Armada tell Rossignol to cease and desist.

Aren't you like 30? How can you so blatantly mis represent the facts? I thought it was just kids with 9th grade reading levels. Jesus. It is NOT any and all rocker.

Read the patent.
 
Armada contacted me on Facebook offering to clear up any misunderstandings. I think this is an extremely professional move, especially since they offered for their president to call. Im looking forward to talking with them.
 
The Buffer brothers. Michael Buffer is the boxing announcer with "Lets get ready to rumble." Bruce does the UFC and does his own thing.
 
Not really. Im not trying to take sides in the suit, i dont really know enough. But it seems their patent is actually very specific. Having to do with where the widest point of the ski is in relation to the contact points. zero camber or reverse camber is fine, or rocker where the widest point is well outside the contact points.

if im wrong someone feel free to correct me.

i really would like armada to put out a more clear press release regarding the issue. rossi as well. it would put a stop to a lot of speculation.
 
Maybe they need to clarify what the real deal is on NS so everyone can get the whole story. Why isn't their facebook blown up like this thread?
 
Just got a message over facebook. Haven't seen anyone post anything similar (sorry if i missed it) but here:
Dante Will Reign 28 October at 21:04 ReportTucker,

Hows it going? My name is Mackel Vaughn, I'm the Art Director and oversee all the social media here at Armada. Just wanted to send you a message and let you know that we aren't suing Rossignol. I know there is a lot of rumors and misinformation being circulated on the internet. If you have any questions or would like some clarification on what's happening our President, Hans Smith is willing to call you and answer your questions. Just send us your number and he will be sure to call you.

We are still a small company of 12 employees, and we love skiing just as much as you do.

See you on the hill.

Mackel
 
i feel like it would be a LOT easier to just release a well worded and clear press release than call individual people...
 
Whilst I doubt most companies would really take a C&D letter seriously, this is a pretty fucked up move from Armada.
Maybe Armada aren't doing so well either...
 
That's pretty farfetched, cease and desist and suits for patent, trademark or copyright infringements happen everywhere in the world.
 
Firstly, I would like to say that this is a great thread! Yes, its dotted with idiots here and there, but its nice to see some intelligent comments on NS once in a while. I'm not a legal expert and so I can't really comment on the rights and wrongs of that side of goings on. I'm not even here to take sides as such.

But lots of the kids and even some of the "NS intelligentsia" spouting the fuck Armada message could, at least to my mind do well to consider that a companies legal moves are not the only thing worth of making them boycott worthy. Armada has certainly crossed some imaginary line of ski 'brodem', but for me the business with kicking off Julien was far more worthy of a negative backlash than this. That said, didn't Rossignol boot virtually their entire freeride team fairly recently?

How a company treats their riders is a consideration, as is the manufacturing process. Armada get their skis made in Austria by Atomic. I bet the quality of life the employees enjoy, the work conditions and the pay are a significantly better than those in the K2/Line factories in China. I'm not hating on K2/Line for that, just pointing it out. I ride Lizzies and I love them.

How companies back their product is also important. Remember the Dumonts and Suspects that fell apart all over the place? Salomon didn't do much about that if I remember rightly.

To my mind, none of the big ski companies is entirely innocent. Armada are clearly moving in to this world and some of their actions can definitely be seen as "dickmoves" or as "part of playing the game", depending on your perspective. I'm not saying that you shouldn't boycott if you see what they've done as inexcusable. But you should also consider what moves other companies have made, not just shit on Armada because they made the most recent "dickmove". If you are going to boycott on ethical grounds at least make an effort to buy skis made by a company that is genuinely "more ethical".
 
Lawyer hat on: all of this is just bullshit and hot air. Don't get worked up over nothing. Rossi shouldn't have bothered with the SOD.
 
Wow. This is a good example of you wasting a lot more time typing half-baked explanations than anyone spent actually thiking through this "lawsuit".
 
