McNaughton Who??? Did anyone else see this!!! (Lawsuit) 2024

TackleGuru reply :

I was doing some searching on Strike King and other name brand companies and noticed this. Who the heck is Braxton McNaughton??

He's actually suing alot of people, lol.

Plaintiff: Braxton McNaughton

Defendants: Strike King Lure Company, Northland Fishing Tackle LLC, Pure Fishing Inc, Big Bite Baits Inc, Venom Manufacturing & Distributing Company Inc, Mizmo Inc, Jackall LLC, Yum Bait Company, Jann's Netcraft LLC, Outkast Tackle Inc, Classic Fishing Products Inc, Poor Boy's Baits Inc, Xcite Baits LLC, *** and D & J Plastics Inc

Thats pretty insane. Does this guy think he can take on people like Berkely. I just thought it was pretty crazy what does everyone else think??

35:145 Patent Infringement is the complaint.

Here Is The Link!!!

I would love to hear what everyone thinks about this. One guy takes on multiple companies. Big Companies, Small Companies, Garage Ran Companies. What a joke!!!

ChrisAW reply :

The link doesn't work for me. But seems like this guy must have invented fishing looking at how many people he's after :

Edit: Links working now.

guitarkid reply :

man what a goon.

-gk

Dan: reply :

any news about this Brent?

TackleGuru reply :

I don't think we will get much out of Brent on this. He's to professional to respond to one guys antics, lol.

Plus not a good idea to air it out when its not finished. I'm guessing its not finished since it was file on April 9th, 2010.

I e-mail Brent all the time and I had to find it out during a Search, lol. Plus I tried asking him and he said its not his place to put it out there.

Good guy Brent Is!!

TackleGuru reply :

You know what, I was actually thinking...All this guy did was prove that Xcite Baits, and other small companies that were named...have a great product.

I mean he's obviously right in there with companies such as Strike King, Berkely, and YUM right?? Why else would he be getting sued with them, lol.

RoLo reply :

Who's "Berkeley"?

Dock Master reply :

Quote
The link doesn't work for me. But seems like this guy must have invented fishing looking at how many people he's after :
Edit: Links working now.

X2. I don't know the all the details, but if this guy wins I want his lawyer if I ever go to court.

TackleGuru reply :

Quote
Who's "Berkeley"?

LOL

Paul Roberts reply :

The guy holds three patents:

-an injection molding system for multi-color plastics (2003)

-two for soft plastic lures (2007, 2009)

No details are listed, as yet, in PACER, beyond "patent infringement".

ichigo reply :

i would like to see him try because the rich companies like s.k. and other is gonna have a lawyer like o.j. simpson

CRFisher reply :

McNaughton is the founder of Netbait. The patents sound manufacturing related.

Bamajoker reply :

maybe these,...? who knows

netbait b-bug

TackleGuru reply :

Pretty ridiculous either way. Why would you wait until multiple people were using them to sue...sounds like to me he sat on it and waited so he could sue more people.

Why didn't he sue the first person who copied it instead of waiting until he could sue multiple companies.

He just wants to make money without actually having to work. I guess business was bad this year.

flippin and pitchin reply :

You might want to watch this case because it could have a far reaching impact on many more companies. There was a rumor Andre Moore had considered a similar suit some years back but he had no intentions of dragging a civil suit on for year after year. If this complaint goes beyond summary judement and actually goes to trial it might last 10 years or more. Interesting. I would think someone is looking for a quick out of court settlement from the defendants named. Just a guess.

TackleGuru reply :

That may be the case. Get a settlement!! Maybe they are trying to force these Companies to buy the Patent?? Who knows. Guess we will see but like you said it can and probably will take forever.

flippin and pitchin reply :

The impact to us could and that's a thin could, be any royalties paid to the plaintiff are passed on to the consumer or any settlement would be passed on to the consumer. I wasn't able to read the complaint so it's just speculation.

Pantera61 reply :

You might recall Herb Reed of Sluggo fame and Gene Larew also sued other bait companies successfully. They both won.

firefightn15 reply :

If I'm reading things right, this was filed in a district court and their district court system caps judgment at 10g's. Not exactly a huge amount. :-/

Glenn reply :

I wouldn't put too much into this guys. Tackle companies are notorious for *ahem* borrowing from each other...and then suing each other for it. It's a constant cat-n-mouse game. Much ado about nothing.

MattinOK reply :

Quote
I wouldn't put too much into this guys. Tackle companies are notorious for *ahem* borrowing from each other...and then suing each other for it. It's a constant cat-n-mouse game. Much ado about nothing.

Why do you always have to come in here and ruin our morbid plans and speculations? The voice of reason is entirely unnecessary!

bilgerat reply :

Quote

Quote
I wouldn't put too much into this guys. Tackle companies are notorious for *ahem* borrowing from each other...and then suing each other for it. It's a constant cat-n-mouse game. Much ado about nothing.

