>Not actually patenting things sounds like a real smart idea. Typically
>communist state thinking, sorta. On the other hand, if the gun THEN
>was as 'clearly cribbed straight from the Hi-Power' as it was
>NOW...that might explain it? Kinda hard to patent something so
>blatantly stolen, after all...

Well, I'm far from being a patent lawyer, but I seem to recall that it's possible to patent something that's an evolution of prior art, if the patents on same have lapsed (which the ones on the Hi-Power long since had by 1975). They might've been able to make a case for things like the specific workings of the trigger system, the rail design, their revisions to the barrel link, and so forth.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.