Comments by "" (@RedXlV) on "The Crazy Guns of the Winchester-Bannerman Pump Action Lawsuit" video.

  1.  @banzaibailey5891  The issue is that "prior art" invalidates a patent. You can't validly patent something that's already been invented by somebody else. If it can be proven that somebody else had already invented it before you filed your patent, your patent becomes invalid. The Spencer-Roper patent presumably was still valid for the specific mechanism involved. But Winchester proving that the other pump-action firearms already existed means that they couldn't patent the entire concept of a pump-action firearm. Likewise, the existence of the Lefaucheux revolver (patented in France in April 1854) should've invalided the Rollin White patent (filed in April 1855). I'm not sure whether this simply never got brought up at the time, or if the courts illegally ignored it to preserve White's patent. It might well be the latter, seeing as White's patent should also have been invalid since it involved a mechanism that didn't work.
    9
  2. It's too bad nobody did this to quash S&W's bullshit Rollin White patent. Since the Lefaucheux revolver's existence should've invalided the shit out of that patent.
    1