# Royalties to Glock?



## Mdnitedrftr (Aug 10, 2006)

I was talking to my friend today and he mentioned that S&W has to pay royalties to Glock for copying their hammerless design. He didnt mention any other company, but that might be because I was telling him about my M&P and he knows Im not a Glock fan... 

Any truth behind that?


----------



## Mdnitedrftr (Aug 10, 2006)

Now that I looked up some info, apparently he was right. Glock sued S&W because the Sigma was too close in design to Glocks....


----------



## SuckLead (Jul 4, 2006)

Yeah, as far as I know, the whole thing is based around the Sigma series. They are pretty much cheap, crappy versions of the Glock (sorry, Sigma owners, no offense).


----------



## James NM (Jan 4, 2007)

It's definitely not the hammerless design. S&W was making hammerless handguns before there was a Glock.


----------



## Revolver (Aug 26, 2006)

It's not true(sometimes Wikipedia, et al are not reliable sources). Note the "undisclosed sum" part. If that doesn't reek of rumor, I don't know what does.

Smith & Wesson changed the design so that they _wouldn't_ have to pay royalties. The problem allegedly was that some of the parts of a Glock would interchange with those of a Sigma. I own neither a Glock nor an early Sigma so I can't confirm.

The striker-operation and plastic frame of Glock's pistols was nothing new and have already been done.


----------



## Revolver (Aug 26, 2006)

SuckLead said:


> Yeah, as far as I know, the whole thing is based around the Sigma series. They are pretty much cheap, crappy versions of the Glock (sorry, Sigma owners, no offense).


I dislike Sigmas but I'd take just about anything over Glock's horrible ergonomics. I can't stand the grip of those things.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

Two sources of info found online:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n6_v42/ai_19767928

Shooting Industry magazine, June, 1997

S&W And Glock Settle Suit

The Glock vs. Smith & Wesson lawsuit is history. After nearly three years of legal posturing, S&W has agreed to a multimillion dollar settlement and a slight modification to the Sigma Series Pistols.

To no one's surprise, Glock sued Smith & Wesson in early 1994. claiming "tortious acts, including without limitations, patent infringement, federal unfair competition, common unfair competition and deceptive trade practices."

S&W returned the salvo with "We firmly believe the suit to be totally without merit and will act accordingly."

Glock also sent an ultimatum to its dealers, giving them 15 days to decide on which to carry, the Glock or the Sigma. "If your decision is to continue to distribute Smith & Wesson products, your contractual relationship with Glock Inc. will be terminated," read the message.

In the end, Smith and Wesson agreed to "remove the surface located below the sear in the Sigma Series Pistols, which Glock contends is a positive guide means, and Glock has agreed that such a modification would resolve the patent infringement claim."

While no one in an official position is willing to say how much S&W will pay Glock, informed sources put the figure at between $5 and $8 million.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec....93ea329da8a/b22b8c98aa8ae067#b22b8c98aa8ae067

The law suit of Glock, Inc. versus Smith & Wesson Corporation has been "resolved." Smith & Wesson *apparently* simply decided after plaintiff had presented its case, that they could not possibly win, so they decided to seek a "resolution" without even presenting the defendant's case -- a highly unusual scenario, from what I have been told. The federal judge specifically cited the testimony of Peter Kokalis (on the trade dress issue) and that of Glock's mechanical engineer (on the patents issue) as being especially important to him.

The resolution is as follows:

1) Smith & Wesson has agreed to eliminate what they call the "shelf" under the sear on the Sigma pistol, and what Glock calls the "drop safety". This was the most important patent issue.

2) Smith & Wesson has obtained a license from Glock to copy the Glock's trade dress (a product's overall appearance).

3) The monetary portion of the settlement will not be disclosed.

I will be writing an article about this case in SOF. Please do not ask for any further details at this time as I cannot provide them.

Peter Kokalis


----------



## kenjihara (Dec 25, 2006)

Revolver said:


> It's not true(sometimes Wikipedia, et al are not reliable sources). Note the "undisclosed sum" part. If that doesn't reek of rumor, I don't know what does.
> 
> Smith & Wesson changed the design so that they _wouldn't_ have to pay royalties. The problem allegedly was that some of the parts of a Glock would interchange with those of a Sigma. I own neither a Glock nor an early Sigma so I can't confirm.
> 
> The striker-operation and plastic frame of Glock's pistols was nothing new and have already been done.


Certain parts were definitely interchangeable, including barrels.


----------



## SuckLead (Jul 4, 2006)

Revolver said:


> I dislike Sigmas but I'd take just about anything over Glock's horrible ergonomics. I can't stand the grip of those things.


I'm not a fan of either gun, but if it was a choice between those two I'd have to take the Glock.


----------



## Revolver (Aug 26, 2006)

kenjihara said:


> Certain parts were definitely interchangeable, including barrels.


I thought that it would be the case. Did the early Sigmas sport the polygonal rifled barrels too?

Seems the details are still fuzzy about how much money changed hands as both companies opted to keep it confidential(my source didn't seem as accurate as I thought on the settlement issue. Still no royalties though.). Smith & Wesson ripping-off Glock's design was a foolish strategy. It's bizarre(and sickening) that the Sigma is one of the few automatics that Smith & Wesson didn't drop over the past decade.


----------



## Glockamania® (Dec 21, 2006)

Very interesting topic.


----------



## Spartan (Jan 1, 2007)

How can that be true when Taurus makes virtual copies of other companies' guns (Beretta for example)?


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

Spartan said:


> How can that be true when Taurus makes virtual copies of other companies' guns (Beretta for example)?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_92

Taurus

The Beretta 92 was designed for sports and law enforcement use and, due to its reliability, was accepted by military users in South America. The first large contract for the Beretta 92 was with the Brazilian army, for which Beretta set up a factory in Brazil. It later sold this factory to the Brazilian gunmaker Taurus.

Taurus continues to make pistols (under license from Beretta) based on the original Beretta 92, calling it the PT92, the barrel of which is still interchangeable with a Beretta 92. Taurus modified the original Beretta 92 design, and its recent pistols have the magazine release located behind the trigger guard, and different safeties that act as decocking levers when pulled down and trigger locks when pushed up, presenting the end-user with a different variety of safety options.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_157_26/ai_84428741

Taurus entered into the pistol business almost by chance. In 1974, Beretta won a major pistol contract for the Brazilian military. Part of the contract stipulated that Beretta manufacture the pistols in Brazil and employ Brazilian labor. Accordingly, Beretta constructed a large plant in Sao Paulo and when the contract expired in 1980, Beretta sold the entire facility to Taurus, including all technical data, tooling and machinery.

In one fell swoop, Taurus was in the pistol business. While the Beretta factory continued to manufacture Beretta-type pistols under the Taurus name, the Brazilian company set out to redesign the pistols for improved performance and ergonomics. The result was the Taurus PT 92 series.

At first glance, the Taurus PT 92 and PT 99 appear to be simple Beretta 92 clones, but while similar, the PTs are functionally different than the Beretta product. Beretta 92 and Taurus PT 92 parts will not interchange, not even magazines.


----------

