FireClean LLC has recently filed a lawsuit against Andrew Tuohy and Everett Baker, asserting defamation and Virginia Business Conspiracy Act claims against these defendants, who with the specific purpose of harming FireClean, initiated a protracted and intentional smear campaign against the company.
FIREClean’s patent application was publicly accessible online two years before Tuohy wrote about FIREClean®. The patent application, on the very first page, describes a product that is composed of at least three substances, which may be plant or vegetable-based oils, and which make up between 25 and 100 percent of the formulation. Tuohy never undertook to test this statement. He chose a test that would give him the result he wanted so that he could publish sensational headlines. An infrared spectroscopy analysis was not sufficient to distinguish FIREClean® from Crisco vegetable or canola oil, and Tuohy knew this. Moreover, even after publishing his articles, Tuohy was alerted to this fact by other readers of his blog, and he never undertook to correct his analysis or conclusions.
When Tuohy told us that he intended to publish his first article- the night before he published it- and told us what his conclusions would be, we asked him for a chance to read it first, so we could provide a proper response. He refused. In his blog post he stated, “That is not how this blog works.”
Clearly, Tuohy wanted to turn a blind eye to anything that might tamper down his eye-grabbing headlines. He wanted readership, not the truth.
Some recent public social media comments have compared our suit against Tuohy to a David-versus-Goliath First Amendment case. It is anything but that. In fact, Tuohy has as many aircraft registered in his name as FireClean has employees (two). FireClean is a small business that has been subject to an unprovoked and unfair attack.
FIREClean® is not Crisco Vegetable nor Canola oil – nor otherwise common vegetable oil. FIREClean® is a proprietary, high-efficiency formulation that yielded unprecedented results in Tuohy’s own live-fire use. Tuohy’s separate statements that are the subject of our lawsuit were false, continuous, persistent, and maliciously made. FireClean has no choice but self defense. Anyone who thinks the company is wrong for doing so has clearly never had their livelihood attacked by someone engaged in a protracted smear campaign.
The Citizens of the United States of America certainly enjoy the freedom of speech provided in the First Amendment. But just as it is illegal to run into a crowded theater and yell “fire” when there is no fire, there are limits on—and repercussions to—speech that is intentionally or negligently false, that causes harm to another. These are the rights that we seek to vindicate.
We encourage you to read the suit in its entirety here:
Tags: Andrew Tuohy, Everett Baker, Fireclean
So when the judge tells you to disclose the actual formula what are you going to tell him?
Probably that it’s available in aisle 7 next to the other vegetable oils.
LOL
watch it they might sue ya ! /sarc
Don’t sue me, bro!
LOL !!!!
Is it really an issue? It is patented. It’s not like competitors are just going to infringe on that and not also(rightly) get their pants sued off. I’m surprised the formula isn’t in the patent, to be honest.
I’ve actually taken to using plain canola oil on one of my rifles to see if it stands up. I have to say I prefer CLP just because it’s what I’ve always used, but time will tell.
Fireclean is not patented. And yes it is an issue in court, it is called discovery. You can’t say what Fireclean isn’t without telling the court what, specifically, it is. If it is a mixture of canola oil they prove Touhy’s article.
Well, those pesky tests from an actual lab will show what it is, but hey, what do I know, I’m not a lawyer or a chemist. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how this plays out in court.
So he can afford two airplanes, but can’t afford an attorney.
You answered your own question. BecUse he owns airplanes. You think your gun hobby is expensive?
Nope. He owns zero airplanes.
According to his blog he owns a couple of remote controlled drones.
So if someone calls my momma fat and she is not, can she sue for defamation of character?
Depends on how much revenue she lost each month.
Gold
You sir have won the internet today…priceless
She does work a very lucrative corner.
That reply deserves a fucking medal
This is going to be simple, either Andrew T is correct in his assertions, or he is wrong. I don’t think there is any doubt that Fireclean has taken a massive nosedive in the public eye since his comments regarding his “findings”.
