New Dlask Flash Suppressors

edited fo Kako911's correction of part of my post. thx for the heads up ;)

And I'm gonna give Ron a call and see if Smith Enterprise has ever considered .... or would even consider , allowing a canadian company to manufacture under a liscence agreement. I'll let you all know what he says. I would imagine throughout this thread some of you MUST have clicked on smith ent's site and noticed the banner proclaiming victory for patent enfringment of the DC vortex..... the defendant? The U.S. military. so...... when will the hammer fall on the "little fish"? Surely it would have long ago if was going to at all.

In the meantime..... if any of you guys are aware of a legal way to import smith enterpise, 30 cal M1A Direct Connect Vortexes for civillian end user purposes...... I am all ears and will take 50 at least :D
 
Last edited:
USP said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe that manufacture under license has the same export requirements as selling across the border. I'll see if I can confirm that.

Your last comments are quite inflammatory and unnecessary. It speaks volumes about site moderation that this kind of slander is allowed ...
 
Very informative thread.
So, after so much crying and whinning,
nobody could produce a reference
to a Canadian patent of the said products.

So, those things were not patented in Canada.
(oooops... did I say that loud?)
Bwahahahahahaha...
 
Gothmog said:
I believe that manufacture under license has the same export requirements as selling across the border. I'll see if I can confirm that.

Your last comments are quite inflammatory and unnecessary. It speaks volumes about site moderation that this kind of slander is allowed ...
Click to expand...

well if the Noveske part is patented its enforceable here in Canada. Stealing intelectual property is theft. How about you go design a product and have somebody rip it off and make money off your design without paying royalties on it and let us know how you feel about that.
 
USP said:
well if the Noveske part is patented its enforceable here in Canada. Stealing intelectual property is theft. How about you go design a product and have somebody rip it off and make money off your design without paying royalties on it and let us know how you feel about that.
Click to expand...

It's not about my feelings USP.

So, those things were not patented in Canada.
(oooops... did I say that loud?)
Bwahahahahahaha...
Click to expand...

And PS - since you are so concerned about legalities I hope you understand that slander is actionable.
 
Gothmog said:
It's not about my feelings USP.

And PS - since you are so concerned about legalities I hope you understand that slander is actionable.
Click to expand...

lol are you going to spend the 10K plus to make me shut up about it? :rolleyes:

Why is it that its a #### fest when the Chineese rip off western gun designs and sell them yet its ok for a guy in Canada to do it? I dont imagine it would have been to difficult for a competent gunsmith and machinist to alter the design and yet still make it functional.
 
Gothmog said:
It's not about my feelings USP.



And PS - since you are so concerned about legalities I hope you understand that slander is actionable.
Click to expand...


Gothmog,

You are 100% correct -- we here at KAC would love to license some of our wares into Canada. However you cannot license something for civilian sale, if it is ITAR controlled.

All one needs to do is look at Colt Canada -- ANYTHING they make and sell that is part of the C7/C8 TDP is ITAR controlled, thus purchases need to be approved by the US DOS -- now there are blankets for certain items on contract, but the fact remains, if we licensed SR-25 production to Colt Canada, they would still be LE/MIL only items.

Technology transfer is regulated by ITAR.

In ripping off an item that is ITAR'd you not only run afoul of patent laws, but also the fact that Canada honors US patents and the ITAR...

Don't make a lot of plans for coming south either...
 
kako911 said:
No, it surely doesnt.

He has his opinion and he is entiltled to it. Its a sensitive issue and there are extremes and interpretations. In that light, dont slam the mods for it...

KPA
Click to expand...

Calling people 'thieves' is more than a bit over the top ... and if you can't see that, I rest my case.

I might add that the term 'ripoff' could be applied to describe overpriced merchandise, for example.
 
well if the Noveske part is patented its enforceable here in Canada.
Click to expand...
No, it is not.
US laws don't apply here...
Canada has different system of patent registration,
different laws regarding patent protection,
and has one more thing that is very important,
different legal precedence regarding patents and not only.