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).

 
a c&d is the first step in virtually all legal processes involving a patent dispute

its basically a pre-req in order to get anywhere

armada clearly wanted people to take them seriously enough to actually take their patents seriously, and to begin the process of funding this organization

sure - feel free to knock the title, but read carefully and this was an "internal" nomenclature for it... it's probably not the final name of the group

as for it being last-ditch attempt, just think about this for a minute

the patents were granted in april... you think they've just been sitting on there ass for this whole time and just randomly sent a letter to rossignol 5 months after? hell no

they were probably doing work behind-the-scenes contacting the relevent parties i.e. travis steegers' family etc.

setting up a 501-c3 or something for the group

those things dont just pop up overnight

armada's only short-coming was the fact they obviously were hoping to launch the organization before some joey out there stumbled upon a public legal document after rossi SUED

spark notes: this is not a last-ditch attempt, the C&D was necessary to get that organization going, and armada probably should have had the heinsight to know rossignol doesn't want t help disabled/dead skiers
 
So you think all the royalties and compensation Armada might get (minus legal costs) from other ski companies would go directly to that fund/organization? If that's the case, it's a strange way of doing charity work. Personally I doubt that is the case, but I might be wrong..
 
Not within the ski industry, no; most of the work I do is for oil companies. I would love to do a little work in the industry for beer or whatever for the same reason I take time to work for NS, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot to do, and what is there turns into garbage like this and is poorly handled by both sides (hint: you can tell when something is poorly handled when it results in a thread on newschoolers).

There is no money in the ski industry so I don't see what you'd pay lawyers for. The guys duking this one out are from local firms in SLC as far as I can tell. A lot of the pro's have agents but that doesn't require any real legal expertise and they obviously aren't going to make anything from commissions.

If you want to make money as a lawyer in skiing you're going to pretty much have to deal with real estate surrounding resorts, maybe some regulatory stuff for the hills and resorts themselves. Even that is not exactly a gold mine of a market.
 
It's actually a really clever way to set it up, provided that it satisfies all the necessary rules for people to get tax receipts for the royalties they pay. If not, it's a mind-bogglingly stupid way to set it up. Also, you can tell their money is where their mouth is if the IP in question (whatever that patent number is) becomes charity property before anyone starts paying the royalties.
 
Actually I am 44. These patents deal with sidecut in relationship to camber. This is from the last part of the Knolls article:

"Result?

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.

I am not a patent lawyer, but it seems to me that the nature of the legal dispute is revealing. Armada sends cease and desist orders to several manufacturers. They can't all be making identical skis so either they all of one design feature in common or Armada's patent covers multiple design features. Rossignol files a counter-suit in response to the cease and desist. Plus the argument that the Knolls writer was making is that all of these patents are on design features that have been in use for hundreds of years.

If you have a dual degree in engineering and patent law, why don't you illuminate me. Maybe it isn't "all rocker". But however it applies to sidecut and camber, it seems that plenty of ski manufacturers could potentially be impacted by this; even on design features they may have used on earlier models. That doesn't seem right. It is hard enough to understand these design patents if you have been skiing all your life and are intimately familiar with ski manufacturing. So the decisions that could potentially put some smaller manufacturers out of business will be made by judges who don't have clue one about what any of this means.
 
Bingo. It applies to "their" sidecut and rocker profile. Not any and all sidecuts, or any and all rocker.

And yes. Many skis are manufactured around this range now, so obviously it will impact others; thus this entire thread and legal battle.

 
Ok, so you do have a dual degree. It seems to me that the guy who wrote the article for Gnolls:

By J. Stanton | October 26th, 2010 | Category: Essays

Tags: annoyances,

patents, skiing

has done a little more research on the subject and his points sound more valid. Feel free to read the article. Link is posted earlier in thread. PS - I'm done arguing with you.

"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."

 
I read it. I am not arguing against that article, quite the opposite actually. I am not sure how you are misinterpreting that guy so poorly.

And no, I don't have degrees in either of those fields, and I never once even implied I did, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Your claim of armada claiming "all rocker" is false. Thats all I wanted to point out. They are not claiming that. They are claiming any rocker that begins after the widest point forward of the foot.... or specifically:

"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."