I do find it interesting that he appears to have accused Larry Vickers of fraud as well. I’ve have evidently missed quite a bit of the drama.
That’s because the video where it appeared an obvious deception took place has been made private by the very people that posted it for advertisement purposes. Nothing suspicious about that.
Did you know it was “an obvious deception” before or after Tuohy posted his story? And if you knew before, could you show us where you told everyone?
Yeah, your silence is deafening.
Anyone who has shot bulk repressed ammo knows that you don’t always get the same cases. It’s bulk repressed ammo, FFS, it’ll have a variety of cases in there. To point to an ejected casing and use that as definitive proof that the fired projectile and powder load were different between the two tests is at best lazy. The video struck me as a fun “check this out” and not a super scientific lab test, hence it being on the range with bulk ammo. I can’t imagine Vickers or the Suggs putting their reps on the line by risking a staged demonstration.
Come on now. Bloggers know all about that stuff.
Really? The old, debunked “‘Fire!’ in a theater” defense?
I was going to comment on that. Iirc, that WAS a Supreme Court descion that yelling fire would be illegal – but was later overturned by a later Supreme Court.
Everything else they wrote was fine from their point of view, the fire part was unecessary and debatable.
Context is everything to the “fire in a crowded theater” cliche. The first 1:30 of this speech scratches the surface: http://youtu.be/cbJxdEg6kFk
I thought the same thing too. The dark days of Oliver Wendell Homes and the Schenck Case. Coincidentally, just as back then, the lawyers are probably the only ones who will win.
“compared our suit against Tuohy to a David-versus-Goliath First Amendment case. It is anything but that. In fact, Tuohy has as many aircraft registered in his name as FireClean has employees (two).”
I am really not sure where anything would be different if they had 200 employees. I get that FC must be frustrated at the Internet response… Then again, proving Andrew was trolling them could be harder than they thought – although anyone that knows him knows he is a professional troll (not necessarily a disparaging comment towards him).
All above, what is your actual field experience with Fireclean. The fact of the matter is that it is another product on the market that works far better than most. The suit is just, as Fireclean has lost revenue due to the defamatory blog. If you do not agree with the suit than just shut the hell up and continue to use whatever product you prefer.
Much of the opposition to lawsuit has nothing to a lube performance. Suing reviewers sets very bad precedent, and out inhibit free speech.
Imagine if Remington sued the people reporting that the R51 had issue? Or Glock suing anyone that said that Generation 4 Glocks are unreliable?
The first response to a bad review should be to fix the issue. The second response should be positive marketing. Suing someone shouldn’t even remotely be on the response list.
That depends;
Is it an honest review for the good of the industry.
Or a simple publicity stunt to gain attention?
Big difference and 99.99% of the bloggers seem to go the later route.
I didn’t see any deception in those results. And the conclusions came from actual analysts by chemists.
Is this your professional opinion?
Look at the actual articles yourself.
I read the actual compliant (I skipped the 150 pages of attachments except to see the report from the lab that Fireclean hired), and then went to the links. It is quite clear that the analysis came from actual chemists. The ONLY thing that the compliant has going for it was the original click bait article headlines.
At no point that Touhy nor the chemists claim that Fireclean = Crisco. The closest that it comes to this is that the chemist said that the results are effectively identical. Which is true, the peaks are in the same frequency ranges, and of similar relative intensities.
I agree. Tuohy hasn’t said any of the things that he’s being sued for implying. If truth is a defense, then his defense is that implications aren’t enough to be sued over.
The problem with your argument is that your examples aren’t anything like what’s going on here.
Actually they are.
The exact quote which was likely based on what the professor said
“FireClean is probably a modern unsaturated vegetable oil virtually the same as many oils used for cooking.”
And you can easily come to that conclusion with IR Spectroscopy.
