How does public domain apply to firearms?

>>33469124
There are three main patent types. One lasts for 20 years from issue, one last 70 years after the patent holder dies, and the last is good for 95 years after a company first publishes the patent. Most firearms fall into the last two categories. So carbon copy Glocks probably won't been seen until 2077 or later under current laws depending on the model.

The AR pattern design is public domain for one reason or another, you just can't call it an "AR-15" because Colt owns the trademark on that name.

As for copies of the SVD hard to say. I would assume the Russian government holds intellectual property rights over the design that they kept after the fall of the Soviet Union. In theory you could probably make them in the US since the US and Russia aren't the best buddies, but to make carbon copy SVDs would be incredibly expensive and the market small.

File: IMG_6846.jpg (110KB, 427x1024px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 427x1024px

I guess I'm not the only one without a clue

>>33469380
Shouldn't the glock be public domain soon? It's what, 25 years younger than the ar15?

>>33469124
Most of the AR-15's patents expired before 1989, and Colt lost the license to produce them in 1988.

Nothing is stopping someone from manufacturing a domestic SVD. It's just not worth the cost of setting up tooling and training factory workers, so no one does it. To be honest, it would be complete shit even if it were to be produced.

File: ans still works.jpg (3MB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2048x1360px

>>33469124
the history of weapon designs is kinda the history of patent infringement
it's always been "if its good make a rip off" and later deal with it legally
--example springfield 1908 is a rip off of the german mauser rifle and during ww1 the us was sued by germany and lost and had to pay a royalty for each one made
- also just look at all the AK pattern rifles made not by russa
--if you make a very similar but different design then you made a totally new kind of gun

>>33469124
Public domain is a copyright thing that's basically dead at this point. Designs are covered by patents, and patents only last a certain amount of time (I want to say 20 years?). The patents ran out for the AR-15 over 30 years ago so people can use the designs. The AR-15, M4, and M16 names, however, are Colt trademarks and thus can only be used by Colt. This is why your Dickhead Defense lower doesn't say AR-15, M4, or M16 on it.

>>33469380
Most firearms actually fall into the 20 year category. Well used to, I think it is now 17 years of exclusivity.

Now their are things about ARs that are under still patent, like key-mod and m-lok systems (but the patent owners are either very free with licences or don't care to enforce the patent). Other things are held very tightly, like unique charging handle designs or stock designs.

File: 1363146772627.jpg (296KB, 1000x622px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1000x622px

>>33469124
>What's stopping someone from domestically manufacturing a foreign gun like the svd?
>>33469466
>-if you make a very similar but different design then you made a totally new kind of gun

just make a AK pattern rifle that shoots a full sized rifle cartridge and is somewhat accurate at 500 to 1000 yards
ta-da.. its an SVD that's not an SVD, it may even be better then the SVD

>>33469469
But Daniel Defense does use M4/M4A1 in it's rifle names...

>>33469502
They use DDM4, not M4.

>>33469466
No, the 1903, was made under a negotiated licence (I think it was either the clip feeding system or the extractor) with Mauser, not the German government. The lawsuit you are thinking of has to due with the design of .30-03 and .30-06 and we ended up paying royalties.

>>33469124
>What's stopping someone from domestically manufacturing a foreign gun like the svd?
There is much more to manufacturing a firearm than having an engineering schematic, many contemporary ones require a great deal of knowledge specific to a design that is rarely public. Then if you want to mass produce it there is developing tooling and processes in accordance with that knowledge. Then there are legal concerns and BATFE hoops to jump through, if they won't approve your design for sale there's not much you can do other than revise and try again.
The AR-15 is really a simple design compared to many and its availability market meant a lot of tape is already been cut.
Here, the HMG guys and Mac address some of the problems when institutional knowledge or technical data is unavailible or otherwise lost:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwZuG7-xkBk

>>33469446
Did you notice that several years ago companies began to dump dozens of Glock-offs on the market? The Glock itself is surely trademarked but the design principles are everywhere now.

>>33469485
Why doesn't glock seem to fall under this umbrella? Is it the revisions?

>>33469591

READ:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/08/20/glocks-trademark-design/

>Glock’s trademark comes down to one thing: a squarish slide (not fully square because the Glock does have slight bevelling) without any cutouts at the front or rear that would change its “squared-off shape” as seen from the front or rear.

This is why Glock clones have front serrations.

>>33469525
IIRC the 1903 infringed upon some Mauser patents in the US but was not a Mauser design itself. A settlement was awarded at the conclusion of a legal battle and payment was remitted over multiple checks. Another lawsuit was made regarding spitzer bullets which continued into WW1 whereupon the patent was seized and thus no payment was necessary. I believe payments for the patents the 1903 infringed upon had been completed by this time.

>>33469630
So exactly what I said? The Glock itself is a trademark.

>>33469684
That's pretty much as stupid as apple """trademarking""" the rectangle with rounded corners and a circular home button. That Samsung phone did look a bit to close though

>>33469499
So... A PSL?

>>33469380
You're completely wrong. Patents last for 17 years and can be extended for an additional 3.

Copyright is the stupid shit that lasts for centuries now because Disney doesn't want to lose control of Mickey Mouse.

>>33469957
How fitting they bought Marvel. When the fuck is Captain America going public domain?

>>33469446
You can extend a patent by "improving" the design and re-filing. This is why there are "generations" of Glocks. Each time a new update comes out it renews the patent.

>>33469932
Except not made by gypsies

>>33470676
[spoiler]Never.[/spoiler]

>>33469124
>I'm a little confused how this works.
After ~14 years anyone can reproduce the design, but they have to call it a reasonably different name. (trademarks can last forever)

>Why is everyone and their mother allowed to make an ar15?
Because congress didn't ruin patent law like they did with copyright law.

>What's stopping someone from domestically manufacturing a foreign gun like the svd?
Nothing.

>Will glocks ever become public domain?
They already are. The waffle gooks just are vultures for perceived trademark infringement because their patents are long long expired.

>>33469380
Glock is actually out of patent now. Well, generations 1 thru 3. Gen 4 is still covered under patent, so all the proprietary parts on that gun (ie most of them) are the exclusive domain of Glock.

Meanwhile, lots of people are building 80% Glock handguns. There's currently frames available in full-size (PF940) or compact (PF940C). Apparently, more variations are soon to come. I'd guess they'll refresh their full-size version (match features and aesthetic to the PF940C) then release a sub-compact version.

>>33470908
That's called a Vepr bro.