Does anyone still own a Valid patent for the S_I grip/frame design?

[cyclone336]

While it is an interesting discussion, my understanding is that S_I 2011 frames are still patent protected:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...5&hl=patent

Perhaps this topic can be revisited in two and a half years?

[twodownzero]

I'm no lawyer either so the truth is from a legal standpoint I have no earthly idea.

That said, if the patent is indeed expired, is long since expired, and no capital rich company has opted in to create "inspired" goods starkly similar to the original would indicate there's a fair number of people that don't see the R.O.I on the deal. Perhaps it is cost prohibitive to jump into the pool. Or perhaps the uncertainty of the political environment today makes such investments feel riskier.

It would seem like a no brainer for Springfield, S&W, or Kimber to integrate the frame into their production line. But they haven't. Which means there is a barrier to entry, though I don't really know what it is.

The other thought is wondering if it would in fact drive business. Cheap 1911's have their place in the world, but you don't see many at an IPSC match. Entry level shooters or not. While opening price point goods in general boost the number of viable consumers, it is conceivable that in this specific market it simply doesn't pay for itself. Specifically if margins on the goods aren't that great anyhow. If the "premium" priced guys aren't margin rich, then the opening price point gig would definitely not feel very good. The point of premium in most cases is to deliver quality to the consumer and margin to the company.

Like Bart, in fact WITH Bart, I fought through the dead broke, college days, of IPSC shooting. Reality for us back then was there really was only two divisions, open and limited. And where we played, there was really only open. If the stars align, and priorities are made, then it can be done. Even on a miserably low i.e. dangerously close to negative, income level.

Jack

You've pretty much read my mind with this post. Maybe there is no money in them. Perhaps there is some, but the expected value is just too low.

I have enjoyed shooting in every division in which I've ever had the opportunity to shoot, so I'm just glad to get to shoot as a college kid! Fortunately I had a large stock of components before I quit my job to return to school, so I'm skating on those to get to shoot until I'm done with school.

With that said, the amateur economist in me (and future lawyer) sought to answer this question. I really am curious as to whether there is a legit patent on these or not.

As to the grips being cut off if someone is making their own frames, I highly doubt that. They're available all over the place online and I highly doubt that STI would ever even know. It's not like someone is going to open a 2011 factory and crank out 200 pistols a month. If someone did get a manufacturers FFL and start making frames, no small shop is gonna crank out more than maybe 15-20 pistols in their best month and so I doubt it'd be even a blip on the radar for STI.

It does surprise me that it seems to be common knowledge that these are patented. It seems they're no more patented than Tylenol is.

While it is an interesting discussion, my understanding is that S_I 2011 frames are still patent protected:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...5&hl=patent

Perhaps this topic can be revisited in two and a half years?

Design patents only last for 14 years, and that one was filed in 1992 (the one linked to in that post, which I've linked to numerous times in this post). It has since expired.

http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/patents.jsp

Does anyone have any evidence that suggests that the double stack, polymer framed design commonly known by STI's trademark name "2011" has a valid patent? I'm trying to keep this on topic here. There are no less than 3 patents that have been issued for this design. All three are currently expired. Unless there are new patents related to this innovation, there exists no reason to believe that they are currently patented.

Edited December 22, 2009 by twodownzero

[Julien Boit]

SPS was one company that made copies of the 2011 style pistols.

[cyclone336]

You are correct that some of the patents are design patents and would expire after 14 years. However, US Patent No. 5,293,708 is not a design patent - it is a utility patent. Due to the facts and law surrounding it, it will last 20 years from its filing date. Therefore, it will be enforceable until 8 Jul 2012. If you would like, the future lawyer in you can read 35 U.S.C. 154(a):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/154(a).html

[twodownzero]

You are correct that some of the patents are design patents and would expire after 14 years. However, US Patent No. 5,293,708 is not a design patent - it is a utility patent. Due to the facts and law surrounding it, it will last 20 years from its filing date. Therefore, it will be enforceable until 8 Jul 2012. If you would like, the future lawyer in you can read 35 U.S.C. 154(a):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/154(a).html

Ahh, now we're getting to something good. If what you say is true (patent covers function but not design), what applicable "rights" exist by virtue of its ownership? If the design is no longer patented, but whatever exists in that patent is still valid, what does that mean?

Put differently, which portions of it are sufficiently innovative that their function is independent of the design?

[twodownzero]

I just got to thinking something else that might be valid as well. The (relatively) new Sig P250 has an interchangeable grip frame from where its fire control components are located. So it might actually be true that, if the innovation of the 2011 is separating these two, another product already exists with similar function, but different design.

