buzz, with all due respect, the companies you mentioned (Glock, Kahr, Kimber, etc.) are 'gun' companies and while S&W is also a gun company, they are owned by a larger corporation who isn't.
I believe that things happened the way that I outlined them. The British firm was approached and told that they either sign and some business will be thrown their way or if they don't sign, they will be sued out of business. Since 'guns' wasn't their primary focus, they were not knowledgeable about the gun climate and since S&W is one of their smaller companies, they did not wish to exert the energy to find out all of the details.
Glock, Kahr, Kimber, etc.; are more in tuned with gun owners and didn't go down this route.
I'm not trying to excuse what happened and I don't particularily like the company or the damn agreement but I do love their products and do not want them to change (as a result of the agreement) or go away (as a result of the company going under). Unfortuantely, it looks like one or the other is going to happen.
It's a no-win situation as far as I'm concerned UNLESS the company goes under and somebody buys the designs, copyrights, etc.; and starts making these fine products again.