Aactually, they aren’t. Btw, if the quote came from Professor X then Tuohy should have quoted him.
I don’t feel sorry for the “losses” sustained by a couple guys selling 2oz bottles of non-food grade vegetable oil for $15 a pop.
Not. At. All.
then dont buy it.
Sorry, they have a case. Let’s be open to all the facts and not make snap judgements.
So supposedly two guys invented, marketed, mix, bottle, take orders for, and ship a yet undisclosed mixture of (or just plain) vegetable oil by the ounce… and they are suing a blogger who published a repeatable scientific test because he didn’t let them edit his content… and it’s ok because his pockets are deeper?
They are handling this very poorly.
Obviously, you haven’t read the suit either.
So, SSD, instead of making this unhelpful comment, why not explain to us what Jim D has wrong in his post?
No, I haven’t read the suit, nor am I going to read 209 pages of a legal filing. But you claim to have, so enlighten us.
Because Jim D wrote exactly what I and, I assume, a lot of others are thinking.
You need to read each of these suits for yourself. I cannot t believe anyone would go on and on, speaking with authority about what Tuohy or Fireclean did that led to this lawsuit but be too lazy to read those court documents. I’m not going to spoon feed you.
i just told you I’m not going to read the 209 page suit.
Sure, it’s easy to say “read the suit”, but I’m not going to, and neither are the vast, vast majority of the people interested in this.
But i have read Fireclean’s two statements about the lawsuit, and it appears that Jim D has it exactly right.
if you are serious about helping Fireclean win the PR battle – and clearly you are on the side of Fireclean, and clearly they are losing the PR battle – you could enlighten us an tell us why Jim D has it wrong.
You appear to come off as most humans do today: Trying to look smarter than you really are or ever will be. If you aren’t going to do the work of reading why FC is suing, then why question them in the first place? I hope to God you haven’t reproduced and made other stupid humans.
I could care less about Fireclean. I’m all about holding bloggers accountable who think they can publish anything they want without consequences. Tuohy in particular has a long history of presenting questionable “testing” as fact. Now, he will have to substantiate his methods.
Substantiation is not a prerequisite for free speech.
it is when you make false claims that negatively affect someone’s business
But they weren’t false. Tests were run, observations made and results published.
…and if you knew anything about “published results”, you know that they are over turned ALL THE TIME. Even amongst peer reviewed journals, findings are often proven wrong.
Published ? fact. That’s being generous as well, considering blogging barely qualifies as publishing.
Who ran the tests?
No, it’s not.
SSD asked who ran the tests. To parrot SSD, “you need to read the articles”.
Bill, my reply was Steak TarTar. You need to learn how comment hierarchy works.
Bill, the articles don’t disclose who ran all of the tests. In one case, it was a college student. The othe other testers will come out in discovery though. But, everyone should be very sceptical of anonymous testing in the mean time.
So you claim you could care less about Fireclean – fair enough – but you definitely care about taking Tuohy down a notch (don’t try to deny it), ergo, you want Fireclean to win the PR battle and the lawsuit.
Again, you haven’t explained how Jim D got it wrong. The silence is telling.
And no, I’m not going to read the lawsuit. I’ve read Fireclean’s two statements, and it appears Jim D got it right. That you haven’t tried to convince anyone otherwise (other than say “read the lawsuit”), I’m guessing you can’t convince anyone.
You can’t seem to figure things out so i’ll explain it one more time. I want Andrew Tuohy to be held accountable for the bullshit he’s pulled on the Internet for the last several years. If that means that Fireclean wins a lawsuit against him, so be it.
Also, I don’t have to convince anyone. This is in the courts now and it will all be settled there.
I’m sad that you think that using the courts frivolously is a valid way to shut someone up that annoys you.
It’s the legal way for a company to gain satisfaction when they feel they have been wronged by someone.
This didn’t just happen. Tuohy’s continued actions toward Fireclean put him in this position. Now, he may have to explain his motivations and actions to a judge and jury.
