or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rossignol/Armada Lawsuit - Page 2

post #31 of 33



It's f%$#ing ridiculous to claim the hybrid rocker/camber as one companies intellectual property, IMO. Here's why.


You can change the total performance of the ski with the subtlest of tweaking, slight shape shifts (Fringe fans), and if you have some different qualities of dampening and stiffness in the ski, it will cause the shape and the camber to behave differently, producing a completely different performance, therefore different ski. ie, Bent Chettler and S-7 perform very differently, although both are hybrid designs.


F#% Armada, they are going to receive my ongoing rath from here out, and I will try to derail anyone looking to buy them. Kids will buy whatever, so be it.


 Tell me Atomic has nothing to do with this, as I really like the Bent and the company in general.


And for those who want to bash the big companies, consider this: big ski companies have done a ton for the sport, sponsoring skiers for decades, developing the engineering that is the basis for all ski designs for 50 years, working with skiers on developing engineering and design, participating in big venue racing and other ski events. What have some of these small start ups done for anyone? Dick, that's what.


 The small ski commpanies do more than Dick. Companies like icelantic are trying new things like the agressive sidecut. Also atomic  and all the other big companies all started out as small ski companies. I dont see a problem with buying big or small company skis just which ever ones seem the best . Everyone also likes different skis so the small ski ccompanies giver many more options of types of skis since the smaller ski companies have much different skis than the big ski companies who almost have the same skis.

post #32 of 33

 fields of glory

 He's talking about PM Gears Lhasa Pow. They design was posted on tgr, and rossignol released the S7 shortly after. I can see where they are coming from super similar on paper, but I think thats where it ends personally.


And that is a ridiculous claim by armada. Thats like Volant patenting reverse sidecut or reverse camber. Lawsuits shouldn't happen in the ski industry. People should be in it for the love of the sport, not the $$$



 i agree that people shouldnt be in it for the money but ski companies are not the same they all have to make money or they will all go out of business. What the patents do is create competition more innovation because the companies will have to think of something else that works better or not. I personally wouldn't like it if all the ski companies had basically the same skis just different graphis IMO.

post #33 of 33
Originally Posted by iWill View Post

I have no respect for Armada in this case. Regardless of whether they are "suing" anyone or not, the C and D letter indicates their efforts to reduce competition through silly patent claims, which as the above article points out are hardly their exclusive "invention".


I think that action will bring well-earned negative attention to them. I certainly will not consider buying their skis.


Without those "silly" little patents there would be no innovation in the ski industry or any other industry for that matter
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion