Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
Dudes for other dudes? Not sure if serious. Sounds like a poor last ditch PR attempt. Why would you send a C&D that you should have reasonably known would be contested if you didn't want a battle (and from a business perspective either thought you would recover or impair a competitor).
JD are you a practicing lawyer within the ski industry? Just curious what job opportunities are like (I live in Van as well).
Assuming that you want to avoid falling afoul of these patents (even if they turn out to be bogus), here’s my reading:
To avoid falling afoul of Rossignol’s patent, make sure that the widest point of your ski tip is not between 5mm and 15mm above the snow. The patent makes no mention of whether this is measured with camber flattened or not: I would assume not, but don’t hold me to that.
To avoid falling afoul of Armada’s patent, make sure that the transition from sidecut to tip/tail taper, and the widest part of your ski, is well outboard of your snow contact points—or use zero or negative camber.
Once again, this article is entirely my opinion and is not to be construed as legal advice."
The facts are that Armada has filed cease and desist motions against various ski manufacturers. I don't know how many, but it sounds like more than 3. Again, based on the above article, Armada's patent is the broadest."Armada vs. The World
The Armada patent appears to be the broadest, because it covers any rocker/camber/rocker ski—but with two versions of a limiting clause which requires the transition between rocker and camber to happen either exactly at, or very close to (“substantially all”) the transition between sidecut and tapered tip/tail.
Unfortunately for Armada, and as I mentioned before, the first patent claim is written in such a way that it is impossible for any ski with significant sidecut to fall under it: the only ski I can think of that might fall under it is the DPS Lotus 138. (Which came out before the ARG, Armada’s direct copy of its shape.) Tough luck for Armada. But let’s move forward and assume that neither judges, nor juries, nor lawyers understand basic geometry.
Even if you give Armada’s fundamental mistake a free pass, skis like the Hellbent appear to not infringe, because their rocker transition is a long way away from the sidecut transition. Neither do K2’s other rockered tip skis like the Obsethed, because the widest point of a K2 tip is generally at the very end, well off the snow and putting the sidecut transition outboard of the camber/rocker transition. The Surface Live Life, One Life, and any other traditionally-shaped ski with tip and tail rocker added are also in the clear.
The BD Megawatt is off the hook due to having flat camber (also called “zero camber”), as is any other flat camber ski.
I can think of several skis that might infringe if you ignore the fundamental impossibility of Armada’s claims, but I’m not going to list them, as Armada started this whole slap fight and I don’t want to give their lawyers any ideas."
thats because of americas shitty legal system. In any other country in the world, if you file a stupid lawsuit, and you lose, then you have to pay for the other persons legal fees.
In america if I am a big company like armada I can put a small company out of business just by suing them over and over again, BECAUSE I CAN AFFORD TO KEEP HIRING TONS OF LAWYERS AND THE SMALL COMPANYS CANT.
basically this is one of the most fucked up things in america is our legal system.
actually capitalists tend to HATE annoying lawsuit bullshit and capitalist businesses HATE lawyers for suing them over some new retarded shit every fucking day of the year.
your an Idiot
yeah socialize the ski industry? really? so one company that produces bomb skis gets paid the same amount as a company that produces absolute shit?
your really an idiot
