hey guys, just checking some threads and I saw this one. DavidS does have a nice tool from what I saw on you tube. Just want to let everyone know that we do not license this product. I would hope that everyone would respect the time effort and financial committment that an invetor had put into the product. (think of us ,and the years we spent developing the Rohrbaugh Product line. It usually takes 5-8 years and countless dollars to develop a product)
I did read the posts regarding Steve Bedair and I would hope that he just did not know that there was a patented product already out in the market?.
Is this not the American Ingenuity at its best that DavidS took on this project. Should he not be rewarded for that?
I would caution proliferation of information that previously was found to be in violation of an existing patent without consuling with your attorney first. 
Hey Doc-
Being that you are an investor in the company, you should be pleased to know that i own two R9's. My issue is not about the $20 price of Dave's device. I think it is cool and surely worth the price. What always concerns me is the suppression of information. I believe we all benefit when information is freely available. It is funny that i can go to any number of the numerous patent sites, and see several diagrams of David's device, all clearly illustrated from several angles enabling me to make my own at home if i wanted. But i guess he took issue with anyone being able to look at Steve's idea. Dave's clearly has more style and elegance, and is a nice, polished design.
It's just that I believe we all suffer when information is suppressed.
You are part of an organization that produces a product that throws lead downrange. There are many pistols that came before yours that are patented, but do the same thing. Did they come after you to try to stop you from making a product that throws lead downrange. You make a great product. So do many of them. I am assuming your gun is patented. Will you go after guys on youtube demonstrating how to make zip-guns?
And regarding "information that previously was found to be in violation of an existing patent", only a court can find what is in violation of an existing patent, and i dont see anywhere where that occurred in Steve's case. If anyone can point us to where anything Steve demonstrated was found to be in violation by a court, i would be interested in seeing it.
Viagra and Ciallis both give the same result, and are both being sold. These two medications both coexisted under patents.
What is next, coming into my yard and telling me i cant have my barbeque grill on a sloped hill because George Foreman has the patent for a sloped grill? That's just as absurd as telling me i cant talk about using old plumbing parts i have laying around to help me disassemble my gun. So could i use an old screwdriver instead of an old piece of PVC pipe? Does that make it different?
And the "American Ingenuity at its best" you mentioned is all about building a better mousetrap, not the only mousetrap on the planet.