Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So it was a strong arm tactic designed to scare.

As a consumer, that's really all that I needed to know.

Cato Sicarius wrote:Oh man here we go again.

Sigg'd.

OT, I believe that we are jumping to conclusions without hearing Romeo's side of the story (if this even is a C&D which, like some others, I doubt). Now, that's not to say I endorse strong arming-I don't-but I also don't endorse making desicions without collecting as much evidence as I can.

agnosto wrote:

kinghammer wrote:There is no law suit! Read the paper! BF is not suing over foam. It has to do with the biz relationship of Sabol and Outrider. In fact BF is helping Sabol by telling them to stop working with OH so they don't get in trouble in the future.

My Kingdom for some nerds that can read!

Even when both parties state there is no business relationship?

Actually, I think this is more along the lines of a poorly worded letter sent to all foam manufacturers in the case that Outrider attempts to do business with them.

Even in that case, since the original lawsuit was thrown out, Outrider should be allowed to conduct business if/until there's an appeal.

Why was OH foam in bags and being sold with Sabol bags at Gen Con... It's cool I will wait for your answer.

pombe wrote:So it was a strong arm tactic designed to scare.

As a consumer, that's really all that I needed to know.

No. It might be a strong arm tactic. It's just as likely it was just poorly written.

pombe wrote:So it was a strong arm tactic designed to scare.

As a consumer, that's really all that I needed to know.

QFT


The mentioning of outrider, and patent. sums it up enouhg already.

OMG. Battlefoam is involved in clubbing baby seals and eats non dolphin safe tuna fish sandwiches for lunch?

Oh...wait.... They just make an awesome product that is perfect for me as a gamer.

I'm never watching Star Wars again.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/gaming.gadgets/07/06/light.saber.lucas/index.html

I can't believe I used Google to search C&Ds.
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-tells-booble-to-cease-and-desist/222/

I'm sooo done w/ the NFL
http://www.wwltv.com/news/Whoownswhodat-82841572.html

Coke... don't get me started..on a fan site...ugh. I'm going Pepsi now.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-236373.html


Snore...this is a non event. Wake me at their next cool product launch.

You do realize, if/when sabol collapses, who is going to be left in marketshare?

Market domination will stifle innovation and also lock/jack up prices.




GW 2.0 born.

@Whitedragon:
Missed that when I was looking at their site. Meh. That still doesn't even come close to stating any relationship between OH and Sabol. If it's not an OH product, the letter doesn't mean anything. OH states that he has no relationship with Sabol; burden of proof is on BF to produce one (other than a falsified one, obviously).

@kinghammer:
Huh? I said they should be able to selll their products since the original case was thrown out. I don't get your point unless you're agreeing with me and don't realize it?

From the makers of BATTLEFOAM we are happy to unveil our new product: BATTLE NOTICES!

Each BATTLEFOAM bag you buy will now come with a BATTLE NOTICE from our team of super smart lawyer robots for you to use against any and all opponents you face across the table top. Each BATTLE NOTICE is a expertly crafted letter filled with veiled legal threats that you can browbeat your opponent to scare him into conceding the match. After taking a few hits from the pipe our legal council assured us these threats are real and not arbitrary or completely imagined! So get your BATTLE NOTICE today and get in the game!

kinghammer wrote:
Why was OH foam in bags and being sold with Sabol bags at Gen Con... It's cool I will wait for your answer.

If you have information that sheds light on this situation, please let us all know..

as it is, you sniping and snide asides don't really add anything to the issue at hand.

I have NO idea what you are talking about. I was not at Gencon, and I have heard nada about Outrider trays in Sabol bags.

Like others on here I read the document and nowhere does it say "stop making foam" to Sabol. In the end products speak for themselves. I mean how many people really stopped buying GW when they sent out their letters? I dont care if the board of GW run over kittens for fun or how many letters they send out....they make awesome models and I will continue to buy their stuff, just like I will buy BF

Little lord Fauntleroy wrote:

Cato Sicarius wrote:Oh man here we go again.

Sigg'd.

OT, I believe that we are jumping to conclusions without hearing Romeo's side of the story (if this even is a C&D which, like some others, I doubt). Now, that's not to say I endorse strong arming-I don't-but I also don't endorse making desicions without collecting as much evidence as I can.

Ok, I'm going to break this down pretty simply. A cease and desist letter is sent to alert a party that they are currently doing something that the sending party finds actionable. It asks them to stop (a synonym of both cease and desist).

