Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Replica


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
560 replies to this topic

#441 dalbert

dalbert

    Website Owner

  • Admin
  • 4269 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 10 September 2008 - 05:12 PM

QUOTE (PhilOhio @ Sep 10 2008, 01:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm not trying to be a bad guy, but I won't sit quietly by when such a controversial case has been stridently argued over such a long period of time, and the known set of historical facts and current claims does not support the idea that the question is settled...when all evidence shouts that it has not been. That's all I have been saying.


Phil,

We hear you. We respect your opinion.

We also have an opinion, and a great number of facts to support it.

It is what it is. There's an elephant in the room. It's missing it's birth certificate. Most folks still see it as an elephant.

Arthur,

Smoke and mirrors. I know you can do better, but you appear content with more of the same.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

  • 0

#442 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 September 2008 - 08:31 PM

QUOTE (dalbert @ Sep 10 2008, 06:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It is what it is. There's an elephant in the room. It's missing it's birth certificate. Most folks still see it as an elephant.

Arthur,

Smoke and mirrors. I know you can do better, but you appear content with more of the same.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com


I would question how many people actually care either way on this issue, but the ones that do, I don't think you can assume the majority share the conclusions TD draws in his SAR article.

Kahr is haunted by the ghosts of the elephant graveyard. They don't take kindly to poachers.

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer, 11 September 2008 - 11:22 AM.

  • 0

#443 Bridgeport28A1

Bridgeport28A1

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 857 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 10 September 2008 - 09:48 PM

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Sep 10 2008, 08:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (dalbert @ Sep 10 2008, 06:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It is what it is. There's an elephant in the room. It's missing it's birth certificate. Most folks still see it as an elephant.

Arthur,

Smoke and mirrors. I know you can do better, but you appear content with more of the same.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com


I would question how many people actually care either way on this issue, but the ones that do, I don't think you can assume the majority share the conclusions TD draws in his SAR article.

Kahr is haunted by the ghosts of the elephant graveyard. They don' take kindly to poachers.



I remember that Tarzan movie with the elephant graveyard, it through the waterfall. Bones and tusks everywhere but no Thompsons. I'm sure if it had Thompsons in it colt21A would have put the DVD in at least once by now.

Ross.

Edited by Bridgeport28A1, 10 September 2008 - 09:49 PM.

  • 0

#444 blueline541

blueline541

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 125 posts

Posted 11 September 2008 - 01:43 AM

I've approached this debate without any pre-conceived opinions or biases, and the following opinion, worthless as everyone else's, is all mine.

The debates about the authenticity of the Bible are mild in comparison with the "true" history of the Thompson submachine gun.

I can understand endless debating of events that occurred thousands of years ago, but I'm a bit skeptical about murky "history" from just sixty years ago. It's not as if we're trying to decide if Russia has authentic pieces of Hitler's skull locked away in a vault in a building formerly belonging to the Kremlin.

If Kahr is the true successor of the original Thompson it shouldn't require a modern day Indiana Jones to discover the connection from the pre-WWII
Thompson to the lacking imitation on the rack at the local Sportman's Warehouse.

I read the article in SAR, but I just don't see an unbroken chain of lineage between the original Thompson and what is being sold with that name today. Historically speaking WWII was not that long ago, so there shouldn't be such a mystery surrounding the post WWII guns that sport the Thompson name. If Kahr, West Hurley, etc., were makers of actual Thompsons the proof wouldn't be so elusive or debatable.

Why not present the evidence to uninterested parties who couldn't care less about the famous gun and listen to what they have to say on the subject?

Edited by blueline541, 11 September 2008 - 01:44 AM.

  • 0

#445 PhilOhio

PhilOhio

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 5903 posts

Posted 11 September 2008 - 11:54 AM

QUOTE (blueline541 @ Sep 11 2008, 02:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
...Why not present the evidence to uninterested parties who couldn't care less about the famous gun and listen to what they have to say on the subject?...

Exactly. Or submit it to a couple lawyers who specialize in this area of business law. Or submit it to a couple retired judges. ...or historians with respected credentials. ...or just a few people with reasonably high IQs.

I have no doubt whatsoever what the result would be. It's only common sense.
  • 0

#446 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2008 - 12:53 PM

QUOTE (PhilOhio @ Sep 11 2008, 12:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (blueline541 @ Sep 11 2008, 02:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
...Why not present the evidence to uninterested parties who couldn't care less about the famous gun and listen to what they have to say on the subject?...