Why do you always have to come in here and ruin our morbid plans and speculations? The voice of reason is entirely unnecessary!

Hey !! What's up with that ? I was going to post the same exact thing >

You'll be hearing from my attorney soon....

River Rat316 reply :

I am not going to go to far indepth into this but most of these comments are way off base, he has every right to sue for patent infringement, he developed the product, got the patent , and introduced it to the market, how much do you all think that costs? Now there are a bunch of companies out there riding on his coattails.

I also believe Andre at RI has started a law suit and it involves many of the same players in this other one

Blue Streak reply :

This guy must have deep pockets because the lawyer fees will eat him up. I think this copy cat thing is a little out of hand anyhow, seems like there is no way to protect the original idea.

jhow2319 reply :

So anyone who makes a beaver type bait is being sued? That's ridiculous. This is the first time i've seen this thread and link but I think it's funny. This is the fishing industry, everyone copies one another. A company isn't going to let a highly successful lure go without being reproduced to some extent. As far as those being sued, what about bass pro, and gambler? They both make a beaver style bait but I didn't see their names on the list. I'm sure there are others who aren't on the list also.

Grey Wolf reply :

Such is business , life goes on. We will survive.

River Rat316 reply :

Quote
So anyone who makes a beaver type bait is being sued? That's ridiculous. This is the first time i've seen this thread and link but I think it's funny. This is the fishing industry, everyone copies one another. A company isn't going to let a highly successful lure go without being reproduced to some extent. As far as those being sued, what about bass pro, and gambler? They both make a beaver style bait but I didn't see their names on the list. I'm sure there are others who aren't on the list also.

This is about patent rights, I agree it always doesn't seem right but think about it if you invented something (yes different lure styles are inventions) wouldn't you want the rights to the profit also? Otherwise what is your incentive to go out and make new things? We owe a great deal of what we use now to the patent system, if not for patent rights new products would not be hitting the market.

Someone also mentioned deep pockets, it probably took a couple years to raise the funds to actually enforce the patent, its not uncommon for patent enforcement to hit 6 figures and it takes time for a small business to get this pile of cash.

Companies like bass pro also pay a royalty to the original company when they do a direct knock off, so companies always have that option if they want to knock off a patented product.

If you want to talk about patents that are not right, look at Terminator spinnerbaits, they patented Titanium wire, to me that doesn't seem right.

K_Mac reply :

Quote

Quote
So anyone who makes a beaver type bait is being sued? That's ridiculous. This is the first time i've seen this thread and link but I think it's funny. This is the fishing industry, everyone copies one another. A company isn't going to let a highly successful lure go without being reproduced to some extent. As far as those being sued, what about bass pro, and gambler? They both make a beaver style bait but I didn't see their names on the list. I'm sure there are others who aren't on the list also.

This is about patent rights, I agree it always doesn't seem right but think about it if you invented something (yes different lure styles are inventions) wouldn't you want the rights to the profit also? Otherwise what is your incentive to go out and make new things? We owe a great deal of what we use now to the patent system, if not for patent rights new products would not be hitting the market.

Someone also mentioned deep pockets, it probably took a couple years to raise the funds to actually enforce the patent, its not uncommon for patent enforcement to hit 6 figures and it takes time for a small business to get this pile of cash.

Companies like bass pro also pay a royalty to the original company when they do a direct knock off, so companies always have that option if they want to knock off a patented product.

If you want to talk about patents that are not right, look at Terminator spinnerbaits, they patented Titanium wire, to me that doesn't seem right.

I was unable to read any specifics of the suit, but I think River Rat has a point. The guy may have a legitimate cause of action. Until more information is available I don't think it is right to condemn him.

TackleGuru reply :

The only thing that gets me is that he is suing over the legs of and pincher of the bait. Which mimmicks a crawfish. If I mold a bait that looks like a crawfish then get a patent does that mean that no one else can produce or even sell a crawfish bait??

What about other baits? Can everyone that sells a football head jig be sued by the inventor of the football head jig??

Hooligan reply :

Quote

Quote
If you want to talk about patents that are not right, look at Terminator spinnerbaits, they patented Titanium wire, to me that doesn't seem right.

Remember when Terminator first came out with them? There was actually a guy that came up with the idea back in the early 1990's. He had a friend in the dental industry that brought something to him, and they came up with being able to use the wire for spinnerbaits. I believe the guy's name was Danny Mayden or Madden, something like that. He built the first baits and prototypes, and was in the process of patenting the design, not the wire. Terminator patented the wire, and Danny's entire business was gone. I don't remember just how it all played out, but that's the gist of it.

Edit: Part of the patent that is under question here, too, to my understanding is the actual injection process. Not just the baits, but the process.

Mattlures reply :

I wonder how you guys would feel if you spent thousands of hours and dollars inventing, developing, promoting, and getting a a pattent. Then finaly all your hard work starts to pay off. Then before you can make the proffit you deserve you get ripped off by a bunch of companies who did zero work. All they did was steel your work and now because they didnt have hardley anything invested into it they are under cutting your prices.

