Smith & Wesson are Clowns

View · by **UnaStamus** on Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:41 pm

This is just another example of S&W and their continually downward slide to corporate idiocy. They have previously sent C&D letters to people posting schematics and manuals online, among other things.
As pointed out by others, it's quite ironic given that it's coming from a company that literally copied a Glock and lost a lawsuit over it.

http://www.recoilweb.com/sw-sends-cease-and-desist-letter-to-custom-gunsmiths-80507.html#ixzz3v5Rvji00

View · by **LumberZach** on Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:58 pm

I saw this and was about to post about. As if I had less reason to buy smith and Wesson lately...

View · by **mmcnx2** on Tue Dec 22, 2015 10:42 pm

Unfortunately patent and copy right laws don't allow companies to selectively permit unauthorized copying of their materials. If they don't enforce in all cases it reduces their ability to enforce their rights when they need to. So while it appears they are being difficult the lawyer society is really the issue. I suspect almost every other major company either does the same thing or they will once they get their butt handed to them in a lawsuit.

View · by **shooter115** on Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:15 am

Wow! Talk about bad PR moves. Their lawyers just cost them millions in sales.

View · by **UnaStamus** on Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:04 am

mmcnx2 wrote:Unfortunately patent and copy right laws don't allow companies to selectively permit unauthorized copying of their materials. If they don't enforce in all cases it reduces their ability to enforce their rights when they need to. So while it appears they are being difficult the lawyer society is really the issue. I suspect almost every other major company either does the same thing or they will once they get their butt handed to them in a lawsuit.

Glock, Sig Sauer, Springfield and other gun companies like Remington don't go after gunsmiths or custom parts companies for selling components or advertising custom guns. S&W may have the legal right, but they're in the minority of companies that do. They combat the liability by invalidating warranty when any custom work is done, and they clearly state it in their paperwork. S&W does this too, but they're having a misunderstanding about what they're actually contesting.

View · by **Jackpine Savage** on Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:20 am

S&W apologizes: http://bearingarms.com/smith-wesson-fully-understand-dream-gun-project-apologizes/

View · by **BigBlue** on Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:15 pm

And this situation shows, yet again, why this world is so f'd up these days... Everybody gets all bent out of shape by something in an instant and doesn't take the time to either fully think things through, fully understand what is going on, or accept the fact that not everything everybody does is done with malignancy in mind. Sometimes when something seems out of place it actually is. Assume positive intent.

View · by **jdege** on Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:25 pm

http://bearingarms.com/sith-wesson-loses-minds/

View · by **UnaStamus** on Wed Dec 23, 2015 5:02 pm

Another situation that got WAAAYYY out of hand because of our overly litigious society. S&W is backpedaling hardcore, but they are still idiots. Congrats to them for reinforcing why there is growing disdain for their company and their ongoing movement towards becoming more corporate and less customer-oriented.

View · by **gearguy10** on Wed Dec 23, 2015 6:16 pm

Glock, Sig Sauer, Springfield and other gun companies like Remington don't go after gunsmiths or custom parts companies for selling components or advertising custom guns. S&W may have the legal right, but they're in the minority of companies that do. They combat the liability by invalidating warranty when any custom work is done, and they clearly state it in their paperwork. S&W does this too, but they're having a misunderstanding about what they're actually contesting.

Not true. Back when Ebay used to allow gun accessory sales, I had a Glock rep go after me several times when I listed aftermarket parts for sale. I could mention the parts fit a Glock XX, but they didn't want their name in the title or any references to improving the performance. Lots of threats. I pretty much said F-it and quit using Ebay over it.

View · by **UnaStamus** on Wed Dec 23, 2015 9:45 pm

What was the context of the parts you were selling and what did they specifically say to you? Was the message directly from Glock or was it from a Glock rep?

View · by **aht_six** on Thu Dec 24, 2015 8:58 am

Sounds to me like an overzealous IP lawyer flexing his muscles, forced the boss to step in and make things right. Making the boss look bad is usually a career limiting move, he's likely unemployed.

View · by **Vlad** on Thu Dec 24, 2015 10:47 am

We can only hope...

View · by **Jackpine Savage** on Thu Dec 24, 2015 11:01 am

Or the CEO just used the attorney as a scapegoat.....

View · by **mmcnx2** on Thu Dec 24, 2015 11:17 am

Actually sounds like the folks that are customizing the M&P did not talk to Smith first and Smith may have had liability concerns about the modifications being reverted back to them given some of the announcement/marketing materials used Smiths logos, names and trademarks (some folks may have interpreted that to mean Smith approved of the modifications). Actually sounds like once they talked it all out everything is now fine. If you read the Smith announcement it is pretty carefully worded to say they are happy to be involved but it stops once step short of endorsing the modifications.

Heck even Ruger if you send them our Mark 22 with aftermarket parts inside will send it back without doing any work. You have to put the pistol back into original condition before they will work on it. Trying send in a glock for warranty work after you've lighted the slide or stippled the grip.

While we may not like Smiths initial response in this day of sue crazy people companies really don't have an option.