Russia Claims IP Rights In Manufacture of AK-47 502
Daniel Dvorkin writes "In the latest example of over-the-top intellectual property demands, Russia wants licensing fees for the production of AK-47s. According to first deputy prime minister Sergei Ivanov, the unlicensed production of Kalashnikovs (which have been around in very nearly their current form for 60 years) in ex-Soviet Bloc countries is 'intellectual piracy.' A giant but declining power starts demanding royalties on commonly used methods and materials that are widely understood, well known, and by any reasonable standard have long been in the public domain — does this sound familiar?" Wikipedia notes that the Izhevsk Machine Tool Factory in Russia obtained a patent on the manufacture of the AK-47 in 1999.
Update. (Score:3, Informative)
For a list of AK-47 producing sites follow the link: http://www.ak-47.us/AK47_Factories.php [ak-47.us]
Regards.
not sure how they'll enforce this... (Score:1, Informative)
The problem is that the Russian factory isn't the only one making it and most of the countries that are making it aren't exactly the kind that bends over to intellectual property demands. I don't see how they are going to enforce this as late in the game as it is...
Re:AK's are varied and spread far & wide (Score:5, Informative)
The best AK-47 variant is produced in Finland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rk_62 [wikipedia.org]
http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rk_62 [wikipedia.org]
http://www.ak-47.us/Finland.php [ak-47.us]
This weapon (RK-62) is widely considered to be the best assault rifle in general.
Re:Sounds fair to me (Score:2, Informative)
Probably not (Score:3, Informative)
"The invention shall be granted legal protection if it is novel,
possesses an inventive level and is commercially applicable."
Since it's been in production for over 50 years, it's certainly not "novel."
If they argue for patentability from the initial design, then the patent time lapsed many years ago (their protection limits max out at 20 years).
So no, it's not "the law," it's just Russia being Russia.
Re:Update. (Score:5, Informative)
I know this because my parents live in Izhevsk and work at Izhevsk Mechanical Factory (Izhevsky Mechanichesky Zavod) which makes hunting and sport rifles.
Re:What do you want them to do? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Controlling the Westernised Russian Beast (Score:4, Informative)
The current western version of democracy is just public relations theory. It is about making the public think they have some say in who rules their country without actually giving them too much. The problem is that we are given such a small selection of people to choose who will rule us from (2 in the US) that it does not actualy count as a democracy according to the strict (original) definition.
The other problem is that once a particular person / party has been elected they are very hard to remove from power even if they make some very unpopular decisions. A better description of the current system in the US or UK (or Russia for that matter) would be an elected dictatorship. Some countries in Europe do slightly better by allowing proportional representation rather than "first past the post" but these still probably would not count as a democracy in the orignal sense.
One problem with current democracy is that you need huge amounts of money to get elected, this rules out most people. This may also explain why both of the frontrunner democratic candidates (Barrack and Hillary) have taken money from the RIAA even though a great deal of the american population (I have not said majority of the US population so lets not get into semantics) voted them the worst company in the US.
(The source for this is here: http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-company-in-
Anyone who has read this far might find it interesting too look at the definition of Democracy with respect to constitutional republics as defined on the wikipedia page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy [wikipedia.org]
Please also note that I am not trying to argue that one is superior to the other, I am just trying to suggest that democracy is often overrated when used in the modern context of the word.
I also take issue with you implying that western democracies are impartial with regard to race or sexual orientation. Until the US elect a black gay man as president or the US senate is made up of the same balance as the general population I think this is a hard case to make. Wikipedia also has a good page on this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_demographics_
In many ways the US is moving away from impartiality in politics with regard to sexual orientation as religion becomes higher on the list of criteria people consider when choosing how to cast their vote.
In my view the primary western value in recent years has been profit, and Russians have certainly embraced this with open arms. That is what the whole IP issue with regard to AK's is all about. They want money for people using what is a Russian state design (and a damn good one). The man who invented and designed the original AK was at the time of its design, a serving Russian military officer. If wanting to get money for what you or your employees invent is not a western value then where does the current US stance on copyright come from?
