Trijicon Suing Holosun; Patent Infringement

[HCM]

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17389558/trijicon-inc-v-holosun-technologies-inc/?fbclid=IwAR0k-zrVzUuXsU-uCcC7sGlIldlNGa17th6i0xdO59ahvcXdm_SPa5iTArw

Trijicon, Inc. v. Holosun Technologies, Inc. (2:20-cv-06742)
District Court, C.D. California

Trijicon is suing Holosun over alleged patent infringement on the 407/507/508 V2s and Ks.

Second source : https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2020cv06742/789717?fbclid=IwAR0t1gZSqGFH1jEzt_-XO7M3emeKJceijnAzTvk3EmDOneBeicOyI-54Xjc

[Lon]

So are they going to sue everyone else as well? Vortex? Shield? Bueller?

[TAZ]

I’m obviously too stupid to find it, but what patent are they suing against. Did they patent the 2 large buttons on the side???

[Darth_Uno]

I get not wanting your design ripped off, but I think most people getting Holosuns weren't buying Trijicons anyway.

[vcdgrips]

Executive summary:

Bottom Line-Holosun better buckle up.


Longish post warning. I am not a patent/IP atty and would defer to those who are.


I took a very quick gander at Trijicon's pleading. It essentially says:

1. we patented the technology in 2012
2. you have been knocking us off and selling an infringing product
3. we asked you to stop 3x in writing to cease and desist
4. you did not stop so your continued infringement is willful and deliberate which will entitle use to treble (3x) damages

The initial pleading is short and will no doubt be amended as time goes on and the discovery process goes forward.

Trijicon has a seemingly well established lead counsel out of the Detroit area who has been an atty for 30 ish years
Trijicon has associated with a very boutique oriented IP law in SOCAL. Local counsel is SOCAL to the bone- USC- BS Math/Physics and Loyola Law School JD, Dean’s Honor’s List. Local counsel did an "externship" in the same federal court district where this case now pends.

The district court judge who is hearing the case and would try it as well is a Cornell BA/Yale JD who has been a judge for almost 20 years (9+ federally). He was a big firm guy before that in "complex litigation" in both LA and DC.

The magistrate judge who may handle some off the initial discovery issues etc. went to Wellesley BA/UCLA JD and was an IP type atty in private practice for nearly 20 yrs before going on the bench.


Recall Surefire sued a number of flashlight companies out of business and/or made them change stuff up over similar allegations of patent infringement. (Based on my cursory research. I freely acknowledge that other issues may have been in play to include some folks simply not being able to afford to defend themselves in court v. SF)

http://budgetlightforum.com/node/7412

[Lon]

But why just Holosun? Damn near every MRDS out there works in a similar fashion. I read the complaint and it was light on exactly what the alleged infringement was. Just that we came out with it and they are selling a similar product.

[Lon]

Executive summary:

Bottom Line-Holosun better buckle up.


Longish post warning. I am not a patent/IP atty and would defer to those who are.


I took a very quick gander at Trijicon's pleading. It essentially says:

1. we patented the technology in 2012
2. you have been knocking us off and selling an infringing product
3. we asked you to stop 3x in writing to cease and desist
4. you did not stop so your continued infringement is willful and deliberate which will entitle use to treble (3x) damages

The initial pleading is short and will no doubt be amended as time goes on and the discovery process goes forward.

Trijicon has a seemingly well established lead counsel out of the Detroit area who has been an atty for 30 ish years
Trijicon has associated with a very boutique oriented IP law in SOCAL. Local counsel is SOCAL to the bone- USC- BS Math/Physics and Loyola Law School JD, Dean’s Honor’s List. Local counsel did an "externship" in the same federal court district where this case now pends.

The district court judge who is hearing the case and would try it as well is a Cornell BA/Yale JD who has been a judge for almost 20 years (9+ federally). He was a big firm guy before that in "complex litigation" in both LA and DC.

The magistrate judge who may handle some off the initial discovery issues etc. went to Wellesley BA/UCLA JD and was an IP type atty in private practice for nearly 20 yrs before going on the bench.


Recall Surefire sued a number of flashlight companies out of business and/or made them change stuff up over similar allegations of patent infringement. (Based on my cursory research. I freely acknowledge that other issues may have been in play to include some folks simply not being able to afford to defend themselves in court v. SF)

http://budgetlightforum.com/node/7412

Pentagon light was one of those companies. They were our first WML on our patrol rifles, but when they went tits up we switched to Streamlight. As I recall you could actually use SF switches and bulbs in the Pentagon light and vice versa. But I don’t think that’s the case with Trijicon/RMR.

[Old Man Winter]

But why just Holosun? Damn near every MRDS out there works in a similar fashion. I read the complaint and it was light on exactly what the alleged infringement was. Just that we came out with it and they are selling a similar product.

Once you take down Holosun it becomes much easier to force the others to settle. Multiple defendants can pool resources which eases their financial burden in defending the case.

[TAZ]

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8443541B2/en?oq=8%2c443%2c541

I'm not a lawyer, or even particularly good at reading patents, but I suspect (based upon the patent claims) it's because of the buttons (actuation members) being on the vertical portion of the sight (posts) of the V2s and Ks and not on the horizontal portion (base) -- like the earlier versions.

Thanks Tom.

Not a lawyer, but that claim 1 is a whopper. I read it as they pretty much they patented any exposed emitter RDS. Along with the buttons on the sides holding the glass.

It will be interesting to see how this washes out. 3 cease and desist letters in 8 years to Holosun could be construed as not being serious about defending their patent. Wonder if they have been going after any if the other names at the same time.

[Grey]

Time to buy more holosuns

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[RevolverRob]

Maybe Trijicon should focus on fixing the SRO and building a properly hooded optic...and they wouldn't have to sue Holosun.

Why compete when you can sue?

[littlejerry]

Trijicons patent is pretty narrow: an open emitter mrds with buttons on both upright portions of the housing.

Looking at the V1 and V2 Holosuns I don't see how they infringe.

Trijicon must think they are losing a lot of revenue to go after them. I really don't think it's worth their time.

[Maca]

Chinese companies have absolutely no respect for intellectual property and i firmly support trijicon’s decision to file this action. Patent litigation is the sport of kings, though.

[GJM]

Chinese companies have absolutely no respect for intellectual property and i firmly support trijicon’s decision to file this action. Patent litigation is the sport of kings, though.

I am not familiar with the particulars of Holosun’s ownership structure. I looked at “About Us” on the website and there wasn’t much there. Who owns Holosun and what exactly is the China connection — ownership, design, manufacture?

Does anyone know exactly what the intellectual property is that Holosun allegedly stole? Surely it is more than buttons on the side.

Without taking a position on the litigation, as I am not informed sufficiently to have an opinion, I do note that Holosun has done more innovating of red dot sights than most others.

[Navin Johnson]

Funny how everyone's pro American until it affects their wallet.

Understand I'm a free market guy...... As long as property is respected.

[Eyesquared]

Maybe Trijicon should focus on fixing the SRO and building a properly hooded optic...and they wouldn't have to sue Holosun.

Why compete when you can sue?

In all fairness the number of problems with the SRO are par for the course for any pistol RDS. But I agree that Trijicon has been slow to change. Just look at how little the RMR has changed.

[littlejerry]

Chinese companies have absolutely no respect for intellectual property and i firmly support trijicon’s decision to file this action. Patent litigation is the sport of kings, though.

While there is no shortage of Chinese companies creating fraudulent knock-off products, HOLOSUN doesn't fit into that category. I'd also say that no one "respects" IP. I've worked as a mechanical engineer in product development for the last 15 years. All companies go after their competitors as aggressively as they can, or as aggressively as the board lets them. Ive lost count of the number of times I've been tasked with designing around a competitors patent, and I've only ever worked for American, European, and Japanese companies.

