You can't really still be missing this, can you? If you were to induce, encourage, etc. call it what you wish, infringement, and a US Citizen took you up on it, then the US citizen would be guilty of infringement and you could potentially be sued for inducing infringement. You don't have to break a Canadian law. IF you did something that caused the patent holder to suffer damages, IF his pocketbook and give a crap were big enough, and IF he could get past jurisdiction issues, he "could" sue you.

 

Further, actively encouraging others to infringe patents, or supplying or importing components of a patented invention, and related acts can also give rise to liability in certain cases.
​

It would be a gigantic leap to say that CM actively encouraged patent infringement by providing instructions on making metal cores any more than the many, many websites that sell metal cores are infringing.

People can start and even win lawsuits over coffee being served to them too hot and without a warning on the outside of the cup that the contents can burn. To argue over whether a case is possible or not really serves no purpose since it's possible to sue over practically anything. Call me names in this forum and I could sue you. Sure, me responding with an appropriate smiley is more likely but that doesn't mean a lawsuit isn't possible.

In this case a lawsuit would cost way more than any possible return from the lawsuit, so it's not going to happen. This is somebody that makes slingshots one at a time, only a few each year, and sells them to people that want one in their collection badly enough to pay the high dollar cost to get a numbered, original sps complete with a coin to set next to it in the display case. I don't see anybody here encouraging people to fake up an sps and coin and try to sell it to unsuspecting people as an actual sps; without that what are the real damages to argue in court?

 

Hey do you guys know the difference between a lawyer and a hooker? The hooker will stop screwing you when your dead.

 

You guys are truly exhausting. There's nothing tortured about the argument I'm making. It's a logical decision tree. Yes, it takes several steps to get there, and of course it's a hypothetical if there isn't a specific case to follow. And there's no doubt that it would cost a small fortune for anyone to try to sue. None of that negates the argument.

 

When my wife and I moved in to our current property, we wanted to fence the property. We got an official survey done and property line marked. Before I could start installing the fence, we got notification from an attorney that a neighbor of ours wanted to sue us under Colorado's Adverse Possession law, claiming that they had exclusive use of the back 70 feet of our property for over the past 18 years, and were the legal owners of that land.
It cost several thousand in legal fees and still I had to do the investigation myself to prove the adverse possession claim was bogus and they had no right to take a big chunk of our land, so the case was dropped without ever going to court. If I hadn't done the investigation myself the lawyers would have drug it out for years, I have no doubt.

I had never been sued before and hope I never am again, but my goodness I couldn't believe how easy it is for somebody to sue you and what a gigantic hassle and expense it can be for both parties. Several thousand dollars just to prove what I paid for actually belonged to me. Several thousand dollars expense for the neighbor to try to steal land from us, but gain nothing in the end. If the lawyers had their way it would have cost a lot more, but in the end nobody won but the lawyers. It definitely left a bitter taste in my mouth for our civil legal system.

 

Lol there's nothing about my argument that is a "slippery slope". Neither are slippery slope arguments necessarily invalid. I'm really not even trying to present an argument. I've showed you what the law says, showed you that lawsuits can be extended outside of the country (although this is extremely challenging and expensive), tried to clarify the difference between being prosecuted for violating a law and being sued for damages in civil court, and presented the hurdles required for such a prosecution to go forward. You are arguing that a person outside of the US can't be touched. While the probability is really low of that happening (and I certainly don't wish anything bad on you or anyone else), you're just plain wrong. It all depends on how a lawyer wants to go about making a case, whether it's financially justifiable, and whether the courts involved see the issue as a significant matter of law.

Regarding slippery slopes ......

From Wikipedia:

"The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific rule or course of action is likely to result in unintended consequences and that these "unintended consequences" are undesirable (and, typically, worse than either inaction or another course of remediation)." My hypothetical differs from this definition because the consequences are known. If a US patent holder were to decide to try to prosecute out of the country, then this would happen, then this, then this, etc. The process is defined, not unintended, even though at any point in the process a decision could be made that impacts the ability to proceed to the end.

Also from Wikipedia:

"Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid; the slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established." As you can see, a slippery slope argument is not invalid "by its nature" as you claim. And as I said above, the process of prosecuting is established.

I'm ready to completely drop this any time that you are. But if you want to keep making false or uninformed assertions .....

 

Really? 13 pages? Don't feed the troll fellas.

 

Sorry mrs m! Im going to go outside and play slingshot now.

 

Whoa whoa whoa fella`s...we`re talkin bout slingshots here, ever since the whole patent issue there have been debates and like all debates their are two sides, but as I see it, this is an issue that can and probably will be argued till the end of time with no conclusion...I have my own thoughts on the whole subject but tend to stay out of the ruckus as I see it as an issue that will never be solved or agreed upon so why waste time lacing up my gloves...the one thing I`ve noticed about this discussion and a few others in the past is things always tend to get out of line because of one or two individuals who enjoy stirring up the sh*t pot which fuels the fire even more as I have seen here, some folks thrive on that as others can be very passionate about their beliefs and the sh*t stirrers have a field day....well enough is enough, as adults we need to act as such and cease with the name calling and trolling, I ask that everyone sit back, take a deep breath and see this subject for what it is....fruitless...let`s all agree to disagree as adults and put an end to what is now an out of control thread.....one last thought here, you sh*t pot stirrers, and you know who you are, I`m gonna give you one piece of advice here and I strongly suggest you take it...take that stick and chuck it as far as you can because that type of childish BS will not be tolerated here ! now let`s all carry on and have fun with this sport, after all, isn't that why we`re here ? Happy Shooting everyone....Thank you for your anticipated cooperation !

 

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

 

My apologies for adding to this; I should have kept opinions to myself.

 

all good fella`s....it`s over, back to the good stuff

 

I think it's only fair to let me respond to this one more time, and then I'm done. Please, everyone, understand that I am not trolling. I'm just trying to discuss patents in a patent thread. I apologize for stepping on anyone's toes. I do tend to let my sarcastic side show at times.

I get that there are people here who don't like the patent, that don't think they need to honor it, or that don't care because they don't live in the US or for any other number of reasons. My only point is that those who say, "It doesn't apply to me" are not correct in most cases. What they really should be saying is, "the odds of it impacting me are slim to none." I think I've given enough references to show that if you live in the US, you can't make, use, sell, or import without authorization. If you live in the US and encourage others to infringe, you can be found liable. If you live outside the US and do the same, you can also be found liable BUT the odds are greatly in your favor that it will not impact you.

As I've said before, I'm just presenting what can happen, and I've provided references that discuss this. Prove to me that it can't happen and you've got something. Every step of the process that I laid out could happen. The fact that it's unlikely doesn't negate it.

By the way, I hope all of you understand that I would feel exactly the same way about any patent that you or anyone else came up with. I have no vested interest in this particular patent, but I do think that patents can be an important part of fostering ingenuity and that they should be respected.

 

I think it is fair for me to respond as well.