Of course its rediculous for this guy to want compensation Man what a jerk

Also these companies are given fair warning to stop or they will be sued but they ignore the ceice and disist letter and keep on taking money away from the guy who did the work.

Oh and one more thing just because a company is big like Berkley doesnt mean they will win a court case. Big companies loose more then you know. When they have blatantly infringed on a patent they can loose a lot of money because they sold a lot of that product. Their game plan is to try and make the court costs too high for the plantif to see the case through.

ToledoEF reply :

Quote
I wonder how you guys would feel if you spent thousands of hours and dollars inventing, developing, promoting, and getting a a pattent. Then finaly all your hard work starts to pay off. Then before you can make the proffit you deserve you get ripped off by a bunch of companies who did zero work. All they did was steel your work and now because they didnt have hardley anything invested into it they are under cutting your prices.
Of course its rediculous for this guy to want compensation Man what a jerk

Also these companies are given fair warning to stop or they will be sued but they ignore the ceice and disist letter and keep on taking money away from the guy who did the work.

Oh and one more thing just because a company is big like Berkley doesnt mean they will win a court case. Big companies loose more then you know. When they have blatantly infringed on a patent they can loose a lot of money because they sold a lot of that product. Their game plan is to try and make the court costs too high for the plantif to see the case through.

Quoted for truth!!!!

Incheon Basser reply :

I buy the Netbait ones anyway.. they are cheaper and come more to a pack and work great... I knew a guy who invented the fuel injection system for snowmobiles and Polaris stole it from him and he took them on... it took 10 years and he almost lost his house and went bankrupt... then he won and received 110 mil so I think it's worth it for the little guy to take on the big dogs

ToledoEF reply :

Quote
I buy the Netbait ones anyway.. they are cheaper and come more to a pack and work great... I knew a guy who invented the fuel injection system for snowmobiles and Polaris stole it from him and he took them on... it took 10 years and he almost lost his house and went bankrupt... then he won and received 110 mil so I think it's worth it for the little guy to take on the big dogs

Our legal system needs some revamping, stuff like this really makes me mad. Big business can steal and screw all over the little guys even though they know they are in the wrong. The try and use litigation as a stall tactic.

River Rat316 reply :

While I hope NetBait wins this one it goes both ways, the big guys get hosed alot by the little guy also. I see netbait has "trick" style worms and a beaver bait, so they are far from perfect. Bu8t in this particular case they deserve what was rightfully theres for inventing a whole new style of plastics

Glenn reply :

Don't get me wrong. I'm not making fun of the guy nor saying he shouldn't sue. I'm just saying this type of thing is extremely common in the fishing business....extremely.

Hooligan reply :

Quote
Don't get me wrong. I'm not making fun of the guy nor saying he shouldn't sue. I'm just saying this type of thing is extremely common in the fishing business....extremely.

I don't disagree, but can you think of the last time someone had one that was as all-encompassing as this? You've got to admit that he's got merit, Glenn, and that it is one of the bigger, more notable, cases of this type in a very long time.

b.Lee reply :

This is common in every industry! Why are we so worried. I'm sure these big companies are still around because they keep suing each other. So technically money is just being pass around. It just depends on whose turn it is to get it LOL

Stasher1 reply :

It may not be a big deal to large companies like Strike King and Pure Fishing, but I'd be willing to bet it's a very big deal to the "little guys" like Brent. :-[

Chris reply :

There is a little known company called Wacky Worm Inc. (wackyworm.com) who invented the Paca Craw and chunk who sold the rights to the lure to NetBait. The chunk has the patent (not sure of the other) and it is both of these lures that the company was built on. The original names for these baits where the wacky craw and wacky chunk.

http://www.wackyworm.com/wwcustombaits.html

Mottfia reply :

I completely agree with Mattlures and Riverrat. If I spend all this time working on these lures then I would sue also. I personally know Braxton and I can tell you that he isn't a jerk or a lazy bum as some guy put it. He's a great guy that has spent more years than I've been alive in the lure business. The simple fact is these companies encroached on the patent. Simple as that.

Mottfia

grimlin reply :

Quote
The only thing that gets me is that he is suing over the legs of and pincher of the bait. Which mimmicks a crawfish. If I mold a bait that looks like a crawfish then get a patent does that mean that no one else can produce or even sell a crawfish bait??
What about other baits? Can everyone that sells a football head jig be sued by the inventor of the football head jig??

If you change the design of a bait enough to where the action,size and shape is different enough there's nothing the "other guy" can do.There's a certain percentage of change in a bait design before it's not considered a copycat bait.

Mike Z reply :

I read the suit a few weeks back shortly after I joined the site here and was searching for *** on Google.

There are basically two different claims here. The first and biggest is that one or more of these companies either made and or sold a product that he has a patent on. If the product is similar and not changed in any great degree then they will will be paying him quite a bit and or stopping of sales of those products.

