Inside the FRT Settlement with Rare Breed
BY Herschel Smith
1 day, 18 hours ago
James asked some hard questions about the settlement, and this is a good video to help you understand what happened.
On the one hand, I understand the position taken by Lawrence. If you’ve invested millions of dollars in R&D, and then lost many more millions in legal costs, it matters to you and your employees what happens. You must ensure that you recoup costs.
On the other hand, they are just taking an awful beating in the comments. I mean, they are getting spanked to the point of blisters that they left Hoffman Super Safety behind. I know there have been some legal wranglings between then, but I also believe that the super safety is a much different design and was around long before RBT.
In any case, suffice it to say that this issue is probably not dead, especially as it pertains to a new administration that may not be as friendly.
|
|
On June 2, 2025 at 5:40 pm, Rick said:
I listened to the entire video. Not knowing much about this case, I looked at several sources. I gather this is a separate case than Rare Breed V Hoffman Tactical, a patent infringement case.
(Hoffman Tactical is a separate company from Hoffman Super Safety [HSS].)
If Rare Breed [RB] spent millions of their own money in their defense, none of which they contacted agreed to join the case, including HSS, exactly how did RB ‘throw HSS under the bus’?
In the video it was said that some things, like FRT for pistols, were dropped and not argued. Give a little, get a lot. The government lied, cheated, stole. The merits of the case became secondary. It seems the practical answer would be to maintain a narrow focus on what was good for the defendant. No one joined RB as a defendant. Still, as said in the video, the final ruling is good not just for RB, but for all firearm owners.