quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
The business plan is be a lot cheaper while still being good. A lot of the now many near but not quite clones (Smith M&P, FN 509, Canik TP9, CZ P10, Taurus G2C and G3, etc., etc.) are doing pretty to very well using this model.

The dirty secret is that Poly-striker guns a REALLY cheap to produce, maybe somewhere in the range of $100-150 a piece. Glock it laughing all the way to the bank selling them for $500-600. The other manufacturers are selling cheaper to build market share.

Up to now, the Glock-a-likes gave been similar, but not quite direct clones. The 80%-ers were probably the first true clones. Now PSA is cutting all pretense. And they'll probable sell enough to make money at it.

All obvious and well know points - my point was in referent to the 'tip toeing around patents' part of your posts.

Yeah striker fired pistols are cheap to make, but even then SIG still fucked it up initially and I'm sure their profit margin on the P320 took a huge hit with the 'upgrade' program - but they are big company, well diversified so they'll be more than ok. But there are lots of barriers to entry and I'm sure the fact that Gaston has a team of lawyers ready to crush someone if they get to close keeps all the examples you give either making their own brand or keeping away from patent infringement on the Gen 4 or 5 models.

SIG tried to do something a bit different within the striker fired realm (no trigger safety) and it blew up in their faces. As you say, they seem to be recovering from this.

As far as Glock suing other gun makers into submission, they were able to do this in the early days with S&W and the Sigma. But in recent years, they haven't. There are now a large number of guns on the market that if not exactly cosmetically similar to the basic glock design, are very functionally similar. I haven't heard of them going after any of these in court, which I take as meaning any IP protection they might have had has expired. That being the case, more direct clones like what PSA is doing are likely safe.

And I haven't seen any real examples of patents on technology introduced in the Gen 4 or 5 guns.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
The business plan is be a lot cheaper while still being good. A lot of the now many near but not quite clones (Smith M&P, FN 509, Canik TP9, CZ P10, Taurus G2C and G3, etc., etc.) are doing pretty to very well using this model.

The dirty secret is that Poly-striker guns a REALLY cheap to produce, maybe somewhere in the range of $100-150 a piece. Glock it laughing all the way to the bank selling them for $500-600. The other manufacturers are selling cheaper to build market share.

Up to now, the Glock-a-likes gave been similar, but not quite direct clones. The 80%-ers were probably the first true clones. Now PSA is cutting all pretense. And they'll probable sell enough to make money at it.

All obvious and well know points - my point was in referent to the 'tip toeing around patents' part of your posts.

Yeah striker fired pistols are cheap to make, but even then SIG still fucked it up initially and I'm sure their profit margin on the P320 took a huge hit with the 'upgrade' program - but they are big company, well diversified so they'll be more than ok. But there are lots of barriers to entry and I'm sure the fact that Gaston has a team of lawyers ready to crush someone if they get to close keeps all the examples you give either making their own brand or keeping away from patent infringement on the Gen 4 or 5 models.

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
Why all of a sudden is EVERYBODY making a “Glock 19” of their own? PSA, POF, Nomad, etc. etc.

Did the patent expire?

Any patents on this expired long ago, as noted earlier. The Gen 3 came out in 1998, and the patent is valid for 17 years (and any patents filed, were likely filed well prior to that date).

So, Glock isn't protected by patents at this point.

However, they could benefit from "Trade Dress Infringement" enforcement. A company is not allowed to confuse customers into believing one product is the same as an established product. This protects established brands and products from blatant copies in the marketplace. Things like the shape of a Coca-Cola bottle fall into this realm. Rolex has no patents on a Submariner remaining, but can protect its logos and iconic design for its readily recognizable watches (Submariners are subject to frequent knock-offs that violate these rules, just go to a junk shop and or ebay!).

Trade-marks and Copyrights are different than patents. Glock's patents for the Gen3 are long expired. The 1994 lawsuit against S&W is ancient history. But while using the mechanical concepts is okay, stealing the entire look is something Glock lawyers surely look for and protect.

