Seems odd that they are going after the parks, and not the companies that built the rides.Will this suit even stand up in court?
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I mean come on, CF hires Intamin because included in their RIDE are magnetic brakes.
Chuck
This may not be very good for the industry, as it could slow the purchase and building of some new rides while things get sorted out in the courts.
Former Coney Island (Cincinnati) ride operator (2002-2004)
*** Edited 3/7/2007 7:23:28 PM UTC by Jeffrey Seifert***
depotrat said:
The parks could have some liability if they bought the rides from manufacturers and knew the manufacturers were violating the patent rights. So it will come down to what they knew and when they knew it.This may not be very good for the industry, as it could slow the purchase and building of some new rides while things get sorted out in the courts.
Is it really the responsibility of the consumer to know that each and every component of an item they purchased is not violating some patent?
Oh, and the brake part might be dodgy. That patent is dated 2003, and B&M and Paramount Parks (Beast) were using them in 2001 and 2002.
- Ryan - http://www.tideblue.com/painter/
It is kind of like buying stolen goods. If you know they are stolen then you are in the soup. If you don't know, you do not have liability. So again it comes down to what did you know and when did you know it.
By naming the parks in the action it also addresses the problem of their invention being sold for years while the suit is being heard. Parks knowing they could get dinged by this will hold off on purchasing. That hurts the manufacturer and adds motivation to the ride manufacturer to settle this quickly.
Coaster Junkie from NH
I drive in & out of Boston, so I ride coasters to relax!
Coaster Junkie from NH
I drive in & out of Boston, so I ride coasters to relax!
Chuck, who apologizes if thats not the incident your talking about
I think the company just wants to make a lot of noise. They could very well have a legitimate suit, but it should be against the manufacturers, not the companies who purchased their products.
coastin' since 1985
pkidelirium said:
I read through the whole document and it looks like they want rides using the mag brakes/lim brakes shut down while this is going on. Do they have any legal legs to stand on for that?
I doubt that could happen.
Lawyers would argue that purchase and use of said brakes would be a one time fee to the patent holder. Therefore continued operation of the rides (and they are technically non-profit making too) would not cause the complainant any further loss.
Unlike, say, a company that is continuously selling something that another has a patent on.
rablat5 said:
Ref. the BGE comment above, as far as I know, none of the coasters have mag brakes, except for maybe Griffon. But maybe they are somehow included with DarKastle's system.
I withdrew that question after I read the lawsuit. In it they name every single park that a chain owns, even if that particular park doesn't have a ride that uses magnetic brakes. It looks like the author of the newspaper article just picked a few park names at random.
You must be logged in to post