Comments on: Battle Foam v. Outrider Hobbies Lawsuit Update

By: GAMA Trade Show 2011 Exhibitors and Vendors | LivingDice.com

GAMA Trade Show 2011 Exhibitors and Vendors | LivingDice.com — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:33:42 +0000

[...] In an interesting coincidence, Outrider Hobbies and Battle Foam are both in attendance as well. Given their legal entanglements last year it could be interesting. As usual, I am missing some company’s sites, so if you know the link for a missing link, drop [...]

By: GAMA Trade Show 2011 Vendors and Exhibitors Link List | LivingDice.com

GAMA Trade Show 2011 Vendors and Exhibitors Link List | LivingDice.com — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:19:24 +0000

By: John H

John H — Mon, 03 May 2010 21:57:48 +0000

This is just further indication that Battle Foam is out to destroy a competitor through the cost of litigation in a distant place. The argument about Battle Foam’s attorneys being in New Hampshire and the difficulty of getting new counsel is pure BS. They have New Hampshire attorneys because they wanted to file someplace that would be burdensome for Outrider. There are plenty of competent attorneys in Arizona, which is a far more natural place for the lawsuit.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 02 May 2010 23:25:25 +0000

If all this is about trademarks and patents, just what is the number of the patent application? No one seems to have that answer. It is against the law to say something is patent pending when it is not.

By: Tyler Tinsley

Tyler Tinsley — Sun, 02 May 2010 17:58:14 +0000

This case is a trade mark issue. does the name “foam corps” in relation to “battle foam” confuse you as a member of the hobby games market.

After having read the documents pertaining to this case I dont see a clear argument for battlefoam to pursue this case in good faith.

As for the patent issue, given the patent is still pending approval, it’s impossible to review it to see if battlefoam is actually doing anything “novel”.

Had battlefoam waited to do this AFTER the patent was approved I would be more likely give them the benefit of doubt.

By: Tom

Tom — Sun, 02 May 2010 16:17:04 +0000

You ask questions about the patent and trade secret, and then form a conclusion that it’s frivolous… based on what exactly?

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 02 May 2010 13:16:11 +0000

Anyone know the patent number that was filed for this mysterious process of cutting foam on a low setting? And what kind of trade secret is it if someone knows how to cut foam just like Battlefoam does. Tons of folks out there doing the same damn thing. Frivolous. I would find it hard to find too many people out there ready to pay anything for Battlefool’s products for this disgrace.

By: Tyler Tinsley

Tyler Tinsley — Sat, 01 May 2010 20:04:49 +0000

fascinating stuff, I hope I never have to deal with something like this.

some interesting points
“On information and belief, Defendant Outrider Hobbies is a de facto corporation owned and operated by Mr. Bryan Wade.”

It appears they do not know or do not have any evidence about how Bryan is structured as a business. I imagine if he is a sole proprietor he is well within his right to file “Pro se”

I’m having a very difficult time finding any grounds to believe this case is in good faith.

Thats a shame because I really wanted to buy a P.A.C.K. mini. well I would want one if the precut tray could actually hold my skirmish game minis (The slots are too small for 30mm bases that skirmish games use)

By: Battle Foam v. Outrider Hobbies Lawsuit Update | LivingDice.com « MI40k.com

Sat, 01 May 2010 18:29:44 +0000

[...] Battle Foam v. Outrider Hobbies Lawsuit Update | LivingDice.com. Share and Enjoy: [...]