Patent infringement for all major themers?

[Steveo3631]

From the Orlando Sentinal

3-7-07

Disney, GE, others face patent suit

Phil Milford | Bloomberg News

Posted March 7, 2007

General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal Inc., Walt Disney Co. and three other U.S. theme-park operators were accused of infringing patents on magnetic brakes used on roller coasters.

Safety Braking Corp., based in Newport Beach, Calif., claims the companies infringed patents won in 1994 and 2003. The defendants also include Busch Entertainment Corp., Six Flags Inc. and Cedar Fair LP.

Safety Braking holds exclusive licenses to the patents, one from Magnetar Technologies Corp., based in Seal Beach, California, and the other from G&T Conveyor Co., based in Tavares.

The three companies asked for a jury trial, an order to stop any infringement and royalties in the complaint, filed March 1 in federal court in Wilmington, Del.

Parks mentioned in the complaint include Universal Studios in Hollywood, Calif.; Walt Disney World in Orlando; Busch Gardens in Williamsburg, Va.; Sesame Place in Langhorne, Pa.; Paramount King's Island in Mason, Ohio; and Six Flags Darien Lake, N.Y.

Wendy Goldberg, a Six Flags spokeswoman in New York, said the company won't comment on the lawsuit.

NBC Universal spokeswoman Cindy Gardner also declined to comment and Michelle Bergman of Burbank, Calif.-based Disney said company executives weren't available to comment.

Spokeswomen for Anheuser-Busch Cos. and Cedar Fair didn't return phone messages.

[CoastersRZ]

I think the issue with Kings Island, is likely the magnetic trim brakes the park installed on The Beast when they redid its braking system a few years back from the old sled brakes. Still, I find it kind of a weak point to be suing the parks, as opposed to the manufacturer of said devices. Granted, ride like IJST that have magnetic brakes might be involved too, but I would imagine Premier rides got clearance or else they should also be named in the suit. If the company was just suing parks that have rides with these brakes, then I think they are misguided. Why not go after the manufacturer?

[Tuskin]

I think the issue with Kings Island, is likely the magnetic trim brakes the park installed on The Beast when they redid its braking system a few years back from the old sled brakes. Still, I find it kind of a weak point to be suing the parks, as opposed to the manufacturer of said devices. Granted, ride like IJST that have magnetic brakes might be involved too, but I would imagine Premier rides got clearance or else they should also be named in the suit. If the company was just suing parks that have rides with these brakes, then I think they are misguided. Why not go after the manufacturer?

agreed the IJST is prbly one of the biggest ones and maybe The Beast with the new braking system. But that is stupid honestly just another company trying to make money is what it boils down to

[Steveo3631]

Magnetic propulsion, magnetic braking.....metal attracting, repelling....can you patent something so basic?

[Tuskin]

Magnetic propulsion, magnetic braking.....metal attracting, repelling....can you patent something so basic?

i guess u can now .. what is this world coming to .. its ridiculous u cant do anything anymore with out something being wrong with it

[DeLorean Rider]

I wanted to patent gravity but it was already patented

[Alien Seed]

I wanted to patent gravity but it was already patented

Yep, I beat you to it....and now that we're on the subject, it has been ruled that anyone who trips and falls (feeling the full effect of my property) in the tri county area owes me a dollar.

[jzarley]

Granted, I haven't read the full details of the law suit, but why are they going after the individual parks who purchased the systems, as opposed to the manufacturers who actually sold and installed them?

[The Interpreter]

Magnetic brakes were also installed on Son of Beast.

And claims made in a lawsuit are only claims and only express one side of a situation. They may or may not be true.

[CoastersRZ]

I don`t recall any magnetic brakes being installed on Son of Beast. Granted, I only rode it once this past season (and that was the first day it was open for the year).

[Cory Butcher]

I would like to know why the parks used this technology without consent if it was patented. If it was, regardless how trivial it is to patent magnet brakes The parks should have reached an agreement with the respective patent owners to void this type of lawsuit!

[jzarley]

But, the parks didn't go out and build these mag brakes on their own...they were purchased from and installed by ride manufacturers (i.e., Intamin, etc.). It seems to me that if there were any patent infringements, the companies who sold the technology to the parks would be more culpable than the parks who bought them.

If you buy a new TV that contains a part that's patented by another company, are you at risk for a law suit for buying the TV? Or, would the culpable party be the company that made and sold you the TV?

[PKIDelirium]

I think they're just trying to go after the deeper pockets of the park chains.

But... is it really smart to try suing Disney?