The second aspect of the suit was that one specific company was still selling products labeled as patented when the patent had expired years before, leading you to believe that you were still no longer permitted to make copies. Apparently this is a deceptive business practice and illegal. This would also result in unfair competition and a continued monopoly on a product when the company has no right to that monopoly.

repper reply :

I did not read the suit, but if he's suing over the beaver type bait, Reaction Innovations(Andre Moore) was the first one to have a beaver type bait I believe. And because it has been so hugely sucessfull everybody now has their version, and many look VERY much like the Sweet Beaver from R.I. i can't recall how many years ago it was, but i rode in back of a pro's boat years ago and he was using those beavers as jig trailers, at clear Lake, and we ( he lent me some) just caught fish after fish with that combo. great baits.

tyrius. reply :

Quote
The guy holds three patents:
-an injection molding system for multi-color plastics (2003)

-two for soft plastic lures (2007, 2009)

No details are listed, as yet, in PACER, beyond "patent infringement".

Paul,

Are these the patents?

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7308773.pdf

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7610714.pdf

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6554605.pdf

tyrius. reply :

I can't seem to access the lawsuit but if those are the patents, then I don't see how he's suing over the beaver style of bait. Brent doesn't sell anything like the baits in those patent drawings. The drawings and measurement look more like the paca chunk/craw than anything else. I haven't seen anyone else selling that specific craw/chunk though.

It looks like it may be a suit of how the baits are made (the injection patent). That one doesn't make a lot of sense either because Brent isn't a manufacturer so how would he be responsible for his suppliers?

Strange stuff.

River Rat316 reply :

HE IS NOT SUEING OVER THE BEAVER TYPE BAIT, the suit is over the Paca Craw pinchers and legs.

Andre from RI has a patent on the beaver and if I am not mistaken has a similar law suit on most of the players in this suit

tyrius. reply :

Quote
HE IS NOT SUEING OVER THE BEAVER TYPE BAIT, the suit is over the Paca Craw pinchers and legs.

Then what bait does anyone make that is a direct copy of the paca craw? *** doesn't sell anything that's close.

Gatorbassman reply :

I've talked to Brent about the suit, like what has already been said, it is over the design of the pincers. What I don't understand is that if the suit involves the design and manufacturing then why are distributors also named in the suit?

Mattlures reply :

It does not have to be a direct copy, it has to be infringing on his patent. Which could be a manufacturing process or a specific feature of a bait, not necaceraly the entire bait. If I designed a new tail and patented it, it doesnt matter if you put my tail on a worm or a crankbait. If you copied my patented tail then you are infringing. there are several different types of patents which cover different aspects of intelectual property.

Mike Z reply :

Quote
I've talked to Brent about the suit, like what has already been said, it is over the design of the pincers. What I don't understand is that if the suit involves the design and manufacturing then why are distributors also named in the suit?

Because the distributors are profiting off the sale of the illegally produced items. (potentially) I'll admit that while they didn't produce the items, they may be named so that the process can identify realistically how many of these baits were sold so that a settlement number can be obtained on accurate numbers. The lawsuit may also seek to uncover correspondence to see if any of the vendors knew about the patent infringement.

Its a big game right now but typically everyone gets sued and the judge will decide if people get excluded from the case.

slonezp reply :

I wonder how the crayfish feel about this. Poor crawdads have nobody to defend them. All these bait companies stole their "likeness". There should be some retribution. The crayfish should at least get some royalty checks.

Chaz Hickcox reply :

Quote
I wonder how the crayfish feel about this. Poor crawdads have nobody to defend them. All these bait companies stole their "likeness". There should be some retribution. The crayfish should at least get some royalty checks.

Oh good now we're going to have to worry about the phenomina in Bee Movie. Good job Slone for bringing that up. Now, whoever finds the talking crawdad, USE HIM FOR BAIT!!!!

tyrius. reply :

Is reaction inovations included in the suit? If not, how can they not be? They're the ones who first created the beaver which was the bait that is being knocked off.

No one is directly copying the paca.

Mattlures reply :

tyrius. ok for the hundredth time(ok maybe not a hundred but still), it is not about a beaver!!!!!! It apears that patent covers certain features of the pinchers of the paca craw. No beavers!! reaction inovations has their own patent in a completley different situation. I dont know if they are actualy suing anybody.

This is about the patents pertaining to the paca craw and specific features of it. A judge will decide if the patents have been infringed upon and if so he will decide who pays.

Not only is it ilegal to manufacture infringing prodcts it is also illegal to knowingly sell them.

If the case all the way through without the sides settleing then the judge will decide who gets what from who.

Pantera61 reply :

Quote
tyrius. ok for the hundredth time(ok maybe not a hundred but still), it is not about a beaver!!!!!! It apears that patent covers certain features of the pinchers of the paca craw. No beavers!! reaction inovations has their own patent in a completley different situation. I dont know if they are actualy suing anybody.
This is about the patents pertaining to the paca craw and specific features of it. A judge will decide if the patents have been infringed upon and if so he will decide who pays.

