# Elite Archery vs Bowtech



## ELITEARCHERYCEO (Nov 11, 2005)

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. :wink: 

Kate Strother
President
Elite Archery Inc


----------



## Kelly Johnson (May 22, 2005)

Congrats Kate. Looks like you guys are off to a running start.
Bows look and feel great, fast, quiet and forgiving....great price point.

Glad to see you here solid.


----------



## Kelly Johnson (May 22, 2005)

Oh yeah...what does "enjoined" mean anyway?:wink:


----------



## Lung Buster 371 (Feb 11, 2006)

:grouphug:


----------



## Donna Martin (Jul 13, 2005)

Now that's m'girl!!!! Congrats, as always much love, joy, and peace to you-mom:tongue:


----------



## tuskbuster (Apr 8, 2006)

Now Lets Get Busy


----------



## tbailey (Feb 25, 2004)

Kate,

Congratulations to you and Kevin on the ruling! I think it's win-win for us archers. YOU GO GIRL!!! 

P.S. Killer pattern on the E-leaf, definitely a home run in the camo department! I can't wait to see one of these new babies in person.


----------



## Hemingway (Sep 7, 2005)

ELITEARCHERYCEO said:


> 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


Jeez... that sure leaves a lot open to interpretation. I mean to the average person (i.e. non-archer) ALL cams pretty much look alike. 

Personally, I don't see that this ruling really solved anything for the long term....


----------



## Bowdoc (Jan 22, 2003)

The Webster definition of enjoined is: Prohibit by judicial order.


----------



## karday (Aug 20, 2002)

Kelly Johnson said:


> Oh yeah...what does "enjoined" mean anyway?:wink:



MEAN S YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM DOING THE FOLLOWING........


----------



## tuskbuster (Apr 8, 2006)

Hemingway said:


> Jeez... that sure leaves a lot open to interpretation. I mean to the average person (i.e. non-archer) ALL cams pretty much look alike.
> 
> Personally, I don't see that this ruling really solved anything for the long term....


Guess the "07 models will be available in September.:thumb:


----------



## Dave Nowlin (May 21, 2003)

I'm more than a little confused as many bow companies use speed nocks not just BowTech. I'm also trying to figure out exactly which colors you are enjoined from using. Would that be green, brown, black, red blue, chrome,tan, gray and any other shade in any of their camoflage patterns? Exactly how do you design a riser with sufficient reflex that doesn't in any way look like a BowTech riser. How do you build a parallel limb bow that isn't within 3 degrees plus or minus of any of BowTechs current limb angles. Further if you don't know exactly what they are coming out with next year how do you know exactly what limb angles to use? How do you define Binary Cams that don't look like BowTech's? In what way must they look different? Color, shape, geometry of the cams, what? While I'm sure the judge meant well and this ruling certainly didn't shut down Elite, what exactly does this very ambiguous ruling really mean?
Dave Nowlin


----------



## mdewitt71 (Jul 20, 2005)

Cool stuff, now I gotta get home so I can check out the Elite Archery Factory :tongue:


----------



## tuskbuster (Apr 8, 2006)

Dave Nowlin said:


> I'm more than a little confused as many bow companies use speed nocks not just BowTech. I'm also trying to figure out exactly which colors you are enjoined from using. Would that be green, brown, black, red blue, chrome,tan, gray and any other shade in any of their camoflage patterns? Exactly how do you design a riser with sufficient reflex that doesn't in any way look like a BowTech riser. How do you build a parallel limb bow that isn't within 3 degrees plus or minus of any of BowTechs current limb angles. Further if you don't know exactly what they are coming out with next year how do you know exactly what limb angles to use? How do you define Binary Cams that don't look like BowTech's? In what way must they look different? Color, shape, geometry of the cams, what? While I'm sure the judge meant well and this ruling certainly didn't shut down Elite, what exactly does this very ambiguous ruling really mean?
> Dave Nowlin


It means IMHO that Bowtech will have to again hire legal council to contest Elite's designs. I thought Darton had the patent on the cams?


