Armada tell Rossignol to cease and desist.

Good post.
Maybe not the biggest flaw...I can think of some big ones...but you're dead on with the rest.
 
interesting. though as that article posted back a few pages pointed out US patent disputes are solved by first to invent, not first to file for a patent. and the arg is almost an exact copy of the DPS...
 
Some kids in here have obviously never heard of business ethics.
So its ok to blatantly copy another companies product, patent it later on than they did, then go around threatening everyone claiming they are infringing? Obviously we need more information, but right now it really looks like Armada is trying to do two things. Firstly scare smaller companies who have no budget for lawyers, and secondly target a major competitor (one that helped them get off the ground) who is in financial trouble for what appears to be for no other reason than to kick them when they are down.
To everyone saying its just business, many other industries you would be correct. The fact is that when its the same companies who preach these ideals in their marketing, then go onto use these "good business" tactics, it makes people take notice.
 
No company is ever going to come out and say "We're hear to make a handful of people reeeeaaaallly rich, fuck the other shit, and everyone else...protect your motherfuckin' neck!" in their marketing campaigns.
"many other industries you would be correct"....well that's the thing...skiing isn't some "special" industry. I know you're passionate about the sport and somehow want to cling to the belief that the companies involved in skiing are in someway of a higher ethical cloth or moral fiber, but that's just not the case. I'm not dumping on the ski industry (not in this post anyway), but your expectations are unrealistic, and frankly, naive.
 
Let me clarify for you why some people are pissed off.
They used tons of borrowed ideas from Shane, DPS, Zag, Volant etc. They even credited Shane when the ARG came out in its description on their site. This being said, if you want to patent an EXACT shape, FKNA get after it!
The fact is though, they appear to be going after companies that only make SIMILAR skis, and who made them first at that. So it really appears like this is more of a "we have money for lawyers so F you" kinda deal. Only time will tell from here.

 
Whether they are legally in the right or not, based on what happened to Grenade Gloves and WME, I have a feeling Armada's reputation is about to get shit on.
Elf Shoe Tech? C'mon, that's nothing new. It is exaggerated early taper. Bacons had early taper years before the JJ, so did the EP pro(and many other skis). Armada just exaggerated it to make their ski look different than all the others, and so they could give it some funky name like "elf shoe technology".
I'm not bashing on the JJ's at all, I know they are killer skis, and they get awesome reviews from pretty much anyone who shreds on em. They're good skis, no doubt. But EST is a fancy name for something almost every ski has these days, and Armada was by no means the first to do it, nor did they "invent" it.
Sorry Armada.

 
So this whole case is over Armada's "elf shoe technology". Their EST is a rocker design with a narrower tip at the end than at the thickest part, for example in the Alpha 1, Halo, and JJ. Rossignol S7 and S110W have a similar design to that rocker, with a thinner tip that tapers into a larger width before getting skinnier in the waist and tail.

This case will probably not work out for Armada since their patented design is of specific dimensions on specific skis. Also, for example, the S7 shape is not exactly like the JJ shape. The S7 is wider in the tip and narrower in the tail, making it designed to have easy flotation and an easier release out of the turn along with easier landing for big drops.The JJ has a more symetrical shape with the tip and tail being only 3 mm different. This is designed to create easier switch riding in powder along with a more playful feel on the mountain. Another difference between the S7 and the JJ is the fact that the JJ has the same tapering in the tail as there is in the tip while the S7 has no tapering in the tail.

Becuase there are some suttle and some major differences in the two skis, including dimension and expected behavior of the ski, there is enough evidence to allow Rossignol to continue its manufacturing of its products
 
fuck the capitalism but i agree that is how our economy works and that is how our government works too free speech eg ns and endless debate to solve nothingbut what ever i support rossi and always have always will and when are they going to put the french rooster back on skis
 
I have no respect for someone who says one thing then does the opposite. I also have no respect for bullies.
Dont get me wrong my first gen ANTs are going strong, they make a great product. As far as "independent" ski companies are concerned though, companies that have built their brand and reputation as being specifically different from other companies and industries, it will make people take notice when they pull stunts like this.
Call me naive, but I dont think its ok when companies in any industry bully others with their big lawyer budget. Thats not necessarily whats going on here, it would be interesting to see who else they sent C&Ds to in order to get a bigger picture.
Armada is a brand fully built on the freeskiing community, am I the only one out there who still feels like this is a community?
 
Yeah seems like Volant would have the only premise for a lawsuit here since Shane sold them his idea. I know Volant did have a patent on rocker pending before they were bought. Not sure if that patent stands, but if it went through I believe it would be good for ten years.
 
Of course you're not the only one who feels like skiing is a community...but communities are made up of people. NS is a community...a subset of the larger freeski community. When you share a chairlift with someone and bond over what a great day it is....that's a community. When a bunch of people rally behind a cause, like the riley poor organization...that's a community.
For profit businesses may seek to gain the business of, or market share within, a particular community, but they're still for profit companies. You're confusing the individuals that make up communities with the companies that community members patronize.
Armada doesn't have some sort of gentlemen's agreement or moral obligation to play nice with other companies because everyone involved allegedly loves to ski. Skiing isn't some magical thing that overrides basic business tactics and protocols—even if it's charming to think so.
Nationwide Insurance Co. has a jingle..."Nationwide is on your siiiiiide". All-State runs those commercials about being in good hands...
Does anyone really believe that insurance companies have anyone other than their own best interests at heart when they deny people coverage, jack up premiums, or flat-out refuse to pay for treatment based on some absurd technicality? Ski companies, even if they're owned and operated by people who love to ski, still exist solely to make money. Sorry, man.
And yes, you could argue that some companies are more gracious and a bit more giving than others.
 
Nice post.

Read the patent guys. It does not denote exact dimensions. It speaks in percentages, and sweeping ones at that. "...Approx 20% to 65%..." and so on.

When doing a ski comparison, we would all note the differences in the skis:

Armada JJ

Width: 126 / 136 / 115 / 133 / 121mm

Radius: 14m

Armada ARG

Width: 125-135-133-134-120mm

Rossi S7

Width: 145 / 115 / 123mm

Radius: 17.5m
 
to clarify, I don't have an opinion one way or another about whether what Armada is doing is either morally or legally valid (I'm not a lawyer, and I know fuck all about patent law).
Not supporting or condemning their actions, just pointing out that this is an industry that is built upon and dependent upon competition...like any other. Sometimes, that competition manifests itself in legal disputes about rights to distribute and protecting technologies or intellectual properties.
 
And Tristan, I'm not saying that your anger at Armada is somehow "wrong". By all means, if you find their business practices to be in direct conflict with their brand identity... or something...like it's been said: Vote with your pocket and don't support them.
 
I wouldnt say that I'm angry with Armada by any means, and you're totally right about ski companies only existing to make money, and power to them in that respect.
I'm just feeling like this is a no win situation for consumers, and an overall really silly suit. I'm no lawyer but Armada does not appear to have any ground to stand on. So why are they doing it?
I think its more or less just an interesting debate, my only real fear is for the small companies and great people who could be affected by this. For what its worth Armada, nor Rossi for that matter, were going to see any of my money anytime soon in the first place.
 
I agree with you in spirit, but I think it's far too early (and complex an issue really) to have any sort of certainty around what the trickle down effects will be for the rest of the industry including smaller brands, or even less so for the end consumers (us).
Let's all just put our grownup hats on for a little while and see how this thing pans out. Shit, they could reach some sort of agreement amongst themselves and this could all be moot in a month.
Sometimes the wheels just turn a little to quickly around here.
 
thank you very much for clarifying this for me. that makes a lot more sense, the whole, "we invented rocker and you can't have it" didn't make any sense to me. knowing that, i don't think armada is doing anything wrong. the guy who quoted you has a good point also. i also really like armada, have bought from them, and probably will continue to do so, they make good stuff, and when I have talked to people with the company (customer service) they have been awesome.
 
I disagree. Whether or not Armada is successful doesn't matter to me. Armada straight-up copied the ARG from DPS' Lotus 138. They just made it a 185 instead of 191, 133 underfoot instead of 138, and made it relatively affordable. DPS didn't make a fuss at the time, although they made a comment on their website how "this shaped was copied by another company within 1.5 years, a bit of a shot at Armada.

For Armada to turn around a couple years later and pull this shit, even with a fully valid patent and legal right to do so is bullshit. Totally legal, but totally not cool. If successful, this could[/i] have further reaching consequences for other companies in the industry. But, even if no decision comes from this or even if Rossignol is successful in their suit or counter-suit, I personally have lost all respect for Armada as an organization. I was the first customer (not person) in Canada to own a pair of ARGs and I loved them. I loved my old JP vs Juliens. While no longer a customer I continued to recommend Armada to others. I will not do so now, in fact I will do the opposite. I will do my best to steer every potential customer of Armada products away to other companies and will encourage others to do the same.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, fuck Armada.
 
Agreed.

In fact, Armada's first skis, the AR5 & ARV, were a blatent rip offs of the Rossi scratch FS and BC. Then they did the same with the 138. It seems to me they have done their fair share of copying other companies. A bit hypocritical really...
 
It's an unfortunate decision and really not smart on Armada's part. I'm willing to bet that they will lose a lot more money in sales due to the damage this is will wreak on their brand's image than they ever could have hoped to gain in a lawsuit.
 
I feel like the majority of the people who buy Armada product either will know nothing about all of this, or will choose to disregard it anyways for whatever reason. Unless the skiing community (meaning NS) organized some kind of way to alert people about this situation, I'm afraid it will go relatively unnoticed. What wrenegade ^^ said though, such a terrible move by Armada, I don't want anything to do with supporting them.
 