Not only is it ilegal to manufacture infringing prodcts it is also illegal to knowingly sell them.

If the case all the way through without the sides settleing then the judge will decide who gets what from who.

I was on this guy's side until about half a second I saw what he was suing over. A crescent shaped claw? Are you kidding me? A claw that is actually a copy of natural crawfish claw?

It's a good thing he's not appearing in my court or he would be explaining why such nonsense is taking up such valuable court time. A patent is supposed to protect innovation, not duplication.

tyrius. reply :

Quote
tyrius. ok for the hundredth time(ok maybe not a hundred but still), it is not about a beaver!!!!!!

Matt, I know this and it's the whole point of my questions. If it isn't about the beaver then what bait is it about? Go look at ***'s soft plastics and let me know which one of his baits could even come close. The only one that I can think of is the chunk T and that seems to be a big stretch.

backpain... reply :

Quote

Quote
tyrius. ok for the hundredth time(ok maybe not a hundred but still), it is not about a beaver!!!!!! It apears that patent covers certain features of the pinchers of the paca craw. No beavers!! reaction inovations has their own patent in a completley different situation. I dont know if they are actualy suing anybody.
This is about the patents pertaining to the paca craw and specific features of it. A judge will decide if the patents have been infringed upon and if so he will decide who pays.

Not only is it ilegal to manufacture infringing prodcts it is also illegal to knowingly sell them.

If the case all the way through without the sides settleing then the judge will decide who gets what from who.

I was on this guy's side until about half a second I saw what he was suing over. A crescent shaped claw? Are you kidding me? A claw that is actually a copy of natural crawfish claw?

It's a good thing he's not appearing in my court or he would be explaining why such nonsense is taking up such valuable court time. A patent is supposed to protect innovation, not duplication.

There ya go, a sound defence.

Pantera61 reply :

Quote

Quote

Quote
tyrius. ok for the hundredth time(ok maybe not a hundred but still), it is not about a beaver!!!!!! It apears that patent covers certain features of the pinchers of the paca craw. No beavers!! reaction inovations has their own patent in a completley different situation. I dont know if they are actualy suing anybody.
This is about the patents pertaining to the paca craw and specific features of it. A judge will decide if the patents have been infringed upon and if so he will decide who pays.

Not only is it ilegal to manufacture infringing prodcts it is also illegal to knowingly sell them.

If the case all the way through without the sides settleing then the judge will decide who gets what from who.

I was on this guy's side until about half a second I saw what he was suing over. A crescent shaped claw? Are you kidding me? A claw that is actually a copy of natural crawfish claw?

It's a good thing he's not appearing in my court or he would be explaining why such nonsense is taking up such valuable court time. A patent is supposed to protect innovation, not duplication.

There ya go, a sound defence.

I've heard worse.

tyrius. reply :

Another thing that I find a bit odd is that Netbait sells a knock off of the beaver (B Bug).

Since the beaver is patented by RI, isn't Netbait just as bad as the people that they are suing?

Raul reply :

Quote
Another thing that I find a bit odd is that Netbait sells a knock off of the beaver (B Bug).

Since the beaver is patented by RI, isn't Netbait just as bad as the people that they are suing?

What if Netbait is manufacturing the bait under license from RI ?

tyrius. reply :

Quote
What if Netbait is manufacturing the bait under license from RI ?

Hadn't considered that.

This whole deal makes me happy that I didn't chose to go into the legal field.

Nothing here seems to be all that straight forward and logical.

Raul reply :

Another possibility, RI is actually manufacturing the baits for NetBait, NetBait is selling them under a different name.

My partner and I do that a lot with our products, we make the exact same product we sell for other people ( the only difference is the color and the scent ) and we sell it to them either in bulk ( they fill their containers on their own ) or already bottled in the containers they choose ( all they have to do is label it or we can even do that, of course that process has an extra charge ).

Mattlures reply :

Ok The "beaver" is not patented, just like the "paca" is not patented. AS A WHOLE BAIT. Certain aspects of the beaver which I believe are the unique ribs. Not the beaver itsself.

Now for guys who think he paca claws are copying a crawfish or something"natural" REALY??????????.

if you laid a paca craw claw next to an actualy claw from a real crawfish you would instantly know they are extremely different.

like I said before there are several different forms of patents and there are copywrites and trademarks. These are all there to protect original ideas and designs. The claws on the paca are original and this is a fact. That fact is proven because they were issued a patent.

Also the myth that you cant patent something from nature is just plain wrong period. You can not patent a real crawfish claw but if you carved out a crawfish claw you could copywrite your original artwork. If somebody made a mold of your carving then you could sue them. If somebody carved there own version of a crawfish claw then its theirs. This example is only referring to copywrites, not patents but copywrites are inforcable just as patents are. Just like 2 people could write very similar articles on the same subject but they have not copied each other.

