C9 Replacement
- Thread starter DirtyDog
- Start date
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 29,845
- Points
- 1,260
MCG -- not baseless I speak from first person experience, both in seeing the RAS - and knowing some people at KAC... 
FN views Colt as a competitor in the Small Arms field - FN built FNMI in South Carolina to build the M249 and M240 for the US Mil, and then build the M16A2, and M16A4. The US Gov't had the Technical Data Package for the M16A2 since they designed it. Colt won its lawsuit with the US Gov't to stop FN from making M4 carbines - since Colt owns the TDP to the M4 as they designed it not the US Gov't.
I'd be curious to see FN's reaction on this, as what would stop Colt Canada from making M249 and M240 stuff for the US Mil?
but honestly my interest in the whole matter is rather dim, I have better things to do, like plan a wedding.
If the CF can get a C9A2 upgrade good for them - as long as its done legally.
FN views Colt as a competitor in the Small Arms field - FN built FNMI in South Carolina to build the M249 and M240 for the US Mil, and then build the M16A2, and M16A4. The US Gov't had the Technical Data Package for the M16A2 since they designed it. Colt won its lawsuit with the US Gov't to stop FN from making M4 carbines - since Colt owns the TDP to the M4 as they designed it not the US Gov't.
I'd be curious to see FN's reaction on this, as what would stop Colt Canada from making M249 and M240 stuff for the US Mil?
but honestly my interest in the whole matter is rather dim, I have better things to do, like plan a wedding.
If the CF can get a C9A2 upgrade good for them - as long as its done legally.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,881
- Points
- 1,260
I am not concerned with rails. You accused Colt Canada of being unethical in the C9 upgrade, and that is full baseless speculation on your part. It is the sort of libelous comment that brings lawyers & bad attention to the site.Infidel-6 said:
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 410
WRT Diemaco OR Colt Canada doing things that are not ethical OR illegal....
I have no doubt that FN & Co would come down on them like a ton of Bricks for having breached contracts... and said contracts would be nul and void....
To date, MsM hasn't even suggested it so I can only guess that poor business ethics asside, Diemaco/Colt are respecting IP.
I have no doubt that FN & Co would come down on them like a ton of Bricks for having breached contracts... and said contracts would be nul and void....
To date, MsM hasn't even suggested it so I can only guess that poor business ethics asside, Diemaco/Colt are respecting IP.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
While at a high-level meeting this week, I had a formal confirmation that there is no IP issues concerning the C9A2 replacement. Also, the first C9A2 modified by Colt Canada should be delivered within a month, to happy machine-gunners of 3RCR (once they are back from Ex MG, I guess).
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,881
- Points
- 1,260
The work being provided to the Canadian Government by Colt Canada is making use of IP owned by the Canadian Government for our use. If the US Government does not own the same IP with the same rights of use, then that would stop Colt Canada from providing the same service.Infidel-6 said:
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 29,845
- Points
- 1,260
You've obviously missed several of the lawsuits going on in the firearms industry in the last few years...
The Cdn gov't own the rights to certain Canadian inspired design changes -- however they do not own the rights to the weapon systems itself.
The Cdn gov't own the rights to certain Canadian inspired design changes -- however they do not own the rights to the weapon systems itself.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,881
- Points
- 1,260
You obviously think I am too stupid to understand that different contracts will sell different IP rights, with different restrictions depending on how they've been written (and how they are judged in different civil systems). The fact that lawsuits have occurred over other contracts does not prove anything one way or the other with respect to the IP rights that the Canadian government purchased.Infidel-6 said:
Is this assumption or is your information from somebody that has read the initial C9 contract? I'm not saying the Government has the rights to have the weapon built new. We might have those rights, but that is not what is happening. Existing weapons are being modified/upgraded. Right now, the folks who read these contracts are saying that this is all above board.Infidel-6 said:
Are you sure your FN contacts are not straying out of their lane? Could it be that there are things going on higher in their company that they are unaware of? Things like:
Ecco said:
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 29,845
- Points
- 1,260
My point has simply been that Colt Canada does not have the right to the FN Minmi/M249/C9 TDP -- the Cdn gov't may allow them use of the C9 propriaterial info, and FNH seems to be content with allowing them to do assistance. However I have been assured by folks in both food chains that the C9A2 program is just going to cut old C9 barrels and rethread them, nor is any new production going on. From my understand of the TAM - it allows CC to maintain in service weapons not to build new.
Given the state of most of the C9 fleet, the upgrade program is going to flounder as a great deal of the receivers are worn out. I spoke to several folk in Diemaco and the old LCMM - most who are no doubt regretting talking to me now, but the consensus was that the sale of Diemaco to Colt Canada was a very poor strategic error.
MCG you of all should know I dont think your stupid.
Given the state of most of the C9 fleet, the upgrade program is going to flounder as a great deal of the receivers are worn out. I spoke to several folk in Diemaco and the old LCMM - most who are no doubt regretting talking to me now, but the consensus was that the sale of Diemaco to Colt Canada was a very poor strategic error.
MCG you of all should know I dont think your stupid.
