he took the idea to Winchester/baco who cut him put when they started production on the idea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,151
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,151 |
Well at least it keeps the lawyers fed.
Everybody’s gotta eat.
DF Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 37,088
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 37,088 |
Well at least it keeps the lawyers fed.
Everybody’s gotta eat.
DF Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms Yep. Analogy appreciated. DF
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,475
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,475 |
Listed buzzards-
Robert A. Shlachter, Timothy S. DeJong, Jacob S. Gill Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting Shlachter P.C., Portland, Oregon, William O. Geny, Chernoff Vilhauer McClung Stenzel LLP Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
James R. Farmer, Mark A. Miller, Brett L. Foster, L. Grant Foster, Timothy P. Getzoff, Holland Hart LLP, Salt Lake City, Utah, Jeffrey S. Love, Ramon A. Klitzke, II, Richard D. McLeod, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for Defendants Browning, Browning Arms Co., and U.S. Repeating Arms Co., Inc.
Robert E. Sabido, Cosgrave Vergeer Kester LLP, Portland, Oregon, Stephen D. Gay, Husch Eppenberger, LLC, Chattanooga, TN, Dutro E. Campbell, II, Gregory E. Upchurch, Husch Eppenberger, LLC, St. Louis, MO, Attorneys for Defendants Olin Corporation-Winchester Division and G.I. Joe's, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,800
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,800 |
Yep, also Grosvenor by accounts submitted 250 Savage necked down to 22 caliber for Winchesters new 220 Swift. There are 2 theories as to why the Lee Navy was modified.
Theory 1 is that Winchester thought that the Savage brass couldn’t handle the pressure at the base. So by modifying the Lee Navy to semi rimmed strengthened the base enough for the pressure.
Theory 2 Winchester knew that the necked down Savage brass would work but they didn’t want to use Savage brass nor pay for the rights on their brand new super cartridge. Winchester was the sole supplier/maker of Lee Navy so they owned it.
Sad, as the 22 Varminter was born a year or so later and in 63 was dubbed 22.250 Remington. Theory 2 is almost certainly correct. See "Origins of the 220 Swift", p. 27-34, Gun Digest 2009. When Wotkyns obtained close to 4000 fps with his 22-250, Western Cartridge Co. asked him to send his rifle and ammo to them for evaluation. The 22-250 bullets poked holes in Western's steel backstop at their test facility, which no previous cartridge had been able to accomplish. Western then forwarded the rifle and ammo to Winchester (then a Western subsidiary) for further testing. After their tests Winchester notified Wotkyns that they planned to produce the cartridge commercially. Neither series of tests displayed any weakness in the 250 case. The American Rifleman (May 1935) published photos of Wotkytns' 22-250 cartridge, implying that it was to be introduced soon. However, some Winchester executive(s?) decided that their company could not and would not introduce a cartridge based on a Savage case design. Winchester asked Wotkyns to recommend a suitable Winchester case. He suggested the Lee Navy case, which Winchester then modified and strengthened significantly to become the 220 Swift case. According to Phil Sharpe, the whole experience with Winchester left Wotkyns pretty bitter. --Bob
|
|
|
|
|
128 members (3333vl, 44mc, 7887mm08, 308ld, 35, 12 invisible),
1,537
guests, and
867
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,387
Posts18,469,766
Members73,931
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
