Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Rick Jamison???

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!