delete

[Mstrty]

delete

[lakersandguns]

Patient?

[IntoForever]

Patience guys, it's a typo.

[DaveInOroValley]

Just saw this on News 10.

[aileron]

Op you should update your title and fix your original post. I didn't understand what you were asking but thought you might be talking about patents.

As to your question... I don't know the answer as to why they are able to move forward.

Most likely other technology exists or they just don't care if technology exists and are making the law anyways. That way they can hope to force someone to come up with the technology.

Maybe no one knows at the moment and/or our side is busy trying to figure out what steps on the chess board they can take.

[mjmagee67]

I really wish all the English teacher would at least try to answer the intent of the question. The OP probably fell victim to the autocorrect.

I noticed the DOJ didn't give information on who has the technology for the micro stamping. Makes me wonder if this is just another Kalifornia end run around the 2nd.

[JDay]

You ever hear the saying "there's more than one way to skin a cat"? Same applies to patents since there can be more than one method to do something.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[nick]

A few notes/guesses (since all we have is guesses, until we have more info):

1. CGF does not own the patent, whatever moron came up with it (don't remember his name) does. CGF was just nice enough to pay to extend the patent, to make sure the moron in question could still gainfully employ his patent for some more years. Nice folks, CGF Of course, the conundrum is that while this invention is still encumbered by patents, it cannot b gainfully employed in CA, by that misguided microstamping law. Hm, maybe not so nice folks, CGF. Devious.

2. Knowing our powers-that-be in CA, they're not particularly encumbered by following laws. So I can easily believe that Kamala Harris, in her zeal, decided to just make this a requirement, the law be damned. Wouldn't be the first time an illegal underground regulation came out of CA DOJ, now would it? Since there's no punishment for doing so, there's nothing really stopping them from trying, right? I mean, other than the need to follow the law, including the Constitution, and all that, since that's for the "little people".

3. They might've either found some way around this requirement in the law, or some other technology, or think they have. However, I haven't seen any info on such technology yet, so for now I have to assume it's still the old crap.

Now, I wonder, if DOJ is planning to make the requirements for using whatever technologies they expect to be used available to manufacturers... Pity I'm still a ways away from my manufacturing license.

[SamsDX]

Here's some background information on this issue:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=583265

Last year CGF paid the maintenance fee on one of the patents so that the technology remained "encumbered." Well, that probably pissed of Lizotte, the inventor/owner of these microstamping patents. As you'll see in the following NYT article, he wanted his patents to lapse so that states would start mandating this technology:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/us/code-on-shell-casings-sparks-a-gun-debate.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&

I haven't done enough looking in the PTO system to see if he has other patents/applications, but the primary one at issue last year was 7,111,423. A continuation application was filed claiming priority to the application issuing as the '423 patent as well, which itself issued as Pat. No. 7,204,419. Interestingly, back in November 2012 Lizotte filed a Statutory Disclaimer for each patent (see attachments), in effect dedicating the claimed subject matter in both the '423 patent and the '419 to the public. The other patents in the continuity chain all appear to have lapsed for failing to pay maintenance fees: 6,833,911; 6,886,284; 6,653,593; 6,420,615; and 6,310,701.

If you want to look up this information yourself, go to: portal.uspto.gov, and select Public PAIR. Go through the CAPTCHA, and enter in the serial number for the '423 patent, exactly thus: 10/427513

I don't know if there are more patents by other inventors of microstamping technology, but if these Lizotte patents described the fundamentals and the legislation was drafted so that this technology constituted the baseline legal requirement, then by them lapsing and/or disclaimed, it's likely correct that it is no longer encumbered. At the very least, more than one manufacturer can presently implement microstamping exactly as described and claimed in these expired patents. It wouldn't surprise me if the DOJ and/or anti-gun groups coordinated with the inventor to get this statutory disclaimer filed. One clever move begat another, and while it may be possible to challenge the DOJ's authority to make these assessments, their position isn't unsupported, unjustified, or completely off base.

I still have faith in CGF that the Pena lawsuit will succeed. Hopefully it'll put a stop to all this AB-169 (SSE exemption) nonsense, as well as the microstamping, LCI and Mag disconnect crap.

[Tincon]

Last year CGF paid the maintenance fee on one of the patents so that the technology remained "encumbered." Well, that probably pissed of Lizotte, the inventor/owner of these microstamping patents. A

Yes it probably did, which was why the people who suggested the idea to Gene/CGF also suggested that it be done QUIETLY. I'm not sure if the current fiasco is a direct result of Gene's decision so eschew that advice and make a self-serving media story out of it (since I don't even know what the DOJ is claiming) but it's certainly possible. We will see.

[SamsDX]

Yes it probably did, which was why the people who suggested the idea to Gene/CGF also suggested that it be done QUIETLY. I'm not sure if the current fiasco is a direct result of Gene's decision so eschew that advice and make a self-serving media story out of it (since I don't even know what the DOJ is claiming) but it's certainly possible. We will see.

What's done is done, and they would have found out about they payment one way or another, even if things had been kept quiet. A statutory disclaimer is not difficult to file, and can be done in the span of ten minutes if that, including the time spent looking up the appropriate provision in the MPEP. Most practitioners never have to deal with clients/inventors giving up patent term intentionally and voluntarily; apparently their attorneys screwed it up once too and they first tried to file a terminal disclaimer instead. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and researching for the right rule probably added 15 minutes to the task.

Check out the article linked in the OP - AG Harris's quotes pretty much confirms what I saw on Public PAIR, though of course not in patent-specific terms.