----------



## tuskbuster (Apr 8, 2006)

wouldn't the bowstring issue be with Winners Choice?


----------



## J.C. (Aug 20, 2004)

I don't get the speed nock thing. That's pretty much industry wide. 

So does this mean Elite can't use a limb angle +/- 3 degrees from any current Bowtech bow? 

:noidea:


----------



## mttc08 (Feb 21, 2005)

all this is.........is, well, as clear as mud???...............


----------



## Dave Nowlin (May 21, 2003)

That's the question I was asking. When you start elmiminating limb angles in six degree brackets on four different bows which each have different angles, you basically forbid a lot. I guess now we get to find out if Kevin can reinvent the compound bow as we know it. I'm rooting for you Kevin and wish somehow I could help.
Dave Nowlin


----------



## meanv2 (Jan 28, 2004)

It will become clearer sometime I am sure.


----------



## elkreaper (Apr 2, 2006)

Dave Nowlin said:


> I'm more than a little confused as many bow companies use speed nocks not just BowTech. I'm also trying to figure out exactly which colors you are enjoined from using. Would that be green, brown, black, red blue, chrome,tan, gray and any other shade in any of their camoflage patterns? Exactly how do you design a riser with sufficient reflex that doesn't in any way look like a BowTech riser. How do you build a parallel limb bow that isn't within 3 degrees plus or minus of any of BowTechs current limb angles. Further if you don't know exactly what they are coming out with next year how do you know exactly what limb angles to use? How do you define Binary Cams that don't look like BowTech's? In what way must they look different? Color, shape, geometry of the cams, what? While I'm sure the judge meant well and this ruling certainly didn't shut down Elite, what exactly does this very ambiguous ruling really mean?
> Dave Nowlin


I think it means research and development and possibly an all new and better bow.


----------



## Shaman (Jun 19, 2005)

This is interesting from an outsiders point of view.

Considering that there are only so many degrees of angle.
Are they saying that basically any new bow line has to be sufficiently different from an existing bow line? That seems a bit extreme, considering that I bet the Bowtech line is within 3 degrees of some other line that existed before it.

Colors are measured in shades, that is an easy work around.

Cam design... seems that cam design appear different with different cut outs and/or module designs.

Strings? oh well. Offer them as accessories and just not in the strings themselves on sale.

I'm on the edge of my seat to see how Elite works around the above.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

The ruling is sufficiently vague as to virtually guarantee an appeal and to make it expensive and complicated for Blowtech to challenge future Elite bow designs, due to the general sameness of all bows in the industry.

Jim Quarles


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

FS560 said:


> The ruling is sufficiently vague as to virtually guarantee an appeal and to make it expensive and complicated for Blowtech to challenge future Elite bow designs, due to the general sameness of all bows in the industry.
> 
> Jim Quarles



I read it differently-with the injunction in place it means that the court found that Elite was infringing and the burden will be on them to establish that their new designs do not and yes, there will be more costs if BT files a motion for contempt


----------



## Bellows1 (Oct 19, 2003)

Thank you for the information Kate.


Everyone please stay on topic with this thread.


----------



## Bullish9 (Aug 27, 2002)

Not Good for Elite, They have 2 months to design, manufacture, test and bring to market a new bow line up seems like a tall order. At least thats what I got out of the above post. Hope they can pull it off.


----------



## huntnhammer (Nov 4, 2005)

Just wondering, how did this whole thing start?


----------



## Myk (Nov 19, 2003)

> Are they saying that basically any new bow line has to be sufficiently different from an existing bow line? That seems a bit extreme, considering that I bet the Bowtech line is within 3 degrees of some other line that existed before it.


I think it means that while Martin, PSE or any other company can make Bowtech "look alikes" Kevin cannot because he worked for Bowtech.


----------



## ultramax (Feb 6, 2005)

What I want to know most is will I be able to get parts for my elite bow in the future?