Now back to the claws. They have a very distinct action and by patenting the differnt qualities of those claws the owner is protecting them as best as he legaly could. The patent system is weak at best. It is easy to get around a patent by changing something 20%. When somebody knowingly copies a patented design they are steeling. They are diliberatly trying to cash in on the hard work of the guy who who designed the original. In the fishing industry this runs rampant and is so common that some consumers dont understand why sombody would sue over something as simple as a claw. The answer is easy. Because the owner designed them and marketed them and put his time and money into it and others come along and try to cash in on it. They are to lazy to do their own work.

Their views are soo distorted that they think the guy that is getting ripped off is being greedy buy trying to recover what is rightfuly his.

If sombody came into your yard and stole your truck that you worked hard for would you want it back? or would just let him have it? Intelectual property is property.

Now before you all jump on me for defending this suit. That is not realy what I am doing. I am defending the process. I am not a patent atorny or judge. I do not know that any of the companies named have infringed. That is for the judge to decide.

One more thing, and I could be wrong but I dont think so. I believe that before you can sue, you have to send a letter of cease and disist. In other words, they are given a warning. If they choose to ignore it AND THEY ARE INFRINGING then they absolutly desrve to get sued.

Thad reply :

I don't think Andre is making baits for McNaughton though. I was talking to a pro staff member and it seems they don't like each other vary well. They said R.I. was going to make a copy of the Paca craw because NetBait ripped off the Beaver almost exactly. That's just hearsay though.

Pantera61 reply :

Quote
...
Now for guys who think he paca claws are copying a crawfish or something"natural" REALY??????????.

if you laid a paca craw claw next to an actualy claw from a real crawfish you would instantly know they are extremely different.

...

Also the myth that you cant patent something from nature is just plain wrong period. You can not patent a real crawfish claw but if you carved out a crawfish claw you could copywrite your original artwork. If somebody made a mold of your carving then you could sue them. If somebody carved there own version of a crawfish claw then its theirs. This example is only referring to copywrites, not patents but copywrites are inforcable just as patents are. Just like 2 people could write very similar articles on the same subject but they have not copied each other.

Now back to the claws. They have a very distinct action and by patenting the differnt qualities of those claws the owner is protecting them as best as he legaly could. The patent system is weak at best. It is easy to get around a patent by changing something 20%. When somebody knowingly copies a patented design they are steeling. They are diliberatly trying to cash in on the hard work of the guy who who designed the original. In the fishing industry this runs rampant and is so common that some consumers dont understand why sombody would sue over something as simple as a claw. The answer is easy. Because the owner designed them and marketed them and put his time and money into it and others come along and try to cash in on it. They are to lazy to do their own work.

Their views are soo distorted that they think the guy that is getting ripped off is being greedy buy trying to recover what is rightfuly his.

If sombody came into your yard and stole your truck that you worked hard for would you want it back? or would just let him have it? Intelectual property is property.

Now before you all jump on me for defending this suit. That is not realy what I am doing. I am defending the process. I am not a patent atorny or judge. I do not know that any of the companies named have infringed. That is for the judge to decide.

...

As the guy who made the comments regarding the claws:

I was being facetious.

Osprey39 reply :

Matt, you're 100% correct, intellectual property is property. From what I've gathered reading this thread, the guy's suit has merit. Part of the problem with our society is that people that would never go into a store and steal something have no problem downloading an MP3, software or movie that they don't pay for. They think it's no big deal.

Mattlures reply :

Osprey39 I am no saint and I am guilty of downloading music that I did not pay for. It is wrong and it is steeling. I am not going to justify it.

But I think it is much worse when you steel intelectual property and then sell it. Now your steeling on a much larger scale.

Pantera61 reply :

Quote

Quote
...
Now for guys who think he paca claws are copying a crawfish or something"natural" REALY??????????.

if you laid a paca craw claw next to an actualy claw from a real crawfish you would instantly know they are extremely different.

...

Also the myth that you cant patent something from nature is just plain wrong period. You can not patent a real crawfish claw but if you carved out a crawfish claw you could copywrite your original artwork. If somebody made a mold of your carving then you could sue them. If somebody carved there own version of a crawfish claw then its theirs. This example is only referring to copywrites, not patents but copywrites are inforcable just as patents are. Just like 2 people could write very similar articles on the same subject but they have not copied each other.

Now back to the claws. They have a very distinct action and by patenting the differnt qualities of those claws the owner is protecting them as best as he legaly could. The patent system is weak at best. It is easy to get around a patent by changing something 20%. When somebody knowingly copies a patented design they are steeling. They are diliberatly trying to cash in on the hard work of the guy who who designed the original. In the fishing industry this runs rampant and is so common that some consumers dont understand why sombody would sue over something as simple as a claw. The answer is easy. Because the owner designed them and marketed them and put his time and money into it and others come along and try to cash in on it. They are to lazy to do their own work.

