Robinson Arms sues Remington, Bushmaster, RRA

[sprint]

Note that the original SCO complaint was filed in Utah, where their company was based.

I have no idea if it is entirely incidental that SCO filed suit because they are a Utah based company, or if that particular state is more amicable to IP infringement suits...



Just pointing out the coincidence.

 

[misanthropist]

Actually, you're a long way off. But that's understandable because you are in law school, and not cutting your teeth as an OS architect.

And that is the crux. You can't make a really good expert argument unless you are an expert.

If this thread was reduced to these words and everyone just read them over until they sank in, I think that would pretty much be the end of the discussion on the topic.

Anybody who thinks this issue is cut and dried and the case is already either won or lost and one side or the other side is made entirely of idiots does not understand either patents or law or both well enough to be offering an opinion.

 

[Dimitri]

I doubt Dimitri will pull his statement.

You'd be correct, they can have my information as well if they want to sue me. I doubt it would get them far, not like I have any real assets and money since I'm a college student again.

Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia the court heard a case in which a person with an axe to grind defamed a corporation on an online message board..

Your simplifying the situation way too much, where as I made a single comment based on facts, both mentioned in firearm magazines, on webforums, and by respected firearm instructors. Where as Mr Lopehandia, had issues with the ownership of Barrick's ownership of a mine, and attacked them all over the internet using hundreds of posts, and over a long period of time. This was no single one comment that the courts decided to punish the guy for. They had history even before the posts started.

Dimitri

 

[USP]

Also, dimitri, you should be VERY careful with your comments. Its one thing to suggest that a rifle had teething problems, and another one entirely to call it defective. Such comments could be construed as defamation.

You need to tone down the bulls**t and think real hard about what you post next. You are not a legal rep for Robarms nor are you a lawyer in Canada.

Point in fact your opinion on the subject of both defamation and patents holds no more weight than anybody else on this forum. Kindly dont pollute the thread with the threats of Robarms a Utah based company suing somebody in Canada for defamation.

 

[Deckard]

Boy do people lay things thick. Please need to chill.

 

[B]

JFC some people are f**ked right up. I guess they don't like hearing s**t talked about their guns. I am sorry RA made a POS rifle that you paid $2000+ for. Maybe Generation 12 will be a decent rifle for the coin....

 

[Paul Morrison]

You need to tone down the bulls**t and think real hard about what you post next. You are not a legal rep for Robarms nor are you a lawyer in Canada.

Point in fact your opinion on the subject of both defamation and patents holds no more weight than anybody else on this forum. Kindly dont pollute the thread with the threats of Robarms a Utah based company suing somebody in Canada for defamation.

WTF are you talking about?!?

I'm merely pointing out that such a comment could be considered defamation. I'm not threatening anything. Avoiding the obvious point that I wouldn't have standing anyways, but that doesn't change the fact that people should be careful about what they say.

You could say: 'the XCR had problem x or problem y', that's not defamatory, that's fair comment. Saying they are defective is not a fair comment (or at the very least could be interpreted to not be a fair comment). The fair comment defence has specific requirements which could be met by the first and not by the second.

I'm not being a ####, I'm just pointing out that people should be careful what they say, especially on a board where a company rep does read posts.

Your simplifying the situation way too much, where as I made a single comment based on facts, both mentioned in firearm magazines, on webforums, and by respected firearm instructors. Where as Mr Lopehandia, had issues with the ownership of Barrick's ownership of a mine, and attacked them all over the internet using hundreds of posts, and over a long period of time. This was no single one comment that the courts decided to punish the guy for. They had history even before the posts started.

Lopehandia is just one example. There are many others. A case in B.C. involved a defamatory statement made behind a password protected site on a forum. That plaintiff won a substantial award. Lopehandia is mostly notable for the pronouncement about how the damages should be calculated. It should also be noted that in the B.C. case the site operator was also found to be liable.

I happen to like this forum, and I like Greentips. I would't want Greentips to face legal action because someone opened their yap and acted like a moron (for the record, I'm not talking about anyone here, more a theoretical person). We all have an interest is ensuring people don't speak defamation here.

 

[TIM_COX]

Blah Blah Blah....

RESPECT MY AUTHORITHAY !!!!

 

[USP]

WTF are you talking about?!?

I'm merely pointing out that such a comment could be considered defamation. I'm not threatening anything. Avoiding the obvious point that I wouldn't have standing anyways, but that doesn't change the fact that people should be careful about what they say.

You could say: 'the XCR had problem x or problem y', that's not defamatory, that's fair comment. Saying they are defective is not a fair comment (or at the very least could be interpreted to not be a fair comment). The fair comment defence has specific requirements which could be met by the first and not by the second.

I'm not being a ####, I'm just pointing out that people should be careful what they say, especially on a board where a company rep does read posts.



Lopehandia is just one example. There are many others. A case in B.C. involved a defamatory statement made behind a password protected site on a forum. That plaintiff won a substantial award. Lopehandia is mostly notable for the pronouncement about how the damages should be calculated. It should also be noted that in the B.C. case the site operator was also found to be liable.

I happen to like this forum, and I like Greentips. I would't want Greentips to face legal action because someone opened their yap and acted like a moron (for the record, I'm not talking about anyone here, more a theoretical person). We all have an interest is ensuring people don't speak defamation here.

Enough of this fake ass lawyer ####. Thread is done.