Exactly. Or submit it to a couple lawyers who specialize in this area of business law. Or submit it to a couple retired judges. ...or historians with respected credentials. ...or just a few people with reasonably high IQs.

I have no doubt whatsoever what the result would be. It's only common sense.


If TD relied on an objective criteria in determining the status of Kahr's claims of being the original AOC, we would be reading citations from the above experts in their field in the SAR article. But somehow Fred Willis's "TOMMY" book and Kilgore's aspirations for using the machines he purchased from Maguire, are, I guess, a substitute for legal commentary from neutral authorities. While TD's info makes for much better reading than dry legalese, it doesn't get him any closer to his declaration of unimpeachable truth.

If this info is in the pipeline, why the rush for publication now sans the necessary evidence?

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer, 11 September 2008 - 12:54 PM.

  • 0

#447 reconbob

reconbob

    Technical Expert

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2271 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2008 - 03:09 PM

I have beome confused as to exactly what the two factions here
are contending. I just looked at the trademark infiringment letter that
Auto-Ordnance of West Hurley NY had their big shot lawyers send me
back in 1985 when I first advertised my M1A1 Thompson submachine
guns.
One of the documents they sent me is a copy of the tradmark
application filed July 11th, 1984, in which Ira Trast eloquently
describes how the "Auto-Ordnance Corporation...having a place of
business at West Hurley, New York...has adopted and is using the
trademark shown in the accompanying drawing" (actually there
is no drawing - there is a photo of M1911 pattern pistol with the bullet
logo on the slide.)
The the application states that "the mark was first used in connection
with the goods st least as early as 1917, was first used in interstate
commerce at least as early as 1917, and is now in use in such commerce."
Two things - was the Thompson bullet logo in use/used by 1917?
I don't think so, but I'm sure some of you experts can weigh in on this. Also
note that the application conveniently forgets to mention that the identical
trademark was used by and issued to another company - Auto Ordnance
of New York, NY and Auto-Ordnance of Bridgeport CT.
If you were not subsrcibing to, and reading the tradmark portion of
the "Official Gazette" (whatever that is) you'd never know this trademark
was about to be hijacked.
And I do not think it is an accident that instead of presenting a
M1927A1 Thompson semi-auto as an example - which may have had
someone thinking - wait, this looks familiar - a generic M1911 pistol
was chosen which has nothing to do with, and reminds no one of the
Thompson submachine gun.
Anyway, it is what it is. Auto-Ordnance closed, and years later
Trast very cleverly was able to get a trademark for a trademark that
already existed. And in true P.T. Barnum fashion did everything he
could to make as many people as he could think that his West Hurley
company was the original Auto-Ordnance. (Side note - the M1927A1
Semi was made and sold, and marked with the bullet logo in the
mid-1970's - ten years before he got the trademark)
And as we all know Kahr bought the "Auto-Ordnance" company
in the late 1990's. There are many who believe - and I am one of
them, that Kahr believed all the "original Auto-Ordnance" hype shoveled
at them by West Hurley and was not at all happy to learn later that it
was all BS. Of course they continue to do their P.T. Barnum act as
well, trying to get as many people as possible to believe that they
are the "original" Auto-Ordnance. Doug Richardson has more than
a casual knowledge of this subject.
It would be intersting to see what the patent office would say if
it was pointed out to them they they have issued the same trademark
to two different companies. maybe the whole point was to fool them
into thinking it was the same company...

Bob/Phila Ord

  • 0

#448 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2008 - 04:10 PM

QUOTE (reconbob @ Sep 11 2008, 04:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Anyway, it is what it is. Auto-Ordnance closed, and years later
Trast very cleverly was able to get a trademark for a trademark that
already existed. And in true P.T. Barnum fashion did everything he
could to make as many people as he could think that his West Hurley
company was the original Auto-Ordnance. (Side note - the M1927A1
Semi was made and sold, and marked with the bullet logo in the
mid-1970's - ten years before he got the trademark)
And as we all know Kahr bought the "Auto-Ordnance" company
in the late 1990's. There are many who believe - and I am one of
them, that Kahr believed all the "original Auto-Ordnance" hype shoveled
at them by West Hurley and was not at all happy to learn later that it
was all BS. Of course they continue to do their P.T. Barnum act as
well, trying to get as many people as possible to believe that they
are the "original" Auto-Ordnance. Doug Richardson has more than
a casual knowledge of this subject.
Bob/Phila Ord


Bob,

It would have been much simpler for TD if General Thompson in 1920 accepted Colt President Colonel Skinner's offer to buy all the rights to the TSMG for a cool million. But because of the shenanigans you outlined above, TD is forced to ignore the history of AOC and concentrate on who possessed the assets that pertain to the 3 dimensional object known as the THOMPSON from 1949 to the present day. When you can not produce evidence that the AOC of 1916 is the same AOC of 2008, then you are left propping up Kahr's claims by using terms like "unbroken chain" of succession. Would such an affirmative defense carry the day in any U.S. court? How about the court of public opinion? Kahr, with the assist of articles like TD's, will be encouraged to concentrate on the latter, if not the former.