This letter, which I call a "notice letter", does not ask Sabol to stop anything. In fact, it says to start doing something (document sales of lasercut foam). In fact, if you read the letter it says the words "actual notice," which is the legal term for "you, as a person, do indeed now have this information." This differs from constructive notice, which is usually stuff that a person almost couldn't possibly not know.

So, it's not a C&D, if only because there's no way to comply...

Polonius wrote:

Little lord Fauntleroy wrote:

Cato Sicarius wrote:Oh man here we go again.

Sigg'd.

OT, I believe that we are jumping to conclusions without hearing Romeo's side of the story (if this even is a C&D which, like some others, I doubt). Now, that's not to say I endorse strong arming-I don't-but I also don't endorse making desicions without collecting as much evidence as I can.

Ok, I'm going to break this down pretty simply. A cease and desist letter is sent to alert a party that they are currently doing something that the sending party finds actionable. It asks them to stop (a synonym of both cease and desist).

This letter, which I call a "notice letter", does not ask Sabol to stop anything. In fact, it says to start doing something (document sales of lasercut foam). In fact, if you read the letter it says the words "actual notice," which is the legal term for "you, as a person, do indeed now have this information." This differs from constructive notice, which is usually stuff that a person almost couldn't possibly not know.

So, it's not a C&D, if only because there's no way to comply...

Glad some people on here have some smarts! Thank you for breaking it down.

@Polonius:
I especially like how specific the language was in that it is only in relation to OH's products. Sabol can continue to cut their foam any way they like.

Unless, as you mentioned, it's worded in such a way as to be a warning regarding their single, solitary pre-cut product.

Quick question on Patent Law....are Patents international, or could I sneak in a quick one about Laser Cut Foam in the UK?

Because you know, that could be funny.

At the end of the day we all buy products from companies that have people that do alot worse things then send letters.

agnosto wrote:@Whitedragon:
Missed that when I was looking at their site. Meh. That still doesn't even come close to stating any relationship between OH and Sabol. If it's not an OH product, the letter doesn't mean anything. OH states that he has no relationship with Sabol; burden of proof is on BF to produce one (other than a falsified one, obviously).

@kinghammer:
Huh? I said they should be able to selll their products since the original case was thrown out. I don't get your point unless you're agreeing with me and don't realize it?

OH foam was being sold with Sabol bags at Gen Con. Big signs and everything! Where you there? I was, I saw them bagged up and I saw the BF area sold out by Sat and poor Neal(war store) stuck with those to sub par products all weekend.

Its like when Germany and Russian split Poland(secret deals) before WWII and yes I'm comparing Sabol to Stalin and OH to Hitler. lol (someone will try to make that connection so I headed them off at the pass)

Polonius wrote: trying to say more than they legally could through muddy language

Doesn't that sum up the legal profession in general?

Didn't BF lose its case with Outrider?

agnosto wrote:@Polonius:
I especially like how specific the language was in that it is only in relation to OH's products. Sabol can continue to cut their foam any way they like.

Unless, as you mentioned, it's worded in such a way as to be a warning regarding their single, solitary pre-cut product.

The letter does mention that they must document any other sales of "the infringing product." Based on the patent application for a process for laser cutting foam, I'd have to imagine that any Sabol trays cut using that process would be included.

I'd guess that their precut trays use the same process as the pick and pluck, but I could always be wrong.

Polonius wrote:
When writing a legal letter, you want to be clear, as a general rule. There are two reasons for legal writing to not be clear and easy to read: it's simply poorly written, or it's an attempt to encourage an improper reading.

You forgot the third, and most common reason: lawyers love using complicated "legalese" because it makes you need them to figure out what someone else's lawyer has sent you.

Polonius wrote:
In short, either it was written in five minutes by a law clerk and then signed by the lawyer and thus zero though went into it...

Well for one thing, that's a lazy-ass lawyer. I have a picture of this happening a lot with GW's legal team though. "You there! Draft me a dozen letters telling someone to stop doing something or we'll sue them!"

Ah, the Foam Wars.

What are we on now, Foam Wars IV? V?

Cato Sicarius wrote:At the end of the day we all buy products from companies that have people that do alot worse things then send letters.

Well said!

All the odd moralizing going on in here, where we all continue to buy GW's products? Odd, to say the least!

Companies sometimes do shady things, but most times we (the public) DON'T have the full story!

Anyway, everyone stay calm in this thread, OK?

CT GAMER wrote:

Polonius wrote: trying to say more than they legally could through muddy language

Doesn't that sum up the legal profession in general?

