New Dlask Flash Suppressors
- Thread starter Clobbersauras
- Start date
I have two Dlask AR's and I am very happy with both. They are very well made and the finish is excellent.
My only complaint is the 'artistic' liberty he sometimes takes with peoples orders.
As too the copy rights ... who f**ken cares. If he gets sued thats his problem, until then I will keep buying products from him if the quality stays the same.
well what hes doing is theft of Intelectual property from Noveske. Just because its for sale and you want it doesnt make it right. He couldve easily asked to make the KX3 under licence for Noveske in Canada rather than ripping off their design.
The whole patent pending or not thing is a very weak point anyway.
As some others mentioned, its intellectual property that is protected regardless of the patent.
Anycase, its a question of morals and ethics.
Theft of a design, is still theft.
KPA
Where did I say the SEI Vortex is the same as a three prong M16 FH??? I said I saw a FH that was based on the original three prong FH that the guy had been tinkering with in terms of desgin. A design that is quite similar to the current Vortex, only it wasn't as thick and the twist of the prongs weren't as radial as the Vortex. To make sure you understand, this gentleman was doing his own experimentation with creating an improved flash hider. It is pure coincidence that his concepts would be independently arrived at by another tinkerer, in this case Ron Smith, who applied for a US Patent on his design.
I like your logic
I've heard some pretty stupid remarks on CGN, but the above is near the top. How exactly do you get from what I posted to me endorsing personal property theft?
Just because someone is the first to secure a patent for an "invention" doesn't necessarily mean that they were the source of the original idea or concept, or, indeed, have a "moral or ethical" right to such intellectual property. They do have a legal right within the jurisdiction for which the patent was let.
That said, if Company A has no business interests in Country B, has zero market share and NONE of its products are sold in that market; and the company will NEVER sell its products in that market....how exactly is Company A being "robbed" or having the "fruits" of its intellectual property stolen from them by an indigenous Company B that starts producing their own versions of Company A's products?
Company A is not losing market share by Company B's actions. They are not losing sales by Company B's actions. Company B is not in direct competition with Company A and is not selling its similar product within Company A's sphere of influence. How exactly is that negatively affecting Company A??? Company A's Logo or Name is not being used to promote or sell the product Company B is producing, so their "brand" is not being threatened or potentially harmed by an arguably "inferior" product. Instead, Company B is producing their own, legal interpretation of products that are not sold, nor available in Canada, under their own name.
Methinks it might be time to pull the stick out and climb down off that superior than thou pedestal you seem to be residing on.
BTW: I did a little checking and was unable to find any Canadian patents or patent applications related to SEI Vortex or Noveske KX FH.
Here let me refresh your memory Here is the statment you posted .
My response
I like your logic So I guess it would be OK for us to Come over and take all your property because by all accounts you endorse theft.
I take it your intent is that you don't care about theft of intellectual property [Patented or Copyrighted] as long satisfies your need
Theft is Theft there is no distinguishing between intellectual property or actual physical property
again.... pulling the words right out of my mouth hehehe
I looked into it at the beginning of this thread , zero patent applications to the canadian market..... I did my research before spouting off how i feel about the subject.
you guys can debate this till yer grey and crusty
Apparently you're a lot more concerned about this "theft" than Ron Smith, otherwise he would've taken steps to "protect" the home invaders from coming over to the Great White North and "stealing" his intellectual property. Patents were once held on the 1911 and AR-15 designs...now that they've expired and no longer are in force, should the dozens of companies producing their own versions be forced to cease and desist because they're still selling a product that is the result of others invention? No Canadian patent in force, should we take Joe and Rick from Dlask and ATRS respectively and publicly shame them for also daring to make AR-15 clones despite the fact that they didn't invent them???? This is your logic taken to the extreme.
At the end of the day, answer me this, what real or financial harm is SEI or Noveske realizing from the Dlask copies? Again, the FH aren't being sold or marketed as "genuine." They are marked Dlask. SEI doesn't export to Canada and has no market presence here. How then, does Dlask making a cloned version of an SEI FH cause fiscal damage to the company via use of SEI's intellectual property that does not have any legal protection in Canada via patent and is sold only to a Canadian market?
This case is wholly different than pirated DVDs made in China. There, there are laws in place to prevent the pirating, and the product is being marketed and sold as genuine, when in reality they are poorly made copies that can and do have a financial impact on the studio's bank accounts and reputation. They are also directly competing with genuine copies, unlike Dlask.
I believe you are missing the point. Its not a simple black or white proposition as you make it out to be. Intellectual property is only protected to the extent the law provides via copyright (written works), trademark (symbols, characters, logos, phrases, etc..) or patents (unique designs). If granted, a patent provides exclusive rights for a period of time in specific countries. The extent of the protection a patent provides on a design is dependent on the wording of the patent application.
In the past a patent was granted to the originator. New rules use "first past the goalpost". What this means is that if you come up with an idea and release it to the public domain -- anyone can file a patent on it - even beating out the "inventor".
The difficulty I believe is in the generic use of the term "design". You cannot patent an "idea" but a product that originates from the idea. A patent only covers the useage of the product. That is why you pay very high fees to good patent lawyers who can include future uses of the product in ways that weren't covered by the original idea.
If someone takes the same idea (which is now public knowledge with the submission of the patent application) and changes the design or its application such that it does not violate the original patent they can then sell the new product.
Determining what constitues a new design that does not violate existing patentd requires the hiring of a good patent lawyer. Depending on the patent awarded, the changes to the design could be very minor, somewhat difficult, nearly impossible, or impossible.
