Author Topic: Any new news's with Winchester??? (Read 7628 times)

Feldhege · « **Reply #30 on:** February 24, 2006, 10:16:17 AM »

But I don't think it has been established that it was the company producing RIFLES that was sued. Has it? Maybe I will see if I can find a copy of the lawsuit and see who was suing whom. Don't know that I will find it but I guess it might help clear up this little matter.

Then again, maybe not!

june6th1944 · « **Reply #31 on:** February 24, 2006, 10:29:12 AM »

From www.theoutdoorwire.com:

SUING:
Several firearms manufacturers are huddling with legal counsels following receipt of letters from Shooting Times Ballistics Editor Rick Jamison. Jamison's not asking for information or assistance, and his letter doesn't come on behalf of the magazine where he's a long-standing expert editor.

Jamison's offering a legal settlement in avoidance of a lawsuit. According to these letters, Jamison's intellectual property was purloined by Winchester in their short magnums. He sued, winning a decision in a Missouri court (his state of residence). Winchester, the letter states, settled the claim as has fellow short-magnum rifle manufacturer Browning and Olin Winchester ammunition. In the heretofore unreported letters, Jamison is reportedly seeking a monetary "cure" from each manufacturer, in addition to an ongoing royalty for the sale of each rifle in the contested calibers.

The lawsuit is doubtless causing some heartburn at publishing powerhouse Primedia. As one of their established experts in shooting, Jamison's lawsuit may cause a backlash against them. At least one firearms company tells The Outdoor Wire that, on advice of counsel, they will defend the claim in court, and will begin amassing a "war chest" by cutting back on their advertising. Any guesses where their first belt-tightening might begin?

SHOT 2006 may prove very interesting.
--- Jim Shepherd

Feldhege · « **Reply #32 on:** February 24, 2006, 10:54:29 AM »

That clears up that. Looks like BOTH the ammo and the rifle company were sued along with a few others. This could be trouble for those calibers.

Graybeard · « **Reply #33 on:** February 24, 2006, 11:39:24 AM »

Sorry but I'm STILL not buying it. That site is no different than this one. Folks post baloney on them all the time.

First up a patent on a cartridge doesn't lock in for that person anything but the name. The cartridge dimensions cannot be patented. Maybe and only maybe if it was a totally brand new design but the WSM and WSSM rounds are based on an existing case (the .404 Jeffery) so no one can patent a shorter version of an existing round. That ain't the way it works. Yes he could COPY RIGHT not patent the name he selected but he would NOT be able to copy right the name Winchester Short Magnum as he holds no rights to the Winchester name.

This whole this is just a bunch of BS and I'll stand by that until such time as some one shows me a site where the legal briefs are posted. If such a case happened they would be on the net. Other forum sites like this one cannot be used to convince me of the veracity of this matter.

Then assuming it was real which I do not for one minute accept then the ammo maker NOT the rifle makers would be the target of a suit. Anyone can chamber a rifle for anything they want to with no repercushions or law suits possible to stop them. They just call it whatever they want as long as the name isn't copy righted and they are fully legal.

So again I said IF it were real only the ammo makers would be in the law suit and that would be darn near all of them since everyone now is making ammo for the WSMs. All rifle makers are chambering the rounds too. So it wouldn't be affecting Winchester rifles anymore than anyone else.

This is just bogus info and I'll say that until someone proves me wrong with a website with the legal briefs posted and don't show me a forum site, it has to be a site where legal briefs are posted.

Keith L · « **Reply #34 on:** February 24, 2006, 03:33:50 PM »

I have to agree with GB on this one. And if much of Winchester's production is like the 94AE I got in trade this last fall I don't wonder that the venerable company went down. It is pretty poorly executed.

Feldhege · « **Reply #35 on:** February 24, 2006, 04:35:47 PM »

I am sorry. Before I posted my reply I should have read the site. I ASSUMED (I know, I know) that the link pointed to the leagal document I mentioned. If it was just a bunch of postings from individual, then I would also have to agree with GB.

white feather · « **Reply #36 on:** February 25, 2006, 12:53:25 PM »

It's going to be hard to get any real evidence on this because all the records were sealed, the amount that was awarded wasent even released.

brasskeeper · « **Reply #37 on:** February 25, 2006, 01:11:49 PM »

Lets say just for a minute all this about the lawsuit is true. That does not mean that the lawsuit forced winchester out of buisness. As far as I know they could have filed bankruptcy protection and restructered and stayed in buisness

Quote from: white feather

Gentlemen

The problem i have with all of this is, its Americans putting Americans out of work, ok lets say that the patent thing is right, so why sue for so much money you put a company out of buisness, why not just say hay you marketed my idea and i want a piece of the action, your set for life and so are your kids and grandkids, dont get greedy.

