Sunday, January 3, 2010

Follow-up on Interesting Times: Wednesday Edition

Are we having fun yet? Personally I'm finding the assorted ankle biters a bit tedious but c'est la vie. Your mileage may vary. At any rate Mr. Miller of Brimstone is taking a much more entertaining and media savvy tack given the circumstances with a veritable media blitz. If I cared I'd be feeling left out right about now.

However, I have a couple of clarifications. Nowhere did VTFD include field operators as potential end user targets of a Brimstone lawsuit. VFTD has no interest in any lawsuit between Brimstone and Adrenaline Games or the outcome. I do have a player's interest in what the pursuit of secondary parties might mean to competitive paintball in this economic climate.

On that score I'd like to point out a couple of things. Over at PBN there is a PB News thread on this topic. On page one (and elsewhere) is a copy of a statement byMr. Miller. His first point is--"1) There is NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER that Brimstone Enterprises (Ultimate Airball) would EVER consider suing all of the Game Field Operators who use Patent infringing products." If Mr. Miller meant to say that Brimstone has no intention of suing field operators it was not necessary to parse his statement by including the word all as that implies his statement may not apply to 'some' and is unnecessarily ambiguous. If Mr. Miller means exactly what he says his statement does not preclude suing some field operators. Words mean things, kids. (Stay in school.)
On the subject of potentially suing league operators Mr. Miller says on page 6 of the same PBN thread (post #109) "Our Ultimate Airball Patent for tubeless, stand-alone inflatable bunkers was granted in 2007. These things take time. We notified all of the Leagues and Competitors that we were open to an AGREEMENT." For the reading impaired that means Brimstone approached the tourney leagues as well as the other manufacturer(s). The implication is that if the leagues approached failed to enter an agreement with Brimstone they face the same liability as an infringing manufacturer. It also means by implication Brimstone foresaw this possibility to begin with and so far all Mr. Miller's statements carefully avoid specifically mentioning what their intentions are with respect to "infringing" tournament promoters and/or leagues.

Whatever the upshot of litigation against infringing manufacturer(s) if Brimstone is not intentionally reserving the right to litigate against "infringing" tournament operators and/or some field operators perhaps they ought to say so, plainly, clearly and unequivocally. Just a thought.

As always if Mr. Miller or any other official Brimstone rep wishes to respond they are welcome to do so.

Btw, anyone who wishes to quote VFTD content is welcome to do so as long as it's identified as such and adding a link would nice. Thanks.


anonachris said...

I like this game.

"Nowhere did VTFD include field operators as potential end user targets of a Brimstone lawsuit. "

But did VTFD specify that field operators were not included, thus leaving things ambigously (knowingly or unknowingly) up to the reader?

"if Brimstone is not intentionally reserving the right to litigate against.."

What if they are unintentionally reserving the right?

What's my point?

Craig's no more of a devil than you are. Well, except for the fact that he wants to sue a bunch of people.

But it's ok because he's bluffing that companies with low reserves will just sign away a royalty (or be forced to use his products).

I'll bet Baca's life on the fact that Craig won't be able to follow through with the legal fees, and if he did he'll have to spend a decade selling bunkers before he makes his money back anyway.


Anonymous said...

The lawsuit approach was very expensive until Sup Air actually coppied the UA bunkers so well that they copied not only the bunker, but also UA's patent number on the Sup Air bunkers. This brings down the legal costs a bit. It makes the legal case pretty much slam dunk.

Missy Q said...

I find myself torn. I think both of the companies are opportunist, and have reached their positions through OPI (other peoples idea's). That either of them are claiming it was their intellectual property is just ridiculous.
Plus - isn't Milt Call one of those all-time scumbags? How do you get behind a scumbag? Even to take a pop at the french!

Baca Loco said...

I'm glad you're having fun. That's what paintball is all about.

I'm just trying to make sure VFTD gets it's fair share of credit or blame, as the case may be.

anonachris said...

I was just having fun playing blog-lawyer and parsing words really.

I'm not rooting for Craig, not because he's defending his patent, but because he's sending out weird emails with caps and bolds and underlines and italics. It's really annoying. At least when the Gardners were trying to put people out of business they had the common decency not to hype it up with press releases.

Mark my words, in 5 years we'll be missing those wiley Gardner brothers. Maybe someone can find a spot for them in a sitcom?

Damien - Sup'AirBall said...

I will get you Sup'AirBall official statement tomorrow (jan. 06th). Misleading and false claims from Mr. Miller have to be addressed to set the record straight.