If someone had asked me to get around Trijicon's patent I would have done something similar. Their claims are very narrow and easy to workaround. My non-lawyer opinion is Trijicon doesn't have a leg to stand on, unless there is another filing that I'm not seeing.

[HCM]

https://www.docdroid.net/VU81F4m/trijicon-complaint-pdf#page=2

The complaint.

[Caballoflaco]

vcdgrips or anybody with law or patent law experience. Would Trijicon requesting a jury trial reveal anything about how their law firm views the merits of the case.

Ie if it’s a strong technical case for patent infringement get it in front of a judge who is used to dealing with and understands complex patent laws vs put it front of a jury and pull out the ‘ol Chinese made scopes company stole good American technology and is costing jobs for good Americans.

[Maca]

vcdgrips or anybody with law or patent law experience. Would Trijicon requesting a jury trial reveal anything about how their law firm views the merits of the case.

Ie if it’s a strong technical case for patent infringement get it in front of a judge who is used to dealing with and understands complex patent laws vs put it front of a jury and pull out the ‘ol Chinese made scopes company stole good American technology and is costing jobs for good Americans.

Jury trials scare defendants because feelings can become award multipliers. If you are considering settling prior to going to trial, the suit, having a jury hanging over the defendant can favorably influence the settlement amount.

[BillSWPA]

vcdgrips or anybody with law or patent law experience. Would Trijicon requesting a jury trial reveal anything about how their law firm views the merits of the case.

Ie if it’s a strong technical case for patent infringement get it in front of a judge who is used to dealing with and understands complex patent laws vs put it front of a jury and pull out the ‘ol Chinese made scopes company stole good American technology and is costing jobs for good Americans.

I am a patent attorney, but have not had the chance to look at the patent yet.

Demanding a jury trial must be done early or it is waived. The demand can always be dropped.

I doubt they would file a suit they thought had little merit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GJM]

I am a patent attorney, but have not had the chance to look at the patent yet.

Demanding a jury trial must be done early or it is waived. The demand can always be dropped.

I doubt they would file a suit they thought had little merit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looking forward to your analysis!

[joshs]

vcdgrips or anybody with law or patent law experience. Would Trijicon requesting a jury trial reveal anything about how their law firm views the merits of the case.

Ie if it’s a strong technical case for patent infringement get it in front of a judge who is used to dealing with and understands complex patent laws vs put it front of a jury and pull out the ‘ol Chinese made scopes company stole good American technology and is costing jobs for good Americans.

Strong claim or not, if you think a jury trial could benefit your patriotic American client v. evil communist thieves, then why wouldn't you make a jury demand? I'm not making any statements about the strength of claims, but I wouldn't try read too much into a jury demand. I've always thought patent law is basically witchcraft anyways. We do a fair bit of IP work, but it's all trademark. When someone uses "the Armed Citizen" to refer to a collection of cases of good guys shooting bad guys or a very particular looking eagle clutching a rifle I'm good to go, but I've always thought patent attorneys and examiners would be well served by reading this book (https://www.amazon.com/Plain-English-Lawyers-Richard-Wydick/dp/1594601518).

[Caballoflaco]

Thanks guys appreciate the info.

[HCM]

The patent:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8443541B2/enAn

[BillSWPA]

I am now looking at the complaint on PACER.

Initially, a few basic principles.

Obtaining a patent requires describing the invention with sufficient detail so that one skilled in the art can make and use it. It requires convincing a patent examiner (who always has an engineering or science degree and usually has a law degree as well) that the claims are novel (no one else has done it before) and nonobvious (not obvious to one skilled in the art and familiar with all available prior art). That last requirement is the focus of most of m time arguing with examiners.

Expressed differently, if a prior art device can be shown that has all claimed features, the claims are not novel. If various prior art devices have subsets of the features within the claims, and one skilled in the art would find it obvious to combine them, then the claims are obvious.

Infringing a patent requires that each and every element described within at least one claim be present in the accused device. If even one element is missing, there is no infringement.

The complaint includes a claim chart (exhibit 4), breaking each claim apart into its individual clauses, and showing exactly how the Holosun product is alleged to infringe. Most courts now have enhanced pleading requirements for patent cases, requiring exactly this type of claim chart. At least on its face, and without doing a full infringement study, the claim chart appears to make a good case for infringement. This is absolutely not a frivolous suit filed in the hope that the defendant runs out of money before the court figures out that it is frivolous.

Trijicon expends significant resources bringing its products to market. If another company can simply reverse engineer those products and then undercut Trijicon's price, then what benefit would there be to developing better red dot sights?

Responding to some other posts, sending multiple cease and desist letters does not indicate lack of intent to enforce the patent. Rather, it shows that Holosun continued to infringe even after having actual notice of the accusation of infringement. Unless Holosun can show that it had reason to believe that its products did not infringe or that the allegedly infringed claims are invalid, it may be liable for enhanced damages and/or Trijicon's attorney fees.

Designing around a patent is not stealing intellectual property. Instead, it is trying to figure out how not to steal intellectual property. Part of my job in preparing and prosecuting patent applications it so make designing around a patent as difficult as possible without giving up some advantage that my client's patented product provides.

[GJM]

Rational parties prefer to settle disputes, rather than allow a third party, whether judge or jury, reach a decision. Litigation is not an end in itself, it is just another means of getting settlement leverage.

I read zero into requesting a jury trial. It could mean that Trijicon feels their case is “patriotic.” It could mean they want to bleed Holosun by making the case more expensive. It could mean they have a weak case and feel a jury might be a better bet than a judge. In years past, lots of weak cases filed in south Texas with requests for a jury trial got settled for a lot of money.

Talking to my retail source, Holosun is way outselling Trijicon on pistol optics. Trijicon might have had the good fortune to realize Holosun’s redesign arguably violated their patent, and this action to enforce their patent has the main benefit of hurting Holosun, by distracting management and costing them money. Trijicon invested substantial sums in their intellectual property and gets to enjoy the protection of that investment.

PS: Google news just pushed an alert to my wife’s computer “US Weapons maker seeks ban on Chinese competitor’s sights.”

[BillSWPA]

Rational parties prefer to settle disputes, rather than allow a third party, whether judge or jury, reach a decision. Litigation is not an end in itself, it is just another means of getting settlement leverage.

I read zero into requesting a jury trial. It could mean that Trijicon feels their case is “patriotic.” It could mean they want to bleed Holosun by making the case more expensive. It could mean they have a weak case and feel a jury might be a better bet than a judge. In years past, lots of weak cases filed in south Texas with requests for a jury trial got settled for a lot of money.

Talking to my retail source, Holosun is way outselling Trijicon on pistol optics. Trijicon might have had the good fortune to realize Holosun’s redesign arguably violated their patent, and this action to enforce their patent has the main benefit of hurting Holosun, by distracting management and costing them money. Trijicon invested substantial sums in their intellectual property and gets to enjoy the protection of that investment.

PS: Google news just pushed an alert to my wife’s computer “US Weapons maker seeks ban on Chinese competitor’s sights.”

Litigation is often a very expensive way to get approximately where you should have arrived through negotiation. Unfortunately not everyone is reasonable, and sometimes they need to be hit over the head with the hammer of litigation to either reach a negotiated solution or obtain a judgment.

[GJM]

Litigation is often a very expensive way to get approximately where you should have arrived through negotiation. Unfortunately not everyone is reasonable, and sometimes they need to be hit over the head with the hammer of litigation to either reach a negotiated solution or obtain a judgment.

