28 ms·

Archery company sues LARPer over patents, then files gag motion to silence him

118 points by Kliment 11y ago

nicolas_t 11y ago
Now this is an example of a company that really doesn't understand the term "Streisand Effect"....
- chris_wot 11y ago
  It's also a company that has hired a lawyer who doesn't know how to spell. Apparently the interference is "long and twisted", or tortuous: "As a result of Larping’s tortuous interference with Global’s contractual relationships, Global respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment against Larping in such an amount to be proven at trial, together with punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest legal rate, the costs of this action, and all other relief as this Court deems just and proper."
  - donatzm 11y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      Yup. Notice that "i" in tortious? You haven't linked to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortous_interference https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortous_interference
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
  - khedoros 11y ago
    Also, "later" instead of "latter" in their press release.
  - vic-traill 11y ago
    Doesn't seem that out of line to me according to [0]. Subsituting from definitions in [0] yields 'as a result of Larping's deceitfully indirect or morally crooked interference' || 'as a result of Larping's circuitous interference', etc. [0] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tortuous http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tortuous
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      A tort is a specific legal term. Tortious interference is a specific phrase used throughout the filing, and it has a very specific and well defined meaning in civil suits. This filing is a badly written, flawed and absurd lawsuit and it's bound for failure. I hope the defendant applies for and is awarded damages.
chris_wot 11y ago
Holy crap, it's pretty obvious that under the first amendment that the guy can publicise he is getting sued! There are no grounds for a gag order, whatsoever. Global Archery are bullies. I hope this action causes their sales to shrivel. edit: actually, it looks like things are much, much worse for Global Archery. It appears that iDV filed a German patent in 2004 for much the same thing as Global Archery's patent. It's where the guy is importing his arrows from! Something tells me that they suddenly have a far bigger problem than they original anticipated. That $150,000 legal budget? I hope they top it up - I think someone is about to challenge their patent.
- njharman 11y ago
  Gag order isn't over publicizing being sued it's over claims of slander etc. There are many rectrictions, civil and criminal, on free speech. But, yeah litigant is kinda fucked even if they win case.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    I think you mean libel, not slander. And the injunction is for "tortious interference", not libel.
e40 11y ago
His claim that it will "end" LARP archery is disingenuous. It will pave the way for the owner of the patent to have a lock on the market for the foam arrows. He would either need a license or have to stop selling them, but presumable the patent owner would try and step in to fill the void (of the sellers that could no longer sell them, without a license).
jimrandomh 11y ago
Larping.org imports and resells foam arrows. Global Archery also sells foam arrows, and is suing for trademark infringement and patent infringement. According to this article, the trademark infringement claim is based on the name "Larp Arrow", which sounds pretty generic, but more importantly is actually only being used by some unrelated seller. The patent claim is based on patents dated after the company that made the arrows started making them, and Larping.org doesn't make them anyways, they only resell them. Larping.org launched a crowdfunding campaign to finance their legal defense, and Global Archery demanded that they shut it down, shut up, and pay them all the money raised so far. A sane court system would be able to investigate and dismiss the IP claims quickly, before they forced the defendant to incur any significant costs. The US courts, however, are not a sane system, especially where intellectual property is concerned. It is a system where people believe, first, that if you don't spend a lot of money on lawyers, then the merits won't save you. And it's a system where defendants almost never get to recoup the money spent on lawyers. So we get this. When patents appear in the news, it's always a mean plaintiff trying to bully a meritorious defendant out of a market, or extort a payout. This is very different from the stories our lawmakers hear about, which are about patents protecting virtuous inventors from theft by big companies--a scenario which, as far as news headlines are concerned, never ever happens.
- tptacek 11y ago
  No, the trademark claim is based on the defendant's deliberate use of Global Archery's "Archery Tag" trademark to market their own product. Their use of that trademark is probably fine (you're allowed to compare your products to those of other firms), but it's not correct to suggest that Global Archery is somehow enforcing a trademark on all of "larping".
  - dragontamer 11y ago
    Indeed. I'd like to assume that people are smart enough to explicitly call out other companies and piss them off. Selling your imported arrows as "Better than Archery Tag" is just asking for trouble. The actual mechanics where the man is getting sued for patent infringement is likely an unrelated lash-out by "Archery Tag". Archery Tag just saw this guy deliver the "first blow" since he was purchasing Google Ads explicitly using their trademark without permission.
irixusr 11y ago
Question for someone who knows patent law: If the foam arrow already existed, how is it not prior art? And if the patent is invalid how are they not using the courts to bully a competitor out of business?
- mcherm 11y ago
  I am not a lawyer, so please take this for no more than what it is: an amateur commenting on his opinion of the law, not legal advice which it would be illegal for me to give you. If, indeed, foam arrows existed (and were publicly known, not some sort of trade secret) before the date that the patent was issued then that would make the patent invalid. There is a point in the legal process where the defendant is allowed to argue that the patent was invalid. Unfortunately, in many cases that point comes AFTER the defendant has already run out of money and been forced to concede the case. Using the courts to bully a competitor out of business is perfectly legal. For instance, if the competitor is illegally selling a product that uses your validly patented invention, then putting them out of business (and/or requiring them to obtain a license for the patent) is exactly what the law requires. Your application of the word "bully" simply means "to demand something which I think is unfair". Now, if the patent is NOT valid, then the whole argument falls apart, but as I mentioned, that comes up at a later point in the legal process.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    In this case they have raised the ire of the EFF. The playing field just got levelled.
- ergothus 11y ago
  I'm no lawyer, but... Prior art COULD invalidate the patent. (remember that patents tend to have broad descriptions ("foam arrow!") and narrow specifics ("with a head in this shape, attached in this manner") But invalidation that doesn't magically happen the moment prior art is found. Someone (Judge/USPTO) would have to rule that this IS prior art AND sufficient to invalidate the patent) So even if the judge in this case decides this is prior art and kills the patent, this isn't "using the courts to bully a competitor out of business", but instead using the courts as legally correct. (sadly) In recent history, we've seen a lot of cases where the courts trust and rely on the USPTO to rule correctly on patents, and the USPTO trusts and relies on the courts to test patents, so we end up with a lot of patents, a lot of cases, and a lot of lawyers getting paid.
kriro 11y ago
The suit seems to be over the use of the "Archery Tag" trademark in advertising? That seems perfectly legal (article states it as well). Typical "we'll suebully you" case imo. So how do you get these patents voided if there's clear evidence another company (the arrows he sells from Germany) produced something similar before? Pretty clear case of priors at least according to European patent law which is the only one I'm vaguely familiar with. I think that would be awesome. You bully you pay a hefty price.
pg_is_a_butt 11y ago
quit whining, you nerds. this is how a country with any form of patent system works. either start making real arrows and fix it, or tuck your little gurldik back between your pale thighs and go back to rolling your D20.
paulddraper 11y ago
Unrelated, but archery tag is super fun. Halfway between laser tag and paintball. I'd recommend it when you have the chance.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  Given the company's ethics, I think I'll pass.
  - mcv 11y ago
    You could play it with the other arrows, only I guess you'd have to call it something else. Not sure what.
    - paulddraper 11y ago
      But you couldn't sell those without violating a patent, right?
      - mcv 11y ago
        Of course you can. That patent holds no merit. But the trademark might.
        paulddraper 11y ago
        "That patent holds no merit." Has the US Patent Office reached a conclusion on this question?
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      "Arrow strike".
Fjolsvith 11y ago
Well, gosh. I submitted this to HN a day ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11140459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11140459
- Kliment 11y ago
  That's odd, appears to the exact same url too
  - Fjolsvith 11y ago
    And, my comment above was marked dead by the moderators!