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer, 11 September 2008 - 05:21 PM.

  • 0

#449 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1055 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fremont, Ohio

Posted 11 September 2008 - 04:47 PM

Phil, as usual makes very good points as did Arthur and Bob. I too remain unconvinced about the unbroken chain of succession.

I thought it might be interesting to start a poll on the topic but I couldn't think of a way to accurately describe what it is that TD is claiming. I guess, in my mind, this is the problem.
  • 0

#450 reconbob

reconbob

    Technical Expert

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2271 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2008 - 05:22 PM

Ok, I think I've got it now. Unbroken line of succession vs.
broken line of succesion. And from following this thread the
two sides are not going to make the other side see it their
way.
If ACME Machine & Mfg. of Topeka Kansas, back in the 1950's
or 1960's started making copies of the Thompson, but
called them The ACME Submachine gun, made a few dozen
or hundred of them, and then went out of business, nobody
would even think of including them in any line of succession.
Even if they were called and marked Thompson nobody
would seriously consider them to have anything to do with
the original "line".
Would this all change if the ACME Machine & Mfg Co.
called themselves Auto-Ordnance and applied for and got
a trademark for the already trademarked bullet logo and
put it on their guns? I guess the answer is yes?
Or is the key difference that Numrich or Trast (I forgot who)
bought the residue of the Bridgeport CT Auto-Ordnance and
25-30 years later started making guns?
Its certainly interesting to follow the saga of the manufacture
of the Thompson - I thought TD's article in SAR was very interesting -
but to say there is some type of unbroken line makes no sense to
me.
Anyway, I like reading all these posts, I have learned alot, and
this thread relentlessly heads for the 20,000 mark...

Bob

  • 0

#451 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2008 - 08:11 PM

Blueline541, Reconbob and Lancer,

I appreciate your thoughts and do respect your opinions. I find this great fun. Listening to Arthur and Phil skate and smoke around this topic is more fun than I could have ever imagined.

However, let me really simplify it for those readers who are just tuning in:

The Thompson Submachine Gun was a product owned and manufactured by a corporation – Maguire Industries. Maguire Industries changed business plans and sold off this product to another corporation – Kilgore Manufacturing Company, a privately held corporation. This is a routine transaction among companies. A current example recently occurred in Ohio. Proctor and Gamble sold off Folger's coffee; they are currently in the process of selling off Noxzema. Both of these products are brand name, well known products. When the sale of these products is complete, there will be continuous line of succession for these products from Proctor and Gamble to the new owners. It is as simple as that. These new owners are not buying Proctor and Gamble – only a corporate product.

Back to the story at hand: Kilgore purchased a corporate product – the Thompson Submachine Gun. There is no doubt the Thompson Submachine Gun was corporate product. There is no doubt the deal happened - high level company officials from Maguire Industries and Kilgore Manufacturing both stated in letters to Mr. Helmer the sale took place. A later IRS investigation documented the sale and the later sales between Kilgore and Willis and George Numrich. These are facts – plain and simple. The part of the story I find fascinating is what these new owners did with this product while they were owners in possession.

Remember, this is not one company buying out or taking over another company. This is only the sale of a company product, one that was not currently in production. How this product later evolved with Numrich Arms and Kahr Arms was not the subject of my story.

I ask you or anyone to point out any sentence in my post that is false.

Thanks,

  • 0

#452 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2008 - 12:36 AM

QUOTE (TD. @ Sep 11 2008, 09:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Blueline541, Reconbob and Lancer,

I appreciate your thoughts and do respect your opinions. I find this great fun. Listening to Arthur and Phil skate and smoke around this topic is more fun than I could have ever imagined.

For a couple of guys skating, smoking and reflecting mirrors, we sure seem to have you spinning to rationalize how Kahr is entitled to claim the pre 1945 AOC, and the history that goes with it, as their own.