Tuohy has been told by numerous people over the years, including me, that he cuts corners and misleads in his “testing”, but he has continued to do it. For example, go look for his Lucky Gunner eye pro “test”. Perhaps this will finally get his attention.
Okay, I just watched and read it. What am I looking for?
Just because it’s succinct, read the performance standards section here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_eyewear
It gives a brief description of how Eyepro is tested. That is the standard it is built for. Nothing else, unless a manufacturer says so. Tuohy acknowledged the starts in his article but admits that he lacks the ability to conduct proper testing based on the standard so he makes something up.
Doing anything else to Eyepro and publishing a conclusion of a single, made up event, as “testing” is disingenuous. Worse yet, telling others that the product is somehow lacking based on this “testing” is libelous.
Testing implies the use of the scientific method. That requires repeatability. Shooting a single Eyepro with a shotgun and publishing results isn’t science and it’s not testing even if you do call yourself a Lab.
Okay, I see what you’re saying. I disagree that he is misrepresenting the purpose of the “tests”, but I understand the apprehension.
This is a world wherein Defense Review and other reputable outlets post “reviews” of guns that they literally fire two magazines through.
This isn’t at all like shooting two magazines through a gun. Tuohy gave those protective eyewear a letter grade or pass/fail. One shot and he has the nads to assign a pass/fail or letter grade based on a test he made up using questionable samples and variable threats. And then he put it out there based in his experience as a Navy Corpsman. He offered his “professional” opinion.
You don’t seem have figured it out either. Jim D seems to have summed up, but you seems to think he’s wrong but can only offer a weak “read the lawsuit” retort.
you keep dodging my call for you to enlighten all of us on how Jim D has it wrong.
You haven’t, because you can’t.
Excuse me? Your call? How can I keep dodging it? This is the first time you’ve commented on this article. What other name are you using?
Senegal? So I take it you’re “Bob” the troll.
Dude if wanting Andrew knocked down a notch is your issue with SSD, then your on the minority because Andrew has pissed off a majority of people he has ever encountered in this business.
I’m not a lawyer, chemist, writer, professional troll, or marketing guy. I’m just a dude that works in this business space. But in my limited knowledge of lawsuits or legal issues, I figure the defendants should probably stop trying this in the court of public opinion because that court is only good for a gofundme.. The rocket docket will take all 3 of his moms airplanes if he wasn’t smart enough to structure the VB properly.
As for Fennell he’s pretty well dicked and he only has his own stupidity to blame… If your gonna run a fight club, probably should have fight club rules and not brag about it on Facebook..
But remember I’m not a lawyer..
Ya know Bob, you’d be better served by doing the job we taxpayers are paying you for than trolling my site. Your IP address is 169.253.194.1
Why not fully out him and say the IP belongs to the US Dept of State…
Ooooh, shit…
Meh. If no one from the GOV read this site, SSD wouldn’t be able to sell very many adverts, would he?
Apparently, I didn’t answer your comment well enough to satisfy Bob. I guess the reason is because I don’t see the relevance of your comment. It’s a red herring.
What will be an issue in his court case is whether the test was the proper test to conduct and how was conducted and by whom. When this goes to trial there won’t be any anonymous testers like in the articles. Actual people who conducted those tests will be deposed and may take the stand. They will have to explain how and why they conducted the test that they did.
You keep missing the obvious. What will be the issue in court is the actual ingredients in Fireclean. The burden of proof is on the plantiff, which is Fireclean. Touhy is the defendant and is presumed innocent, even in a civil trial.
Precisely, this is a civil trial. Tuohy will have to explain everything he did including how and why. If it will be a jury trial, he will have to convince 12 Virginians that his actions were correct and motives pure. There’s no “pleading the 5th” here for Tuohy.