What are the employes at Winchester going to do now, some have been there for 40 years and close to retirement, so now what, be a Wallmart greeter till you can retire.

For those of you that dont know Winchester was comeing out with some really nice rifles in the future, like the take down model 94, among other things, what do you want to bet that the WSM is going to die on the vine, and ill bet that Remington will drop the WSM from there product line real soon.

I just got a e/mail from a gun writer friend who told me that nobody wants Rick now, and gun writers make a liveing by takeing products that companys send to them to try out and write up articles on.

I have met Rick at the Shot Show, seems like a really nice guy, cant believe he would stoop so low to fill his pockets, ok ill get off my soap box now, just makes me sick to see another company going down the toobs because of greed, WF

june6th1944 · « **Reply #38 on:** February 25, 2006, 01:39:38 PM »

The www.theoutdoorwire.com is not a forum site like this one. Anyone can go to it and see for themselves.

BTW...Rifle magazine has some comments that I'll be posting about this Winchester topic as well. Strangely enough they mention a lawsuit, not specifically Jamison, but a lawsuit. Take their information for what it's worth. The last time I checked Rifle Magazine by Wolfe Publishing was not a forum site.

Besides as someone mentioned, cases that are settled out of court don't make it to Findlaw.

june6th1944 · « **Reply #39 on:** February 25, 2006, 01:59:52 PM »

For starters I'll have to correct myselft...it is Handloader Magazine not Rifle Magazine (both are published by Wolfe Publishing though). I take all three of their publications. The quote below is from Handloader: Ammunition Reloading Journal Issue No. 240 April/May 2006. The article is titled "Swan Song for Models 94, 70, and 1300" pp. 6-11 by Dave Scovill, the quote below is taken from p.11.

Quote

Then, there's the lawsuit in which USRAC and another party settled out of court. Details are highly guarded, but the "agreement" apparently includes royalties on a patent infringement that might have had the net effect of "nickel-and-diming" USRAC to death, the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back," along with union labor costs.

Scovill makes good points about the factors that led to the demise of Winchester. This lawsuit is real industry news not just "BS" on a forum. For those interested, you should question Dave Scovill at Wolfe Publishing directly.

Keith L · « **Reply #40 on:** February 25, 2006, 03:25:38 PM »

Quote

royalties on a patent infringement that might have had the net effect of "nickel-and-diming" USRAC to death, the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back,"

Looks to me like your authority is speculating. The key word is might. He might be right, then again he might not. And we may never really know.

all4abuck · « **Reply #41 on:** March 01, 2006, 04:05:34 PM »

I heard from a gunshop owner today that the factory could not reach a deal with the union and by law has to shot doors for 2 to 3 years. Then they can re-open. Has anyone heard this one? I know there are a lot of rumors around. But there has to be some truth to every BS.

msorenso · « **Reply #42 on:** March 02, 2006, 05:07:06 AM »

The part that the will not be able to produce and maerican production winchesters until 2008 is correct!

brasskeeper · « **Reply #43 on:** March 02, 2006, 06:48:42 AM »

I work for a company that has some factories that are union and some that are not. The company has one factory that had a union contract and closed then reopened several years later non-union. It is my understanding that if a company closes a factory that has had a union conract it must stay closed for 5 years then they can re-open non-union. If it starts back before the five years the company will be bound by that contract. But I'm sure if it re-opened non-union the employees could ask the Labor board for a vote on weather or not to seek union representation again.

I'm not for or against nor I am a expert. If there is anyone who knows more let us know.

Quote from: all4abuck

I heard from a gunshop owner today that the factory could not reach a deal with the union and by law has to shot doors for 2 to 3 years. Then they can re-open. Has anyone heard this one? I know there are a lot of rumors around. But there has to be some truth to every BS.

Keith L · « **Reply #44 on:** March 02, 2006, 11:32:25 AM »

I don't know if there is a statutary time limit, but if the law were to be enforced even saying the closing was to escape the union contract is against the law. Enforcement would be by the department of labor, and under this administration it wouldn't happen.