What is interesting is the new Holosun optics have been delayed for some months, and we believed it was due to Covid. I guess it is possible the delay had something to do with this lawsuit. As you point out, litigation often follows a breakdown in negotiations. Presumably Trijicon didn’t drop this lawsuit on them by surprise and it is possible it came after being unable to reach a negotiated settlement.

[BillSWPA]

What is interesting is the new Holosun optics have been delayed for some months, and we believed it was due to Covid. I guess it is possible the delay had something to do with this lawsuit. As you point out, litigation often follows a breakdown in negotiations. Presumably Trijicon didn’t drop this lawsuit on them by surprise and it is possible it came after being unable to reach a negotiated settlement.

Good point.

[Caballoflaco]

I really hope this lawsuit doesn’t kill my hope of an “industry standard” mounting footprint ever being developed.

I could see this lawsuit hurting Trijicon in the civilian market in the long run, especially if holosun is eventually able to develop it’s own optics footprint that’s rugged and relatively easy for the industry to provide products for. Also, I think that a lot of people who bought holosun probably would have never bought an rmr due to price. see exhibit a:uncle mikes. exhibit b:pro mag.

[vcdgrips]

I have not practiced federal civil law in 23+ yrs. I have never practiced IP/patent law.

IIRC, Fed Rule of Civil Pro (FRCP) 38/39 indicate that civil cases between private parties are typically tried to a jury. FRCP 48 mandates a jury of 6-12 w a unanimous verdict unless otherwise agreed to.

I would ultimately defer to BillSWPA in this matter. I concur from my out of lane POV that Trijicon is not proceeding frivolously. They have six figures into this and will likely have seven if this even gets close to a trial. Pesumably, Trijicon’s pockets are deep enough for the long haul. We will see if HS can make the same commitment.

Pure speculation on my part is some of HS’s designs arguably infringe the patent +the cease/desist course + the defendant/target being non American + HS growing market penetration + a good faith belief in some infringement = this law suit.

[ssb]

What's interesting to me is that Trijicon didn't start sending demand letters until Holosun came out with the large button-equipped models. Previous models had small buttons lower/on the optic body, whereas current models have larger buttons on the... wings?... of the optic. Not being a patent attorney, I am genuinely curious how the V1 models did not infringe but the V2s do, reading their patent. Frankly, it seems that Trijicon's patent reads broad enough to cover virtually any open-emitter design.

I haven't seen the claim chart/exhibit 4, however, and would be interested in seeing it.

[Archer1440]

Bloomberg’s take: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-05/u-s-weapons-maker-seeks-ban-on-chinese-competitor-s-sights

As someone who has had multiple product designs shamelessly and obviously directly copied by Chinese makers, to the point where even decoration and branding was copied, I will follow this with some interest.

[GJM]

What is that old saying — two is company but three is a crowd.

58503

[Grey]

What is that old saying — two is company but three is a crowd.

58503

Can't decide if aroused or triggered...

[Caballoflaco]

If we think about the history of mini rds’s doctor had a sight that mounted with screws entering the sight from top in between the emitter and screen before Trijicon, and there were already various open emitter sights before Trijicon brought anything to market. They innovated with the owl-ear sight hold and were the first to have buttons on the sight hood.

I wonder if it comes down to buttons on the hood and the specific footprint of the optic, I don’t know enough about electronics to know if holosun was copying anything there.

[HCM]

I really hope this lawsuit doesn’t kill my hope of an “industry standard” mounting footprint ever being developed.

I could see this lawsuit hurting Trijicon in the civilian market in the long run, especially if holosun is eventually able to develop it’s own optics footprint that’s rugged and relatively easy for the industry to provide products for. Also, I think that a lot of people who bought holosun probably would have never bought an rmr due to price. see exhibit a:uncle mikes. exhibit b:pro mag.

The mounting footprint is not part of the lawsuit.

[Casual Friday]

I guess the only thing that surprises me is that it took someone this long to sue Holosun. If you look through their entire catalog, practically everything reminds you of a product already on the market at first glance.

[HCM]

I guess the only thing that surprises me is that it took someone this long to sue Holosun. If you look through their entire catalog, practically everything reminds you of a product already on the market at first glance.

I’m surprised Leupold hasn’t sued Holosun and SIG over the shake awake technology.

[Wayne Dobbs]

The absolute commitment on the part of the Chinese to, in an organized (dare I say criminal) pattern, steal Western technology, knock it off and undersell those who did the work deserves lots more legal actions like this.

[Wayne Dobbs]

I’m surprised Leupold hasn’t sued Holosun and SIG over the shake awake technology.

Sig's optics are Holosun, just assembled in the US.

[HCM]

Sig's optics are Holosun, just assembled in the US.

AFAIK only the ones mandated by GOV contract to be Berry Act compliant are assembled here from Chinese parts kits. The rest of the SIG red dot optics are just straight up made in China..

However, it seems like SIG hired away a bunch of Leupold optics people who then designed SIG optics with the shake awake tech Leupold developed. SIG then contract to make those optics in China at Holosun and all of a sudden Holosun optics have shake awake tech too. Funny how that works.

[AMC]

AFAIK only the ones mandated by GOV contract to be Berry Act compliant are assembled here from Chinese parts kits. The rest of the SIG red dot optics are just straight up made in China..

However, it seems like SIG hired away a bunch of Leupold optics people who then designed SIG optics with the shake awake tech Leupold developed. SIG then contract to make those optics in China at Holosun and all of a sudden Holosun optics have shake awake tech too. Funny how that works.

This whole thing is just.....icky. Ironic I suppose that the Holosun optics are generally superior to the Sig optics in almost every metric.

The only Sig optic I'm interested in really is the upcoming Romeo 2. Supposedly that one will also be produced entirely in their northwest US plant. We'll see, i guess.

[jbrimlow]

I kinda like my Romeo3XL, which is marked 'Made in Japan' on the bottom. For whatever that's worth.

[GJM]

I kinda like my Romeo3XL, which is marked 'Made in Japan' on the bottom. For whatever that's worth.

Same with the Romeo 3 Max, which I understand is made in Japan at the same plant that makes the C More RTS2.

[GJM]

Same with the Romeo 3 Max, which I understand is made in Japan at the same plant that makes the C More RTS2.

58517

58518

[HCM]

This whole thing is just.....icky. Ironic I suppose that the Holosun optics are generally superior to the Sig optics in almost every metric.

The only Sig optic I'm interested in really is the upcoming Romeo 2. Supposedly that one will also be produced entirely in their northwest US plant. We'll see, i guess.

Not sure what your supposition is based on since Holosun, SIGs RDS and Primary arms were all made in the same factory, admittedly each to their own specifications. SIG now makes some stuff in Japan and the Philippines, likely the same plants Vortex uses. Given the use of “assembled in” there is no telling if the parts kits are coming from China.

SIGs optic division was founded with head hunted Leupold employees. It’s not an accident SIGs optics division is on Oregon instead of NH. So Holosun makes what ever SIG OR specifies for the SIG optics.

Kind of like how FN makes slightly different barrels for PSA, BCM, Noveske and Hodge.

SIGs RDS optics come in different grades and have evolved just like everyone else’s. The current (3rd) generation SIG Romeo 1Pro (and the similar 1T) have passed my agency’s testing and is currently in use by our SRT teams as the final phase of a broader employment of RDS pistols.

Sig also won the FBI Carbine optic contract after a thorough comet I’ve test. While they haven’t belt up like the Aimpoint H2s they have held up reasonably well. The most negative thing about the whole Romeo 4M deal is the “assembled in USA” shenanigans.

Holosun USA has done a better job getting their newest optics out on the market in a timely fashion, communicating with customers and being consistent with things like mounting patterns. Though Leupold was never great at that either.