----------



## dartman (Apr 22, 2004)

Myk said:


> I think it means that while Martin, PSE or any other company can make Bowtech "look alikes" Kevin cannot because he worked for Bowtech.


Myk, you just said in 24 words what I was probably going to blow a hundred or more on....

The judgement seems contradictory to me....on the one hand it invalidates the "no compete clause"....then on the other, it seeks to prevent K&K (and only K&K) from competing directly with BT.


----------



## Antihunter (May 5, 2005)

If you will notice what Kate highlighted is the word apperance. I take that is all that their lawyer has told them to be worried about.


----------



## Hemingway (Sep 7, 2005)

Antihunter said:


> If you will notice what Kate highlighted is the word apperance. I take that is all that their lawyer has told them to be worried about.


Yes, but as I pointed out "similar in appearance" means different things to different people... and different judges...


----------



## Friar Tuck (Nov 18, 2004)

*Appearance*

Congratulations Kate. Best of luck for the future.

"Appearance" in legal terms would equate to being able to distinguish one brand from the other given that no Manufacturers label is on the product. Also remember that the 3 degree angle is applicable to the limb attachment assembly not the overall limb operation or action.

Any way all the best for the future of Elite Archery. I may even get to shoot them one day. :darkbeer:


----------



## alwayslookin (May 28, 2003)

*I would think*



Bullish9 said:


> Not Good for Elite, They have 2 months to design, manufacture, test and bring to market a new bow line up seems like a tall order. At least thats what I got out of the above post. Hope they can pull it off.


That Kevin would have been doing this all along......he had to know what the contested issues were and I would think he would have to expect to lose something in this lawsuit. And I am sure Kate hsd pretty good council.....she is tied in with Martin and they have a little experience in these things.
My bet is the reason for slow delivery on 06 bows, is cause 07 bows are allready a contigency.


----------



## Pinwheel 12 (Jun 11, 2002)

Congrats to Kate and Kev and Elite. This is a major coup for them I think.

1) They won the non-compete outright. They do not have to pay big money out of the blocks, and that's big. That was the killing stroke BT was hoping for, and they didn't get it.

2) Key word here in the rest of it is "appearance". Appearance can be changed (and defended in court) as subtly as by changing the color, or changing riser and cam cutouts, rounding a cam lobe off, increasing or decreasing pocket angle slightly,(3 degress isn't squat) lengthening or shortening ATA by an inch, increase or decrease brace height by a little, install a E-suppressor with each bow from the factory, etc, etc. No big deal...In fact their grips and risers are already different in appearance, but maybe they should just lengthen or shorten them slightly to get away from the same ATA and brace, and then throw the e-leaf or Nightvision on them to get away from a close resemblance to the BT colors---done! Cams are simple too--again, it's the "appearance", not the "design", and that is very easy to change.

They won overall IMHO. (Now send me the rest of my e-leaf bows before hunting season starts!:tongue::wink: )


----------



## bsand (Jan 12, 2003)

*Same in Appearance*

I think some of you are overlooking the phrase "same in appearance". Which would mean "alike in every respect or identical". Cutout changes, squared to rounded, rounded to squared,reflex/deflex, etc. I believe would eliminate the same in appearance.IMHO Kate and Kevin will have a new line ready before 8/31/06. I certainly wish them the BEST.


----------



## Luckie (Aug 7, 2005)

OK I've got a little pucker factor going on here. I've got 10 of the E-500 on order & I own one for myself. I love the bow but I'm a little concerned about how my customers will interpret this ruling.


----------



## walks with a gi (Oct 1, 2002)

41mag said:


> I don't get the speed nock thing. That's pretty much industry wide.
> 
> So does this mean Elite can't use a limb angle +/- 3 degrees from any current Bowtech bow?
> 
> :noidea:


 The speed nocks that I seen yesterday on an E500 looked to be in the exact location and number as my Allegiance. In years past, BowTech stated exactly where these nocks were to be located on a replacement string if one was changed out.