Fireclean has to make it’s case, the burden of proof is on Fireclean. The fact you don’t like Touhy doesn’t change how courts work. And when Touhy calls Fireclean as a witness to the defense then what? Again Fireclean will be forced to divulge what “it” is.
FC: “Your honor this man said the test indicated Fireclean is a vegetable oil”
Judge: “What is it?”
FC: “It’s a blend of upto three vegetable oils”
I’d be more impressed if they ran some legitimate tests and not kept on releasing wordy comments against Tuohy. Usually a lawyer would tell their client to keep quiet. Run some tests and release the finding proving Tuohy wrong. Have Tuohy make a public apology. But instead they sued right away. that sounds fishy right there.
Prove Tuohy wrong….release your findings from an independent lab. Do real world testing under scientific and true field conditions. I have yet to see any of them on the internet other than a bogus video with Larry Vickers. Maybe if they did that instead of the bogus video Tuohy would have never done his testing.
Their claim to fame was a phony video with Larry Vickers and some smoke.
I’ll believe Tuohy before some company that hires Larry Vickers and makes an obviously bogus videos.
We need more people willing to risk so much to protect the public against snake oil salesmen. Since the government will not do it and in some cases should not, we need private citizens to not be afraid of these companies and litigation to tell the truth.
It’s all about the truth and I have not seen anything from Fireclean that makes me think they are telling the truth. Hey Fireclean show us the evidence!!!
They did have tests run, read the suit.
The suit isn’t evidence.
No… The suit is not evidence… But the evidence they have submitted IS evidence, so I’m not sure where you are going with that line of thinking.
Andrew says he had three labs test and all verified the results – but that’s ignoring that FC’s claim isn’t that his tests are wrong it’s that he has made false assumption from failed methodology. And they he knew that, was making the claims regardless because he wanted the attention that FC was scamming people.
FC has an uphill battle, but a suit they can win. Andrew has the court of public opinion and no money. There will be no winner.
Fireclean hasn’t submitted any evidence yet. The first thing any first year law student would do is file discovery over the ingredients of Fireclean. They don’t need the secret ratios but they will need what “mix of oils” comprise Fireclean.
SSD, you and a few others read (or partly read) a complaint and said, “well case closed”. The burden of proof is on Fireclean, not Touhy.
That’s funny, it’s what people did when they read Tuohy’s articles.
It’ll come down to proving Tuohy’s test was flawed (not a difficult chore) and (Tuohy) when provided evidence based on better testing methodology chose to ignore those test results.
Tuohy will then get to explain why he chose to ignore the data from FireClean, he may have good reason, or his reasoning may suck.
He’s going to have to disclose quite a bit about conducted the testing and where. Discovery in this case is going to be very revealing and depositions enlightening if we ever get to see them.
When it’s all said and done, the person that will make the call will be a judge. Not a chemist. Not an expert. A judge.
Actually that will work the other way with the SINGULAR test Fireclean ran. Fireclean will then have to discredit the numerous chemists, labs and universities, some of which are credited in the article.
Again Fireclean could come out and say what it is made of but they won’t.
Get out of here George Fennell we know it’s you lol.
And they showed the same identical peaks as Touhy’s testing.
Page?
Read it.
So is there a place to actually purchase this stuff? I have a piece of equipment at work that can test any chemical. Liquid, gas, or solid. And it will tell you what it is. And if the treated substance is not in its directory it well give you a chemical composition of what it is And what it thinks the closest chemical it is And its broken down by.What precent of each chemical is in the substance. If I can get some I will test it myself and be done with this.
Don’t bother. Fireclean will have to release what the mixture consists of.
Wouldn’t the formula be sealed. Trade secrets.
Most likely, but you know, everyone on the Internet is a lawyer.
This is for SSD, because knowledge (or lack there of).
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Discovery
It is a civil trial, not something dealing with national security, records probably won’t be sealed.