SIG literally had a chart for LE dealers showing the mounting compatibility (and non-compatability) of their various MRDS.

[TAZ]

Bloomberg’s take: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-05/u-s-weapons-maker-seeks-ban-on-chinese-competitor-s-sights

As someone who has had multiple product designs shamelessly and obviously directly copied by Chinese makers, to the point where even decoration and branding was copied, I will follow this with some interest.

Ha! Side track, but I once had a design copied so fast that an error I made on the design was copied. Guess the thieves didn’t get the memo about the update before production tooling. Aside from performance, as in their product sucked monkey balls, that error was a ginormous red flag.

I’m glad Trijicon is doing it’s thing to defend IP. I hate IP theft. But I do wish they would get in with some innovation. I’m ok with paying the price for one, their lack of anything in the subcompact market is the reason I started to look at Holosun.

[Shumba]

The absolute commitment on the part of the Chinese to, in an organized (dare I say criminal) pattern, steal Western technology, knock it off and undersell those who did the work deserves lots more legal actions like this.

And that theft amounts to 300-400 billion dollars annually in the US.
Too many US corporations have inadequate cyber security.
The Chinese are going to great lengths to steal vaccine info related to Covid 19, as are the Russians, Iranians and NKs.
My source is a recent non classified CIA clandestine brief for our company.
Shumba

[ssb]

Having looked at the exhibit/chart detailing the specifics of the claim, Trijicon asserts Holosun infringes because: 1) the Holosun products are optical sights; 2) with two posts extending from the base; 3) some glass supported by the posts; and 4) with a red dot projected onto the glass.

That covers literally every open emitter design out there, to include some that pre-date the RMR. My non-patent law expertise opinion is that the patent seems incredibly broad, and I'm curious how that can stand.

[Eyesquared]

I paid up to read the claims chart and from my non-attorney point of view, none of the actual claims have anything to do with all the talk about nefarious Chinese IP thieves stealing Trijicon's trade secrets. The stuff covered in the patent is sort of basic. From what I can tell, the only thing that Holosun does differently from other RDS makers that has gotten them into hot water is putting the buttons on the posts of the optical window, instead of having a button somewhere else on the housing. Seems to me that they didn't do any research or maybe they thought they'd be fine putting both buttons on one side rather than one button on each side of the window.

So that leads me to a question that I am way out of my lane trying to understand on my own, but maybe someone else here understands:

It seems clear cut that the Holosuns infringe on the claims of the patent, but there are a lot of companies making MRDS sights that would meet all but 1 claim (the buttons on the posts of the optical hood). That specific claim isn't really much of a feature in terms of providing any benefit to the user, so does that come into consideration for determining damages? My understanding is that typically damages are based on what a reasonable royalty would be, or based off lost profits, but in this case I can't see anyone paying a royalty to put the buttons on the side of the window, nor can I see them determining lost profits based on that (not that I would know).

[GJM]

I paid up to read the claims chart and from my non-attorney point of view, none of the actual claims have anything to do with all the talk about nefarious Chinese IP thieves stealing Trijicon's trade secrets. The stuff covered in the patent is sort of basic. From what I can tell, the only thing that Holosun does differently from other RDS makers that has gotten them into hot water is putting the buttons on the posts of the optical window, instead of having a button somewhere else on the housing. Seems to me that they didn't do any research or maybe they thought they'd be fine putting both buttons on one side rather than one button on each side of the window.


Not a lawyer, just spitballing. In that the claimed infringing products are V2, with the intensity buttons relocated to the vertical, it seems plausible that the button position is the infringement. I looked at a variety of other pistol red dots, and the buttons appear to be on the base, and not on the vertical posts. Trijicon doesn’t list the 509 as infringing, and I wonder if that is because it is a closed emitter design. The Acro has intensity buttons on the side, but again, a closed emitter. Look at the Sig Romeo 3 Max — intensity controls clearly on the base, but hardly different in proximity to the Holosun V2 controls.

Bet Holosun wishes they paid for a legal summary of relevant patents, because they could easily have put the buttons on the base, and even if not, a lower location wouldn’t effect the overall appeal of the products.

58524

[Whirlwind06]

It seems clear cut that the Holosuns infringe on the claims of the patent, but there are a lot of companies making MRDS sights that would meet all but 1 claim (the buttons on the posts of the optical hood). That specific claim isn't really much of a feature in terms of providing any benefit to the user, so does that come into consideration for determining damages? ).

Apple sued Google over the shape of the buttons and won. So this isn't surprising to me.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[littlejerry]

If I were Holosun I'd be arguing that Trijicons patent describes a button on both upright posts, not one.

[Archer1440]

I’m glad Trijicon is doing it’s thing to defend IP. I hate IP theft. But I do wish they would get in with some innovation. I’m ok with paying the price for one, their lack of anything in the subcompact market is the reason I started to look at Holosun.

Litigation consumes funds needed for true innovation. No matter how this turns out, the lawyers will make money, on both sides. Money that may well have been used to advance the innovation of either company. That’s why a lot of this kind of suit gets settled for royalties or other consideration.

On the other hand, reading between the lines and talking with a couple of friends more familiar with the particulars, one has the sense that Trijicon is going for the nuclear option here.

[AMC]

HCM I'm familiar with all the info you posted. I'm aware that the Romeo 1 Pro has passed testing with a number of LE agencies, including LASD and apparently LAPD. My opinion regarding their execution vs the Holosun optics was in regards to their robustness and options. Not hating on the Sig optics...they are what they are. The Sig Academy instructors we had out here were confident in the Romeo 1 Pro, but even they said "Just don't drop it". Both of them, though, felt that the Romeo 2 was going to be "the" duty optic from Sig, in terms of features and durability. I'm hopeful. All of this has become a moot point for us however. We're not getting new firearms or optics at this point, and will frankly be lucky to keep the aging ones we have. Had conversations yesterday with two command staff members who questioned why we're doing firearms training anymore if we're supposed to be using "time and distance ". So we got that going for us.

[HCM]

HCM I'm familiar with all the info you posted. I'm aware that the Romeo 1 Pro has passed testing with a number of LE agencies, including LASD and apparently LAPD. My opinion regarding their execution vs the Holosun optics was in regards to their robustness and options. Not hating on the Sig optics...they are what they are. The Sig Academy instructors we had out here were confident in the Romeo 1 Pro, but even they said "Just don't drop it". Both of them, though, felt that the Romeo 2 was going to be "the" duty optic from Sig, in terms of features and durability. I'm hopeful. All of this has become a moot point for us however. We're not getting new firearms or optics at this point, and will frankly be lucky to keep the aging ones we have. Had conversations yesterday with two command staff members who questioned why we're doing firearms training anymore if we're supposed to be using "time and distance ". So we got that going for us.

can't you just cough on them to scare them away ?

[Archer1440]

HCM I'm familiar with all the info you posted. I'm aware that the Romeo 1 Pro has passed testing with a number of LE agencies, including LASD and apparently LAPD. My opinion regarding their execution vs the Holosun optics was in regards to their robustness and options. Not hating on the Sig optics...they are what they are. The Sig Academy instructors we had out here were confident in the Romeo 1 Pro, but even they said "Just don't drop it". Both of them, though, felt that the Romeo 2 was going to be "the" duty optic from Sig, in terms of features and durability. I'm hopeful. All of this has become a moot point for us however. We're not getting new firearms or optics at this point, and will frankly be lucky to keep the aging ones we have. Had conversations yesterday with two command staff members who questioned why we're doing firearms training anymore if we're supposed to be using "time and distance ". So we got that going for us.

