Armada tell Rossignol to cease and desist.

Suing would have the same effect? In what way specifically?

lol insignificant? How, in ANY way is donating ANYTHING to ANYONE negative or insignificant.

Let's talk about insignificant. A single donation of 50k to a charity like that is HUGE for the people benefiting from it.

50k divided by X amount of customers who buy skis = insignificant to the buyer who is already paying close to a thousand dollars for a ski setup. That extra cost, if there is one at ALL is insignificant to YOU the whiny consumer.
 
i love watching you argue with people on newschoolers. ahaha especially since you usually make good, intelligent points and then they just tell you to go eat a dick. or something like that haha
 
Suing would have the same effect as in there would be settlement/licensing agreement since the skis are already pressed.
If they are giving 1%, you really think they are going to amass 50K from licensing fees? You think they are going to pull in $5MM on this? No. They are going to spend the same amount on advertising the amount they are donating as the actual amount they donate (most likely
 
..... i was asking for more clarification on a poorly written statement. im still confused on whether or not they are seeking financial compensation, either through a lawsuit or out of court settlement.
 
I didn't get much out of that, and I don't really care too much either as I don't ride either company's skis and have had a bad experience with armada skis and customer service.

It is cool though that "7th letter" is printed about 1000 times in that document. 7th Letter is a dope graff crew
 
Armada is no more in touch with skiing than any of the big companies now. I just can't believe they still have a ski called the JJ. Like have the nerve to basically drop Julien on his ass, and then not even change the fucking name of the ski he helped build. It makes me wonder if the AR7 is referring to the original people still, or if they decided to combine all their pros and ams to make the 7.

I mean they must not have had room for him and tony. Their team must have been just way too big to keep them on board. I

I think it's most ironic that they sued rossignol. I mean the AR5 was a rossignol ski.

whatever fuck armada, i'm still leaving my JP poster on the wall though
 
Based on what you quoted, I don't really see what you disagree with. I think it's perfectly acceptable to weigh this incident into your overall appraisal of Armada as a company. If you read somehow that I'm defending Armada, you're mistaken or I wasn't as cogent as I thought. Again, I'm not passing a moral or legal judgement as I don't feel like I know enough about the situation.
My post, which you quoted, was simply my way of saying that all of the comments involving something to the effect of "this is awful for us! Monopoly! Skis are now going to cost us more cuz a legal fees! Rabblerabble" are totally premature and knee jerk. I think anyone proclaiming to know how this will affect us, the lowly customers, is simply wrong.
 
First of all, I'm over the Scott USA/ON3P thing. I maintain that it was a bit of a dick move, especially since a cease and desist order was issued before any sort of informal request/communication between Scott USA and ON3P. But, in the long run, not a big deal.

As for Armada/Rossignol, reading through the Rossignol (plaintiff) vs. Armada (defendant) suit, Armada first issued a cease and desist order September 7th, 2010. I quote:

"In a letter dated September 7, 2010, sent to Rossignol (Exhibit C hereto), Armada

asserted that sales of Rossignol's S7 and BC110W skis "constitute patent infringement under

U.S. law. As such, Armada requests that you immediately cease and desist your unlawful sale of these models."

It contines:

"a patent owner may obtain injunctive relief against infringers…and may recover up to three times the amount of damages found adequate to compensate for the infringement," and further that "the prevailing party in a patent infringement suit may be entitled to recover its attorneys fees from the other side…and in some cases the attorneys fees will exceed the amount of the infringement damages." The September 7 letter continues: "We reiterate, Rossignol, is selling skis (at least the S7 and BC110W models) that fall within the claims of Armada's U.S. Patent. Absent an arrangement with Armada, we must insist that Rossignol immediately cease selling such skis or others that fall within the patent."

I'm not a lawyer, but that language is pretty cut and dry. Armada was demanding that Rossignol cease selling the S7/BC110W models immediately (and account for past sales to potentially assess further damages) unless they enter into some sort of licensing (ie, paying a fee) agreement with Armada.

While Armada may believe that the S7/BC110W violate a patent they hold legal rights to, I maintain that it is a dick move for Armada to issue a cease and desist order and threaten to sue for damages for a design that is very similar to a ski Rossignol already had a patent for as well as a ski that DPS already had a patent for. Rossignol and DPS already patents dating 2006 and 2008 and had pursued no legal action. Armada was granted their patent April 6, 2010 and was the first to lawyer-up.

I won't be as juvenile as I was before, but I believe Armada should not have done what they did. I believe their reputation should suffer for it and I will continue to encourage people do not purchase their products.

 
if every ski company patents their new technology we will not have as many advanced skis... say someone would take k2's rockered design for their park skis and line's carbon olliebands and combined them. i think that might potentially be a really good ski because of the pop and the ability to butter.
 
the carbon ollieband is just strips of carbon fiber to make the ski stiffer and give it more pop. Lots of ski companies do this.

Moment rockers have carbon fiber inlays I believe and they are rockered... maybe you should get them
 
has anyone read back through this thread to understand what is going on? does anyone realize that Rossi filed suit against Armada and not vice versa?
 
Rossi filed suit as a counter to the cease and desist letter their received from Armada. Armada was first to act.
 
What?! fuck man, Armada's gonna have a massive decrease in sales because of this crap. This is worse than the WME feud...
 
i understand Armada was first to act, but it is pretty clear Armada wasn't trying to bring suit on anyone. a cease and decist order is not a law suit. they were issued a patent by the US government for their design and the cease and decist order, from what i've read, is a stop in action so that terms of the patent can be agreed on.
 
I get asked all the time why we didn't patent the idea/shape/design that led to the development of the Salomon Teneighty. I think the answer is pretty clear now. I'd rather be poor and happy than fight my way through this kind of shit show.
 
nah, you're definitely not an impressionable idiot. It's apparent there are a few others on ns who aren't either based on this thread.
I'm with LoganImlach: it's nice to see smart discussion and debate on NS for once.
 
Disregard this line. I had not looked into the situation when I made my post. I am doing that now.

The rest of my post still stands.
 
-In a letter dated September 7, 2010, sent to Rossignol, Armada asserted that sales of Rossignol's S7 and BC110W skis "constitute patent infringement under U.S. law. As such, Armada requests that you immediately cease and desist your unlawful sale of these models."

How is this not a direct attempt to prevent others from using the shape?

-The September 7 letter states that "a patent owner may obtain injunctive relief against infringers...and may recover up to three times the amount of damages found adequate to compensate for the infringement," and further that "the prevailing party in a patent infringement suit may be entitled to recover its attorneys fees from the other side...and in some cases the attorneys fees will exceed the amount of the infringement damages."

What was the purpose of including this in the letter if Armada had never thought about suing anyone?

 
The proceeds from elf shoe tech? Are you suggesting that rossignol is taking proceeds away from your charity? If so, why did you not mention it in your letter?

Do you think Shane and the other athletes laid the groundwork specifically for Armada?

When you say you "recognize the contributions of Shane and other athletes" do you mean you do this by patenting their innovations?

 
The information we have right now is that Armada has sent Rossignol (and possibly some other companies) Letters asking them not to sell a ski that is similar to some Armada skis. These letters either hint at, if not downright threaten legal action if they do not comply.

When rossignol received this, they sued Armada, because they too had some patent about a skis shape that could apply to some of Armada's skis.

Armada seems pretty concerned that other companies are producing similar products as they are. The "Values" I see here is that Armada would rather try prevent other companies from making a competitive product, than produce and market a product they can stand behind regardless of what the other guys are doing.

This whole thing is pretty scary to me. How the shape of a ski can be patented. Like it makes me wonder where it will stop? I can imagine a small company making a ski, and getting bullied by a bigger company like Armada because the shapes are similar.

There has already been a few stupid reasons why patents have gotten in the way of innovation in skiing. (I'm thinking turntable bindings gone for a few years and the old axial bindings getting axed)

Armadas website says:

"We are Armada. We are what skiing will become."

Well that's pretty fucking scary if you think this is the future of skiing.

Whatever you can go spend the winter in court. I'm going skiing.
 
1288263293simon_ermada.png
 
First post for me, but I actually deal with some of this stuff in my job so I thought I'd chime in.
What we actually know is that Armada sent Rossignol (and some others) a letter informing them that they are selling a ski that uses invention or inventions documented in a patent that Armada had previously been granted.
A patent doesn't stop someone other than the holder from using an invention, it means that the holder can ask for some form of compensation for the use of an invention - this is probably what Armada is talking about when they are discussing funding a charity with the proceeds. It's likely not proceeds from a lawsuit, but instead, proceeds from royalties obtained from others using the invention documented in the patent.
Indeed, those letters will be in the form of a legal threat. Rossignol launching a suit in retaliation is fairly common practice in all industries - companies spend a lot of money building portfolios of patents as a defense against exactly this sort of thing.
With regards to the patent itself, a shape of ski that is novel can indeed be patented if it isn't obvious to one well-versed in the art of ski-design. However, it remains to be seen if that is the case here. One of the issues with patents in general, and the USPTO in particular is that the volume of patent applications means that the USPTO fails to investigate in depth whether or not an invention truly is novel and new; therefore the true test of a patent's value is a test in court. Frequently what will happen now is that the lawyers will get together, bill ridiculous amounts of money to their respective clients (but smaller amounts of money than they would if it actually went to court), and the world will go back to normal, with the costs passed down to the customer.
FWIW, I dislike the idea of patents in general. Engineers often feel that patents are sensible in fields other than their own - and from looking at all the evidence I've come to the conclusion that patents in general have outlived their usefulness.
Due to the of the huge number of patents in every field a move like the one Armada is making is dangerous due to the defensive patent portfolios built up by the company you're looking for royalties from (often you're using somebody else's patented invention, even if you don't realize it).
It's a cold war, turned hot, and it's unpleasant to see.
 
To say that Armada doesn't lose credibility over this is assinine. I asserted in an earlier post that the freeski community is very plugged in to social media. Look at NS, and TGR. If these two sites don't make up a good portion of Armada's customer base, then I don't know who does. Armada didn't develop some crazy new concept, they just filed a patent on stuff that was already being done. Scumbag move. Many people on both sites agree that Armada is full of shit.

The second scumbag move is trying to wrap it up in some "charity" for deceased members of the ski community. I would say that no one they mentioned would be happy to be associated with sleazy business practices demonstrated by Armada.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top