[Cory Butcher]

As for proving a point and being on the legal map if you win, YES it is quite worth going after Disney, there is no greater point to be made than if Disney could be humbled.

However, if they lose, it was not very smart at all because all of a sudden they were flaming Disney!

This is obviously a very calculated move!

Furthermore, if the brakes arrived at the park with the original rides, the manufacturers who did not recieve consent would be sued. However, If the Brakes were a modification made to existing rides without the ride manufacturers support in such a manner, then the park is at fault.

For example, the guy mentioned the TV above, If the TV was sold with lets say a sattelite Dish that was patented by DirecTV that was not approved to be made, then the Manufacturer is at fault not the TV owner! If the owner decided to add this dish to his TV without consent then he/she could be in a legal battle. Now, obviously if permission was recieved in either case, there is no case.

It will come down to this question:

Were the magnetic brakes park alterations, or were they completed by the ride manufacturers specifically?

[PKIVortex]

Didn't KI purchase the magnetic brakes for The Beast and install them in house. Also SOB does not have magnetic brakes.

[jzarley]

^ but again, even if KI bought magnetic brakes and installed them on The Beast, they still bought them. Meaning, someone else designed and manufactured them and (supposedly) violated the patent. I really don't think that KI (and the other parks) are building their own magnetic brake systems from the ground-up on site...

Sort of the same argument with the satellite dish argument made a few posts earlier. If some company creates a knock off of a Direct TV dish that violates a standing patent, they are guilty of patent infringement. If I buy the satellite dish, I'm not violating the patent. (I may be committing other crimes based on how I obtained the satellite dish, but patent infringement isn't one of them.) If that were the case, every single one of us better be doing some heavy-duty research to ensure that every product we own--made by every manufacturer--does not violate any other company's patent.

I agree with the other posters' comments that this is a good way to make a big splash and call attention to your cause. Let's face it...suing Intamin, A.G. won't get you too much attention--suing the Walt Disney Company certainly will

[PKIVortex]

Yeah this whole thing in nonsense, why sue the parks, if they are going to sue anyone, sue the manufacturer of the brakes.

[Tuskin]

Yeah this whole thing in nonsense, why sue the parks, if they are going to sue anyone, sue the manufacturer of the brakes.

well as though i couldnt agree with you more and i think this world is becoming rather ridiculous on rules of what u can and cannot due i have to agree that sueing the manufacturer wouldnt make a big sha-bang like sueing the Walt Disney Company would so it seems to be the real reason of them sueing the bigger name companies is to catch attention!

[The Interpreter]

SOB does not have magnetic brakeS, but it DOES have A magnetic brake. Of the same, exact design as those installed on Beast. It was installed to trim speed before entering the rose bowl. It was installed in recent years, and was not originally part of the ride.

[PKIVortex]

Are you sure? I remember when they had a trim brake at the top of the hill leading into the rose bowl, I never knew they added a magnetic brake.

[The Interpreter]

I was told by the then park PR rep that it was a magnetic brake.

That's all I know!

[PKIVortex]

I'm not sure about that, I'm not doubting you were told that, but I never saw it. They removed the trim brake I thought. Who knows.

[Cory Butcher]

Jzarley the justice system wouldnt care if you made the product yourself or if it was an unathorized copy of a product that you bought. The manufacturer would be in trouble for making it, and you would be in trouble for buying it. Now, of course this is all up to the judge before it goes to trial. It will be decided who can really be sued in this case before the trial begins. This is what Lawyers do...they name the big players first, or everyone under the sun that they can. Then it is up to the judge to decide what is the right course of action and who can really be sued. They whittle the list down and then the trial begins if there is cause to continue!

I dont see this moving forward to far. I am sure the parks would not have bought the brakes or made them if they knew about the patent infringement before hand. Either way, I am in agreement with you all, the manufacturers should be named, not the parks.

[jzarley]

^ I think there's a real difference between counterfeit products (i.e., buying a fake Gucci watch from some guy on the street, when you know that it's a fake), vs buying a product from a retutable manufacturer who is accused of infringing on another company's patent when building their product.

If you bought a TV from Phillips (or any other manufacturer) and there's a part contained in the set whose patent was disputed by another company, how would you even know? If you have no reasonable method of knowing, how can you be legally responsible for it?

There was a patent dispute last year against the company that makes the Blackberry PDAs. Are all Blackberry users legally culpable for this accused infringement? If so, there's a few million of us who should have been very worried. (Well, actually I was worried--worried my e-mail service would get shut off .) Eventually, Blackberry settled with the accuser, as I'm sure will happen in this instance too.