I feel that the SIG steel shroud is a non optional must have item for any serious use with a Romeo series optic. I have never had a problem with any Romeo series sights except mysterious battery killing behavior on an early example, the two 6MOA units I used from 2018 were excellent, but I only use RMR for anything I take seriously these days.

[GJM]

I feel that the SIG steel shroud is a non optional must have item for any serious use with a Romeo series optic. I have never had a problem with any Romeo series sights except mysterious battery killing behavior on an early example, the two 6MOA units I used from 2018 were excellent, but I only use RMR for anything I take seriously these days.

The first generation Romeo 1 pistol optics had recurring issues with zero shifting.

[Archer1440]

The first generation Romeo 1 pistol optics had recurring issues with zero shifting.

I’m sure they did, along with other issues, documented in man y places, but I had a total of six and never had that specific issue. Some of them were run pretty hard, but most were not. Just one early example with a battery issue.

Now, the R-Zero, that’s quite another matter. I wouldn’t be caught dead with one of those.

[UNK]

But why just Holosun? Damn near every MRDS out there works in a similar fashion. I read the complaint and it was light on exactly what the alleged infringement was. Just that we came out with it and they are selling a similar product.

How do you know its just Houlson? Maybe this is stage 1.

[TAZ]

May be more may be none at all. My initial reading of the first independently claim led me to think they pretty much patented the entire concept of the open emitter RDS. Unlikely as there are designs that predate the Trijicon RMR.

Upon re-reading the claim it has a lot of AND’s in there. Potentially meaning that a device needs to have all those things. Open emitter, base, posts, and buttons on the post. This may explain why no suit was brought against the V1 design, nor Vortex, Sig, Leupold... and they are now upset at the V2 designs.

I’m sure the lawyers will make a mint from the fees they bill Trijicon. Consumers will have to wait till Holosun figures out a better work around to the IP. Hopefully, in that time Trijicon will make an update to the product family that is useful for the CHL crowd.

[BillSWPA]

May be more may be none at all. My initial reading of the first independently claim led me to think they pretty much patented the entire concept of the open emitter RDS. Unlikely as there are designs that predate the Trijicon RMR.

Upon re-reading the claim it has a lot of AND’s in there. Potentially meaning that a device needs to have all those things. Open emitter, base, posts, and buttons on the post. This may explain why no suit was brought against the V1 design, nor Vortex, Sig, Leupold... and they are now upset at the V2 designs.

I’m sure the lawyers will make a mint from the fees they bill Trijicon. Consumers will have to wait till Holosun figures out a better work around to the IP. Hopefully, in that time Trijicon will make an update to the product family that is useful for the CHL crowd.

You are on the right track. In order to infringe a patent, the accused product must have each and every feature recited in at least one claim, either literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents.

When you read the claims, the dependent claims all add features to the independent claims. So, you only need to look at the independent claims to determine infringement.

Patent infringement suits tend to be viewed as business issues that need to be resolved like any other business issue - as inexpensively and expeditiously as possible. The two that I was personally involved in settled shortly after the complaint was filed. If, however, it does go to a full trial, than it will easily cost each side about 7 figures in attorney fees.

[Archer1440]

It appears that Holosun is discontinuing several recent models that seem to square with the feature set covered in the lawsuit.

https://www.eurooptic.com/Holosun-HE508T-RD-V2-Titanium-Multi-Reticle-Circle-Dot-Open-Reflex-Sight-w-Solar.aspx

[GJM]

58984

[psalms144.1]

Well, fuck me sideways. I guess that might explain why my 507K has had continual delays on delivery...

[TAZ]

58984

Wonder what they changed to get them-X2 designations. Their web site still shows the regular designs. Hope it’s just a button swap.

[Archer1440]

Several potential conclusions here. All speculative.

1. HS saw that they indeed had violated the Trijicon patents, that Trijicon’s case was strong and valid, and are trying to engineer around the lawsuit.

2. HS calculated that the combination of potential damages and additional legal expenditures would far outweigh the cost of re-engineering, re-tooling and eating whatever inventories they have on the docks.

3. HS appears able to do this on extant cash flow and with the support of whatever entity backs their company. Whomever that really may be.

4. Given the time needed to redesign, re-tool, produce, and move through the supply chain, the effort was actually started some time ago. See #1 above.

[backtrail540]

Question for the experienced RDS users. Just ordered my first RDS pistol, LTT 92 RDO. Provided that works out well, I will be sending my current slide for milling.

Given the pending redesign, would you just wait for the newer model with the thought that if I end up with multiple RDS having a “standard” button layout would be beneficial.

Or grab one of the current models understanding that future models will likely have a different button layout?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I'm new to rds use, but from my current perspective I don't think it matters. You are either going to set it to some sort of auto brightness, which the buttons won't be very important, or you will find a setting that you like on a manual mode and leave it there (unless it's an acro and you have to adjust every 20 minutes based on lighting conditions to maximize battery life).

The dots I've used so far (lower end stuff mostly) were fairly intuitive and didn't take much brain power to adjust once you have them initially setup.

[TAZ]

Question for the experienced RDS users. Just ordered my first RDS pistol, LTT 92 RDO. Provided that works out well, I will be sending my current slide for milling.

Given the pending redesign, would you just wait for the newer model with the thought that if I end up with multiple RDS having a “standard” button layout would be beneficial.

Or grab one of the current models understanding that future models will likely have a different button layout?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

There is no standard button layout. HS has 2 different a designs (V1 and V2), heck they may have a third one if they didn't go back to V1 layout. Vortex has their buttons, Sig has their button layout as does Trijicon. I'm far from an expert, but the ONLY worry i have about getting the V2 lay-out would be warranty issues. If you have to send it back there is little too no way they will rework a unit that is in violation of patents, so you may get a new unit. Good or bad.. who knows at this time.

I have Trijicon on my milled G19X and HS on my G19MOS. Button layout isn't a concern for me. Depending on how you set the HS up the firmware will limit what you can immediately do with the buttons. On AUTO mode you have to hold the + button down till the dot blinks and goes into Manual mode. Not doing that in an emergency situation. I usually find a useful brightness and leave it there. The AUTO tends to be too dim for my crappy eyes in almost all conditions.

[Archer1440]

Question for the experienced RDS users. Just ordered my first RDS pistol, LTT 92 RDO. Provided that works out well, I will be sending my current slide for milling.

Given the pending redesign, would you just wait for the newer model with the thought that if I end up with multiple RDS having a “standard” button layout would be beneficial.

Or grab one of the current models understanding that future models will likely have a different button layout?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I would go with an optic made by a company that isn’t changing their flagship optic every six months.

Look, the optic on a fighting pistol has ONE JOB. That is, to put a visible sighting reference on the place you wish to send a bullet, every time. For me that is why I use the Trijicon RMR.

I won’t buy this Holosun nonsense for one simple reason (besides not wanting to line the pockets of the CCP). I want consistency.

[DaBigBR]

My guess is that this change is being done to avoid having sales stopped if an injunction is granted. My prediction is V1 buttons and V2 battery.

[GJM]

I would go with an optic made by a company that isn’t changing their flagship optic every six months.

Look, the optic on a fighting pistol has ONE JOB. That is, to put a visible sighting reference on the place you wish to send a bullet, every time. For me that is why I use the Trijicon RMR.

I won’t buy this Holosun nonsense for one simple reason (besides not wanting to line the pockets of the CCP). I want consistency.

While the optics choices of 2020 are a lot better than in years past, none of them are perfection. The RMR type 2’s major improvement is what — we don’t need to put tape on the bottom of the 2032 battery to keep it from intermittently flickering off. The main advantage of an RMR to me, is it uses the same footprint as a SRO and multiple Holosun models. I expect the optics to keep getting better, but once you have a slide milled you are wedded to that footprint. A bunch of us have slides milled for the DP Pro that are gathering dust.

[HCM]

I'm new to rds use, but from my current perspective I don't think it matters. You are either going to set it to some sort of auto brightness, which the buttons won't be very important, or you will find a setting that you like on a manual mode and leave it there (unless it's an acro and you have to adjust every 20 minutes based on lighting conditions to maximize battery life).

The dots I've used so far (lower end stuff mostly) were fairly intuitive and didn't take much brain power to adjust once you have them initially setup.

The position of the brightness / intensity controls is an administrative handling issue - it has no effect on practical use of the optics.

[EricP]

A bunch of us have slides milled for the DP Pro that are gathering dust.

Any update on the upgraded DPs that you were working with?

[GJM]

Any update on the upgraded DPs that you were working with?

They seem good to go. I believe new units with the last two letters “AG” incorporate all the improvements.

[Wayne Dobbs]

They seem good to go. I believe new units with the last two letters “AG” incorporate all the improvements.

Do those letters stand for "After George"??

[Grey]

They seem good to go. I believe new units with the last two letters “AG” incorporate all the improvements.

You haven't broken any yet? How many rounds?

[GJM]

I think Trijicon should change their marketing slogan to reflect their decisive technology advantage in red dot pistol sights.

How about something like — “Trijicon, the manufacturer of red dot pistol optics for discriminating shooters that require their + and - to be on the vertical extension and not just anywhere on the base of the optic.”

(Moved this from the other Holosun thread to here, where it belongs)

[GJM]

Do those letters stand for "After George"??

Hey bud, don’t quit the day job! Kidding aside, I asked them to put a “G” in the serial number to identify new units, but they didn’t share my enthusiasm for the idea. It just worked out that the last units were “AF” and AG happened to follow.


You haven't broken any yet? How many rounds?

Many thousands on the prototypes. I have seen AG units in the field and they have the new boards and all the improvements.

[ssb]

I saw some pics of the revised Holosuns. It's V1 buttons with a V2 side load battery. Unfortunate, as I really like the V2 buttons on my 507s and 407K and 507K.

[DaBigBR]

I saw some pics of the revised Holosuns. It's V1 buttons with a V2 side load battery. Unfortunate, as I really like the V2 buttons on my 507s and 407K and 507K.

As predicted. It's too bad. Maybe Holosun prevails on the patent suit and goes back to the new buttons.

[GJM]

I saw some pics of the revised Holosuns. It's V1 buttons with a V2 side load battery. Unfortunate, as I really like the V2 buttons on my 507s and 407K and 507K.

Link?

[backtrail540]

p/CEakG3pnoEz

[newyork]

I’m still surprised that a Chinese optic company is doing so well. Seems to be more popular than Trijicon and Aimpoint on the site lately. They must really be good.

[littlejerry]

I’m still surprised that a Chinese optic company is doing so well. Seems to be more popular than Trijicon and Aimpoint on the site lately. They must really be good.
I know there is a common belief that China = low quality, but the reality is quite different. For an equivalent amount of investment you can get a higher quality product from China than you can in the US. I've worked with and toured some impressive facilities in China that put domestic manufacturing to shame.

Notice I said can get higher quality. Quality isn't cheap, and there is no shortage of bad vendors.

I'm not saying it's right, good, wrong, etc, just that it's reality. Even businesses with domestic manufacturing frequently need to expand their footprint to China because setting up certain processes in NA aren't financially viable due to labor, environmental, or tax concerns.

I've been a part of multiple efforts to bring certain products back to NA, but ultimately we always hit a roadblock and are forced to source at least some content overseas and perform final assembly in NA. Even that represents a significant cost increase and typically opens up MORE opportunities for quality problems as you have to bring more vendors into the mix.

[Chain]

I know there is a common belief that China = low quality, but the reality is quite different.

Times change


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1QcjsjjtRc

[vcdgrips]

Slight thread drift/rant


China made products from Apple and Arc'teryx, are but two companies whose product enjoy immense popularity in their respective markets.

Both make a superlative product thru exceptional design, vigorous ongoing/onsite QC, often under contractual obligation to do so, with suppliers to the final product i.e. Gore Inc/Goretex Fabrics and Arc'teryx.

Just my humble opinion, certainly subject to change if someone could make a compelling case to the contrary-People should be able to buy what they want from where they want. Manufacturers and retailers should be transparent re the Country of Origin. That way, consumers have all the information necessary to assess the intersections of quality, value, price and any increases or decreasing of the same based on the Country of Origin.

This is particularly true, but not exclusive so, of publicly traded companies and/or companies who receive or have received any type of taxpayer assistance i.e tax incentives etc.

[backtrail540]

59778

Screenshot from holosun ig account

[rob_s]

59778

Screenshot from holosun ig account

If that means they paid off Trijicon to be able to keep making the optics they make and continue to develop new ones, I'm happy to hear it.

[backtrail540]

If that means they paid off Trijicon to be able to keep making the optics they make and continue to develop new ones, I'm happy to hear it.

Steve Fisher of Sentinel Concepts was in the comments saying something along the lines of - Wait until you see what's coming next. So hopefully that means your sentiment is true and they'll continue as before.

[GJM]

We obviously do not know the details of the settlement, but I think we can conclude the following. Number one, this lawsuit cost Trijicon a lot of money to file. Two, it is resolved and Holosun didn’t go out of business. Three, more people know about Holosun now, than before the lawsuit was filed.

[Archer1440]

We obviously do not know the details of the settlement, but I think we can conclude the following. Number one, this lawsuit cost Trijicon a lot of money to file. Two, it is resolved and Holosun didn’t go out of business. Three, more people know about Holosun now, than before the lawsuit was filed.

Streisand effect? Perhaps so. But for people like me, who have personally been affected by Chinese IP theft, this simply sours me on the product and company. Glad to see Trijicon prevailed here. I fully recognize my bias in this matter.

[GJM]

Streisand effect? Perhaps so. But for people like me, who have personally been affected by Chinese IP theft, this simply sours me on the product and company. Glad to see Trijicon prevailed here. I fully recognize my bias in this matter.

I am very sympathetic to appropriate consequences for the theft of intellectual property, but if the allegation here is the plus and minus buttons were on the vertical member instead of the base, and the infringement is resolved by relocating the buttons, it feels different than “Chinese companies pirating sensitive US technology.” .

[BillSWPA]

We obviously do not know the details of the settlement, but I think we can conclude the following. Number one, this lawsuit cost Trijicon a lot of money to file. Two, it is resolved and Holosun didn’t go out of business. Three, more people know about Holosun now, than before the lawsuit was filed.

At least according to posts above, it appears that Trijicon forced a redesign of Holosun’s products in ways that may or may not make them a little less competitive. The suit also cost Holosun money, at least in attorney fees, and possibly a payment to Trijicon to settle the allegation of past infringement. The redesign also cost Holosun money.

I doubt many people who learned of this suit didn’t already know about Holosun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HCM]

I am very sympathetic to appropriate consequences for the theft of intellectual property, but if the allegation here is the plus and minus buttons were on the vertical member instead of the base, and the infringement is resolved by relocating the buttons, it feels different than “Chinese companies pirating sensitive US technology.” .

That is just what Holosun got caught for.

[GJM]

That is just what Holosun got caught for.

I would be curious as to what that might be. I have heard rumblings for a few years about Holosun stealing technology but never heard what it was they took.

[jh9]

Holosun stealing technology but never heard what it was they took.

I believe the answer is generally "everything that isn't nailed down and some of the stuff that was." If you're familiar with Huawei and Nortel it may sound similar. Imagine someone has "R&D'd" not just a competing product but a whole-ass product line (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/exclusive-did-huawei-bring-down-nortel-corporate-espionage-theft-and-the-parallel-rise-and-fall-of-two-telecom-giants/ar-BB10cIP3) that looks awfully similar right down to the variable names and bugs. Or so the embedded guys told me. I don't work at that level of the stack.

