Brasseagle really suing Halo [Archive] - Automags.Org Online Forums

Hasty8

03-12-2002, 07:46 AM

There is one problem with BE's claim that I am going to make sure the folks at Odyssey realize.

All the patented loader systems the BE currently own are reactive systems. Meaning that they rely on a sensor seeing that the ffed neck is empty and then agitating or forcing the next baal into position.

The HALO is an active feed system. I literaly forces the balls down the feedneck so there is never a gap.

Just goes to show how BE knows they are "circling the drain".

M-a-s-sDriver

03-12-2002, 09:31 AM

The HALO is reactive also. It is only activated by an action which you perform. In other words, it will not force a ball down the feed neck until it senses another ball moving. To get that ball moving, you have to pull the trigger and fire a ball, and the HALO reacts to that. Whether or not the balls are forced down the neck is irrelevant. Technically, the balls are also being forced down the neck of the Eggo-lution, just by a differently shaped impeller. The only way ANY loader (WARP included) would not be reactive to some kind of input would be if it were running constantly.
Brent Jackson, PFB.

Hasty8

03-12-2002, 11:17 AM

Mass.

The Eggo and the Revy and the Richocet and even that new loader that vibrates all rely on a piece of the loader to tell it to start its agitation or loading systema and that is the laser in the feed neck.

What ever you do on the exterior of the loader to make that space in the feed tube has nothing to do with the classiication of active or reactive according to US Trademark law and common sense.

The HALO actively rounds up, sorts and prepares the paintballs for firing. It does not wait for a signal from an eye in the feedneck or the marker to fire for it to do this. It does this automatically as soon as it is powered on hence it is proactive.

Also, the HALO never stops this sorting and loading process until it is turned off which is the exact opposite of the Revy and the Eggo and all other agitated hoppers. These hoppers stop the process once that signal of a gap in the line is no longer being received. Yet again another example of the difference betwwen reactive and proactive.

re·ac·tive Pronunciation Key (r-ktv)
adj.
Tending to be responsive or to react to a stimulus.
Characterized by reaction.
Chemistry & Physics. Tending to participate readily in reactions

pro·ac·tive or pro-ac·tive Pronunciation Key (pr-ktv)
adj.
Acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty; anticipatory: proactive steps to prevent terrorism
(all definations taken from dictionary.com)

The difference between the HALO being proactive and the revvy being reactive is substantial enough to get this patent infringement lawsuit thrown out of court.

sifu01

03-12-2002, 11:19 AM

I love how that lawyers think they know technology. How come defending or presecuting lawyers think they are the ones that are right? They just want the money. I really do not think this lawsuit will go in BE's favor. Be is behind in technology and embarrassed that somone had a superior product.

Hasty8

03-12-2002, 11:25 AM

LAwyers have nothing to do with this. The corporate lawyers are merely told to sue and they sue. They have no clue what the technology is, that is why they call "expert witnieeses" and the like.

mykroft

03-12-2002, 11:30 AM

Well, The Revy and Eggo use a optical sensor to determine the need to feed (This is what is patented). The Ricochet uses a switch, so it's safe from a lwasuit. I'm not sure about the Halo, but if it's any sort of optical sensor, it's going to lose the lawsuit. The Zap Mach 404 senses vibrations, you can set it off by flicking the side of the feed tube, so it's definitely safe, apart from the general shape, it has no design traits in common with any other feed system, except the Warp (Which also uses a vibration sensor).

All feed systems are reactive.

Hasty8

03-12-2002, 11:31 AM

I just re-read the specs on the HALO and it appears that my initial understanding of how the HALO works was wrong. It does in fact use sensor technology just like the revvy and other agitator loaders which may just put the whole kabash on Odyssey.

Of course, most times something like this happens, since the HALO is so far removed from the Revvy and other BE loaders is a medium sized fine is imposed and eiher the courst order BE to allow HALO to continue with HALO paying them a liscensing fee.

beam

03-12-2002, 11:32 AM

I wonder how Odessy is handling this. Case or no case...what is this gonna do to HALO prices?

Mantis

03-12-2002, 11:32 AM

IMO, that is a bunch of crap. How the heck can we have different manufacturers of anything, if the first person states his patent general enough? I thought the Halo and Ricochet were cool law-wise because their sensors working in a different manner from Viewloader's.
I'm going to sit down and dream up patents... here's one, a device that replaces the liver. There, when scientists get around to making a fake liver, they better pay me.
Second, after reading that patent -"Essentially a jam free loader" Does that mean I can sue BE for selling me an Evo? Cause that thing jammed more than my Dominator Commander.
Lastly, and I know this will never happen, but it would be nice if paintballers got ticked off enough that we boycotted... just boycott JT for a month and BE would be crying.

