Ummm TerryM I guess I am not reading things the same way you are. This is from Archery Talk. Kate Strother the president of Elite Archery posted it.

"The Court finds that the non competition clause contained in the 2001 employment agreement between Mr. Strother and Bowtech is not valid.
Defendants are permitted to market product produced from existing inventory, until August 31, 2006. After August 31, 2006, Defendants are enjoined from:

A binary cam that is the same in appearance to the Bowtech cam

A riser that is the same in appearance and color to the Bowtech

Bow strings with speed nocks

Any bow with a limb mounting angle that is within three degrees of the existing limb mounting angle of Bowtech bows.

I just received this ruling from Lyle C. Velure Circuit Court Judge. I hope this will put to rest any rumors that Elite Archery will be shutting the doors. I would like to say "Thank you " for your continued support. "


This doesn't sound like Elite is going out of business to me.

And all of the responces over there are positive to Elite. Maybe I am reading something wrong, but they seem to be thinking its a good verdict for Elite.

well, bowtech knocks out an oppenent

Moosekill,
True Kevin may have avoided the "Noncompetition" clause as most those cases don't fly anyway but the ruling states he can't sell his line of bows anymore and any new designs can't look anything like a bowtech. So, he has to completely redesign his entire line about 3 months before hunting season. It took him over a year to start shipping knockoffs some how I doubt he can pull a completely new line of bows easily. You realize that when they say "enjoin" that is legalease for prohibited by law right? This is not a good ruling for Elite in fact its devastating. As for all the positive posts I just think they don't want to believe or don't understand the ruling.

I'd say they're screwed unless they have another design in the rack. This appears to be damage control to me so they can unload a lot of inventory they can't after Sept. It's always easy later on to say we tried, but now we have to close our doors. I don't know why everyone calls it a knock off, it's a stolen patent, not a knock off. He tried them and they took him to court. And, it's not Bowtech knocking out an opponent, it's protecting patents and design. Stealing is stealing at no matter what level. And they never were an opponent, it hadn't come to that yet. Con man gets caught is all it sounds like to me.

if they are not up and running why are they still making such a good website? just though i would ask.
www.elitearchery.com

I can design and host a really nice website. The dude took the patents......repainted and cut the cams a little different, and tried to make a new company....... Used a pretty face to, but even that didn't fly.

Unless they have some orignial designs, good ridance to bad rubbish......

"Unless they have some orignial designs, good ridance to bad rubbish"

I guess that all of the bows copying the switchback are bad rubbish????I can think of one, the browning illusion that looks like a clone. However, there are differences in the cam. I am sure that Kevin cant think of a few things to change appearances. Probably already working on it... In the end, we need competition out there. WE, as archers, benefit from it.
I will also say that the Energy that I own has a COMPLETELY different draw cycle than any bowtech that I have owned. It is NOT similar to the binary cam bowtech that I own...it is more similar to the dual cam bowtechs, though not identicle. I have used both the speed and smooth mods and the elite does not load at the front like the bowtech binary.

wow, it may be a good idea to leave the legaleze to the lawyers.i'm not one, but i've got a family full of them, and its not a bad verdict for elite - its not a devastating verdict for elite in my opinion - but what do i know - and for a lay person like me to interpret legaleze - you're just asking for trouble. you need a bunch of lawyers to define the word 'appearance' - and that's all that is. what appears different can actually be exactly the same in performance and function - as long as it appears different to the court.
i'm kind of wondering why folks are sticking their noses in this when none of us know exactly what the heck this very vague ruling even means to the practical business of the company. you can bet that if/when kevin designs and builds a new bow, there will be plenty of takers because he is good at what he does. i love my patriot. anyone who can design a bow and cam like that is not going to be out of work. i don't have a dog in this fight for either side by the way- i just know i've read thousands of pages of legal documents and watched my dad digging thru books to find out what they really mean, and finding obscure references from the past to even change what rulings practically mean - beyond how they were intended. i think this is something that will just have to be seen.

How can you not think this is a bad ruling for them? They've been told to STOP after Sept. They have a limited time to unload some inventory. TO go past that they have to have a new design, rework their line, stop all contracts with jobbers, make new contracts to produce new parts etc etc. It all takes time and cost money. Money they've already invested and been told to stop. It certainly isn't good. I don't have to know the law, the courts told us what was what.