However, let me really simplify it for those readers who are just tuning in:

The Thompson Submachine Gun was a product owned and manufactured by a corporation – Maguire Industries. Maguire Industries changed business plans and sold off this product to another corporation – Kilgore Manufacturing Company, a privately held corporation. This is a routine transaction among companies. A current example recently occurred in Ohio. Proctor and Gamble sold off Folger's coffee; they are currently in the process of selling off Noxzema. Both of these products are brand name, well known products. When the sale of these products is complete, there will be continuous line of succession for these products from Proctor and Gamble to the new owners. It is as simple as that. These new owners are not buying Proctor and Gamble – only a corporate product.

The new parent company of AOC- Maguire Industries Incorporated- did not come into being until 1944 after the TSMG ceased production and after the original AOC ceased being involved in TSMG production/sales/advertising. Maguire Industries was not in existence when Savage/AO were in production of new TSMG's . They were into dried foods.[

If Proctor & Gamble became Proctologist & Gimbles and stopped making these products for five years before they sold warehoused tins of Folger's and Noxema to whomever, you would argue the same "unbroken chain" theory. However, in this case, the company that made the TSMG was not the one that sold the assets to Kilgore. /b]


Back to the story at hand: Kilgore purchased a corporate product – the Thompson Submachine Gun. There is no doubt the Thompson Submachine Gun was corporate product. There is no doubt the deal happened - high level company officials from Maguire Industries and Kilgore Manufacturing both stated in letters to Mr. Helmer the sale took place. A later IRS investigation documented the sale and the later sales between Kilgore and Willis and George Numrich. These are facts – plain and simple. The part of the story I find fascinating is what these new owners did with this product while they were owners in possession.

[b]We know the sale took place. Who is charging Kilgore with grand theft?[ Whether anything other than the 3 dimensional product known as the THOMPSON, and the machines to make them, were part of the sale is what is in dispute. But since the patents, trademarks and logos were up for grabs, that part of the deal is not nearly as central to the point at hand as the fact that these letters say nothing about transfer of AOC to Kilgore. Of course they couldn't, since it didn't happen. /b]

Remember, this is not one company buying out or taking over another company. This is only the sale of a company product, one that was not currently in production. How this product later evolved with Numrich Arms and Kahr Arms was not the subject of my story.

[b]I think you are being coy here. Whether Numrich/Kahr appear in the SAR article is immaterial since you have made your position clear that you beleive Kahr's advertising is not only accurate, but justifed
.


I ask you or anyone to point out any sentence in my post that is false.

Would you mind a legal expert going over your interpretation of what occurred in 1944 and 1949 and see if they reach the same conclusion?

Thanks,

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer, 12 September 2008 - 10:01 AM.

  • 0

#453 blueline541

blueline541

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 125 posts

Posted 12 September 2008 - 02:54 AM

The Proctor & Gamble example would fit if they'll stop making Folger's coffee for several years before they sell the remaining Folger's coffee containers and bean roasting equipment to someone, who will then sell it to someone, who will sell it to somebody else who will wait years before putting a completely different type of coffee in the original Folger's brand coffee cans.
  • 0

#454 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2008 - 06:57 AM

Arthur,
As expected, I knew it would be smoke and mirrors again - never any facts.

When you do the research, obtain the facts and write the story, you get to make a first hand determination as to what happened. When you purchase the magazine and read the story, you get to have an opinion. What you base it on is entirely up to you.

While playing games with your half truths is always fun, I don’t want anyone on the Board to mistakenly believe your posting on this topic. Maguire Industries did have a lot to do with the Thompson after 1944. There are documented sales of the Thompson Submachine Gun from Maguire Industries as late as 1946. When you do your own research, you learn these things.

The chain of succession for this corporate product is based on a legal opinion.

Thank you.

blueline544,
I see your point and respect your opinion. However, irrespective of what the new owner does or doesn’t do with the “coffee,” there is a direct line of succession of the “coffee” from the previous owner to the new owner. What type of “coffee” the product evolves into after the sale is a marketing and production decision. And the consumer market will decide the ultimate success or failure.

  • 0

#455 Bridgeport28A1

Bridgeport28A1

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 857 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 12 September 2008 - 08:52 AM

quote name='TD.' date='Sep 12 2008, 06:57 AM' post='83168']
[color="#FF0000"][size=4][font="Arial"]Arthur,
As expected, I knew it would be smoke and mirrors again - never any facts.

When you do the research, obtain the facts and write the story, you get to make a first hand determination as to what happened. When you purchase the magazine and read the story, you get to have an opinion. What you base it on is entirely up to you.

