Hi,2 E L O said:I'm an idiot. I just realized that I bet Kel-Tec probably intended for the "3AT" to sound just like "Three Eighty" or 380. Duh.
How clever you are, Kel-Tec.....
PF = pistol flat - really[/quote]tomwalshco said:[quote author=dgodfrey link=1269891945/0#1 date=1269893097]Don't feel bad. I just figured it out a couple of days ago myself. Cool. Very cool. I wonder what the PF9 is supposed to represent.
I've heard that before, but I don't think it's true. I heard that a long time ago regarding why they chose "P3AT", but Kahr just recently came out with its version of the PM9 in .380. Called the P380... Never heard any copyright complaints over that one.Picatinny_Pete said:The names's proably due to copyright issues, the P-380 name was already taken.
And copyrighting stuff is definitely not something Kel-Tec is known for... Ask Ruger... ;DSangueffusor said:Product names can't be copyrighted. Trademarks are only legally enforceable if the owner both claims (™) or registers (®) them, and actively defends them.
Patent...yes. Aren't they good for 20 years? Kel-Tec didn't patent anything. That's how Ruger blatantly ripped off the P3AT design and KT couldn't do a danged thing about it. The P3AT is nowhere near 20 years old so if it WERE patented, copyrighted, whatever... They'd have legal grounds to sue...just like Glock has done...and more than once...james__12345 said:That would be a patent. Those are only good for a certian amount of time, then they become fair game to everyone. Not sure if thats the case here, but it may be that the patent just ran out.