It blows my mind that companies get away with blatant theft of intellectual property making crap like this.
Their designs and trademarks are most certainly IP.I agree and as long as there is a market for the cheap stuff it will happen but I wouldn't call it intellectual property.
There designs and trademarks are most certainly IP.
Of course, but intellectual property extends to trademarked designs, logos, the name (it say Eotech in their font on the sight), the design of the housing, etc...all patented or trademarked, thus making it the intellectual property of L3. I'd love to see the makers of the counterfeits get their pants sued off. Nothing against you at all...theft just pisses me off.Who came out with the first dot sight because you could say the same about that.
The case... Yes
Their logo... Yes
But not dot sights and that's what they are.
Eotech holds a patent on the reticle as well as holographic aiming technology in a multitude of forms.It blows my mind that companies get away with blatant theft of intellectual property making crap like this.
Their design, engineering, and/or marketing team surely designed the housing, along with their logo and the font that they used. If you cannot prove that your design, or utility patent or trademark is original...you don't get one. The prior art search is the very first thing that's done to see if anyone has come up with the same thing previous to you. I used to be in this industry.Trust me... I wholeheartedly agree
But who did they get the idea from to begin with?
If it weren't for someone else they wouldn't have anything to trademark.
Unintended consequences in life and business...
Anyway... This is a cheap Chinese version that doesn't carry the quality or cost of an Eo.
Their design, engineering, and/or marketing team surely designed the housing, along with their logo and the font that they used. If you cannot prove that your design, or utility patent or trademark is original...you don't get one. The prior art search is the very first thing that's done to see if anyone has come up with the same thing previous to you. I used to be in this industry.
In the 60's( I believe) Charles Hall created what he thought was the first water bed. He applied for the patent, but was denied because the USPTO found a reference (prior art) to a waterbed in a sci-fi novel written by Robert Heinlein in the 1800's. No kidding.
Let's assume that it doesn't actually use holographic imaging as defined in L3s patent.....and we'll assume that the reticle is sufficiently different.
Take a Dremel buffing wheel to the trademarked name and logo....boom, instantly becomes a 'clone'
Actually I don't like buying cheap chinese knockoffs. Regardless, that's the same as saying hey...if you didn't want me to steal your guns, you shouldn't have invited me to your house.If American Companies didn't buy their parts from China they probably wouldn't have to worry about IP being stolen but you're not pissed about buying Chinese goods.
Where did I state their logo and design wasn't theirs?
They infringe upon this patent multiple times, on both function and design.
US6490060B1 - Lightweight holographic sight - Google Patents
A lightweight contact holographic sight includes a housing and a base which form a compartment containing a laser diode, an associated power source, and optical elements including a mirror, an off axis collimator, a reflection grating, and an image hologram of a reticle pattern, wherein the...patents.google.com
Actually I don't like buying cheap chinese knockoffs. Regardless, that's the same as saying hey...if you didn't want me to steal your guns, you shouldn't have invited me to your house.