Their views are soo distorted that they think the guy that is getting ripped off is being greedy buy trying to recover what is rightfuly his.

If sombody came into your yard and stole your truck that you worked hard for would you want it back? or would just let him have it? Intelectual property is property.

Now before you all jump on me for defending this suit. That is not realy what I am doing. I am defending the process. I am not a patent atorny or judge. I do not know that any of the companies named have infringed. That is for the judge to decide.

...

As the guy who made the comments regarding the claws:

I was being facetious.

And actually you're wrong about patenting a duplicate. There is a huge difference between making a cast of a living or non-living creature and actually carving or sculpting a reproduction of a living thing.

If you pour plastic into the mold of a fish and finished product does nothing except look like a fish, no motion, no action, no nothing, what can you patent?

Your lures, on the other hand, reproduce a mechanical movement or are have motion or action is patentable.

Grey Wolf reply :

Quote
Osprey39 I am no saint and I am guilty of downloading music that I did not pay for. It is wrong and it is steeling. I am not going to justify it.
But I think it is much worse when you steel intelectual property and then sell it. Now your steeling on a much larger scale.

No matter how you say it , stealing is stealing.

Mattlures reply :

Pantera61 In the taxidermy market when a company makes a mold of a fish and sells the reproductions they can protect their castings. I believe with a copywrite.

Bass-Brat thats what I said, but its a larger crime when you sell it. Personal use and selling for proffit are two different levels. BTW the last time I stole a song was over 3 years ago.

Brent, it is not for any of us to judge. That is the job of the judge. Maybe you could contact some of the other companies named in the suit and go in with their lawyer at a fraction of the cost.

As for the timing of the patent, You have 1 year after the product has been shown to aply for patent. then you have to show due dilligence while its pending to have your patent granted. This can take a while.

K_Mac reply :

Quote
Osprey39 I am no saint and I am guilty of downloading music that I did not pay for. It is wrong and it is steeling. I am not going to justify it.
But I think it is much worse when you steel intelectual property and then sell it. Now your steeling on a much larger scale.

Matt I'm mostly on your side here, BUT how can you say that stealing intellectual property related to fishing is "much worse" than stealing from music artists? The intellectual property of a musician is just as valuable to him as yours is to you. The argument that fishing related theft is worse because it is "a much larger scale" would be hard to make to the people in the music business who are losing millions because of illegal Internet practices.

Pantera61 reply :

Quote
Pantera61 In the taxidermy market when a company makes a mold of a fish and sells the reproductions they can protect their castings. I believe with a copywrite.
Bass-Brat thats what I said, but its a larger crime when you sell it. Personal use and selling for proffit are two different levels. BTW the last time I stole a song was over 3 years ago.

Brent, it is not for any of us to judge. That is the job of the judge. Maybe you could contact some of the other companies named in the suit and go in with their lawyer at a fraction of the cost.

As for the timing of the patent, You have 1 year after the product has been shown to aply for patent. then you have to show due dilligence while its pending to have your patent granted. This can take a while.

@Mattlures: I'm not talking about anything beyond protecting a basic cast of a prey animal. I understand what you're talking about protecting and I'm actually in total agreement with what you're saying.

Raul reply :

Ok, that 's it, now I 've got a headache.

Wish Irene was here.

Mattlures reply :

K-mac thats not what I said. I said its worse when you sell it. It is larger crime. If you download a song or copy a lure for your own personal use you are only steeling 1 thing. If you mass produce that lure or song and sell them to thousands of people then you are steeling many times. I did not say one thing is ok and the other is not. I said one is worse then the other.

K_Mac reply :

Quote
K-mac thats not what I said. I said its worse when you sell it. It is larger crime. If you download a song or copy a lure for your own personal use you are only steeling 1 thing. If you mass produce that lure or song and sell them to thousands of people then you are steeling many times. I did not say one thing is ok and the other is not. I said one is worse then the other.

Matt I understand your point. Stealing with the intent to sell is a more serious crime. It is the same rationalization that people make when downloading music illegally. At the end of the day these practices costs the creators of intellectual property and do violence to the creative process.

Mattlures reply :

I completley agree with you.

TackleGuru reply :

Quote
Obviously, i'm not able to really comment, or say EXACTLY what i'm feeling, but suppose........Hypothetically, rhetorically, and imaginarily; this Question;
I've been selling (not manufacturing,lol) these two baits i'm in 'trouble' for since 2005........and the patent is from 2007.... :-/ I'm no lawyer, nor can I afford one, lol, but doesn't this seem cut and dry?

(signed by some guy who stole Brent's password......)

Seriously.....seems odd that he has a patent produced 2 years after Brent started selling these. Which means they were probably being manufactured way before then.