And why would it be enforceable in Canada, anyway?
Why would the Canadian government spend money to
protect patents owned by companies
that pay taxes and protection "fees" somewhere else?
 
USP said:
lol are you going to spend the 10K plus to make me shut up about it? :rolleyes:

Why is it that its a s**t fest when the Chineese rip off western gun designs and sell them yet its ok for a guy in Canada to do it? I dont imagine it would have been to difficult for a competent gunsmith and machinist to alter the design and yet still make it functional.
Click to expand...

I suspect the same thought crosses the minds of the execs of US companies when considering these issues in the Candian market. They have no market share here, and won't export so where's the beef?

As to making you shut up about it, surely that is up to someone else ... either on or off CGN.
 
KevinB said:
Don't make a lot of plans for coming south either...
Click to expand...

That is actually a good point, but I don't tend to overdress my guns anyways and suspect that taking firearms into the US is not high on my list of priorities.

But to others, its a worthy piece of advice.
 
I was more refering to the indivuals producing these items in violation of patent laws.

Ripping of Mark Larue -- he's more likley to drive up to your house and punch you in the face, than sue you...

The rest - some compnaies have a plethora of lawyers...
 
Dr.Lector said:
You beat me to it...
you mean like asking an arm and a leg for bling in the EE.
(... how that bling was passed across the border, don`t even ask, please...)


I love this thread.
Click to expand...

No correct in a few ways,

Canada and other countries uphold US laws for copywright and intellectual property by convention and treaty.... I have been throigh the hoops and won in court a legal battle over design and intelectual property issues...

Copyright by country

Copyright laws have been standardized to some extent through international conventions such as the Berne Convention and Universal Copyright Convention. These multilateral treaties have been ratified by nearly all countries, and international organizations such as the European Union or World Trade Organization require their member states to comply with them.[citation needed] Although there are consistencies among nations' intellectual property laws, each jurisdiction has separate and distinct laws and regulations about copyright.[4] The World Intellectual Property Organization summarizes each of its member states' intellectual property laws on its website (see WIPO Guide to Intellectual Property Worldwide and National copyright laws in the See also section below).

[edit] Recent developments

The regulations of the Berne Convention are incorporated into the World Trade Organization's TRIPS agreement (1995), thus giving the Berne Convention effectively near-global application.[citation needed] The 2002 WIPO Copyright Treaty enacted greater restrictions on the use of technology to copy works in the nations that ratified it.[citation needed]

[edit] Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
Main article: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a proposed plurilateral trade agreement in response "to the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works."[5] The scope of ACTA is broad, including counterfeit physical goods, as well as "internet distribution and information technology".[6]

In October 2007 the United States, the European Community, Switzerland and Japan announced that they would negotiate ACTA. Furthermore the following countries have joined the negotiations: Australia, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Canada.[7][8][9] The ACTA negotiations have been conducted in secrecy until on 22 May 2008 a discussion paper about the proposed agreement was uploaded to Wikileaks, and newspaper reports about the secret negotiations quickly followed.[9][10][11][12]

Negotiations were originally anticipated to conclude by the end of 2008,[13] however in November 2008 the European Commission stated that negotiations are likely to continue in 2009.[14] According to New Zealand ACTA would "establish a new international legal framework" and "the goal of ACTA is to set a new, higher benchmark for intellectual property rights enforcement that countries can join on a voluntary basis."[15] ACTA is part of a broader "forum shifting" strategy employed by the trade representatives of the US, EC, Japan, and other supporters of rigid intellectual property enforcement: similar terms and provisions currently appear in the World Customs Organization draft SECURE treaty.[16


Rip-offit has more than one meaning...

Noun

Singular
rip off


Plural
rip-offs

rip off (plural rip-offs)

1. (countable) A bad deal; an unfair price or rate.
2. A theft or robbery.
3. A scam.
4. A copy, especially one that is illegal or inferior.
 