118 points by Kliment 11y ago

nicolas_t 11y ago

Now this is an example of a company that really doesn't understand the term "Streisand Effect"....

chris_wot 11y ago
It's also a company that has hired a lawyer who doesn't know how to spell. Apparently the interference is "long and twisted", or tortuous: "As a result of Larping’s tortuous interference with Global’s contractual relationships, Global respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment against Larping in such an amount to be proven at trial, together with punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest legal rate, the costs of this action, and all other relief as this Court deems just and proper."
- donatzm 11y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    Yup. Notice that "i" in tortious? You haven't linked to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortous_interference https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortous_interference
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- khedoros 11y ago
  Also, "later" instead of "latter" in their press release.
- vic-traill 11y ago
  Doesn't seem that out of line to me according to [0]. Subsituting from definitions in [0] yields 'as a result of Larping's deceitfully indirect or morally crooked interference' || 'as a result of Larping's circuitous interference', etc. [0] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tortuous http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tortuous
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    A tort is a specific legal term. Tortious interference is a specific phrase used throughout the filing, and it has a very specific and well defined meaning in civil suits. This filing is a badly written, flawed and absurd lawsuit and it's bound for failure. I hope the defendant applies for and is awarded damages.

chris_wot 11y ago

Holy crap, it's pretty obvious that under the first amendment that the guy can publicise he is getting sued! There are no grounds for a gag order, whatsoever. Global Archery are bullies. I hope this action causes their sales to shrivel. edit: actually, it looks like things are much, much worse for Global Archery. It appears that iDV filed a German patent in 2004 for much the same thing as Global Archery's patent. It's where the guy is importing his arrows from! Something tells me that they suddenly have a far bigger problem than they original anticipated. That $150,000 legal budget? I hope they top it up - I think someone is about to challenge their patent.

njharman 11y ago
Gag order isn't over publicizing being sued it's over claims of slander etc. There are many rectrictions, civil and criminal, on free speech. But, yeah litigant is kinda fucked even if they win case.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  I think you mean libel, not slander. And the injunction is for "tortious interference", not libel.

e40 11y ago

His claim that it will "end" LARP archery is disingenuous. It will pave the way for the owner of the patent to have a lock on the market for the foam arrows. He would either need a license or have to stop selling them, but presumable the patent owner would try and step in to fill the void (of the sellers that could no longer sell them, without a license).