----------



## tuskbuster (Apr 8, 2006)

bsand said:


> I think some of you are overlooking the phrase "same in appearance". Which would mean "alike in every respect or identical". Cutout changes, squared to rounded, rounded to squared,reflex/deflex, etc. I believe would eliminate the same in appearance.IMHO Kate and Kevin will have a new line ready before 8/31/06. I certainly wish them the BEST.


What he said.


----------



## tuskbuster (Apr 8, 2006)

walks with a gi said:


> The speed nocks that I seen yesterday on an E500 looked to be in the exact location and number as my Allegiance. In years past, BowTech stated exactly where these nocks were to be located on a replacement string if one was changed out.


Bowtech makes there strings. Winners choice makes them for Elite. Does Winners choice use speed nocks on any other strings?


----------



## walks with a gi (Oct 1, 2002)

Don't know but I'm thinking it might have to do with the R&D in finding the correct placement for top performance. Proprietary information maybe?


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2006)

Pinwheel 12 said:


> Congrats to Kate and Kev and Elite. This is a major coup for them I think.
> 
> 1) They won the non-compete outright. They do not have to pay big money out of the blocks, and that's big. That was the killing stroke BT was hoping for, and they didn't get it.
> 
> ...


I agree, could be why the energy was change recently and the Ice with solid riser. Just thinkin out loud here.


----------



## Grampy™ (Nov 19, 2003)

By the way.... a little birdie told me that Elite was having trouble getting enogh strings, fast enough from Winners Choice and was switching to Vapor Trail strings......

I wonder how this court decision will effect my Sept. shipment of bows? (Not to mention my opening shipment and July shipment.)


----------



## Chance (Jan 9, 2005)

41mag said:


> I don't get the speed nock thing. That's pretty much industry wide.
> 
> So does this mean Elite can't use a limb angle +/- 3 degrees from any current Bowtech bow?
> 
> :noidea:



Neither do I 41mag. I think this could be reversed on appeal if Elite wanted to go the route. This is something that is industry wide and to punish one company with a ruling like this isn't right. Judges have to make decisions even when they know there are grounds for appeal and maybe this is one.


----------



## Dredly (May 10, 2005)

Chance said:


> Neither do I 41mag. I think this could be reversed on appeal if Elite wanted to go the route. This is something that is industry wide and to punish one company with a ruling like this isn't right. Judges have to make decisions even when they know there are grounds for appeal and maybe this is one.


The reason this rulling involved the limb angle is because Kevin was paid to design and build this for Bowtech, you can't just walk away from one company that paid you to make something and then turn around, quit, and use what you were paid to design to make money on your own


----------



## Chance (Jan 9, 2005)

Dredly said:


> The reason this rulling involved the limb angle is because Kevin was paid to design and build this for Bowtech, you can't just walk away from one company that paid you to make something and then turn around, quit, and use what you were paid to design to make money on your own


So if Elite gets another engineer and he uses a limb angle which is within 3 degrees of Bowtech that's ok? Providing that Engineer never worked for Bowtech. The bottom line is shoot what you like because I certainly am and neither is paying.


----------



## Hemingway (Sep 7, 2005)

Chance said:


> So if Elite gets another engineer and he uses a limb angle which is within 3 degrees of Bowtech that's ok?


ding, ding, ding...


----------



## Dredly (May 10, 2005)

Hemingway said:


> ding, ding, ding...


If Elite would have been founded by Kate and not Kevin and Kevin wasn't working for them I don't think this ruling would have happened. There is a difference between gaining experience doing a job and stealing product you were paid to invent and selling it to another company, which is exactly what happened here.


----------



## Hemingway (Sep 7, 2005)

Dredly said:


> If Elite would have been founded by Kate and not Kevin and Kevin wasn't working for them I don't think this ruling would have happened. There is a difference between gaining experience doing a job and stealing product you were paid to invent and selling it to another company, which is exactly what happened here.


Exactly!! Very well put.


----------



## Mizzoukispot (Feb 4, 2006)

Is that exactly what happened? Seems like a lot of speculation to me.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2006)

Mizzoukispot said:


> Is that exactly what happened? Seems like a lot of speculation to me.


Ding, Ding, Ding...


----------



## Jhorne (Jul 15, 2003)

ultramax said:


> What I want to know most is will I be able to get parts for my elite bow in the future?


Get 'em from Bowtech.


----------



## bowana (Jan 7, 2006)

ELITEARCHERYCEO said:


> The Court finds that the non competition clause contained in the 2001 employment agreement between Mr. Strother and Bowtech is not valid.
> 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. :wink:
> 
> Kate Strother
> ...


So now there was a non compete clause. You stated several months ago there was not a non compete clause. There is a big difference between a Judge finding a non compete clause to be invalid and there never being a non compete clause.

You also left a few things out. This case is not over. These are preliminary findings. This case is still on course to go to trial. There a still some matters to be addressed such as monetary damages, use of trade secrets and so on. The doors to Elite have not been closed yet, but the fat lady has not sung yet either. It is not that I want to see your company out of business but I see a pattern of lies and half truths here.


----------



## Shaman (Jun 19, 2005)

bowana said:


> but I see a pattern of lies and half truths here.


Their PR spin was no different than the Bowtech announcing their 'positive' outcome with the PSE suit. Par for the corporate world.


----------



## Hemingway (Sep 7, 2005)

bowana said:


> So now there was a non compete clause. You stated several months ago there was not a non compete clause. There is a big difference between a Judge finding a non compete clause to be invalid and there never being a non compete clause.
> 
> You also left a few things out. This case is not over. These are preliminary findings. This case is still on course to go to trial. There a still some matters to be addressed such as monetary damages, use of trade secrets and so on. The doors to Elite have not been closed yet, but the fat lady has not sung yet either. It is not that I want to see your company out of business but I see a pattern of lies and half truths here.


Several months ago?!?! Try several days ago...

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=345259



Elite Archery 1 said:


> To set the record straight, contrary to all the false rumors that have been spread, the truth finally came out, like I have said the whole time, I DO NOT HAVE A NON COMPETITION AGREEMENT. I can design anything I want for any company.
> 
> Elite has always been my wife Kate's company, not because I had a non competition agreement, it was Kate's company from the start. I helped Kate with some of the designs, and will continue to help with designs.
> 
> ...


----------



## bowana (Jan 7, 2006)

Shaman said:


> Their PR spin was no different than the Bowtech announcing their 'positive' outcome with the PSE suit. Par for the corporate world.


Point taken.:darkbeer:


----------



## bowana (Jan 7, 2006)

Hemingway said:


> Several months ago?!?! Try several days ago...
> 
> http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=345259


I missed that


----------



## Slippy Field (Nov 4, 2005)

Grampy™ said:


> By the way.... a little birdie told me that Elite was having trouble getting enogh strings, fast enough from Winners Choice and was switching to Vapor Trail strings......


Great News! I think Vapor Trail are better. Didn't Winner's Choice use to supply Bowtech until they decided it wasn't in their best interest to supply strings to that bunch?


----------



## wildboar (Jul 11, 2004)

Slippy Field said:


> Great News! I think Vapor Trail are better. Didn't Winner's Choice use to supply Bowtech until they decided it wasn't in their best interest to supply strings to that bunch?


Bowtech did have WC for a while but I think they also had supply problems. I think when Bowtech tried to "fix" the supply problem by using other strings W.C. said no thanks!


----------



## tuskbuster (Apr 8, 2006)

wildboar said:


> Bowtech did have WC for a while but I think they also had supply problems. I think when Bowtech tried to "fix" the supply problem by using other strings W.C. said no thanks!


According to Elite and WC they're still working together.


----------



## Slippy Field (Nov 4, 2005)

tuskbuster said:


> According to Elite and WC they're still working together.


I think the problem was WC problem with BT trying to blame them so they backed out. Now the press and the pressers get blamed.