I've actually never had much interest in intellectual property, but this really has me thinking, because if the design patents are expired, what changed on that day? What new firearms innovations were previously constrained by those design patents? Put differently, what could I not invent and sell in 2005 that I can now legally invent and sell with respect to firearms as a consequence of their patent rights? AND if there exists any exclusive right retained by the continued existence of this "utility" patent, what functions does it cover, and what will change in 2012? Obviously the polymer grip/metal frame was an innovation, and the specific design is/was subjected to a design patent. Individually and as an assembly, their design was once patented. Absent those, what remains?

Perhaps I've taken this too far from a simple question to a complex legal issue. But I'm still somewhat bothered that the Filipino 2011 can't be marketed in this country.

[RIIID]

Another company offering a modular frame gun will only lower the number of guns the two existing companies sell right now. That number the two companies make right now is very low compared to the big gun manufacturers. ATF releases the numbers of guns made with a two year lag and those numbers are for caliber size not by model type. Both companies makes 1911's and modular. It's kind of hard to figure out how many modular guns are actually being made.

The investment to produce a third choice modular gun is so high that a profit return will be very low. The biggest problem is the target market for this type of gun is very small, there is less than 20,000 USPSA members and not all of them shoot or own a modular framed gun. The other shooting sports that use this type of gun is even smaller. The average target shooter just can't justify spending over a thousand dollars on a gun when there are so many other choices for far less. To produce a modular gun at a price point of a thousand dollars will require one to make more than 5,000(10,000 or more is probably more realistic) at a time. If I remember correctly the two companies(S_I) made less than 5,000 combined for year 2007, that's modular and 1911.

I used the word modular because that is what we are talking about, 2011 is a model of STI, Infinity is SVI, both are modular frame guns using the same patent.

When all of the patents run out there will be other companies to copy this design, the advantage is both have had over 15 years to establish a brand following. Look how long it took other 1911 manufactures to carve out a spot in the the "Colt" 1911 market. Springfield and Kimber are the ones who carved out the biggest chunk and a whole host of others are trying. To look at this another way Glock established the polymer framed market, Springfield and S&W have been the most successful in carving out a market share and all three companies are priced with in a $100.00 dollars of each other.

The market/demand for a high capacity 1911 design is too small to be able to bring the price down to around a thousand dollars and still have a quality made gun we are used to buying now. I use the thousand dollar price point because that seems to be the amount the average shooter can't justify going over on a handgun purchase.

Rich

Rich

[Loves2Shoot]

Exactly, people have no clue how much bringing products to market really cost or the real size of the market. I don't see how anyone without a huge pile of money could get enough ROI to make it viable with the quality of products and service that STI and SVI currently provide. Everyone and his brother want to be in the gun business but can't do the real math and that is why they come and go so regularly.

I imagine once the patents run out, their will be some folks who try it, but they will have a very tough task if they want to make it a serious business that actually makes enough money to stay in business and not just a hobby.

PS.

Kimber used the BL M5 design for a hi-cap polymer frame pistol, but they don't seem to have a bunch of traction at the 1kish price range.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Loves2Shoot

[XRe]

One would think that perhaps STI is getting ahead of the patent expiry by making it possible for other companies to license the frame through them, and use STI as their job shop.... (ie, there's a Sig branded Open gun running about, you have Fusion Firearms and BarSto, etc....)

If STI makes it worthwhile (ie, inexpensive enough) for those shops to use them instead of trying to develop the design and manufacturing on their own, STI still owns a piece of any manufacture of those frames, regardless...

Frankly, my experience with SPS so far is that the products they've brought into the US have either been goofy as hell (remember the Pelican?), or inferior quality (mag tubes). I don't think I'll be buying an SPS frame. A cheap Chinese knock off?? Come on.... Damn, the frame is almost free compared to the cost of a custom gun - do you really think pulling $100 off of it is going to make that much difference in the price of your gun? less than 3%....

[MikeFoley]

This may not be a popular post, but it is the truth from someone very close to the industry. The entire market for the S_I platform pistols is not large enough for someone to start-up and actually make money with a major player already in the market. There are knock-offs outside the US, and some that are avail. for sale in the US. While all of us would like frames to be $200, we are the market, USPSA shooters, period. Now before you all start telling me that some LE use them, and some mainstream buyers would buy them if they were $200, consider that the most gun buyers still haven't even heard of STI. Just ask your dad, uncle, cousin, local gunshop, or the guys in your club who own pistols but don't shoot competition about STI and see what response you get.