It's been my understanding opinions are like a lower body part ....everyone has one

  • 0

#456 PhilOhio

PhilOhio

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 5903 posts

Posted 12 September 2008 - 09:42 AM

QUOTE (Lancer @ Sep 11 2008, 05:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Phil, as usual makes very good points as did Arthur and Bob. I too remain unconvinced about the unbroken chain of succession.

I thought it might be interesting to start a poll on the topic but I couldn't think of a way to accurately describe what it is that TD is claiming. I guess, in my mind, this is the problem.


Lancer,

A couple weeks ago, I thought about doing a poll also. Then I realized that our collective opinions made no difference. The only thing that counts is the paper, the documentary evidence. Only facts make a difference. And the fact is that the documentation is not there. That is a fact, not an opinion. So we do not need a poll to show that no evidence exists to prove there has been an "unbroken succession". There is no need to disprove what is not there.

  • 0

#457 PhilOhio

PhilOhio

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 5903 posts

Posted 12 September 2008 - 10:46 AM

QUOTE (TD. @ Sep 11 2008, 09:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
...Listening to Arthur and Phil skate and smoke around this topic is more fun than I could have ever imagined...

...This is only the sale of a company product, one that was not currently in production. How this product later evolved with Numrich Arms and Kahr Arms was not the subject of my story...

...I ask you or anyone to point out any sentence in my post that is false...

Thanks,


TD,

Great. Let me add to the fun.

There is no skating and no smoke on the part of either Arthur or myself. It's all clear and simple. In all the words you have written, you have not addressed the only issue relevant to the "unbroken succession" which you insist exists. You have not yet presented one shred of evidence to show that even one piece of intellectual property was ever conveyed from one party, who owned it, to another party in this imaginary unbroken chain.

There is nothing there, not even smoke; just a vacuum. "The Thompson" or "the product" consists only of those legally registered intellectual property rights; not something else. Every other unsupported argument is exactly the "smoke and mirrors" to which you yourself refer.

You are still consistent in using vague terms which do not apply, as above, when you talk about "a company product" and "this product". Those terms are meaningless in this debate. It's about a registered name, a logo, a trademark, and associated items of intellectual property which were once legally registered to somebody other than those who later illegally usurped them. You simply can't dodge this core issue by repeating things which are not relevant to it.

So you want me to show you a statement you made which is false? How about this one?

"The chain of succession for this corporate product is based on a legal opinion."

Show us. But I guess the key word is "opinion", and if it is the opinion of some lawyer working for Kahr Arms who has not done his due diligence research, you run the risk of having us fall out of our chairs laughing. Several of us here would be underwhelmed and more than happy to take on him and his saber rattling balderdash.

TD, it's not going to be the end of the world if you acknowledge that there is no unbroken succession. You've done a great job on all of this research. This single conclusion is the only thing flawed, and that's only because you do not have a very complete understanding of the most simple, elementary business law as it applies here. And that's O.K. But the more you argue a case which everybody recognizes is completely unsupportable, the more of a cloud is cast over the rest of an otherwise good job.

I doubt if there is a single educated, knowledgeable, fair minded judge or attorney in the United States who would agree with you. So please share with us this legal "opinion" to the contrary.

Having said all that, I would agree if the point of it is that somebody has ruled that Kahr now has a right to use the properties it is using, because Numrich filed for them, long after he began illegally using them, and nobody objected. So Kahr gets the rights by default. But there is no unbroken succession and their claim to the contrary is, in plain and frank terms, a lie; or possibly their honest misunderstanding, although I doubt that.

Now. I want to hear exactly what it is that I have been saying that has been "smoke and mirrors", and why you claim I have been skating around the issue rather than going straight, dead center, to the core of it...which you are still dodging?

There has to be some point at which you begin including the terms "intellectual property" and "Thompson name" and "trademark" and "bullet logo" and "court filing" and "registered" and "Auto Ordnance Corporation" in your writings. Nothing else counts anymore...and never did. Or am I "skating around" something again? wink.gif And I don't think we would want to hear that all those terms have no application here, and there has been unbroken succession anyhow, just 'cause there has, and the claim needs no verification, because it is self evident. In fact, I guess that is the argument so far.

(You guys wouldn't believe how tough it is to write this with an 11-week-old Maine Coon Cat kitten sitting on my lap trying to edit me on the keyboard. Maybe she votes for "unbroken succession", just 'cause.) laugh.gif


  • 0

#458 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2008 - 10:55 AM

QUOTE (TD. @ Sep 12 2008, 07:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Arthur,
As expected, I knew it would be smoke and mirrors again - never any facts.