Last edited:
Let's face a few facts about Canada as far as the firearms business goes; we do not consume enough product to be worth bothering with. Sure, Smith or Noveske could probably get Dlask's production shut down, they could get him fined for each and every unit sold. It will, however, cost them thousands of times more money to do that than they will recoup, and since the product isn't sold into an active (for them) market, which also happens to have no chance of being a profitable market for them, it would be assinine to bother. They have to retain Canadian council to persue the matter, that involves a retainer before anything is considered. Retainers vary, but in specialized cases like this I'd hazard a guess you're looking at not less than $50,000. After they've paid that, the billing STARTS - phone/fax/research/email/padding. Over, at most, a couple of hundred examples sold in a market that they're excluded from? They aren't stupid, no one will waste the money.
 
ian_in_vic said:
Let's face a few facts about Canada as far as the firearms business goes; we do not consume enough product to be worth bothering with. Sure, Smith or Noveske could probably get Dlask's production shut down, they could get him fined for each and every unit sold. It will, however, cost them thousands of times more money to do that than they will recoup, and since the product isn't sold into an active (for them) market, which also happens to have no chance of being a profitable market for them, it would be assinine to bother. They have to retain Canadian council to persue the matter, that involves a retainer before anything is considered. Retainers vary, but in specialized cases like this I'd hazard a guess you're looking at not less than $50,000. After they've paid that, the billing STARTS - phone/fax/research/email/padding. Over, at most, a couple of hundred examples sold in a market that they're excluded from? They aren't stupid, no one will waste the money.
Click to expand...


well they could sue Dlask in a favourable US state, then seek to have local council have thier judgement enforced in Canada. Granted it would cost money, but it has been done.
 
ian_in_vic said:
Let's face a few facts about Canada as far as the firearms business goes; we do not consume enough product to be worth bothering with. Sure, Smith or Noveske could probably get Dlask's production shut down, they could get him fined for each and every unit sold. It will, however, cost them thousands of times more money to do that than they will recoup, and since the product isn't sold into an active (for them) market, which also happens to have no chance of being a profitable market for them, it would be assinine to bother. They have to retain Canadian council to persue the matter, that involves a retainer before anything is considered. Retainers vary, but in specialized cases like this I'd hazard a guess you're looking at not less than $50,000. After they've paid that, the billing STARTS - phone/fax/research/email/padding. Over, at most, a couple of hundred examples sold in a market that they're excluded from? They aren't stupid, no one will waste the money.
Click to expand...

You seem to forget that some will proceed with a lawsuit knowing full well that they may never recover a single penny in there Legal Costs .It is not about being stupid it has everything to do with ones principals.
I know for a fact that SEI has won several patent [2] infringement cases 1 involving the US govt /DOD/. and another one involving a small firearms business back in the late 80's early 90's he won that one as well but when the dust settled he ended up recovering nothing but he went away a content person knowing that the party he sued lost everything .
There is a Canadian Company that is facing a Patent infringement lawsuit the Patent holder is really sure he will not receive a penny out of the case but he also is content with the fact that the company and its owners will have nothing in the end.
 
I mentioned this thread to Joe today, he is in fact following it all...... with no concern. We can all debate and slander what ever businesses we want but at the end of the day.... the Dlask vortex is NOT a smith ent vortex, it IS infact dimensionally different.

you guys are under the misconception that joe dlask is just some small time machinist stunmbling along copying other's wares. you all need to wake up a bit perhaps and realize that Dlask would probably be willing to take on all comers, Including those that persist on slandering a reputable company. When I mentioned the smith ent thing, he shrugged it off..... and told me this had been brought up years ago....... and the response is the same. Joe is not making or marketting a copy of the smith ent vortex, he has made his own adaptation of that idea..... but it's not a smith ent vortex.... I'll repeat, it's dimensionally different and this is where all you guys screamin patent theft need to go to a library and actually read for a few days about patent law.


so, can't export an Itar controlled item, can't manufacture under liscence an Itar controlled item......

guess in the eyes of some here we should not make stuff in canada, of similar, but different design...... and we should buy all our stuff from the ee where god knows if it legally came into the country or not.


this whole thread has degraded into silliness by folks who "think" they know what they are talking about. I for one am done being preached to by a bunch of armchair patent lawyers who will never get thier day in court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom