Armada tell Rossignol to cease and desist.

That's one hell of a first post! Cheers for the info.

What upsets me more than these companies going against each other is that I doubt the bosses in Armada thought how the ski community would react to this. It doesn't make a lot of sense to irritate your rather small target market by pulling a move like this and the fact that they did shows a certain contempt for people like you, me and everyone else who loves skiing.

 
Yeah, it sucks.
Even in large markets it sucks -- in pharmaceuticals, for example, it can be a matter of life and death if a drug can't be given to the people that need it most for patent reasons. I said it before and I'll say it again, everything about the patent system sucks.
The counter-argument is that people and companies wouldn't invest the money needed for R&D without having some form of protection, but personally, I think that's a load of crap.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out for Armada, but for the reasons you state I don't think it'll be good.
 
Amen. That was the good ol days when skiing was still a sport and a passion and not a business. It's sad to see things like this go down; it really signifies the lost sense of community that our sport once had. Remember when Armada was "core"? Now is more like "core-porate".

We could argue all day about how legally in the right Armada is or how silly the "kuambuya/ one love" view on skiing is, but it doesn't really matter because what's done is done and I for one am left with a sour taste in my mouth and disappointment that a company whom I've purchased countless pairs of skis from has turned to such measures. No matter what the PR spin is, it just doesn't bode well.
 
Well, I don't know the facts. We only have what appears to be Armada's side of the argument, without a letter.

But here's how I see it.

As I graphic designer, I fully know how lame it is for someone to rip you off and profit off your work. But, as an artist, I also acknowledge and agree that "art builds on art" as well as everything else; truly, progress builds on progress.

What I mean is that you can't have progress without someone doing something before you to begin with. Yea, Armada patented this "elf shoe technology" which is really just a dumb name for mellow rocker and camber underfoot. However, both of those thing had been around for a long time... BEFORE the spatula. Some wooden skis were built with rocker. And just because a shape is similar does not mean that it's ethical or in any way right for them to turn around and threaten legal action, essentially "i'm either taxing you or suing you" for that.

Using similar shapes happens because those ideas work. It's why Armada has rocker to begin with... someone else thought it up and they made it better in their eyes. If a company measured out a pair of Armadas and used the SAME shape, I could see them justified in being unhappy about it.

I personally know the guy who invented symmetrical skis. He worked for Olin, he designed the Mark IV, which was also a sort of twin tip, meant for skiing backwards. He's a true innovator, because people had not done that before. He lives in a small apartment down the hill from Mammoth, and still tunes skis for a living. Seems like if you Armada wants to make life better for people they should send some royalties to him. I'm sure he would appreciate it.
 
this is disgusting. I've bought sooo many pairs of armadas, but I'll never buy another pair again, and you can be sure that I'm gonna let all of my friends who aren't internet/ski industry savvy know about this shit. also, that letter is complete bullshit. you really expect us to believe that you filed this patent and are suing your competitors not to make more money but to support a charity? i'm sorry but that is complete and total bullshit and only a total retard would believe that. Armada, you fucked up pretty bad on this one...shit like this isn't easily forgotten, and once you've crossed the industry wrong it doesn't go away.

so fuck you Armada... back in the day you seemed like such a cool company that I made you my username...now I'm regretting that and realize what greedy little bastards you've become....SHAME ON YOU
 
I wish Armada had your view.
Last night before the full details came out, I tweeted:@ArmadaSkis pls drop this lawsuit against @RossignolSkis. McConkey is the only one with rights to rockers. You are only hurting innovation.
I got a reply this morning:Get the facts: Rossignol is suing us, we are not suing them. McConkey was a dear close friend of ours, he loved that we did the ARGs.
I don't even feel like pointing out that they would have sued Rossi if Rossi refused to cease and desist. Or the fact that they are trying to appear less evil with the licensing fee they are demanding by donating a percentage to the athletes. Why not just donate a percentage of the ski sales to that fund and forget about the licensing?
 
This thread has officially gotten out of hand. after a good read through all of this, several things are clear. A) most of you can not breakdown a complex situation and provide a well thought answer (i said most, not all), B) most of you seem to think writing "Fuck Armada" on a message board is empowering, C) the users stirring this hornets nest most likely work for Rossi or another company that don't understand the situation themselves. Rather than allow another 6 pages of ignorance to unfold I challenge someone to dig a bit deeper and give these rants a breath of educated fresh air. hell, i challenge NS to contact Armada and set the record straight.

does anyone own an IPOD or a Mac on this site? if so, you should probably get on Apple's message board and start ranting and raving like a lunatic because they do this to their competitors every day to protect their ideas and designs.
 
Can someone still explain precisely what happened? Because their letter is rather unclear.

So they never filed lawsuits, but they wanted some sort of out of court settlement? Was this to be a one time fee? Or a continual fee as long as Rossi kept using their design? And then Rossi filed a counter suit? Id love to hear this straight from someone at Armada if they are reading all this.
 
LOL...Rossi is suing Armada because ARMADA sent a C&D order. Seems to me that Armada brought a lawsuit upon themselves due to their own arrogance and self righteousness.

Again the charity portion of this actually disgusts me. I was still going to wear the Armada soft shell hoodie I bought because it's pretty ill. But now I think I'll be exchanging it for something else.
 
You likely won't hear anything official from Armada or Rossignol. As they are both currently involved in a lawsuit they lawyers will have told them to keep quiet and pass anything communication through them (the lawyers) first.

If anyone wants to do some reading:

ROSSIGNOL COMPLAINT AGAINST ARMADA (October 10, 2010 - Filed in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH )

http://www.exoticskis.com/ExoticSkis/Industry/Rossignol_ArmadaPatents/Rossignol_v_Aramada_2010Oct_Complaint_Case%20210-cv-01008-CW.pdf

For those interested in the patents themselves, Links below (PDF):

ROSSIGNOL U.S. Patent 6,986,525 (January 17, 2006)

http://www.exoticskis.com/ExoticSkis/Industry/Rossignol_ArmadaPatents/US6986525.pdf

ARMADA U.S. Patent 7,690674 (April 6, 2010)

http://www.exoticskis.com/ExoticSkis/Industry/Rossignol_ArmadaPatents/US7690674.pdf

Thank you to exoticskis.com for posting the links/PDFs
 
The amount of ignorance in this thread it out of control, so many people jumping to conclusions based on rumors and bullshit. If you are still in high school, stop posting, because you have no idea what you're talking about, let alone how the real world works.
 
LOL @ the people spouting about "ignorance", but not really providing any kind of counter argument or enlightenment.
 
And at the same time, this thread has some of the most mature, well written, intelligent debate I've seen in a public NS forum for a while.

 
ah. so much more sense now.

i especially found this

"Interestingly, Rossignol has apparently showed no interest in enforcing their patent, despite the existence of many likely infringers, until Armada recently started attempting to enforce their own patent. Rossignol has not, to my knowledge, gone after anyone but Armada. (Please leave a comment if you have information you wish to share.) "

interesting.
 
That article, though it is admittedly just the opinion/understanding of one person, is the best summary of what's going on I've been able to find.
I'd recommend that anyone with an interest, particularly those with strong, vocal stances one way or another, give that a good look.
 
The patent system is necessary for innovation in industries with large barriers to entry. You really think pharma companies are going to shell out $1B for each drug to get to market if they don't have any market exclusivity? Grow up Peter Pan, Count Chocula.
Just because someone with AIDS in Cameroon can't afford a new antiretroviral for another 2 years? Without patents that drug would cease to exist. You think the government is going to step up and spur innovation? Incentives have a near perfect correlation with innovation.
But what do I know? Engineers with highly specialized skills and narrow spectrums of knowledge probably know far better of the repercussions of the patent system than I do. That's why they're in the lab.
 
Someone clarify this for me.....
Plaintiff = RossignolDefendant = Armada
Doesnt that mean that Rossignol initiated the claim against Armada and Armada is counter suing?
Armada may have sent the cease and desist but they didn't initiate the lawsuit. At least thats what my understanding of the terms plaintiff and defendant tell me.
 
Don't draw stuff like that into the conversation, ski designs and shapes don't help preserve life and prevent death. Very bad analogy.
 
ACTUAL TEXT OF ARMADA CEASE AND DESIST

LETTER SENT TO ONE SMALL SKI COMPANY

Personally identifiable information has

been substituted in square brackets “[abcdefg]”

*** LETTER BEGINS ***

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL

Re: Infringing Skis

Our Reference: [reference number]

To Whom It May Concern:

Please be advised that this office

represents, and is the intellectual property counsel for, Armada Skis, Inc. of Costa Mesa, California.

Armada is a designer, manufacturer, and distributor of high-quality, innovative snow skis,

technical ski outerwear, and other products. It has come to our attention that you are currently

selling products that infringe on the patent rights of Armada (U.S. Patent No. 7,690,674). Sales of

certain [ski company] models (including the [ski models listed here])

constitute patent infringement under U.S. law. As such, Armada

requests that you immediately cease and desist your unlawful sale of

these models and any other skis that infringe Armada’s patent.

Under federal law, and particularly 35

USC Section 27l, whoever, without authority, makes, uses, sells, or imports any patented

invention within or into the United States is an infringer. See, for example, Transocean Offshore

Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contrs. USA, Inc., 2010 US App. LEXIS 17181 (Fed Cir. Aug. 18,

2010); Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1573 (Fed Cir. 1996) and SEB SA.

v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1374 (Fed Cir. 2010). Armada holds patent

rights that protect its products. Specifically, please be advised that Armada is the owner of

U.S. Patent No. 7,690,674. A copy of this patent is enclosed for your review.

Federal statutes provide that a patent

owner may obtain injunctive relief against infringers (35 U.S.C. Section 283) and may recover up

to three times the amount of damages found adequate to compensate for the infringement (35

U.S.C. Section 284). In addition, the prevailing party in a patent infringement suit may be

entitled to recover its attorneys fees from the other side (35 U.S.C. Section 285) and in some cases,

the attorneys fees will exceed the amount of the infringement damages.

We reiterate, [ski company], is selling

skis (at least the [ski models]) that fall within the claims of Armada’s U.S. Patent. Absent an

arrangement with Armada, we must insist that [ski company] immediately cease selling such skis or

any others that fall within the patent. Please provide an accounting

of all such skis sold to date, including the wholesale prices,

models, sizes and dates sold. We require this information in order

to assess damages that may be due to Armada\.

Armada invests heavily in its research

and development and protects that investment with patent procurement

and enforcement. Armada is willing to discuss an amicable settlement

of this matter if you respond promptly.

Please confirm by [date] that [ski

company] will meet these demands,

Very truly yours,

[attorney]

Enclosure:

U.S. Patent No. 7,690,674

Cc Armada Skis, Inc.

 
Well that's the damn name of the thread, isn't it? If you read the Gnoll website take on this it will all become very clear.
 
C'mon Armada, have a some respect. Rossignol, I promise you, had a HUGE influence on the way Armada built their skis. Sueing over a patent in the ski idustry, it disgusts me. Not buying Armada shit, thats for sure. My rossignol S3s are beast.
 
FUCK YEAH EXOTIC SKIS!!!!!

......the wikileaks of the ski world.

Get the truth out there. And Vibes to whichever small ski manufacturer is getting hit with this.
 
so armada isnt "suing" just demanding a cease of sales and compensation..... great. but we are supposed to feel sorry for them?
 
so armada isnt "suing" just demanding a cease of sales and compensation..... great. but we are supposed to feel sorry for them?
 
well, it appears to me that a law suit is being threatened if "an amicable settlement of this matter" is not met, given that they "respond promptly".

also, i read the patent. they give such a huge amount of ranges for percentage of sidecut location and placement of rocker that i see a huge majority of ski manufacturers "infringing".

all in all, pretty lame move.
 
i thought armada's patent had too do with percentages, so if the are the same for sidecut and things based on the certain shape, they could have legal grounds to sue?

(I don't really know though)
 
I'm just stating that since it turned into an armada suing rossignol thread.
Other way around.
And there is a civil suit out for this now. Rossignol is very clearly labeled plaintiff.
And it is all over royalties, not suing for massive sums of money.
There are tons of patents out there. There really aren't THAT many skis that fall under Armada's patent. And the cease and desist letter asks for the amount of profit, it isn't stating how much it is going to ask for, or even if it is going to ask for royalties. I'm guessing the smaller companies profits will be minimal enough that the royalties wont be worth the cost of getting them. But for Rossignol.... it may have been. But, Rossignol opted to counter sue for royalties for ARVw so it might just be that they both end up paying a ton of legal fees and start paying royalties to each other.
 
Wow, you haven't thought this out.

It doesn't matter at all that rossignol is the one actually suing armada. Armada sent a lot of letters out threatening legal action to a bunch of companies, called a cease and desist. It's the first step in a legitimate suit; if a suit arrises a C&D order shows that you were trying to resolve it out of court, which courts like. I know this because I almost had to bring a suit against a company for copyright infringement a couple years ago. Rossignol only filed suit because Armada was ready to file on them.

Second, it DOES cover a lot of skis, and a lot of skis from small companies, who have no power to fight armada. essentially putting those companies out of business or at the mercy of the "royalties" which is fucked. It's not Rossignol (who, of course, can out-spend armada in a legal battle) but all the rest of the ski industry affected.

Bottom line: Armada did not invent this technology. They patented it; great. Doesn't matter, because pulling this move is still a load of bullshit.
 
