What are the details of the S&W lawsuit settlement from the '90s?

T

TargetTerror

New member
I always see references to the S&W lawsuit and settlement from the 1990s, but that was before I was interested in either guns or politics so I don't really know anything about it. So, my main questions are:

Who were the parties?
What were the allegations in the complaint?
How did it settle, and what were the terms of the settlement? Do those terms expire?
 
Glock and S&W

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n6_v42/ai_19767928
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 ca,y, 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.
Click to expand...

It is a tit for tat kinda deal. S&W came up with 40 S&W caliber spent time developing Glock beat S&W to market with 40S&W calibered pistol was highly discracing for S&W. S&W came back with copying the Glock. Glock made the mistake of putting S&W behind the 40.
 
Wasn't the first time that S&W had been beaten to the market in a caliber that they introduced...

Ruger beat S&W to the market with a .44 Magnum.
 
I should have seen this coming :)

I meant the S&W lawsuit with the Clinton administration (I think) where people considered S&W as giving up the fight, and which spawned the internal lock on current S&W revolvers.
 
Yeah, it was a lawsuit that kicked the whole thing off, City of Boston et. al.
Click to expand...

There were two agreements. The one with the federal government was between S&W and HUD, to prevent HUD from filing suit against S&W. I believe some cities signed onto this one as well. The other one was with Boston. The latter agreement was struck down by a court, while the federal government is still in effect (having been ratified by S&W once the new owners took over). HUD just hasn't acted on it and Congress never allocated funds for the portion of the agreement that constituted a payoff to S&W (special status in contracts, notwithstanding procurement laws and regulations). Technically, S&W is (and has been) in breach of the agreement for years (the gov't can't be in breach if the inaction is due to Congress not taking action), but the feds haven't pursued anything. The next administration might change that.
 
I've always been curious about the details of that agreement. Pretty interesting. Not all of it is bad, but this is ridiculous:

Smith & Wesson will also devote 2 percent of revenues to develop "smart gun" technology and will equip all newly designed guns with such technology within three years. "Smart guns" can only be fired by an authorized person, making them useless in the hands of thieves or children who could get hold of guns.
Click to expand...

And then people say it doesn't matter if we get Clinton or McCain ... something tells me a Clinton administration will start enforcing this.
 
"There were two agreements."

Yes, yes there were. But that's not what I said.

The City of Boston got the whole damned thing rolling with their lawsuit.
 
How about the portion that requires S&W guarantee that dealers of its products not sell high capacity magazi0nes or assault weapons?
Click to expand...

Guess I didn't read it that closely ... yup. That's pretty offensive too. No wonder some of the people I know boycotted S&W.
 
That's pretty offensive too. No wonder some of the people I know boycotted S&W.
Click to expand...

The requirement for built in locks and the preferential treatment for gov't contracts (in violation of procurement laws and regs) ticked people off too.
 
Keep in mind, though, that the ownership that signed on to that agreement is no longer running Smith & Wesson. Some have chosen to continue their boycott based on S&W not having specifically repudiated the agreement, others don't blame them for not trying to poke the leviathan with a stick lest it wake up and be hungry.

If Obama or Hillary gets into the White House, I wouldn't be surprised if the dredge it up (Obama for his anti-gun past, Hillary for that plus the pride issue- it was her husband's admin).
 
Keep in mind, though, that the ownership that signed on to that agreement is no longer running Smith & Wesson. Some have chosen to continue their boycott based on S&W not having specifically repudiated the agreement, others don't blame them for not trying to poke the leviathan with a stick lest it wake up and be hungry.
Click to expand...

When the question was raised about the agreement, the new owners specifically stated that they ratified and would abide by all contracts of which S&W was a party. It's not that S&W didn't specifically repudiate the agreement; S&W specifically affirmed its participation in the agreement. S&W is currently in breach of the agreement and hopes that it dies a quiet death. Unfortunately, such deals with the feds don't die that way.
 
S&W

and I think S&W know if the agrement is endorsed or rather enforced S&W will be toast.they almost were thats why tompson sold out.
and if you notice most gun comp.are selling out.Rem sold, Rem buying Marlin.
--:D---:rolleyes:---:(
 
Here's an interesting part of the agreement, from paragraph II.A.1.h:

The manufacturer [S&W] parties to this Agreement may sell only to authorized distributors and authorized dealers. In order to qualify to become an authorized distributor or authorized dealer, the distributor or dealer must agree in writing to: Not sell ammunition magazines that are able to accept more than 10 rounds regardless of the date of manufacture, nor sell any semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in 18 U S.C. 921 (a) (30) regardless of the date of manufacture, provide safety locks and warnings with firearms, as specified in Section I above, and sell only firearms that comport with the design criteria of this Agreement.
Click to expand...

That one's a doozy. Dealers cannot sell S&W products if they sell certain other products that are not even illegal, and the dealers can't sell S&W products if they sell other manufacturers' products that don't meet the terms of S&W's agreement with the government .

How about this paragraph:

Oversight Commission will be established and empowered to oversee implementation of the Agreement. The Commission will have five members selected as follows:

--one by manufacturers;
--two by city and county parties;
-- one by state parties;
-- one by ATF.

The Commission’s powers will include the authority to review compliance with the design and safety requirements, review the safety and training program for dealer and distributor employees, review manufacturer actions against dealers or distributors that violate the Agreement or have a disproportionate number of crime gun traces, and require suspension or termination if warranted.
Click to expand...

Yikes ! A commitee of five, where only one of the five is pro-gun, deciding on what constitutes acceptable firearms manufacture and distribution. :eek:
 
Now you understand why S&W's lawyers quit after S&W signed the agreement, apparently against legal advice.

Getting fired by one's own lawyers? That's got to hurt.
 
I'm grateful to all the dealers who had the cajones to stand up to S&W and risk losing business by not selling S&W products, knowing that other dealers would profit by selling S&W.

Since the government is not enforcing the agreement, it appears the prevailing attitude is to buy and sell S&W firearms again (?). I don't hear much about a boycott any more. If that's the case, we can always resume the boycott whenever the government starts enforcing the agreement.

Easy for me to say, I'm not in the market for any S&W products.

I'm kinda fuzzy on the current state of this situation as regards the boycott, maybe someone else could chime in more knowledgeably.
 
:confused:Ok, I'm confused. S&W says you can't sell their product if you sell assault style weapons. But don't they make a ar-15 rifle? Doesn't that present a paradox. "You can sell our products only if you don't sell the products that we make that would preclude you from selling our products?"
 
S&W says you can't sell their product if you sell assault style weapons. But don't they make a ar-15 rifle? Doesn't that present a paradox. "You can sell our products only if you don't sell the products that we make that would preclude you from selling our products?"
Click to expand...

Like we said, they pretty well ignore that agreement nowadays, and it does not appear like they are interested in following it. S&W still makes magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and they have been actively developing guns that hold more than 10 rounds. If the government tries to dig up and enforce that agreement in the future, I would expect them to have a fight on their hands, since the public opinion and legal environments have changed rather considerably from the early Clinton years.

I'm not boycotting S&W. Heck, yesterday I brought home a Performance Center revolver. Love me some S&W wheelguns...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top