Your point about lawsuits is a good one, though...you can sue whoever you want for whatever you want. Of course, prevailing is a whole different story

[DeLorean Rider]

Are we talking about Expedition Everest having magnetic breaks at disney?

[Cory Butcher]

We could be, I am not sure which ride has them though!

In the case of the Blackberry I think the idea is that a consumer not in the business of how blackberries work would not know what was stolen and what was not, it simply isnt a question one asks.

However, when you look at the case of the brakes, the park deals with this kind of equipment and maintenance everyday they should know what a magnetic brake is and how it works inside and out. These things have to be for lack of a better term manicured to top performance everyday. A regular person doesnt take apart their Blackberry everyday so they shouldnt be required to know. This is why I think that the suit against the parks could be valid, this is something the parks should know and more than likely they do!

In another example, I've seen hunters buy guns and you can bet that they know every piece that makes up that gun and what it does, as well as who originated the concept! At least the hunters I know!

[The Interpreter]

You seem to be assuming the park companies are infringing on the patent. MOST patent litigation is determined to be without merit. Just because a plaintiff CLAIMS something is an infringement doesn't mean that it IS.

[jzarley]

I think you may be giving the maintenance guys at the parks (not to mention the suits that buy the stuff) way too much credit for understanding the nuances and the legal history of every piece of every equipment that they work with on a daily basis...

As someone who has gone to happy hour with a good number of attorneys, I have a pretty good idea of how this will pan out, and why they decided to name the parks in the suit. If I was Safety Braking Corp., I would have done the same thing...

But, I'll tell you...for an 18-year old you certainly do present a well thought out and reasonable argument. It's nice to see someone your age express themselves so well. (Please don't take that as a dismissive comment--I really do mean it as a compliment.)

[Cory Butcher]

You seem to be assuming the park companies are infringing on the patent. MOST patent litigation is determined to be without merit. Just because a plaintiff CLAIMS something is an infringement doesn't mean that it IS.

Actually, just the opposite! If you look at my post previous to that of your responce, I stated that I do not see this claim going too far! I realize that this case may be without merit, and indeed on the other side of the coin, the parks could have infringed upon the patent knowingly. I am solely presenting both sides, and focusing more of my argument on the fact that before new products are introduced or consumed by corporations and other companies, Usually patent searches are conducted to eliminate this sort of public embarrassment; be it without merit or in fact, the case has been presented. Only time will tell who knew, and/or who didn't!

I think you may be giving the maintenance guys at the parks (not to mention the suits that buy the stuff) way too much credit for understanding the nuances and the legal history of every piece of every equipment that they work with on a daily basis...

As someone who has gone to happy hour with a good number of attorneys, I have a pretty good idea of how this will pan out, and why they decided to name the parks in the suit. If I was Safety Braking Corp., I would have done the same thing...

But, I'll tell you...for an 18-year old you certainly do present a well thought out and reasonable argument. It's nice to see someone your age express themselves so well. (Please don't take that as a dismissive comment--I really do mean it as a compliment.)

I may be giving them too much credit you are right, or I could be not giving enough at all. For a company that must watch its back at every twist and turn or face this sort of litigation, I am pretty sure (although admittedly hoping outright) that this type of contract between patents and trademarks is of (Paramount) importance to this line of work. We obviously know given the naming saga of Firehawk that trademarks are well known and important. The same way in which copyrights are important to singers and labels, Patents are important to engineers and manufacturers as well as the businesses that utilize them and then present them to the public!

You and I are on the same page with the attorney reasoning, ordering a 16 oz. steak (the parks deep pockets being sued) is generally more fulfilling than ordering the 8 oz steak (The ride manufacturers being sued).

And thanks so much for the compliment, I pride myself on trying to articulate thoughts and actions in a logical and cohesive manner! This I have learned, is a quality attribute to have obtained!

[tycoonrebel7188]

I was reading an article today from the FUNWORLD Magazine about Intamin and Intaride LLC and found something very interesting. It says toward the middle of the article that, "Intamin also introduced the magnetic brake system more than 10 years ago and holds the patents on magnetic brakes for amusement rides. Prior to magnetic brakes, coasters used mechanical brakes, and engineers had to use the track to burn up all the energy the train gained from the lift hill before it hit the brakes. With magnetic brakes, coasters can go higher and faster, and hit the brakes at a higher speed without causing damage. As an example, the trains on “Millennium Force” enter their magnetic brake run at 57 mph."

Here is the link to the article if anyone wants to read it. The paragraph containing the above mention information is next to the second picture of Wicked Twister.

http://www.funworldmagazine.com/2006/aug/f...oasterconn.html