Not always. I've handled cases where I had to read a complaint five times to actual figure out the cause of action. It was important in the case because one CoA had a six year statute of limitations while another had 15 years. I think it's likely that the complaint was written so as to actually say the six year cause, but to look like a 15 year case. It does happen.

Most legal writing is done by and for other lawyers, and looking like an idiot in front of opposing counsel often isnt worth the very small chance you trick them. In legal actions taken against people without lawyers, and unlikely to retain them, it is more common to try to scare them with legalese. The best legal briefs can be read and understood by nearly any reasonably intelligent and educated person, however.

Polonius wrote:

Little lord Fauntleroy wrote:

Cato Sicarius wrote:Oh man here we go again.

Sigg'd.

OT, I believe that we are jumping to conclusions without hearing Romeo's side of the story (if this even is a C&D which, like some others, I doubt). Now, that's not to say I endorse strong arming-I don't-but I also don't endorse making desicions without collecting as much evidence as I can.

Ok, I'm going to break this down pretty simply. A cease and desist letter is sent to alert a party that they are currently doing something that the sending party finds actionable. It asks them to stop (a synonym of both cease and desist).

This letter, which I call a "notice letter", does not ask Sabol to stop anything. In fact, it says to start doing something (document sales of lasercut foam). In fact, if you read the letter it says the words "actual notice," which is the legal term for "you, as a person, do indeed now have this information." This differs from constructive notice, which is usually stuff that a person almost couldn't possibly not know.

So, it's not a C&D, if only because there's no way to comply...

Which, the cynic would say, is another way of f'ing with Outrider. Threaten anyone who may, or may not, be doing business with them that in the future you will come to collect money for past sales.

Legally it's pretty dubious that they would be granted anything retroactive, especially as there's already an order dismissing Battlefoam's previous attempt to stop Outrider from doing business, but if Sabol's not doing much business with Outrider they could easily say "screw it, it's not worth the trouble."

I'm pretty sure that's what Battlefoam is hoping.

Alpharius wrote:
Anyway, everyone stay calm in this thread, OK?

Sage advice from Alpharius. If the involved parties took that to heart, this thread wouldn't even exist. I'm honestly not sure which side's worse, the one sending the letter, or the one complaining that the letter was sent to them.

Mr Mystery wrote:Quick question on Patent Law....are Patents international, or could I sneak in a quick one about Laser Cut Foam in the UK?

Because you know, that could be funny.

Not sure about Patents, but TradeMarks aren't...each country has their own.

hungryp wrote:

Polonius wrote:
When writing a legal letter, you want to be clear, as a general rule. There are two reasons for legal writing to not be clear and easy to read: it's simply poorly written, or it's an attempt to encourage an improper reading.

You forgot the third, and most common reason: lawyers love using complicated "legalese" because it makes you need them to figure out what someone else's lawyer has sent you.

Lol. Believe it or not, when you're in practice you're more concerned with winning for your client than getting business for other lawyers. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but most legalese is meant to intimidate and scare, not to encourage the hiring of counsel.

hungryp wrote:

Polonius wrote:
In short, either it was written in five minutes by a law clerk and then signed by the lawyer and thus zero though went into it...

Well for one thing, that's a lazy-ass lawyer. I have a picture of this happening a lot with GW's legal team though. "You there! Draft me a dozen letters telling someone to stop doing something or we'll sue them!"

There are lazy lawyers, just like anything else.

After reading the CEO's reply I doubt they'll be doing any such thing

Polonius wrote: most legalese is meant to intimidate and scare, not to encourage the hiring of counsel.

Meh! Same idea!

edited to fix quote fail!

odmiller wrote:
Which, the cynic would say, is another way of f'ing with Outrider. Threaten anyone who may, or may not, be doing business with them that in the future you will come to collect money for past sales.

Legally it's pretty dubious that they would be granted anything retroactive, especially as there's already an order dismissing Battlefoam's previous attempt to stop Outrider from doing business, but if Sabol's not doing much business with Outrider they could easily say "screw it, it's not worth the trouble."

I'm pretty sure that's what Battlefoam is hoping.

It's possible that you know more about IP law than I do, but based on what Janthkin said when a patent is granted, it does allow for the collection of retroactive royalties.

The case attempting to halt OH previously was dismissed without prejudice, which means it can be refiled. It also is a very different case, built on a different cause of action. There he was suing on pretty straight common law grounds. After he has the patent, he can sue again for retroactive royalties.