And if Winchester truly were doing this they deserve to die. The Machinists Union that represents the workers is one of the most progressive labor organizations around, and will work with companies that truly have hardship. I suspect they are closing for business reasons, and all this speculaton is not going to change a thing.

BoarHunter · « **Reply #45 on:** March 06, 2006, 03:56:44 AM »

Browning officials claim that the machinery was antiquated, not suitable to produce at a competitive price and investement to renew not worth because of low demand.

I own a 94 in 444Marlin and quite pleased with it. In 5 years since I bought it, I shot more than 20 roebuck deer and more than 10 wild baor and quite some foxes. I use it for drive hunt while my Sako is for stalking/stand hunting.

If it was produced in an other country than the US, I would not have bought it. Certainly not Japan as they finance anti gun movement nor China or Brasil.

Now may be they should have tried to survey what the customers really wanted as in many of these big companies, the marketing people tend to have their own ideas on what people wants and try to push them via marketing campaign. It may work for pop soda, but not in this market where you have to be a hunter and shooter to really feel it.

NYH1 · « **Reply #46 on:** March 08, 2006, 06:49:47 AM »

Aren't Winchester and Browning owned by the same company? Last I heard they were. And if I'm not mistaken it's a French company that owns them. Winchester is probably doing what Browning did so they can make their firearms in Japan instead of the US or in Brownings case Japan instead of Belgium. In either case I'll spent my money else where.

brasskeeper · « **Reply #47 on:** March 11, 2006, 06:50:58 PM »

Jamison's Patents

5,826,361

6,675,717

6,678,983

NYH1 · « **Reply #48 on:** March 12, 2006, 06:21:38 AM »

Rick Jamason was in the April issue of Shooting Times. When is he no longer going to be working there?

brasskeeper · « **Reply #49 on:** March 12, 2006, 09:10:16 AM »

I havent seen anything official saying he was leaving.

Quote from: New York Hunter

Rick Jamason was in the April issue of Shooting Times. When is he no longer going to be working there?

NYH1 · « **Reply #50 on:** March 13, 2006, 11:55:00 AM »

brasskeeper, I haven't either I was just wondering if there was any truth to this? Like I said Rick is in the April 2006 issue of shooting times.

Quote from: white feather

From what i have pieced together Winchester is closeing the doors because of the law suit that Shooting times writer Rick Jameson brought against them, seems he put a patent on some cardridge designs he said he developed, then said Winchester came along and copied them and sold his idea to the public, im not sure of that, but Winchester paid off a un-disclosed amount of money in the settlement, i think they were barely hanging on and this sure didnt help matters any, Shooting Times has had so much heat from it's suscribers that Jamisons contract has been bought out by them and he has been released from there employment, heard he was going to work for Petersons Publications, i know i wont suscribe to Shooting Times Magazine again, my not suscribe to Petersons Publications if they hire him, he put a lot of people out of work and a old and good company out of buisness, just my 2 cent's worth, WF.

Quote from: white feather

Have you not heard that Rick Jamason sued Winchester over patient rights and won, have you not heard he no longer works for Shooting Times, there is a lot of truith about what im saying, do a search for yourself and see, i coopied this from another sight that has info on it.

Gun writer Rick Jamison went and patented a short mag case (5,826,361 /6,675,717/ 6,678,983).

Then there was a patent infringment lawsuit involving Winchester and Browning over the WSM, which he claimed was a replica of his patented short mag.

Winchester and Browning have settled the suit, the details are sealed. In essence, the challenge by these two manufacturers has ended. Jamison has full patent rights to this case. Anyone manufacturing guns, brass, ammo, etc in the WSM case are responsible to contact Jamison for approval before using. The royality would be determined by Jamison.

http://www.shortmags.org/shortmags/snitzforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6776

Quote from: white feather

Gentlemen

The problem i have with all of this is, its Americans putting Americans out of work, ok lets say that the patent thing is right, so why sue for so much money you put a company out of buisness, why not just say hay you marketed my idea and i want a piece of the action, your set for life and so are your kids and grandkids, dont get greedy.

What are the employes at Winchester going to do now, some have been there for 40 years and close to retirement, so now what, be a Wallmart greeter till you can retire.

For those of you that dont know Winchester was comeing out with some really nice rifles in the future, like the take down model 94, among other things, what do you want to bet that the WSM is going to die on the vine, and ill bet that Remington will drop the WSM from there product line real soon.

I just got a e/mail from a gun writer friend who told me that nobody wants Rick now, and gun writers make a liveing by takeing products that companys send to them to try out and write up articles on.

I have met Rick at the Shot Show, seems like a really nice guy, cant believe he would stoop so low to fill his pockets, ok ill get off my soap box now, just makes me sick to see another company going down the toobs because of greed, WF

white feather · « **Reply #51 on:** March 13, 2006, 05:00:19 PM »

You will probably see articals in Shooting Times for awhile, it depends how many he had writen up at the time of buyout of his contract, some articles are 6 months or older at the time the magazine comes out, just wate you will see that what i say is not BS like stated elsewhere.

NYH1 · « **Reply #52 on:** March 13, 2006, 05:46:26 PM »

Quote from: white feather

You will probably see articals in Shooting Times for awhile, it depends how many he had writen up at the time of buyout of his contract, some articles are 6 months or older at the time the magazine comes out, just wate you will see that what i say is not BS like stated elsewhere.

Fair enough! I wasn't saying it was BS. I just opened my Shooting Times and noticed Rick's article and remembered someone here (you) said he was let go. No biggy, was just asking! :grin:

white feather · « **Reply #53 on:** March 14, 2006, 06:20:15 AM »

New York Hunter

First let me say i didnt mean to make it sound like i said you called my post BS, last thing we need here is a flame war going on.

I dont know how many articles Rick has written, if he has 6 then it might be 6 months before you stop seeing his articles in Shooting Times.

I wish i could copy and paste the e/mails i have received about Winchester but i cant, it seems that Winchester was teeter tottering anyway and this law suite was just the straw that broke the camels back.

But for what it's worth i was watching the men"s channel yesterday and Winchester was advertising model 70 rifles, hay give me the salt i would like nothing better than to eat my words here if it would keep Winchester or any other company from going over seas, WF.

Old Griz · « **Reply #54 on:** March 18, 2006, 04:23:09 PM »

:cb2: I think of all the folks who took their first deer with a Winchester .30-30 (and some of us old farts still hunt with a .30-30), and with all the CAS people out there, Winchester can't sell Model 94s? Surely Marlin hasn't cornered all the business?

Keith L · « **Reply #55 on:** March 19, 2006, 01:19:06 AM »

When companies go out of buisness it is normally for a variety of reasons. In Winchester's case perhaps the 94 was a good seller, but may not have generated the capitol to float the rest of the company. We may never know what the reasons were. Apparently the company wasn't able to cover expenses, and had no reason to believe that they could in the forseeable future. It may have been in such bad shape that we all could have doubled our Winchester collections and it still would have gone out of business. I have seen companies that the more they sold the faster they went out of business. So without some investigation into the company on quite a deep level, which I know I won't get to do, I won't ever really know what happened.

Cecil · « **Reply #56 on:** March 19, 2006, 02:50:05 AM »

I find it kinda funny there web site is still up and running?

msorenso · « **Reply #57 on:** March 19, 2006, 05:45:37 AM »

The reason the website is up is because the sx3 sx2 and over under and semi rifle are still in production. Also they just came out with a wild cat 22.. Remeber the american production is what is going to stop. Not the Belgian and Japan models.

Dee · « **Reply #58 on:** March 19, 2006, 10:40:05 AM »

Correct me if I'm wrong but, hasn't Colt almost priced themselves out of the gun market a few times with poorly made products and high prices. I have a 1957 made Model 94 bought new and there is no comparison to the quality since 1964. Yea, they brought the quality up some since 64 but, they haven't exactly set the woods on fire with the concept. People like Navy Arms are selling replicas that I have excellent results with for less money. Marlin has torn them up with new lever ideas and Ruger and Remington are building great bolts. As far as shotguns? Look at Remington, Benille and others. I just don't think the owners have enough focus on building GOOD WINCHESTERS and it finally caught up with them. Maybe someone will recognize this and buy the rights and re-focus on a great line. Especially with the new Hornady ammo coming out. Rumors will drive you nuts! :wink:

Cecil · « **Reply #59 on:** March 19, 2006, 11:19:08 AM »

I under stand they will be selling guns made else where but there still advertising model 70's 94's on the web site?