Generally, the courts protect industry from disclosing information that are considered trade secrets. Even if a material is patented, there can be trade secrets associated with how it is manufactured. I do not believe we will get the secret formula for Fireclean as a result of this trial.
You better believe that you will find out what Firelean is made of. And Fireclean is not patented.
This machine will tell you everything that is in a chemical and a percentage, it I can set it to give me how volume of chemicals makes up a product.I cam put cola in and it give me a precent or grams, MM, of each element that it is comprised of. Its used for hazmat incidents and life safety.
Google might help you…
I was pretty on the fence about this whole fiasco, I figured it would all play out in court. But this release is kind of petty. So what if Touhy has two planes registered in his name? Did he steal it? I doubt he bought them with proceeds from that one article. If this was Firecleans attempts at defending their image… I’m not sure if it worked.
They want to explain that they are small business owners defending themselves and not picking on “poor Andrew”.
They attempted this poorly.
the point is that a guy who owns two aircraft doesnt need a gofundme for his legal defense. he can pay for a legal defense himself, the gofundme is just to line his pockets it looks like. touhy is a fraud with a shitty blog
Tuohy doesn’t own any airplanes. He owns one airCRAFT.
FireClean has you by the nose, dude.
Who said airplanes? He has two aircraft registered in his name. Owning an aircraft is not a cheap hobby. I bet you donated to his “legal” fund, didn’t you?
Tuohy has you by the nose, dude
Yes, an aircraft with two wings, a passenger compartment, and a mode of motorized propulsion. Also known as an airplane.
Christ you are a pedantic twit.
Sue me.
Im with Bob ^^
I think the Vuurwapen lawsuit is another example of the Streisand effect in practice. I think the lawsuit will harm their sales and actually steer more people away from buying FireClean than the article ever did.
Unfortunately, FC with the help of an attorney I’m sure, has found a way to make a public perception train wreck even worse.
This press release reads like it was wordsmithed by FireClean’s lawyer – it’s basically a statement of the “theme” of the case.
Between this, the filing of the lawsuit, and the content and strategy behind the filing of the patent application makes me wonder just who these Sugg brothers are. From the outside, it looks like a classic case of the tail wagging the dog, with outside help directing the strategy of all of their actions rather than them initiating this action.
What qualifications do these guys have as lubrication/chemical/mechanical engineers anyway? What is their educational background? Work experience in the engineering or lubrication industry? Do they have complete knowledge and understanding of the entire disclosure in the patent application? What information, exactly, did they provide to the patent attorney? Are they legitimate inventors? Or did they stumble upon a mixture by happenstance, provide a short, one paragraph description and let the patent attorney “fill in the rest?”
Answers to these questions would go a long way towards showing the legitimacy of these guys.
I’m kind of curious why you aren’t asking those same types of questions about any of the defendants in these cases.
Because defendant. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence
Rest assured, the defendants will be asked all of the relevant questions about their background and qualifications that pertain to the subject matter of the lawsuit, that is, the analysis and conclusions drawn from the gas chromatography results.
That does not make the Sugg brother’s technical backgrounds, engineering competency, or education any less relevant. As to Andrew Tuohy and his co-defendants, I know who they are, what qualifications they have (at least self-reported ones), where they may have some expertise, and where they likely fall short. With them, I know what deference I can give to what they publish, and where I might need to research further. In short, the defendants are a known commodity – the complaint goes to some extent explaining all this.
As for the Sugg brothers – I have no idea. They are so secretive, that I can’t help but draw inferences from that secrecy. What do they have to hide? Or are they afraid the curtains being pulled away a la the Wizard of Oz?
Secretive? That’s an interesting word. I’m sure that all of the info you seek will come out in discovery as well.
The big difference between Fireclean and Tuohy is that Fireclean paid a lab that provided an actual report and Tuohy relied on anonymous testers and published select portions of “testing”.