----------



## tuskbuster (Apr 8, 2006)

Slippy Field said:


> I think the problem was WC problem with BT trying to blame them so they backed out. Now the press and the pressers get blamed.


Sadly I agree. Although I have never had a pressing issue.


----------



## Shooter300 (Mar 26, 2006)

*Pat on the back to ELITE*

Just wanted to put my praises and 2 cents worth in!

I'm sure whatever you folks at ELITE come up with to make the changes will be even better than what I considered to already be the best !  
To be totally honest so far every archer that has shot a Elite Bow in my shop has ordered one.

I had a fellow the other day come in the shop ( vice president of the local archery club) Shot the E-500 and ordered one Said: I've been shooting Mathews ( did't knock Mathews) for many years and to be perfectly honest Dan I cannot find one thing about this bow that I don't like ! 

Anyway I think the folks at Elite are Unique and I'll be patienting waiting the new line up.

The Shop Arrows and Strings Dan Davis


----------



## whitetail99 (Feb 1, 2003)

Have any Pro shops received new Elite last week?


----------



## bisch5 (Apr 7, 2006)

From the ruling sounds to me that Bowtech may have opened there own can of worms. The ruling saying that Elite cannot use any Camo, cams and angles that are what bowtech is using or similar. what about all the bow companies that came out with speed nocks, cams, camo colors and mounting angles close to bowtechs, way before bowtech was ever bowtech. Does that not mean that they could go after bowtech, I do believe that this could result in a lot of law suits against bowtech.

I have been shooting since 1979 and have seen a lot of changes along the way, but this ruling really is ridiculous. 

Can’t wait to get my new Elite  


“ASK AND IT SHALL BE GIVEN, SEEK AND YOU SHALL FIND”
God bless and good luck!
Mike B


----------



## bisch5 (Apr 7, 2006)

whitetail99 said:


> Have any Pro shops received new Elite last week?




Dans shop arrows and string recieved a E500 nad has another on the way he also has an energy coming.


----------



## shilo (May 16, 2006)

I wonder how much money was spent by both sides and how much taxpayers money was spent? And that is what the court came up with? Like everyone else has said; it is such a vague ruling it's basically useless.


----------



## JDES900X (May 22, 2002)

*Elite is still shipping*



> Originally Posted by whitetail99
> Have any Pro shops received new Elite last week?


We received three more E-500's and two more Energys last week. The E-500's sell as fast as they come in. I think we've sold seventeen so far. Nice bows.


----------



## tuskbuster (Apr 8, 2006)

whitetail99 said:


> Have any Pro shops received new Elite last week?


Got 5 in last week. Have none left. I'm going to hold off ordering more til the '07's are out. No complaint's so far EXCEPT for the Quiver situation.


----------



## walks with a gi (Oct 1, 2002)

bisch5 said:


> From the ruling sounds to me that Bowtech may have opened there own can of worms. The ruling saying that Elite cannot use any Camo, cams and angles that are what bowtech is using or similar. what about all the bow companies that came out with speed nocks, cams, camo colors and mounting angles close to bowtechs, way before bowtech was ever bowtech. Does that not mean that they could go after bowtech, I do believe that this could result in a lot of law suits against bowtech.
> 
> I have been shooting since 1979 and have seen a lot of changes along the way, but this ruling really is ridiculous.
> 
> ...



The ruling and the limitations are because Kevin was an employee of BowTech. He used some of the R&D work to design the Elite bows that he helped develop while at BowTech. None of the other manufactures are affected, it's just what Kevin or Kate can't do because he was an employee. 

Hope this helps you to understand.


----------



## Mizzoukispot (Feb 4, 2006)

Russell- Are you really going to cut that hair?


----------



## bisch5 (Apr 7, 2006)

JDES900X said:


> We received three more E-500's and two more Energys last week. The E-500's sell as fast as they come in. I think we've sold seventeen so far. Nice bows.


Just wondering how the energys are looking? have had mine ordered for quite some time suppossed to get it in this week? How many Energys have been delivered to your shop. Thanks for the info.