You have no idea, do you? If you would have read the information above posted by exoticskis and read the case, it says that Armada has the right to demand another company stop selling their skis, AND give them up to three times the "damages" and "lawyer fees". Perhaps you haven't dealt with lawyers or heard about cases like this, but that can be hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions depending on who it involves, how long it goes on. This is not just some suit over $20,000.
And let me take a little stab at a recap, in laymen's terms, for those who are still confused:
Armada took a close look at the new Rossi S7 and said to themselves "hey, that shape is a violation of the patent we filed in April for our skis. Let's make sure either they can't sell them or they have to pay us some type of fee, like a commission almost." So, they sent Rossignol an official, lawyer-made document saying "Look, we don't want to sue you if we don't have to, but we will if you don't comply. You can't sell the s7 anymore, we have a patent for the shape. We put in all the time and effort to create such an awesome ski, and you can't copy it for four more years(that is the typical patent time frame on a merchandise type product, I believe). So, you need to stop making them, and pay our lawyers the trouble they took to warn you. Also, any sales you may have already made for copying us, you owe to us in some form. So let us know how you will be paying us and when you will retract your skis from the market. Otherwise, we will have to file a real lawsuit and you will be taken to court."
At this point Rossignol had to respond. Fortunately for them they filed a patent back in 2006 for a similar shape. They hadn't tried to prevent anyone else from creating a similar product, but wanted to keep it in their back pocket in case any trouble arose. Well, Armada is that trouble. So, Rossignol has sued Armada for infringing on their shape. So, to some it appears Rossignol is the plantiff, or the accuser" because their suit is a court procedure. However, Armada, it seems, wanted to protect their ski design without a public court case. At this point, there are lots of lawyers and thousands and thousands of dollars already spent trying to protect an idea put into production.
My personal synopsis is that this could go either way. On one hand, companies in every other sector of the business world do what Armada has done, and do it on a daily basis. They pay people obscene amounts of money to go out in search of people to sue who are using their name or slogan or product, whatever it is. For example, did you know that you cannot say "Let's get ready to rumble!!!" at a public event that the audience paid to enter? Otherwise, you will be sued for between $15,000 and $30,000 (yes you read correctly) by the lawyers of the stupid announcer brothers that trademarked that saying. However, the other side of the coin is that the freeride ski community is seen as one of innovation and free spirit. Armada is essentially breaking an unwritten code of ethics followed by thousands of skiers and companies within the community. And to most within the community it is frowned upon, to say the least. Meanwhile, those in suit and tie and involved in the business sector are probably saying "of course ARmada is doing the right thing"
 
and this is why people are confused. People with little legal or situational knowledge "recapping" for others, when really it's mostly assumptions, poor paraphrasing, and subjective commentary and facts.

Please leave the recapping for the US government docket and the parties involved.
 
not that you are wrong, or swaying the truth, it's just that not a single one of use posting in this thread are of the authority to do such a thing.
 
Easy there, Mr. Correctional Poster. I did not assume anything, I didn't have to paraphrase much; the only part I did was obvious to anyone who scored better than a 400 on their SAT2. And my comments were purely objective. I did give my opinion, which I clearly stated as such, at the end, which wasn't even conclusive. I simply wrote it as a synopsis to the action thus far, and felt confident in its truthful accuracy. My statements did nothing to confuse the audience. If what I wrote was confusing, then 10th grade english would also be a difficult class. All that to say, back off, I am just trying to help people get it, and I was totally unbiased.
 
Let's hope not... but as of about four years ago it was true. I remember reading about it because when UFC was blowing up in popularity everyone wanted to use it, so the brothers(still can't remember their name) trademarked it. It said the average payout for saying it was between $15,000 and $30,000 depending on the venue and crowd size.
 
That's just as crazy (read: idiotic) as trying to file patents on the human genome, which seems to be all the rage in the States nowadays.

"Ah, Mrs. Cumberdale, it seems you are in possession of the 34-GATC gene preventing high blood sugar."

-Oh, that's nice!

"No, you misunderstood, you have infringed our copyright and must cease and desist using those cells or face court charges."

-...but... But how ca..

"See you in court."
 
This! The long and the short of it is that Armaduh is trying to be the only ski manufacturer to make rockered skis. They are trying to use patent law to obtain this monopoly. They may get lucky and find a judge who sees it there way, even though the evidence seems to not back their claims.

altai1.jpg


It would be like me filing for and being granted a patent for fire. I could issue a cease and desist for any business that directly or indirectly uses fire or maybe a byproduct like heat. Maybe I could just sue the sun.

So maybe that analogy goes a little far, but you get the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top