Guess what Tuohy will need to do if he wants his “tests” to stand up in court? What he should have done in the first place, go pay an actual lab to accomplish the tests and report their findings. His “tests” are circumspect if for no other reason than no one has certified the results. Tuohy has been cutting corners for years. It has finally caught up with him.
I have no stake in this dispute. I use what is issued (Nycolube to be exact).
Suddenly everyone on the internet is an expert chemist, lawyer and patent attorney that believes the words of one person who has zero experience in the aforementioned fields and taking some very questionable and dodgy reports (if you can even call them that) as gospel.
The internet. 21st century.
I couldn’t agree more. I took organic and inorganic chemistry in college. I have a law degree. I have used fireclean. None of that gives me the knowledge to make an informed judgment on the merits of the legal action. But everybody on the Internet is an expert, right?
No, but as everyone has access to the world’s knowledge at their fingertips via the Internet, they feel they are just as good.
The future success of this business in regards to this issue will not be based on law or chemistry. It will be on managing the continuing negative PR and its’ effect on growing a customer base. A court win proving they use sic “special vegetable oil” may prove to be a very hollow victory. And of course there’s that pesky video…..
“G-96 gun treatment smells like baanaaaannaas.” -Ralphy Wiggum, “The Simpsons”.
Not a chemist or intellectual property lawyer, but I did manage to pass a state bar exam and find my way to court at least once. From what I can remember from torts class, the truth is an absolute defense to libel and slander. So if defendants can offer proof that Fireclean really is canola oil or really close to Crisco such that a judge can find that what Tuohy is claiming is substantially true, then goodbye defamation suit after a motion to dismiss filed by defendants.
No dog in this hunt either, I use CLP pilfered from the Army.
It’s good to hear from those with a relevant background.
Amen. I have zero interest in either side. But when you start arguing the nuances of testing, degrees of formulation ingredients and tossing pedestrian comments in a libel and slander complaint, things aren’t looking good. File the motion to dismiss. Maybe, maybe eventually a motion for summary judgment.
At no point do they claim that Fireclean is Canola Oil or Crisco. In fact the whole thing started to disprove that idea.
What they do claim is this:
“FireClean is probably a modern unsaturated vegetable oil virtually the same as many oils used for cooking.”
And this quote was probably written by the professor that ran the test, and analyzed the results.
And your point is?
That at no point does Touhy or Baker claim that Fireclean is Crisco or Canola Oil. All they say is that it is a vegetable oil, and that the results are similar to Soybean or Canola oil that they tested. Which is to be expected all vegetable oils are similar in chemical compositions.
Fireclean own patent admits that their oil is mix of vegetable oils.
I still don’t know what that has to do with my point that the truth is a defense to a claim of libel and slander, but rock on with your vegetable oil quotes from Professor X, brother man. Rock on.
The thing with lawsuits for us “normal people” is that winning can bankrupt you…
I can see how, in a business where pretty much any gun lube is ‘good enough’ to be functionally identical to any other gun lube on the market, fighting to preserve your reputation is probably necessary.
I shoot several thousand rounds per month with whatever lube is on hand. I find myself rolling my eyes when I hear people rave about the merits of frog lube versus fire clean or whatever their favorite instructor peddles.
I’m just here for the comments. Go Froglube!
GO JUICE
Did anyone take a second to think how dumb it would for FC to sue if it really was canola/vegetable oil? I mean i’ve seen some pretty stupid people(Bill up above comes to mind). Sueing would just prove Touhy was right if it was canola/vegetable oil. Like somehow when they let the judge and jury know what it’s made of they will suddenly say” Oh darn you got us, i guess we didn’t think this through lol”.
“…and I would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for those meddling bloggers!”
Fireclean says it is vegetable oil, so I guess yoj prove your point.
What most people don’t realize is:
1) Fireclean submitted a patent application, as found here:
https://www.google.com/patents/CA2867869A1
2) The patent describes the mixture as containing at least 3 separate oils, with 100% of FIREclean being a mixture of these at least 3 oils.
