There's a discussion going on over at CalGuns about a possible wrinkle in California's new microstamping edict that may make implementation problematic:
That said, I just don't seen an "out." Anybody with a different read on this?
[CalGuns link via Paul Nelson]
Now what is really interesting is the line "provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions." Right now one company (ID Dynamics) claims the patents (7111423 and 6886284 amongst others) to microstamping spent shells in firearms and subsequently reading them. Those patents are valid until about 2023 and I'm quite sure that Mr. Lizotte and Mr. Ohar claim that they are patent that occupy the entire field of firearm microstamping - kind of how NTP claims all of the space of push email against RIM/Blackberry and others. Since the legislature required that the technology be avialable from more than one provider and not encumbered by patent I'm quite confident that DOJ can not complete an OAL rulemaking that conforms with the legislation and Patent Law before the expiration of ID Dynamic's patents in 2023.I'm not sure what bearing that really has, because the patent owner has "promised that the Microstamping technology would be provided royalty-free to firearms manufacturers with gunmaking facilities in the United States."
That said, I just don't seen an "out." Anybody with a different read on this?
[CalGuns link via Paul Nelson]