Replies to post #89157 on APT MotoVox Group Inc. (MTVX)

[BlueRayn]

APT's case against Monster Moto is more than a slam dunk imo. The counter suit pr is a desperate attempt to stop the bleeding of sales drops & distributor anxiety.

Monster Moto is now a plant without water... soon to wither in the Texas heat.

$MTVX (Tweet it!)

[BettingAngles]

Actually, If the ex-employees had a non-compete clause in their original APT employment contracts, YES-It is a SLAM DUNK. The patent infringement victory would be ICING ON THE CAKE..

[no_brag_just_fact]

Your take on the case is full of holes...

NB

[PennyHeaven7]

diannedawn, ONLY a trial by JURY will truly decide who copied who's Patents here, no less Big box Packaging. BUT after doing my own personal DD , IF ?? I was on the Jury I would say to myself is all this just a coincidence, or was it truly patent infringement taking place here by Monstor MOTO. ???? IMO


Just Look at Even the way they use the same or very similar Product Big Box's, colors etc, it seems that this Motster Moto copied APT/Motovox's Colors & similar Lo-Go to try and trick people into thinking this is a APT Product, when as we all know it is NOT. How Low can this Monster Moto go to trick the Public into thinking it is a APT/Motovox cycle. ??? IMO


(1) Look at the monster moto Big Box Products, it seems to use the same colors as APT on their Big Box Products.
https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t31.0-8/1966136_618382241579731_8729393843985420982_o.jpg


(2)now LOOK at our APT/Motovox Warehouse Boxed Products, they sure look like Motster Moto copied from us APT. IMO

http://investorshub.advfn.com/uimage/uploads/2014/4/17/mvcbq563026_324366784289295_2089800352_n.jpg

I bet a Jury will also see what I see, they Monster Moto deliberately, copied APT from Product to even the BOX they ship it in. IMO

[Kool Aid Man]

Suit/counter-suit=major financial drain on both companies

Here's what people need to know....

TROY COVEY & APT HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO PRACTICALLY >>OWN<< THE MINI-BIKE MARKET. THEY WERE THE THOUSAND POUND GORILLA... THE CATEGORY KILLER OF COMPETITION IN THIS AREA. INSTEAD, THEIR APPARENT FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT GROUND PRODUCTION TO A VIRTUAL HALT AND DROVE THE COMPANY TO THE BRINK OF BANKRUPTCY. AS A RESULT, A COMPETITOR WAS ABLE TO STEP IN AND GAIN A TOE-HOLD.

[Bender77]

Everyone should review this

http://www.scribd.com/doc/231937060/APT-Group-v-Monster-Moto-Amended-Complaint

A non-compete/non-disclosure was signed. These guys broke the terms of the contract. pretty simple.

Umsted, Francis, Salander and the Rice's used the contacts, connections, etc in bad faith. You can't sign an agreement, leave your employer and take confidential information (or information information gathered on the company dime and considered proprietary) to a competitor. That when lawsuits happen, and that's what we see here.

[Kool Aid Man]

Has APT yet bothered to "serve" MonsteMoto notice of their intent to sue?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/234833504/Monster-Moto-721

[maximus_art]

APT has a strong case.. This isn't China, where you can copy or closely copy someone's idea and "re-frame" it and call it yours. APT has patents and patents mean something. Ask Samsung.

You may think it is absurd but this is peoples livelihood on the line. Apple can sue for Rounded Edges on a square frame and win with the case regarding cellphones to the tune of 1 billion dollars., APT has a much more solid case vs Monster than Apple had vs Samsung..

http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ipad-design-patent-2012-11?op=1

Apple has been granted a design patent for the rounded edges to the rectangular screen of the iPad, Matt Macari at The Verge reports.

Apple owns patent D670,286, which is "The ornamental design for a portable display device."

That means it really does just cover the rounded edges of the iPad. "There's no other way to look at it," says Macari.

Apple also has a similar design patent for the iPhone, which it used in its lawsuit against Samsung.

To win a design patent, Apple needs to show that its an ornamental design, and not a practical design, says Christina Bonnington at Wired. In other words, rounded corners can't be essential to building or using a tablet.

Apple can't use this patent in a lawsuit against Samsung, Lea Shaver, Associate Professor at Indiana University’s McKinney School of Law tells Wired. The reason is that Samsung has made its designs different enough that they don't look like the iPad.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ipad-design-patent-2012-11?op=1#ixzz39UdSagSC