jimrandomh 11y ago

Larping.org imports and resells foam arrows. Global Archery also sells foam arrows, and is suing for trademark infringement and patent infringement. According to this article, the trademark infringement claim is based on the name "Larp Arrow", which sounds pretty generic, but more importantly is actually only being used by some unrelated seller. The patent claim is based on patents dated after the company that made the arrows started making them, and Larping.org doesn't make them anyways, they only resell them. Larping.org launched a crowdfunding campaign to finance their legal defense, and Global Archery demanded that they shut it down, shut up, and pay them all the money raised so far. A sane court system would be able to investigate and dismiss the IP claims quickly, before they forced the defendant to incur any significant costs. The US courts, however, are not a sane system, especially where intellectual property is concerned. It is a system where people believe, first, that if you don't spend a lot of money on lawyers, then the merits won't save you. And it's a system where defendants almost never get to recoup the money spent on lawyers. So we get this. When patents appear in the news, it's always a mean plaintiff trying to bully a meritorious defendant out of a market, or extort a payout. This is very different from the stories our lawmakers hear about, which are about patents protecting virtuous inventors from theft by big companies--a scenario which, as far as news headlines are concerned, never ever happens.

tptacek 11y ago
No, the trademark claim is based on the defendant's deliberate use of Global Archery's "Archery Tag" trademark to market their own product. Their use of that trademark is probably fine (you're allowed to compare your products to those of other firms), but it's not correct to suggest that Global Archery is somehow enforcing a trademark on all of "larping".
- dragontamer 11y ago
  Indeed. I'd like to assume that people are smart enough to explicitly call out other companies and piss them off. Selling your imported arrows as "Better than Archery Tag" is just asking for trouble. The actual mechanics where the man is getting sued for patent infringement is likely an unrelated lash-out by "Archery Tag". Archery Tag just saw this guy deliver the "first blow" since he was purchasing Google Ads explicitly using their trademark without permission.

irixusr 11y ago

Question for someone who knows patent law: If the foam arrow already existed, how is it not prior art? And if the patent is invalid how are they not using the courts to bully a competitor out of business?

mcherm 11y ago
I am not a lawyer, so please take this for no more than what it is: an amateur commenting on his opinion of the law, not legal advice which it would be illegal for me to give you. If, indeed, foam arrows existed (and were publicly known, not some sort of trade secret) before the date that the patent was issued then that would make the patent invalid. There is a point in the legal process where the defendant is allowed to argue that the patent was invalid. Unfortunately, in many cases that point comes AFTER the defendant has already run out of money and been forced to concede the case. Using the courts to bully a competitor out of business is perfectly legal. For instance, if the competitor is illegally selling a product that uses your validly patented invention, then putting them out of business (and/or requiring them to obtain a license for the patent) is exactly what the law requires. Your application of the word "bully" simply means "to demand something which I think is unfair". Now, if the patent is NOT valid, then the whole argument falls apart, but as I mentioned, that comes up at a later point in the legal process.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  In this case they have raised the ire of the EFF. The playing field just got levelled.
ergothus 11y ago
I'm no lawyer, but... Prior art COULD invalidate the patent. (remember that patents tend to have broad descriptions ("foam arrow!") and narrow specifics ("with a head in this shape, attached in this manner") But invalidation that doesn't magically happen the moment prior art is found. Someone (Judge/USPTO) would have to rule that this IS prior art AND sufficient to invalidate the patent) So even if the judge in this case decides this is prior art and kills the patent, this isn't "using the courts to bully a competitor out of business", but instead using the courts as legally correct. (sadly) In recent history, we've seen a lot of cases where the courts trust and rely on the USPTO to rule correctly on patents, and the USPTO trusts and relies on the courts to test patents, so we end up with a lot of patents, a lot of cases, and a lot of lawyers getting paid.

kriro 11y ago

The suit seems to be over the use of the "Archery Tag" trademark in advertising? That seems perfectly legal (article states it as well). Typical "we'll suebully you" case imo. So how do you get these patents voided if there's clear evidence another company (the arrows he sells from Germany) produced something similar before? Pretty clear case of priors at least according to European patent law which is the only one I'm vaguely familiar with. I think that would be awesome. You bully you pay a hefty price.

pg_is_a_butt 11y ago

quit whining, you nerds. this is how a country with any form of patent system works. either start making real arrows and fix it, or tuck your little gurldik back between your pale thighs and go back to rolling your D20.

paulddraper 11y ago

Unrelated, but archery tag is super fun. Halfway between laser tag and paintball. I'd recommend it when you have the chance.

chris_wot 11y ago
Given the company's ethics, I think I'll pass.
- mcv 11y ago
  You could play it with the other arrows, only I guess you'd have to call it something else. Not sure what.
  - paulddraper 11y ago
    But you couldn't sell those without violating a patent, right?
    - mcv 11y ago
      Of course you can. That patent holds no merit. But the trademark might.
      - paulddraper 11y ago
        "That patent holds no merit." Has the US Patent Office reached a conclusion on this question?
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    "Arrow strike".

Fjolsvith 11y ago

Well, gosh. I submitted this to HN a day ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11140459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11140459

Kliment 11y ago
That's odd, appears to the exact same url too
- Fjolsvith 11y ago
  And, my comment above was marked dead by the moderators!