[HCM]

I would be curious as to what that might be. I have heard rumblings for a few years about Holosun stealing technology but never heard what it was they took.

A rep from a certain Swedish RDS maker has opined on this. Apparently the Swedes don’t have the balls to stand up to the Chinese. Weren’t AP Micro knock offs Holosun’s first RDS product?

It’s also a very interesting coincidence that Leupold developed Shake awake tech to preserve battery life. As soon as those engineers left for SIG and SIG started having those items made in China Holosun suddenly got shake awake tech.

[rob_s]

Steve Fisher of Sentinel Concepts was in the comments saying something along the lines of - Wait until you see what's coming next.

From Holosun or Trijicon?

I thought he was on the Trijicon payroll, so I assume the latter? Or has he changed teams?

[HCM]

From Holosun or Trijicon?

I thought he was on the Trijicon payroll, so I assume the latter? Or has he changed teams?

Maybe Vortex. He was with Trijicon for a couple years but went over to Vortex. Vortex supposedly has had a new pistol RDS in the works for a while now.

He might be repoing for Holosun or it could be something her was NDA’ed on while he was with Trijicon.

[Wake27]

Fisher has been pushing Holosuns on pistols pretty hard for a while now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stomridertx]

Maybe Vortex. He was with Trijicon for a couple years but went over to Vortex. Vortex supposedly has had a new pistol RDS in the works for a while now.

He might be repoing for Holosun or it could be something her was NDA’ed on while he was with Trijicon.

I'm rooting for Vortex to come out with a good offering. The lockout screws on the rear of the Viper were a terrible idea, as was the 6 MOA dot as the only option. Their other dots are too tall. If they can release a pistol optic design that made sense I'd be tempted, because with Vortex warranty would be really reassuring in this optic category. Hint for Vortex, nobody wants auto shutoff without shake awake. Just no.

[David S.]

Coincidence that this lawsuit and settlement is perfectly timed to make Holosun optics unobtainable just in time for the RMRcc release?

[Chain]

China made products
...
vigorous ongoing/onsite QC

I had a friend who worked for a company that sourced products from China, and he said, IIRC, that there was an industry term like "product fade", where even if the initial order met the spec from the bid, subsequent orders would slowly fall farther from spec. Like if a sewn item started at 10 stitches per inch, you'd get the next order in and it'd be 9 stitches per inch. Ya you'd complain and they'd make more, but it was a battle of constant vigilance to keep this product fade from occurring.

[Yung]

Manufacturers and retailers should be transparent re the Country of Origin. That way, consumers have all the information necessary to assess the intersections of quality, value, price and any increases or decreasing of the same based on the Country of Origin.

This is particularly true, but not exclusive so, of publicly traded companies and/or companies who receive or have received any type of taxpayer assistance i.e tax incentives etc.

If there is one bit of regulation that I would add when it comes to business and my personal experience as a consumer, it would be this. For example, in Holosun's case it was pointed out in the first couple pages of this thread, regarding their website. Can someone tell me if anything indicating 'made in' or 'product of' or 'assembled in US of global components' or any variant thereof indicated in a Holosun dot's packaging, documentation, or on the piece itself?

[HeavyDuty]

I had a friend who worked for a company that sourced products from China, and he said, IIRC, that there was an industry term like "product fade", where even if the initial order met the spec from the bid, subsequent orders would slowly fall farther from spec. Like if a sewn item started at 10 stitches per inch, you'd get the next order in and it'd be 9 stitches per inch. Ya you'd complain and they'd make more, but it was a battle of constant vigilance to keep this product fade from occurring.

A friend is the CTO/CIO for a company that makes whaleshit (think Pier 1 and Crate and Barrel) and this has always been a huge problem with their Chinese sourced stuff. They do a lot of ceramic and glass, and over time things tend to shrink. Plus, they need to test every sample - it’s amazing how much hazardous stuff gets slipped in. They had to pay to have an entire order of rubber doorstops hazmat disposed due to sky high lead content.

[BigD]

Maybe Vortex. He was with Trijicon for a couple years but went over to Vortex. Vortex supposedly has had a new pistol RDS in the works for a while now.

He might be repoing for Holosun or it could be something her was NDA’ed on while he was with Trijicon.

He's working for the highest bidder.


I've been saying this for a long time ... be very careful listening to the "famous" trainers for product advice. Most don't disclose who gave them free products, much less their formal business deals.

He's one of the last people I'd turn to for an unbiased opinion.

[HCM]

He's working for the highest bidder.


I've been saying this for a long time ... be very careful listening to the "famous" trainers for product advice. Most don't disclose who gave them free products, much less their formal business deals.

He's one of the last people I'd turn to for an unbiased opinion.

Moving around is standard in the gun industry.

Fisher is not a YouTuber doing a positive review for a free optic. He makes a living in the gun and training industry. Part of what he does is repping products and part is testing and product development.

How much weight to give his, or anyone else’s recommendations comes down to that persons integrity and one way they stay legit is by being selective in who they work for. Fact is at a certain level brands are equivalent enough just a matter of Ford or Chevy. There is actually more difference in certain models / product lines or reticles in a product line than there is between brands.

[BehindBlueI's]

If there is one bit of regulation that I would add when it comes to business and my personal experience as a consumer, it would be this. For example, in Holosun's case it was pointed out in the first couple pages of this thread, regarding their website. Can someone tell me if anything indicating 'made in' or 'product of' or 'assembled in US of global components' or any variant thereof indicated in a Holosun dot's packaging, documentation, or on the piece itself?

I just got one in the mail yesterday, so I have all the packaging. I'll check when I get home if I remember.

[Yung]

I just got one in the mail yesterday, so I have all the packaging. I'll check when I get home if I remember.

Thank you.

[BigD]

Moving around is standard in the gun industry.



Exactly. Companies decide to 'go in a different direction' and 'contracts aren't renewed.' Hence, they move around to the highest bidder. Often the previous bidder doesn't bid.




Fisher is not a YouTuber doing a positive review for a free optic. He makes a living in the gun and training industry. Part of what he does is repping products and part is testing and product development.


You are correct. Unlike the Youtuber, real money is changing hands when an internet-famous trainer starts shilling. All the more reason to be skeptical.




How much weight to give his, or anyone else’s recommendations comes down to that persons integrity and one way they stay legit is by being selective in who they work for.
He's not repping NCStar or airsoft gear. That's true.



Fact is at a certain level brands are equivalent enough just a matter of Ford or Chevy.

And yet there's no shortage of people being paid to make you think there's a world of difference between Ford and Chevy.

When I say "HE", I might as well be referring to other trainers that do the same thing. But it's often repeated here "Yeti says they are good" anytime someone mentions Holosun. I'm sure many aren't aware that these trainers are often on the payroll of companies, and they often aren't upfront about it. Sometimes they are, but most people won't bother to go into the trainer's website and dig around. But it usually doesn't matter as they usually they aren't forthcoming.

[BehindBlueI's]

When I say "HE", I might as well be referring to other trainers that do the same thing. But it's often repeated here "Yeti says they are good" anytime someone mentions Holosun. I'm sure many aren't aware that these trainers are often on the payroll of companies, and they often aren't upfront about it. Sometimes they are, but most people won't bother to go into the trainer's website and dig around. But it usually doesn't matter as they usually they aren't forthcoming.

One of the advantages of being with a .gov entity large enough to do it's own testing is you can eliminate a lot of that. There's some T&E going on here now and Holoson is projected to be approved. Projected to be isn't the same as "is" of course, but between what I've read here and that info it was enough for me to throw the dice.