Hmm...I think I will find something that doesn't have a patent yet and get it patented myself.

mrbassky reply :

Wonder if he is related to Cal Naughton Jr. AKA the magic man. ;D

AKA Mike Hancho

Mike Z reply :

Quote

Quote
Obviously, i'm not able to really comment, or say EXACTLY what i'm feeling, but suppose........Hypothetically, rhetorically, and imaginarily; this Question;
I've been selling (not manufacturing,lol) these two baits i'm in 'trouble' for since 2005........and the patent is from 2007.... :-/ I'm no lawyer, nor can I afford one, lol, but doesn't this seem cut and dry?

(signed by some guy who stole Brent's password......)

Seriously.....seems odd that he has a patent produced 2 years after Brent started selling these. Which means they were probably being manufactured way before then.

Hmm...I think I will find something that doesn't have a patent yet and get it patented myself.

You see these words on a product all the time

"Patent Pending"

The process can take quite a while and even though some products take a year or more from conception to market, even large companies cannot get through the process before their product goes to market.

The fact that his design was issued a patent means that nobody had yet patented the design. I guess if it can be proven that these were in circulation before he applied for the patent then that would be a good defense.

FWIW with the music deal, downloading will get you in trouble. Hosting the songs on your computer for others to download will get you in a whole lot more trouble. The RIAA went after many college kids for doing this and sought millions in damages. Personally, I think the music industry screwed themselves over early on with these lawsuits, but with the advent of iTunes they may have wound up actually protecting their future. People no longer want to buy entire albums and to be honest, the albums today are crap for the most part. very few true artists and songwriters anymore. Everyone just buys lyrics and performs on stage.

TackleGuru reply :

lol, Mrs. Bairds and Sara Lee would be screwed!!

Incheon Basser reply :

Question for someone who might know... I have been drawing and testing a creature bait of my own creation. There is nothing in the market that looks the same or even has the same action as the bait I'm working on. But your telling me that if I rib something here and shape something there that may resemble a part of another bait (not the whole, but a part and not exactly but resemble) I can be sued for patent infringement? that's retarded. In music and movies you can't even copyright the music. you can copyright the words, or the words and song together but the melody is public domain. that's how weird ale gets away with it. you can't copyright the notes C B F G A, in that order because there are only so many notes to use. but those notes with that melody and these words you can copyright.

HOW DO you COPYRIGHT or Paten A SHAPE? A circle is a circle A Square is a Square. The process or an exact replication of something I understand. but a shape?

Please someone help me understand this before I loose my shirt trying to sell a bait I designed my self

Mike Z reply :

Incheon Basser, this is why you should contact an attorney who specialized in patent law. They know the system and can help you push everything through. If your design infringes on one or more patents then they should be able to help you negotiate for licensing of that specific portion.

Also remember that not everything patented comes to market. Its very possible that someone out there has patented designs and ideas but the patent is just sitting there because they haven't figured out a total design that worked. (and patents do expire too)

pitchin1 reply :

He has a patent on the curved flappy claws on the Paca's and some have outright copied it others have changed it slightly. Time will tell how it plays out..

BrentB reply :

On 5/20/2010 at 4:51 AM, pitchin1 said:

He has a patent on the curved flappy claws on the Paca's and some have outright copied it others have changed it slightly. Time will tell how it plays out..

Since I bailed my own arse outta this suit.....i think i'm free to speak now.

Part of Netbaits suit (a small part) was aimed at one company who placed "patent pending" on baits where no patent existed. Netbait wanted damages 'per pack' of baits that had this label on them. (the messed up... "typical government" part is that the government splits the take on this type of 'penalty'. How the whistle blower gets a cut..... i'll never know!

Ironically, another person in the suit (yum) popped up with a saved webpage that netbait had posted a year before the release of their bait as well as a year before their patent was approved. It said "Patent Pending" as well; without a patent. Yum now wants netbait to pay for every pack that they've sold since their 'deception' Its gonna get nasty, that's guaranteed. Fact is that the same "taper" that netbait is suing for (not necessarily the exact pincher shape..more the width of the inside of the pincher to the thickness of the outside edge) was patented by Yum (CHUNK TRAILER) in 2003.......years before paca. I believe they opened a big can of worms......when they should have cut bait and went home. A regular ol' "cease and desist" letter would have worked if they had sent me one, and suing these larger companies in District Court with a 10k limit is just insane to me.

I know you talked about your buddy who almost lost everything for 10 years, but finally won 100 million dollars. I would say his story is FAR from typical and that in most cases, the little guy WILL LOSE. Gamble of a lifetime; I'll Pass.

Brent

Scorcher214 reply :

Is GYCB suing anybody over the stickworm? Shoot, EVERYBODY has a version of that...

Glenn reply :

Wow, way to bring up a year-old post! Thanks for filling us in on how it ended.

6 pages from an old post is sufficient.

G'night Irene.

6019

McNaughton Who??? Did anyone else see this!!! (Lawsuit) 2024

related Fishing Tackle topic

previous topic

next topic

most viewed Fishing Tackle topic