And as the writer mentions not many skis fall under this scope, he can only think of one...

"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."

And Other skis with significant rocker do not...

"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."

 
Totally agree with the above.
To all the whiners and people dissing Armada: grow up. These companies are big boys, and they know how to resolve these issues. If a patent is not valid, it will come out in the litigation, and the parties will settle. People need to be patient and let the process unfold. There's a lot more to this dispute than just whether a ski is cambered, rockered, etc.; you need to read the claims in the patent itself, which are quite detailed and narrow.
In any event, it sounds like Armada just approached Rossi to negotiate, and it was Rossi who was the one who escalated things into a full-blown lawsuit. So not sure why the hate is so one-sided against Armada. Rossi is being just as aggressive (arguably more) as Armada.
I for one have more respect for Armada now that it is standing up to protect its investment in its innovations, and plan to support Armada with my pocketbook.
 
So I'm not sure why they felt the need to start another thread, but some guys have been getting calls from the big boss man over at Armada. According to them hes admitted that he "made a mistake."
 
So you say. But I have no doubt Armada's lawyers looked at the patent claims and what you say "has been done already by other people over the years" and came to a conclusion that the Armada inventors had indeed made something new. It may not be anything groundbreaking, but it's still something new and worthy of patent protection.
Rossi obviously disagrees, but was worried enough about the threat of Armada's patent that they lashed out with a declaratory judgment action trying to kill Armada's patent when all Armada was looking for was a bit of respect. On top of that, Rossi is accusing Armada of infringing of a Rossi patent. In other words, Armada started the dispute by shooting a squirt gun at Rossi, but now Rossi has shot back with a barrage of machine gun fire. Rossi could have just ignored Armada's letter, but being big corporate behemoth that it is it decided to try and blow little Armada into an oblivion.
Again, I do not understand the narrow-minded hate for Armada on this forum and in this thread. Let the process unfold and we'll pass judgment when all of the facts come to light.
 
Well...Fuck with the bull, you get the horns. Armada wanted to play with the big boys, but I don't think they have the resources to follow it through. Especially since it is blowing up in their faces.

BTW Armada. If you are listening. It was pretty weak what you did, but trying to wrap it up in the blanket of founding a charity for dead or injured skiers is disgusting. Shame on you.
 
I haven't read the whole thread so sorry if someone has already said this but,

does anyone else notice that on armada's website, in the description of the skis for the jj, alpha 1, and halo it says "Patented." at the end.
 
What Armada says they were trying to do, sounds plausible and like a good idea. However, the way the went about doing it seems quite flawed. Why did they not approach these companies about this Charity before they filed the Cease and Desist? This seems a pretty rash thing to do especially to a ski industry powerhouse such as Rossignol, that has the means to fight them. Especially as they seem to be in breach of a similar patent towards Rossignol. How did they not expect to get challenged either in court or by a counter sue, which happened. Sounds a bit like a publicity stunt that has severely backfired and will be detrimental to the whole industry.
 
did you expect rossi to say, "oh here armada, have some of our money even though we have a patent on very similar technology"? and rossi isn't going after anybody but armada as far as i know, and only to prove to armada that they had equal basis for litigation against armada. rossi patented that technology for a good reason; as a defensive measure.

it is true that in different industries, such as the computer technology industry, companies are constantly suing each other for patent infringement and that's just how life works. nobody takes it personally, nobody really picks sides and people just let it unfold. however, this is a much smaller industry and the underdogs could get pushed under by this if that sort of precedent were established. especially in this situation because so many companies started using such similar constructions around the same time and not everybody patented it, so money doesn't end up going to original innovator of the technology necessarily, but to the company with the deepest pockets and the most comprehensive patent.
 
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
 
fuck armada.... yeah i said it... armada must be struggling hard right now to be doing this. I wont buy any more of their shit. maybe they will go out of business
 
not sure if anyone has said it or not. Line has the patent on twin tip skis. They don't enforce it because it would kill the sport that J lev loves
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top