Football Helmet Maker Drives Competitor Into Bankruptcy With Patent Lawsuits
from the safety-is-less-important-than-monopolies dept
Danny alerts us to the story of how sporting goods maker Riddell was able to drive competitor Schutt Sports into bankruptcy thanks to patent lawsuits. Riddell first sued Schutt for patent infringement on its football helmet design, winning a $29 million jury award. Right afterwards, it sued Schutt again, this time for shoulder pad design. A week later, Schutt declared bankruptcy. Now I'm sure, some will be quick to claim that this is exactly what the patent system is designed to do, but it does seem pretty troubling that, especially when it comes to safety issues, we're allowing one company to have a total monopoly on a type of safety gear. What's wrong with actually competing in the market?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: football, helmets, patents, safety
Companies: riddell, schutt sports
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That Is The Way It Goes With Patents
It will all end when, after years of complacency, they are wiped out by Chinese competitors. Another "win" for the patent system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That Is The Way It Goes With Patents
Football is a dangerous sport. At least now we can relax and know that there will be fewer future football innovations. This patent lawsuit eliminated the need to improve.
Scutt should have called IV. At least then he could have had a countersuit. So silly, he just wanted to sell football gear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That Is The Way It Goes With Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That Is The Way It Goes With Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That Is The Way It Goes With Patents
Welcome to Big Pharma, where your life and death struggle with the cost of artificially expensive medications and medical procedures are what we call "profit."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That Is The Way It Goes With Patents
this is about a company investing time and money in a unique product, protecting it and then having a competitor copy their innovation.
what people don't understand, is if you don't protect companies that innovate from copying; you will no longer have innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you don't give enough information in the post to make that determination. i suppose i could look it up for myself, but that defeats the purpose of coming to techdirt.
"especially when it comes to safety issues, we're allowing one company to have a total monopoly on a type of safety gear. What's wrong with actually competing in the market?"
wow! a strawman argument from MM?!? you hit the safety, monopoly, and competition buzzwords correctly, but where is the evidence that Schutt was competing and not copying? competition in a market is always a good thing, but it has to be based on a companies own innovation driving its competitors to create something better. replicating a rivals product without any value added doesn't increase innovation.
is it just me, or is techdirt getting lazy lately?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your reward is being first or early, etc, in understanding a concept, to market, and in the minds of people, and you can likewise copy those that surpass you later on.
Patent monopolies stifle and lead to higher costs on everyone, abridge free speech, and destroy many interesting jobs: remove the opportunity for others to likewise shine or to shine even more greatly than you because they have ideas that are more refined and so were included within your vague and broad patent claims.. and perhaps they were willing to work 3x as hard as you, but now can be denied the opportunity for 20 years.
We all suffer from patent monopolies. Tying the hands of the worlds' engineers to suit *one* should be declared unconstitutional, for this, perhaps in no case, promotes the progress of science and useful arts while it does restrict liberties and hurts the general welfare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who is lazy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not half as lazy as the trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's wrong with actually competing in the market?
com·pe·ti·tion noun \käm-pə-ˈti-shən\ - A word you will not find in trademark, copyright, or patent laws, United States Code, and the Constitution of the United States.
Therefore, it does not, can not, and will not exist.
Damn, Webster. Harsh.
(note: Webster reference is parody, not factual)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wait.....one better.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wait.....one better.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Very bad for America!
It keeps people from innovating for fear of infringing on someone else's patent. I am of the idea that we don't these damned patents!
Just let someone start a business making a product and if someone comes into the light and they cannot compete with that other guy? Too bad, so sad, I DON'T CARE!
That is COMPETITION! Where you don't get a 'mulligan' ever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They should have gone into the Dark Helmet Business instead...
...Yeah. I just went there. Now where's My Quad Grande Mocha?
_____________________
Sent from my Windows 7 Zune Phone
PR Release, Special Edition, Version 6.0
Raspberry Scented
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They should have gone into the Dark Helmet Business instead...
That's it, gay minty looking gravitar, this means war!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They should have gone into the Dark Helmet Business instead...
I would think you were the only one able to actually make more authentic Dark Helmets. If Riddell did, they would be mere replicas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A lot of assumptions are being made here for which pertinent facts are missing from the article.
BTW, in safety related products perhaps one of the most compelling reason to constantly improve such products is the spectre of product liability lawsuits (many of which are premised on "strict liability"). Yes, even the law to some indeterminate degree provides good reason to innovate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My comments typically result from when I believe that the law has been misstated, which could lead to an erroneous understanding by readers, or when opinions are expressed in the absence or information relevant to the formation of such opinions.
This article involves both, i.e., decrying a "monopoly" on safety in general, and failing to note that the article listed some other factors concerning the company's precarious financial condition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Neither are nice. Would it have been so hard to Google 'Schutt Sports bankruptcy' to find out that it was Chapter 11?
"A lot of assumptions are being made here for which pertinent facts are missing from the article."
So far the only assumption seems to be the one you have made that Mike was suggesting Schutt Sports are going out of business. Perhaps you could list the others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please note I never made any statement that Schutt was "kaput". I only stated that it was not noted in the linked article the type of bankruptcy involved. I also stated that in the linked article is appears that Schutt was facing money problems far removed from Riddell's patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But where was it assumed otherwise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They should have gone into the Dark Helmet Business instead...
Stand well back, Sir, or else my Windows Zune Phone 7.0 release 6.0, SRSPRE (Special Raspberry Scented PR Edition) will bite!
See kids- this is why you need a Windows Zune Phone 7.0. So you can declare VICTORY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They should have gone into the Dark Helmet Business instead...