Without getting into the "just as good as" and "battle ready" arguments, some cheap rifle optics did surprisingly well. I've had a patrol rifle for maybe just over 10 years (don't recall exactly when I first qualified) and we started with just irons. A few years later optics started getting approved. A Bushnell was the cheapest option that survived T&E and then did good work on real patrol rifles. TRS-25, maybe? Something T-25. I sprung for an EoTech, a much more expensive option, and had one of the ones with thermal drift...so there's that. I went to Aimpoint after that, but I do not believe "you get what you pay for" is always true unless you are counting the cost of the name.

[HCM]

Exactly. Companies decide to 'go in a different direction' and 'contracts aren't renewed.' Hence, they move around to the highest bidder. Often the previous bidder doesn't bid.




You are correct. Unlike the Youtuber, real money is changing hands when an internet-famous trainer starts shilling. All the more reason to be skeptical.


He's not repping NCStar or airsoft gear. That's true.

And yet there's no shortage of people being paid to make you think there's a world of difference between Ford and Chevy.

When I say "HE", I might as well be referring to other trainers that do the same thing. But it's often repeated here "Yeti says they are good" anytime someone mentions Holosun. I'm sure many aren't aware that these trainers are often on the payroll of companies, and they often aren't upfront about it. Sometimes they are, but most people won't bother to go into the trainer's website and dig around. But it usually doesn't matter as they usually they aren't forthcoming.

We're not talking about other people.

Like the late Pat Rogers and other active trainers Fisher sees a lot of rounds go downrange in classes with a variety of gear. Having spent a couple years doing full time firearms training I understand the value of that depth. So do firearms, gear and optics companies.

You are implying his positive mention of Holosun is a false statement rather than genuinely based on his positive experiences using them and seeing them in class.

I'm aware of at least one large Fed Gov agency which tested Holosun pistol optics and were very surprised at how well they performed.

Along those lines, Fisher convinced me to pull the pin on a a Khales LPVO, which was the result of a contract evaluation of LPVOs he did for a .GOV org. It simply was the best performing LPVO at the time.

Remember, this is not a hobby for him, it's how he makes a living, everyone has to play some form of politics and self moderation at work including you and me. My experience with him is similar to a lot of industry people I know and respect, if it's good he will endorse it, if its not you will get some form of no comment / read between the lines. So far I haven't seen him steer people wrong.

[ssb]

Exactly. Companies decide to 'go in a different direction' and 'contracts aren't renewed.' Hence, they move around to the highest bidder. Often the previous bidder doesn't bid.




You are correct. Unlike the Youtuber, real money is changing hands when an internet-famous trainer starts shilling. All the more reason to be skeptical.


He's not repping NCStar or airsoft gear. That's true.

And yet there's no shortage of people being paid to make you think there's a world of difference between Ford and Chevy.

When I say "HE", I might as well be referring to other trainers that do the same thing. But it's often repeated here "Yeti says they are good" anytime someone mentions Holosun. I'm sure many aren't aware that these trainers are often on the payroll of companies, and they often aren't upfront about it. Sometimes they are, but most people won't bother to go into the trainer's website and dig around. But it usually doesn't matter as they usually they aren't forthcoming.

I've actually taken a class with Fisher.

A couple of observations:
1) Fisher is a paid representative for various companies. He admits this. At the time I took the class, he stated he was not working for Trijicon anymore. He still recommended Trijicons as an option.
2) How that representation ends up in practice is, as an example, he obviously has some sort of deal with Tenicor. To wit, he had most every product they make on hand for students to try during class. His sales pitch was literally, "here's a box with all the latest Tenicor, Jeff's got some cool shit, grab what looks cool and try it out during the day." I'm happy with my Dark Star Gear stuff and so I didn't take him up on that. He did the same with Agency guns (Glocks and P320s). I don't have the budget to play that game so I didn't take him up on that one either. At no point were the products "pushed" on me unless you count the fact that they were present. In my observation, most of the product discussion was student-initiated by what I can only described as fanboys. Think of it kind of like a gun show back in the day, where you'd see a lot of interesting stuff in one place for fondling, and you have an idea of how his brand of marketing works.
3) He does indeed "say Holosun is good." He says the same about ACROs and RMRs, though -- like Holosun -- he has gripes about each optic (auto-adjust after 16hrs on the RMR, not starting with a larger battery on the ACRO, etc.). During class, I found him to be quite candid about the pros/cons of various RDS options. He is of the opinion that Holosun is a legit contender in the duty optics world at this point. That's probably got something to do with round count -- between his personal guns and the loaners, the optics get quite a few miles on them each year. He describes having roughly 50/50 Holosun/Trijicon on his guns at this point, and having sent back many more Trijicons than Holosuns.
4) The fact remains that despite all the bitching about Chinese optics and allegations of IP theft of the emitters that somehow haven't been followed through with doing something about it... the things work. For individuals and, in some cases, in agency testing. I implicitly trust Western QC processes more... but my examples have all worked very well, and I've owned seven Holosun products at this point. As have the examples of many others (I'd hazard a guess and say that civilian sales of the Holosuns likely exceed those of the RMR). All of the accusations of shilling won't change that.

[Grey]

Not quite sure what the Steve Fisher hate is about, he runs in some well informed and "we can buy whatever the hell we want" circles so if he was going to start "shilling" for a inferior product his own peers would probably be calling his bullshit. I have no reason to doubt what he says, reputation means a lot in this industry...

[BehindBlueI's]

If there is one bit of regulation that I would add when it comes to business and my personal experience as a consumer, it would be this. For example, in Holosun's case it was pointed out in the first couple pages of this thread, regarding their website. Can someone tell me if anything indicating 'made in' or 'product of' or 'assembled in US of global components' or any variant thereof indicated in a Holosun dot's packaging, documentation, or on the piece itself?

It says "Made in China" prominently under the bar code on the cardboard sleeve around the box. The box itself is just black with a very subdued logo on it. I don't see any markings on the unit itself other than the serial number and brand. A *very* quick perusal of the instruction sheet doesn't mention it.

[GJM]

I think there are two different issues.

1) what is a person’s opinion, and how informed is that opinion.

2) what relationships does that person have. So when someone is promoting a product, I am interested in what business or other relationships the person has that might influence their endorsement. The existence of a relationship does not necessarily invalidate their endorsement, but I want to know about it so I can consider the relationship as part of my own evaluation.

[Yung]

It says "Made in China" prominently under the bar code on the cardboard sleeve around the box. The box itself is just black with a very subdued logo on it. I don't see any markings on the unit itself other than the serial number and brand. A *very* quick perusal of the instruction sheet doesn't mention it.

Thanks again for looking.

I think the easiest thing they could do is to put it on their website somewhere. The first time I realized this issue chapped my ass was going into my first full-time job post-enlistment and buying Matco and Snap-On hand tools only to realize after the fact that some of the stuff that wasn't even part of the Silver Eagle/Blue-Point budget lines were still made in China.

[TicTacticalTimmy]

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/09/11/holosun-trijicon-lawsuit-settlement/

Not a lot of new info, since it says 'the terms of the settlement remain undisclosed.'

However, this at least means Holosun can go back to focusing on building and developing their red dots.

[mcgivro]

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/09/11/holosun-trijicon-lawsuit-settlement/

Not a lot of new info, since it says 'the terms of the settlement remain undisclosed.'

However, this at least means Holosun can go back to focusing on building and developing their red dots.
And green dots, which we sell in similar quantities as red.

[JCN]

And green dots, which we sell in similar quantities as red.

Work for Holosun?

Or Walmart. :D