[twodownzero]

The reason nobody buys them outside of USPSA is that they are not well marketed. You won't find STI's products, even its baseline models, on the shelves at hardly any gun store. Distributors don't carry them, either. Most of the reason is that they are a particular gun, typically fitted to each shooter. But so is the 1911 and it is still well-marketed in various popular flavors.

There are some double stack 1911s on the market already with the major manufacturers. Once the patents are completely expired and STI/SV no longer have any exclusive right to sell them, I'm willing to bet that they're willing to sell the parts to other companies (SA?) to unveil a new line of production 2011s.

I think it'd be a great opportunity for both the company that markets it and STI/SV who can sell their grips.

[JRBean]

Maybe this has been addressed elsewhere but I've wondered this ever since I started shooting STI's. Why not a single metal frame based on the STI, SV design.

Para and Caspian make hi cap metal frames so why not STI. If somebody could make a Hi cap all metal frame like a STI that uses STI mags for $400- $500 would be pretty cool. Lets face it $400 for a STI plus $400 for an Aluminum grip and even more for SV's is pretty expensive compared to a Caspian for $500 and the Caspian comes with a lot of small parts that the STI doesn't. With the intro of the new Caspian mags and some smart advertising from Caspian they could be a serious threat to STI. If a few more top shooters start competing with and winning with guns on Caspian frames, just how long will it be before you see the masses heading in that direction as well. I'll admit that my current limited build is going to be on a STI frame simply because i already had a set of 5 STI mags but after seeing the quality of the frame I got I wish I had went with Caspian. The machining marks on this frame are absolutely horrible considering the price. When you consider how long STI has been in the market and the quality of machinery today I was really surprised. Hopefully this has not become a thread drift. If the patent is up and somebody had the money and drive to do so, an affordable solid metal STI frame without the crappy plastic grip would be pretty cool.

[G-ManBart]

The reason nobody buys them outside of USPSA is that they are not well marketed. You won't find STI's products, even its baseline models, on the shelves at hardly any gun store. Distributors don't carry them, either. Most of the reason is that they are a particular gun, typically fitted to each shooter. But so is the 1911 and it is still well-marketed in various popular flavors.

There are some double stack 1911s on the market already with the major manufacturers. Once the patents are completely expired and STI/SV no longer have any exclusive right to sell them, I'm willing to bet that they're willing to sell the parts to other companies (SA?) to unveil a new line of production 2011s.

I think it'd be a great opportunity for both the company that markets it and STI/SV who can sell their grips.

STI's visibility has jumped considerably in the last couple of years....look at most any major gun magazine and they're getting reviewed and have ads. Unless we talk with Dave Skinner (and he'd probably be willing to talk about it), we're all just guessing, but STI already makes a LOT of parts that other manufacturers use. It's possible that they aren't ready to ramp up to higher production levels than they're at right now. R,

[Aircooled6racer]

Hello: I have been told most of the guns STI and SVI make actually go out of the country. I guess I am one of the few who would still buy from STI since they do so much for our sport. I don't see many other manufactureres offering free frames or parts for those that just wear there shirts I do believe competition is good to make the sport better and the equipment as well. Thanks, Eric

[Jasonub]

usually the chinese knock offs would price the total gun at 80-90% off its USA counterparts. So if they bring one out, it should cost around 200 dollars using forged parts like norinco.

id buy one if its 200-300 dollars

[JRBean]

I too am a fan of the way STI supports our sport. I've worn their shirts at many matches and benefitted from their contingency program. I just can't stand those plastic grips.

[cyclone336]

PM sent to twodownzero.

[MoNsTeR]

When the patent is up, SOMEONE will produce a clone. I guarantee it. Who wants to bet?

[twodownzero]

When the patent is up, SOMEONE will produce a clone. I guarantee it. Who wants to bet?

There already is a clone. That's why I started this thread. See the other thread on the Filipino 1911s (I forgot the name and can't find the thread).

[scirocco38s]

I thought the STI patent was for the plastic grip and not for the metal frame.

I believe you're correct. But it's pointless to produce a frame if you can't reliably get grips for it. The mould to make the grips is $$$$.

Yup. The reason SV did the Aluminum thing is their deal to use the STI mould expired. Major bucks for the mould.................