I call you, Droidachu! Droidachu uses the new Android 2.2 distro. It is very effective!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They should have gone into the Dark Helmet Business instead...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They should have gone into the Dark Helmet Business instead...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
???
"A Wisconsin jury last month found that Schutt's DNA and ION helmets, introduced in 2004 and 2007, respectively, infringed on Riddell's patents aimed at reducing concussions. The jury ruled that Riddell was entitled to about five years of lost profits and royalties"
I'm a bit lost here. Does this mean that Riddell somehow patented the very concept of reducing concussions (meaning that anything Schutts did in relation to reducing concussion was infringement) or was Riddell claiming that Schutts was infringing by way of using Riddell's exact method of reducing concussions.
I can understand a patent on an exact method of reducing concussions (meaning Schutts is okay to come up with other methods) but patenting the very concept of reducing concussions (meaning that Schutts would be infringing even if they were using some other method) seems overly broad to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but it does seem pretty troubling that, especially when it comes to safety issues, we're allowing one company to have a total monopoly on a type of safety gear. What's wrong with actually competing in the market?
There are af other companies making helmets and shoulder pads including Adams and Nike. I
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition
Hey, this is what America is all about. Keeping business strong and succeeding over the little guy! Monopoly is the 'perfect' business status and all companies must work to achieve it! If it means throwing millions into mean spirited suits or political payoffs....then so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competition
Use a bad law, and even if the lawsuit has legal merit, we all lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How does this tie in with recent studies regarding high school atheletes and the underreporting of concussions?
If they report that they got hit so hard in the head that they feel dizzy, they get benched and sent to the doctor to get checked, if it's determined that it's a concussion, they can be sidelined for a while, many 'students' therefore choose not to report the injuries, which can lead to serious complications later on.
So as far as I'm concerned, anything that can improve the quality of the protective equipment that our youth are using should be done. Even if that means 'copying' someone's existing design to improve the level of protection provided. I don't see how anyone can justify putting company profits over our youth's health.
WHY WON'T THEY THINK OF THE CHILDREN....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I uploaded one about 1/2 hour ago addressing all of the points made in 20 above, as well as other related matters.
Any ideas why this is happening. It has occurred about a dozen times or so over the past couple of months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Send me today your comment to hozelda-at yahoo punto com, and I will submit it for you here. Also, send me all of your comments that have failed and instruct on where to post them and under what pseudonym. Finally, add "techdirt" on the subject line so that it becomes hard for it to pass to the spam box or me to miss it. I don't mind doing someone this favor periodically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To home in on a patent suit is misleading. It seems that Schutt's financial problems are due to a number of factors having nothing to do with patents. Moreover, it is my understanding that the infringement suit is under appeall, so any award against Schutt to date will be paid out, if ever, well in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the strawmen live on, and the patent system works..
Some guy is right, copying is not competition, creating a competative product in that market IS competition. You Mike mite just one day work that simple and basic fact out.. or maybe not.
So this Schutt company just copies the inventors design, and sold that for 5 years, that is not providing competition, its not innovating on a product, its not advancing the state of the art, and its not providing customers with new and competative products.
And Mike, if you cant work that out, you are not in the right job (whatever that is), and should NEVER comment on legal and econimic matters again.
But as you do, reading what you write, and trying to make some unbiased, and logical assumptions based on your comments, we'll its not easy, but hey, you have lots of people here that will follow what you say, like its the word of God himself.
And if you can convince one or two soft minds with your claims and pull some google add dollars in at the same time, its all good..
If these inventions were so obvious, and considering football protection equipment has been around FOR A VERY LONG TIME. then why didn't Schutt come up with that improvements themselves ? or something better and you know.... Original..
Most things are 'obvious' to those skilled in the field once they have seen it and understand it.
that does not make the invention any less or more significant or important, or worthy of protection.
Here here for patent laws, and a functioning legal and patent system.
Shame about all the strawmen, confused and inconsistent strawment at that !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The patent system works
The problem was Schutt was not competing, they were copying. If they had done something different, especially better, the shoe would have been on the other foot and they could have squeezed Riddell out. Should they start giving the Stanley Cup to the loser?
The patent system works. Don't screw with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The patent system works
Careful, you might not get your salary from RJR if you keep making these mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2) "Riddell was not doing anything better" is a false statement. Riddell invented a better way to do something and Schutt was found to have misappropriated Riddell's invention.
This was one of numerous deficiencies in Schutt's business model.
The patent system is based on driving companies to compete by producing a better invention, not to just copy another person's invention. Copying is not competing. Out inventing an adversary is competing. Clearly Schutt was unable to compete in the invention arena, and now they have to pay the toll or expire.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That may be true, but considering how low is the "novel" bar for getting a patent granted (merely "non-obvious" to a PHOSITA), we can certainly argue that a better system of laws (or one more closely aligned with the Constitution) would not allow such a patent to have been granted in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, there are paid stooges on Techdirt. You'll find them all the time spouting lies and halftruths about Mike, Techdirt, posters to Techdirt, etcetera. Oh, wait, you fall into that category, too, don't you? Many of us have often wondered who might be paying you to push the agenda you push.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copying
On the other hand, society might want to create other tools to reward inventors and give small businesses a greater chance against much larger incumbents. Also, creating more "open source" all around will make it easier to keep a check on "incumbents" because the bar to competing will be lower for anyone that wants to try. I find comfort generally in businesses that don't have profitting as their number one reason. The obsession with profitting and the set of laws designed to support that can hurt society in a number of ways and make things extra difficult for the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]