You can copy every mechanical detail or invention on a Gen3 Glock without issue or worry. But it cannot be an exact clone of a Gloc (and look exactly the same). That would infringe upon trade dress. People making 80% Glock's or parts of a Glock (just the frame) would be able to more easily sidestep this enforcement. PSA's offering is different enough (perhaps a hinged trigger helps with that?), that they clearly feel they are safe.

The clones are out because Glock is missing a market, and others all see it. If Glock were delivering to this space at a reasonable price, this door would slam shut in a millisecond. But lack of product AND higher costs are causing this market to flourish. I don't want the Sig grip/magazine with a Glock upper combo, but the lack of G43 capacity created an opening for a third party product. And Glock cannot rely on patents for protection on this one. Those days are long gone.

They do have new patents on vaginitis and inflammatory bowel disease, though... no, I am not kidding. Check with the US Patent Office, and you will see the following:


"Treatment of Vaginitis:
Publication number: 20170136060
Abstract: Treatment of vaginal mycoses, bacterial vaginoses, and other forms of the vaginitis (inflammation of the vagina) by clinoptilolite having a particle size of between 0.2 and 10 ?m. Clinoptilolite, when used externally, is effective in the treatment of these vaginal disorders in mammals and humans, and also for restoring a healthy vaginal microbiota. The clinoptilolite may be used with one or more of the following adjuvants: pharmaceutically acceptable carrier materials, viable microorganisms and/or extracts thereof, nutrients for the healthy vaginal microbiota (e.g. lactose, etc.), and/or substances which favorably influence the vaginal environment for the healthy vaginal microbiota (e.g. estradiol, organic acids, etc.). The composition used may be applied locally, preferably in one of the following administration forms: foam, suppository, vaginal tablet, ovule, gel, aerosol, powder, rinse, douche, cream/ointment, or suspension.
Type: Application
Filed: November 11, 2016
Publication date: May 18, 2017
Inventor: Gaston GLOCK"

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
Don't get me wrong, the Glock 19 is one of, if not the best raw self defense firearms ever.

....but GAH I don't want to see eleventy billion versions of them.

Chris

I agree, but can't see how anyone can improve on the Glock version?

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
If one has 5 Glocks can they skip the purge even if I uhhh they prefer HKs.

Asking for a friend.

Cool, if this is the case I am in the clear!

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
Don't get me wrong, the Glock 19 is one of, if not the best raw self defense firearms ever.

....but GAH I don't want to see eleventy billion versions of them.

Chris

I agree, but can't see how anyone can improve on the Glock version?

I have the genuine Glock G19 and the P80 G19 clone.
I like the P80 more than the Glock.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
The business plan is be a lot cheaper while still being good. A lot of the now many near but not quite clones (Smith M&P, FN 509, Canik TP9, CZ P10, Taurus G2C and G3, etc., etc.) are doing pretty to very well using this model.

The dirty secret is that Poly-striker guns a REALLY cheap to produce, maybe somewhere in the range of $100-150 a piece. Glock it laughing all the way to the bank selling them for $500-600. The other manufacturers are selling cheaper to build market share.

I think it really depends on the brand and build quality, QC involved, processes used, taxes where it's made. etc. A blanker statement like "REALLY cheap to produce, maybe somewhere in the range of $100-150 a piece" just isn't true. For Taurus the $100-$150 may very well be true. Based on msrp it probably is, or even less. For some of the others I really doubt it. I can make a pretty educated guess on a couple of those companies, and I know an actual dollar amount for one. The one I know for sure is quite a bit more than "$100-$150". It's not like all poly framed striker fired guns are the same. But yeah, they're cheaper to produce than a metal framed hammer fired gun.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
SIG tried to do something a bit different within the striker fired realm (no trigger safety) and it blew up in their faces. As you say, they seem to be recovering from this.

I'll admit it.
I bought a P250 right after they came out.
Think I paid over $600 for it.
Sold it 3 weeks later for $600 before the hype of this Sig failure hit the market...





Yet I still own several Glocks..