JT

SV's deal for grips expired years ago and SV was buying their grips from brownells rather than sti. Their design on the metal grips are different than the way sti makes the aluminum grip. For those who wish to make their own frames..go ahead if you have the tooling and expertise. but can you do it and be prifitable is the question. As far makeing frames for your own use, that is no problem. There are rules in the atf for just that as long as you never sell them you can make all the frames you want. 1 guy in our club has done just that..just to see if he could.

As far as the deal for the grips expiring and the mould being expensive.. I have noticed and have mentioned before that the quality of the grips in polymer has been going down for a while. Some wont drop free the mags, the trigger channels have burrs, the holes arent as smooth and finished as they once were.

[CAMO66]

I thought the STI patent was for the plastic grip and not for the metal frame.

I believe you're correct. But it's pointless to produce a frame if you can't reliably get grips for it. The mould to make the grips is $$$$.

Yup. The reason SV did the Aluminum thing is their deal to use the STI mould expired. Major bucks for the mould.................

JT

SV's deal for grips expired years ago and SV was buying their grips from brownells rather than sti. Their design on the metal grips are different than the way sti makes the aluminum grip. For those who wish to make their own frames..go ahead if you have the tooling and expertise. but can you do it and be prifitable is the question. As far makeing frames for your own use, that is no problem. There are rules in the atf for just that as long as you never sell them you can make all the frames you want. 1 guy in our club has done just that..just to see if he could.

As far as the deal for the grips expiring and the mould being expensive.. I have noticed and have mentioned before that the quality of the grips in polymer has been going down for a while. Some wont drop free the mags, the trigger channels have burrs, the holes arent as smooth and finished as they once were.

OK, I've read all the posts here and see a trend on some of them. Some of you say that the STI quality has been going down. Now my question is, Do you think a frame that cost $100 to $300 less is going to have better quality? Yes the Chinese can probably do it for less and have close to the same quality on some of their stuff. But let me ask you this. How many Chinese companies do you see sponcering matches or donating prizes at matches.

Just my 2cents

Scott

[bulm540]

When the patent is up, SOMEONE will produce a clone. I guarantee it. Who wants to bet?

There already is a clone. That's why I started this thread. See the other thread on the Filipino 1911s (I forgot the name and can't find the thread).

its the mac 2011 it still uses the STI frame. http://wscmakati.multiply.com/photos/album...vailable_at_WSC

[twodownzero]

When the patent is up, SOMEONE will produce a clone. I guarantee it. Who wants to bet?

There already is a clone. That's why I started this thread. See the other thread on the Filipino 1911s (I forgot the name and can't find the thread).

its the mac 2011 it still uses the STI frame. http://wscmakati.multiply.com/photos/album...vailable_at_WSC

Oh wow, you're right! My whole reason for making this thread is now shot, then. Why aren't they sold here?!?

Perhaps the frame is not STI and only the grip is. I'm not sure if that'd infringe on the utility patent or not. If it doesn't, I wonder why the MAC 2011 isn't imported.

Considering that the top end is where most of the difficult fitting is anyway, I wonder why they wouldn't import top ends...even if the bottom half couldn't be imported.

Ahh, questions, questions, and more questions.

[leam]

I bet someone who came out with an S_I frame that could take regular grip panels would do well in the "Nostalgia and hi-cap 45" market. It could be marketed against the 9mm/40S&W advantages of large round count in one tube. That would also open the way for Hogue type grips so you could fit an individual shooter better. Or even custom wood grips, or the other myriad of grip types. USPSA is a market, but for the 1911/2011 design not the only one.

Of course, you'd need to come up with a cheaper magazine design, too.

Leam

[bulm540]

When the patent is up, SOMEONE will produce a clone. I guarantee it. Who wants to bet?

There already is a clone. That's why I started this thread. See the other thread on the Filipino 1911s (I forgot the name and can't find the thread).

its the mac 2011 it still uses the STI frame. http://wscmakati.multiply.com/photos/album...vailable_at_WSC

Oh wow, you're right! My whole reason for making this thread is now shot, then. Why aren't they sold here?!?

Perhaps the frame is not STI and only the grip is. I'm not sure if that'd infringe on the utility patent or not. If it doesn't, I wonder why the MAC 2011 isn't imported.

Considering that the top end is where most of the difficult fitting is anyway, I wonder why they wouldn't import top ends...even if the bottom half couldn't be imported.

Ahh, questions, questions, and more questions.

As far as I know it is an STI frame. Could be geared towards the local Phil market and agreement between WSC and STI not to import the gun but STI supplies them with the lower. WSC I think is one of the local distributors for STI in the Phils. They use locally made upper parts as far as I know.