Morals and ethics means following the rules that were laid out for everyone to abide by.
The original idea of a patent was to foster new ideas and designs that would benefit mankind. As such, patents were to be used to reward the originator of the unique design for a specific period of time. Upon expiry of the patent the idea was free for all to use to develope new products or combine them with different ideas. What was happening was that larger corporations where filing patent's on everything and then sitting on them. A direct result was the stagnation of new products and services due to this artificial "protection" of so called intellectual property. That is why the rules governing what was patentable was changed as well as who could apply for the patent.
There are other ways to protect intellectual property. Case in point: Heinze Ketchup. There is a trademark protection on the logo. The actual ingredients are a trade secret that has never been divulged to the public. As a result, they have been able to produce the product under their trade name far longer than any patent would have provided. Is using any formulated "tomato paste" other than Heinze brand on your burger and fries causing you ethical or moral problems? I think not. Patents are a tool to allow companies exclusive rights. It is their decision on where and when they wish to excercise those rights. By not applying for patents in various jurisdictions they are telling the world the want limited rights - not exclusive world wide rights.
L
Last edited:
Thanks for the legal explanation but there is more than one frame of thought process and of values is this one.
-Legal
-Logical
-Ethical
-Moral...
On at least 2 I see a problem...
But to get back on Dlask: Good for them on making the effort of bringing this. I only wich they would push their talent on innovation. Real innovation.
KPA
-Legal
-Logical
-Ethical
-Moral...
On at least 2 I see a problem...
But to get back on Dlask: Good for them on making the effort of bringing this. I only wich they would push their talent on innovation. Real innovation.
KPA
Really you know this for a fact I suggest you do some checking on that
but here is one of the companies that imports and sells SEI products
http://www.diemaco.com/suppression-page.htm
some the customers are the Canadian Forces, and police depts
Again using someone else's intellectual property for his own financial gain speaks volumes about the charter of Joe Dlask and how he runs his bussiness .If you wish to do bussiness with him so be it .
I think it is disgusting that people openly cheer for someone ripping of a design that other have made.
You may recall DLASK's MARS rail that was a blatant rip off od the KAC M4 RAS -- well gues what, notice he never sold any
US Patent laws are recognized in Canada, and I suspect that John Noveske and Ron Smith may be very curious to see what some shyster Canadian company is doing.
You may recall DLASK's MARS rail that was a blatant rip off od the KAC M4 RAS -- well gues what, notice he never sold any
US Patent laws are recognized in Canada, and I suspect that John Noveske and Ron Smith may be very curious to see what some shyster Canadian company is doing.
- Location
- on the road again
yes, i cheer. Go Dlask!
- Location
- on the road again
NO. selling to Canadian Forces and police depts. is not market presence. Market presence is when anybody walks in a store and buys that product. Or orders on line.
You know, I'm not gonna argue about this anymore..... we all are entitled to our views and I do respect those views believe it or not. However, the canadian market is like a slightly damp sponge and it will soak up what is availlable, knock off or not.
When it comes to LEO and D.O.D. purchases, that's a different ball game altogether and for the civillian that process is moot.
the only "civillian end user sales" presence that Smith Ent has in canada is what is able to be imported from Brownell's. Alberta Tactical Rifle carries a selection of smith ent parts, I haven't asked Rick if they come from brownells or direct from Ron Smith.... but i have not been able to source a legally imported, smith enterpise direct connect vortex flash hider , with civillian end user documents.
It would be nice to see the big u.s. companies who make lots of cool stuff that can't be exported to civillians , allow thier products to be made and marketted in Canada under liscence. I believe this has been done in the past, I look at armseast and some of thier products as an example.
Until such time as these companies do in fact allow liscenced manufacturing of thier products , outside of thier civillian market....... someone will fill the niche.
as an aside, I have several new and innovative products in stand by mode waiting to go to CNC. Dlask is but one of the resouces I will utilize to bring those products to market, because he is a craftsman and anything i have ever dealt with him on has been nothing short of exceptional.
When it comes to LEO and D.O.D. purchases, that's a different ball game altogether and for the civillian that process is moot.
the only "civillian end user sales" presence that Smith Ent has in canada is what is able to be imported from Brownell's. Alberta Tactical Rifle carries a selection of smith ent parts, I haven't asked Rick if they come from brownells or direct from Ron Smith.... but i have not been able to source a legally imported, smith enterpise direct connect vortex flash hider , with civillian end user documents.
It would be nice to see the big u.s. companies who make lots of cool stuff that can't be exported to civillians , allow thier products to be made and marketted in Canada under liscence. I believe this has been done in the past, I look at armseast and some of thier products as an example.
Until such time as these companies do in fact allow liscenced manufacturing of thier products , outside of thier civillian market....... someone will fill the niche.
as an aside, I have several new and innovative products in stand by mode waiting to go to CNC. Dlask is but one of the resouces I will utilize to bring those products to market, because he is a craftsman and anything i have ever dealt with him on has been nothing short of exceptional.
Last edited:
A bit wroong...
I am not a dealer. I used to work for Socom Supply.
I am just a customer like you, with no allegiance what so ever.
KPA
Dlask could if he wanted probably get Noveske to let him make thier stuff under licence in Canada if Noveske was legally unable to get thier products across the border. This would satisfy everybody and would be above board. I for one wont support a thief who steals off others.
I dont get some of you supposive law and order guys, it seems that theft for some of you is ok if you want what is for sale.
I dont get some of you supposive law and order guys, it seems that theft for some of you is ok if you want what is for sale.