3) The oils each have a smoke point above 200degrees fahrenheit in the following list:
almond
avocado
canola
corn
cottonseed
flax
grapeseed
jojoba
olive
peanut
ricebran
safflower
sesame
sunflower
walnut
4) HOWEVER, the smoke point MUST be between 480degrees and 580degrees
5) The ONLY oils from the above list which are in the above temperature range are:
Rice bran oil
Safflower oil
Avocado oil
Jojoba oil
Grapeseed oil
6) The above is NOT a “proprietary” mixture that they claim in their press release. Rather, the above composition is ENTIRELY defined in their patent application.
7) The above is NOT a “trade secret”. A trade secret is the composition of Coca Cola, or KFC batter recipe. These trade secrets are NOT patented, because the very nature of the patent is revealing the so-called “invention” so that you can prosecute infringers. The Suggs made the INCORRECT decision to patent their mixture, instead of keeping their formula as an undisclosed secret recipe.
8) The Suggs can not have their cake and eat it too. Either you patent something and have the formula public but protected by patent law, OR you keep it a secret and hope that nobody figures out your recipe.
Tuohy didn’t even need to do spectral analysis, all he had to do was deduce the recipe with the patent application itself, which I think is more damning.
Why would anyone buy FIREclean with a huge markup and instead just mix rice bran oil, safflower oil, avocado oil, jojoba oil, and grapeseed oil?
For those wondering,
safflower $0.17/ounce
rice bran $0.21/ounce
avocado $0.37/ounce
jojoba $0.91/ounce
grapeseed $0.26/ounce
total: $1.92/ounce, ASSUMING each is 20% of the mixture. However, perhaps to save cost, perhaps it’s only 10% jojoba, 20% avocado, 30% safflower, 20% rice bran, 20% grapeseed, which changes price to:
total: $0.31/ounce
Amazon price for FIREclean two 2-ounce bottles: $30 for 4 ounces total
total: $7.50/ounce.
If the patent describes the mixture as safflower+rice bran+avocado oils, then the markup is OVER 20-times the cost of ingredients to FIREclean, and they probably have a bulk discount too, further driving down their costs.
Do people TRULY want to pay 20x what it costs to mix the above 3 oils?
I am not sure how broad their patent is, but it seems like it is very broad, and encompasses the use of a combination of 3 or more of the above oils in many different concentrations.
Does the patent even include any preservative to prevent premature oil degradation?
Keep in mind – this is still just in the application phase. It has not yet been examined.
Let’s see how the prosecution shakes out, and what amendments and arguments they will need to make for allowance.
Yea, the problem here is that he said it worked fine.
HOW IT WORKS and WHAT IT IS are different things.
FireClean mislead people about what their product WAS.
FireClean and Andrew AGREE about how well it works.
Those THOUSANDS of dollars that are veritably FLEEIGN from Fireclean? Thats over their attitude. THis post? A reinforcement of that.
FireClean should Sue SSD, it’s making just as bad an impression of them as Andrew did, and the things posted here are just as distasteful to me as what he posted. He said it works fine, but SSD is showing the kind of ASSHOLES they are.
True solutions, huh? I’ll be sure to let people know what I think of that company.
How exactely is SSD being a ass here? The only ass I see is the guy running a tactical gear company out of his garage.
On the flip side, obviously some guys can see that I’m not exactly supporting Fireclean here.
I think Andy meant that SSD has given FireClean a public platform on which to expose their character. SSD is showing that FireClean are assholes, and not that the contributors to SSD are being assholes for letting FireClean publicly damage their reputation.
They said “protracted smear campaign”, like its for an election or something.
Look, if Tuohy tested fireclean to see what was in it, and it wasnt just regular old oil, what would he stand to gain by going to bat with fake evidence?
He certainly got one hell of a lot of publicity out of his articles.