No Bear Claw and JRJ, that's NOT what I said. You quoted it so there's no need to do it again. Read carefully and you will see that nobody in this thread yet has said RAT was owned by Ontario. Series of knives? Yes.

I was simply pointing out your inaccurate statement "RAT Cutlery based their name on Ontario's RAT series". Again, RAT stands for Randall's Adventure & Training. So let's try this again. The company Randall's Adventure & Training contract ended with the company ontario knife co who produced a line called ontario randall's adventure & training knifes using "RAT's" Intellectual Property. Randall's Adventure & Training "RAT" formed RAT Cutlery and has Rowen producing their new line of knives and soon their old models as well.

The only point I'm trying to make is this: if the facts are known to us and we've decided one way or the other, why would a court and judge be needed? Ontario's been around awhile, does it make sense they would file a frivolous suit against RAT Cutlery say....just for the fun of it? There may be something to it. Don;t be too quick to judge - that's all I'm saying.


It's anti-competitive behavior, it's calculated, not "for fun". Your statement's seem very naive. RAT Cutlery is a small business, 2 man operation. These guy's would go bankrupt just trying to play in court with ontario's bankrolled lawyers. Regardless if Rat Cutlery was right, if they go bankrupt would ontario losing their lawsuit really be a loss to them?

Thank god a private donor helped with money and lawyers for RAT Cutlery or else that would have been it for them.


I remind you (why? It's posted up there already), I'm not taking Ontario's side, nor should you be taking RC's so fast. I'm asking myself this: if RC can make their knives as they are, designed as they are, sold as they are, with the RC logo on the blades as they are, why is there a lawsuit?