Aite so I read the patent (long and kinda confusing since there were no images which the article was referencing too), and it seems they are not talking about all rockered pow skis, just ones using positive camber underfoot and reverse camber / rocker in the tips and tails to try defend the "technology" used in the JJs, Alpha1s and Halos - Not the ARGs.. So they're targeting the skis such as S7s & Bent Chets, for also using the combination of rocker / reverse camber in tips and tails & positive camber underfoot - I think?

Also at the end of the patent it talks about skis with adjustable camber via a cable tension system, which I don't think any of the current skis have? Might be a feature we see in future skis from Armada - seems like a very cool idea.

I think it's a pretty fucked up move for Armada, but they aren't trying to claim the rocker / reverse camber technology - they weren't the first on that, but I am pretty sure they were the first to come out with a ski that uses the combo of positive camber underfoot and reverse camber / rocker in the tips / tails which is what the main point of their patent they are trying to defend...

Although I think they have a valid case, I don't think it is right for Armada to be so aggressive towards the other companies in the ski industry.

Hey, Armada we all love the same white fluffy stuff - throwing law suits @ your competition is just giving you guys a bad rep.

But anyways I'm glad I'll be rocking ON3Ps for my future seasons &

not supporting Armada! Also, I'm glad that whoever invented the twin tip wasn't a greedy bitch about innovative technology which helped progress the ski industry.
 
This would have been part of Rossignol's patent. It was something they tried out with a couple pros on their Phantom 108/112 skis. The abandoned the cable single camber/reverse camber idea and released the SC108 (which didn't do all that well) and then the RC112 (which also didn't do very well, but was a SICK ski). It was an interesting idea, but either not very marketable or just a so-so design once in practice.
 
I remember seeing those on the Rossi site, but i never really saw them anywhere else. The concept seemed pretty sick.

What happened to them?
 
doesnt take much to sway the collective opinion of this site, at least 3 lemmings for every informed opinion

cant blame you guys though, without official statements this looks pretty bleak
 
this just in from Armada office:

Dear Family and Friends,

We regret that we have to send this note but feel it is necessary given much of the misinformation that is circulating. At this point you have probably heard that Rossignol is suing Armada in Utah.

Back in April, our EST patent was issued which was a milestone for our company recognizing years of hard work in research and development. While the patent was pending, many companies made claims about the origination and spoke negatively of us. Ours was the view that the facts would be revealed in the long run and that slinging mud would accomplish nothing.

We are proud of our innovation. We never suggested nor considered preventing others from utilizing the shape; we never thought about suing anyone. Our plans couldn’t have been further from trying to squeeze competitors.

Our intention was to have a portion of proceeds contribute to a trust similar to “1% for the Planet” that benefits athletes who have passed or been injured. Internally the development name of that trust has been “Dudes for Other Dudes” or “DFOD” for short. We recognize the contributions that Shane and other athletes have made which laid the ground-work for our innovation.

We planned on announcing the launch of the organization in December around the new TST ski which is a tribute to Travis Steeger. We planned on dispersing proceeds to foundations/charities for Shane, Travis, and other athletes. We wanted to support our recovering friend, Riley Poor. Now any such announcement will be viewed with skepticism and doubt. However, we remain committed to the vision.

Some facts to clear up any confusion:

1) Armada has not sued any company.

2) Rather than filing a lawsuit against infringing companies, a letter was sent to Rossignol and others that closed with “Armada is willing to discuss an amicable settlement of this matter…” We wanted to work out a friendly agreement with companies we felt were infringing.

3) We never intended to prevent others from utilizing our patented shape.

We are largely the same group of people who started the company in 2002. Our goals and vision haven’t changed. We love the sport of skiing and remain committed to contributing to it. We still don’t have a PR department and as such, the story will continue to be spun by others.

You know us, you know our values, and you know the truth. Please don’t be swayed by the misinformation which will surely continue. We will not partake in it.

We are here for you and are happy to address your questions and concerns directly.

Sincerely,

Erik and Hans

 
im on my third pair of armadas and love them but if they decide to go through with this, i will never be buying another pair of their skis ever again.
 
so im confused. they arent suing anyone, they are just threatening to and trying to earn out of court settlements? the philosophy is still the same...
 
is it? Because they are 2 completely different things. Armchair lawyers are the best...

I am sick of this thread and this is the last post I will make.

STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS AND IMPLYING THINGS THAT AREN'T SO. No one really knows, and people like wren (still butt hurt over Scott making them change the name of their ski because it was exactly the same as their trademarked name, in the same industry) saying stupid things like 'fuck armada' only breed more ignorance rather than promote people to read into it and make decisions of their own.

I think the funniest quote in here was "Its ok armada will lose any and all credibility like Scott did for going after on3p" Hahah, still laughing at that one.

Maybe some of you should learn a little bit more about business, the ski industry, and LIFE outside of the Ski Gabber on NS.

/end fragment.

 
Suing someone is going to have the same end effect in this scenario, so that is a moot point.
So there plan was to force others who had already pressed the skis into a licensing agreement, donate an insignificant portion of it and allow the other companies to pass on the costs of it to customers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top