When you do the research, obtain the facts and write the story, you get to make a first hand determination as to what happened. When you purchase the magazine and read the story, you get to have an opinion. What you base it on is entirely up to you.

Publishing an article in SAR does not inoculate you from evaluations on your methods, conclusions, or sources used for your facts. On many occasions, letters to the editor from average readers on published articles cause the publication to ammend info claimed by one of their writers.

While playing games with your half truths is always fun, I don’t want anyone on the Board to mistakenly believe your posting on this topic. Maguire Industries did have a lot to do with the Thompson after 1944. There are documented sales of the Thompson Submachine Gun from Maguire Industries as late as 1946. When you do your own research, you learn these things.

You said Maguire Industries manufactured the TSMG. They did not. In fact, When Marcellus Thompson approached Maguire to purchase AOC in 1939, they formed the short lived Thompson Automatic Arms Corporation for capital raising purposes. There wasn't any Maguire Industries then, nor was there a Maguire Industries in 1940, 41, 42 ,43, or before March, 1944, when the TSMG ceased production.

OK. Maguire Industries occasionally sold existing TSMG's during the period between March, 1944 and 1949 when they sold the crated assets and all their inventory TSMG's to Kilgore. The salient point is that Maguire Industries was not in the TSMG manufacturing business after AOC ceased to exist as the company that made the TSMG. Federal Laboratories sold TSMG's in the 1930's. That didn't mean they made them.


The chain of succession for this corporate product is based on a legal opinion.

Whose legal opinion is this? Could you name the legal authority you contacted to make your determination?



blueline544,
I see your point and respect your opinion. However, irrespective of what the new owner does or doesn’t do with the “coffee,” there is a direct line of succession of the “coffee” from the previous owner to the new owner. What type of “coffee” the product evolves into after the sale is a marketing and production decision. And the consumer market will decide the ultimate success or failure.

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer, 12 September 2008 - 12:21 PM.

  • 0

#459 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2008 - 04:48 PM

Arthur,
I appreciate your review of my last post. I knew you would not find anything I posted to be false. I do encourage you to send a letter to SAR (enclosed with a paid subscription). I suggest you cite some facts to support your opinion. The information I used in the story is going to be impossible to refute without a lot facts – something I have yet to see in any of your posts on this topic.

For your information, Auto-Ordnance Corporation and Maguire Industries, Incorporated are one in the same. Only a name change occurred. General Thompson’s company continues on today (see below).

Phil,
Would you kindly list all this intellectual property you continually harp about? Kilgore ended up with the machinery, tooling, drawings, gages, blueprints, dies, spare parts, records, Blish pistol, the Persuader, most of the other Thompson prototypes, many of the BSA prototypes and everything else related to the Thompson Submachine Gun. If you notice, Kilgore used the Thompson signature bullet logo trademark on their first piece of sales literature. What exactly did Kilgore not obtain in the sale that negates the complete transfer of this corporate product from one company to another? And who with standing has ever raised a legal question about the sale?

If you recall during the TATA presentation, I told of my inquiry with the current corporate officials of General Thompson’s company. The corporation did not retain any interest related to the Thompson. None. The Maguire family claims no ownership interest in the Thompson. None. The Thompson Submachine Gun was a product they owned long ago; it was sold off in its entirety when the business plan of the corporation changed.

While some may not like Numrich Arms and Kahr Arms because of the quality of workmanship, their place in history with the Thompson gun is undeniable.

  • 0

#460 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2008 - 08:08 PM

QUOTE (TD. @ Sep 12 2008, 05:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Arthur,

For your information, Auto-Ordnance Corporation and Maguire Industries, Incorporated are one in the same. Only a name change occurred. General Thompson’s company continues on today (see below).


TD,

You are the only person to make the claim that AOC and Maguire Industries are the same. If Dave were in agreement with you, he would not have said the following:


"We don't argue that "the AOC Thompson made today is manufactured by the same business that ceased operation in 1944."dalbert post #412

How can these two things be the same when one didn't exist at the time of the creation of the other? It was not a name change. They were two different businesses. AOC made TSMG's, while Maguire Industries was trying to be Birdseye.

Are you ever going to tell us the name of the legal authority(ies) you consulted that backs up your traditional sign off:


"While some may not like Numrich Arms and Kahr Arms because of the quality of workmanship, their place in history with the Thompson gun is undeniable."

Are you gonna use the journalist shield law to keep from revealing this source?
  • 0