Re:Pay or Die! (Score:3, Informative)
The NATO round will fit in a Russian AK47. The Russian round will not fit in a NATO weapon.
The AK47 is a 7.62/54R (rimmed
But actually firing the NATO round in an AK47 is asking for catastrophic failure, because the length of the NATO rimless round in an AK47 is 3mm short in a situation where 0.05mm makes a difference.
Re:Pay or Die! (Score:5, Informative)
It is of note that 7.62x51 NATO will not chamber and fire in an AK (x39) or any x54R chambered firearm - The former because the NATO round is way too long to even remotely safely chamber, and the latter because the NATO round is shorter and not rimmed and will swim around in the x54R chamber, probably rupturing the case on ignition if the firing pin reaches the primer at all.
Long rant made short: Don't try to sound smart on topics about which you know nothing. Check your facts; Hollywood isn't a source.
Re:AK's are varied and spread far & wide (Score:3, Informative)
Re:AK-47 patent violations (Score:3, Informative)
The photo shows a Russian made T-34/85 on the right, and an American made M4 Sherman tank on the left, in Soviet service. The Allies shipped a lot of equipment to the Soviet Union during WW2, including fighters, bombers and tanks. So the photo clearly shows US intellectual property in Soviet service.
The T-34 on the right has a German designed 'Jerry Can', which would have been knicked off someone some time prior to the photo, or did the Reds ever copy Jerry cans as well ?
The photo itself is probably post WW2 for a couple of reasons. 1) You can tell from the cut of the uniforms that it is late or post WW2. During the war, Soviet officers did not have any shoulder tabs or rank distinctions as such, since that was 'Classist'. Later in the war, they reintroduced a lot of the old fashioned bling bling to make officers feel a little more equal than the men they were commanding (all comrades are equal, but some are more equal than others).
The red flags in the photo too are a dead giveaway - they are not Soviet flags, but range flags. When a unit practices live firing on the range, they fly red flags to warn that live firing is in progress. Being well organised and safety conscious like this is another pointer that it is post WW2. During the war, there was no time for such elaborate training as an organised target practice - often tanks were driven straight out the factory and into combat by the workers themselves with zero training, and not even any paint applied.
That pic was a good find anyway
Re:Polonium patent? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Pay or Die! (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, the operating principle behind the AK can be used for much heavier ammunition just as the principle behind the Stoner rifles can be used for
Also, it is possible to get a legal fully automatic AK in the United States, but it's tricky and very expensive. Since the end of prohibition and the Gun Control Act, various types of firearm including full auto have been restricted but not outlawed. To wit, it's a matter of submitting a form to the ATF to register the gun and paying a 200 dollar tax stamp which is applied to the transfer of the full auto firearm in question. Back in the '30's, 200 dollars was a lot of money so this law effectively outlawed full auto firearms (as well as short barreled rifles and shotguns, and so forth) to all but the wealthy elite. Well, inflation caught up with the law and eventually it became feasible for the average joe to buy a machine gun again, so in the 1986 Firearm Owner's Protection Act a little rider was added that outlaws the civilian transfer of any firearm not registered in the way detailed above before May 19, 1986. This froze the entire market for machine guns in the United States - what was here then is all that will ever be here now, forever. Repealing the law is, obviously, unlikely. The net effect of all of this is that all civilian ownable full auto guns are limited in supply, extremely expensive, and require jumping through hoops to get. And there are several examples of AK-47's out there, if you feel like shelling out an upwards of 10,000 dollars for one plus the tax stamp.
Also, if you are a class 2 Special Occupational Taxpayer (essentially, a firearm manufacturer) it is perfectly legal for you to build or 'rig' an AK or any gun into full auto, however the gun will be owned by your corporation or company and not you personally, and it'll go with the business if the business ever folds. And the ATF frowns very strongly on people who try to gain SOT status without running a legitimate business just to play with machine guns in their spare time.
Re:Pay or Die! (Score:3, Informative)