NextpageGeneral memorandum A54 From: Crye Precision, LLC.

In the meantime, here's Crye's statement: I'd love to hear not only what the Army has to say, but also what Congress is telling them behind closed doors. I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in between. But to hear it from Crye's side, it's the Army that has refused to support soldiers and buy the pattern that won all the tests. It's not that I don't feel for the Army and their effort to get the best camo pattern for the price, especially with the Army's camo improvement effort under the Congressional microscope. This number refers to the cost to outright buy the entire intellectual property, akin to the purchase of a technical data package, that would transfer ownership from Crye Precision to the Army. Further, 's mischaracterization of the price as 'royalties' is wrong. The memo comes in response, I assume, to 's story by Amy Bushatz and Matt Cox that has an Army source saying the the service won't pay the '$24.8 million in royalties to use MultiCam.' Revealing the price of MultiCam without any context seems like a way to color opinion and portray Crye as a greedy contractor that is trying to cash in at the nation's expense. Any way you look at it, Crye hasn't said or done anything critical of the Army's effort. Crye Precision was very quiet about the entire affair from the day they submitted their patterns for the Phase IV testing, they clammed up either out of fear or reverence for the PEO Program.

U.s.army multicam