----------



## bisch5 (Apr 7, 2006)

walks with a gi said:


> The ruling and the limitations are because Kevin was an employee of BowTech. He used some of the R&D work to design the Elite bows that he helped develop while at BowTech. None of the other manufactures are affected, it's just what Kevin or Kate can't do because he was an employee.
> 
> Hope this helps you to understand.


Thanks for the info. I still hope things work out for the best for everyone involved. It really is too bad that things got to the point they did. 
Take care and God Bless!


----------



## bisch5 (Apr 7, 2006)

Walks with GI.

I understand what you are saying but I heard (and that’s all it is, is hear say) That Kevin submitted a new limb or riser design to bowtech they rejected the design. I Don’t know the law but supposedly if an employer does not like what an employee submits to them, by the employer rejecting the idea they are saying they don’t want to use it. This in turn allows the employee to venture out on there own and use the idea as they wish, Contract or no contract. I don’t know the legalities but that’s just what I have been told. It does not really matter, hopefully both sides got what they wanted and it can be put to rest. I am looking forward to seeing Kevin’s new bow designs, I am sure they are going to be awesome. 

Take care and God Bless!


----------



## SPECTRE (Aug 20, 2003)

Hemingway said:


> Jeez... that sure leaves a lot open to interpretation. I mean to the average person (i.e. non-archer) ALL cams pretty much look alike.


Funny you should bring up that "non-archer" thing...........  


OK, as you were........


----------



## JDES900X (May 22, 2002)

> Just wondering how the energys are looking? have had mine ordered for quite some time suppossed to get it in this week? How many Energys have been delivered to your shop. Thanks for the info.


The Energy bows look good in e-leaf (green WC strings though). We've received six or so Energy bows. I think there might be one 70# left for sale, I know one sold yesterday.


----------



## bisch5 (Apr 7, 2006)

JDES900X said:


> The Energy bows look good in e-leaf (green WC strings though). We've received six or so Energy bows. I think there might be one 70# left for sale, I know one sold yesterday.



I heard that Elite is puting out an Energy in a 32" again am I hearing things correctly? Thanks For your info.


----------



## KurtVL (Nov 22, 2005)

bisch5 said:


> Walks with GI.
> 
> I understand what you are saying but I heard (and that’s all it is, is hear say) That Kevin submitted a new limb or riser design to bowtech they rejected the design. I Don’t know the law but supposedly if an employer does not like what an employee submits to them, by the employer rejecting the idea they are saying they don’t want to use it. This in turn allows the employee to venture out on there own and use the idea as they wish, Contract or no contract. I don’t know the legalities but that’s just what I have been told. It does not really matter, hopefully both sides got what they wanted and it can be put to rest. I am looking forward to seeing Kevin’s new bow designs, I am sure they are going to be awesome.
> 
> Take care and God Bless!


Regardless of whether or not Bowtech uses the rejected design, bowtech still owns it. Anything developed under the employment of a company is said companies property whether or not said company develops it.

I also hope the best for Elite and cant wait to see some "original" designs out of them.


----------



## teamhoyt (Jan 21, 2005)

I just wanna know if we're gonna get our bows, and if so, when? Then, are we going to be able to get parts for the ones we sell? And yet another, are we going to get any bows after the current stock is depleted? That's all I want to know.


----------



## whitetail99 (Feb 1, 2003)

thank you for the replies :darkbeer:


----------



## Mizzoukispot (Feb 4, 2006)

crash_gsxr750 said:


> Regardless of whether or not Bowtech uses the rejected design, bowtech still owns it. Anything developed under the employment of a company is said companies property whether or not said company develops it.


Do you know something specific about Kevins agreement with Bowtech? These agreements are done on an individual basis. I think that you could be right, but there is just about the same chance that you are wrong.


----------



## elkreaper (Apr 2, 2006)

Shaman said:


> Their PR spin was no different than the Bowtech announcing their 'positive' outcome with the PSE suit. Par for the corporate world.


However PSE and Bowtech settled out of court.


----------