Hasty8

03-12-2002, 11:34 AM

Mykroft.

If the HALO did not use sensor technology and merely used an on/off switch to turn the device on or off then it would be proactive.

If the mechanism stays on constantly and does not respond to any sensing of vobration from the gun or a signal from a sensor but instead readys the ball to fill the space that will eventually come how is that reactive?

IF the above situation were tur then it would fit into the definition of proactive.

Hasty8

03-12-2002, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Mantis
I'm going to sit down and dream up patents... here's one, a device that replaces the liver. There, when scientists get around to making a fake liver, they better pay me.

Mantis. A submission for a patent must be accompanied either by a working model or plans sufficient enough to build a working model from.

A Trademark must be accompanied with an actual rendering and description of how the image will look in various print and media.

A copyright has to have the copy.

Mantis

03-12-2002, 11:45 AM

Ah, you've ruined my dreams, and my spiteful retort against BE!
Guess I'll have to try and get my job back... ;)

sifu01

03-12-2002, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Hasty8
LAwyers have nothing to do with this. The corporate lawyers are merely told to sue and they sue. They have no clue what the technology is, that is why they call "expert witnieeses" and the like.

Exactly my point...The lawyers made comments on the site and I was reacting. Lawyers have everything to do with this. So...

Hasty8

03-12-2002, 11:49 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong by isn't the BE switch a purely optical one? If so then I think I found the protection that HALO needs to continue production but the next series of HALOs may need some slight alterations.

According to their patent filing found at:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='6,213,110'.WKU.&OS=PN/6,213,110&RS=PN/6,213,110

4. The rapid feed paintball loader of claim 1, the means for actuating the motor upon demand includes a detector for detecting a presence of paintballs at a selected position within the exit tube.

5. The rapid feed paintball loader of claim 4, wherein said detector is an electromechanical switch located within the exit tube.

6. The rapid feed paintball loader of claim 5, wherein the electro-mechanical switch includes an actuating arm located in the exit tube and a contact switch connected to the motor, whereby each paintball entering the exit tube actuates the actuating arm which forces the contact switch to disengage the motor.

7. The rapid feed paintball loader of claim 4, wherein said detector is an infrared sensor.

8. The rapid feed paintball loader of claim 4, wherein said detector is an optical sensor.

9. The rapid feed paintball loader of claim 4, further comprising a microprocessor communicating with the detector and the motor.

What I would see happening is that Odyssey would have to be pay a fine and then change their design to a purely mechanical one. Of course, if Odyssey can show the their senor is completely different from the BE one then they should be able to keep it.

I must now concede defeat to my worthy opponents. :mad: I was making my earlier arguments on incorrect information. I though that once you turned on the HALo it stayed on and did not rely on any signals to make the mechanism work.

It is true that all current fed systems are reactive.

steveg

03-12-2002, 11:52 AM

Viewloader's agitating loader patent (5816232) protects the idea of using "a sensor electrically connected to said motor and positioned to detect an absence of a paintball at a specified location within said outfeed tube." Rather than detecting the absence of a ball with an infrared beam crossing the feedneck, the HALO utilizes an IR beam reflected off of the ball to detect the presence of a paintball. The reflected IR sensor is at the very top of the feed tube, to react when a single ball is fed.
http://www.warpig.com/paintball/technical/loaders/halo/index.shtml
this was odyssey's assumption of why they didn't violate
BE's patent I guess BE doesn't agree

Sounds like FUD on BE's part to me scare all the dealers
and distributers by namings some in a lawsuit, and drive
a small company with large startup debt out of business,
because of legal bills

davej946

03-12-2002, 11:53 AM

Quoted from WARPIG HALO Review (http://www.warpig.com/paintball/technical/loaders/halo/review.shtml):

An infrared LED and sensor bounces a signal off of one of the balls in the stack. The signal from this sensor feeds back to the microprocessor that operates the HALO. Changes and improvements in the drive software have included not only spinning the drive cone when it is needed, and at the right speed.

I have yet to read the patent BE has on the Revvy/Evvy, but I would say that is pretty damning (I wasn't cussing!) for Odessey. Any one think differently?

For the record, BE can kiss my rear, I think Odessey is doing a great thing for the sport with the HALO.

Later ~

Rob @ DNR

03-12-2002, 11:54 AM

Looks like B.E. has Odyssey by the short and curlys. The infringement is in the sensor eye in the feed neck. Both the Viewloader and HALO feed off of a "gap in the flow of paintballs" in the neck of the loader. Viewloader has a patent on that design. The ricochet is excluded because it feeds off the idea of a "paintball" passing a sensor to spin the paddles. If you read the patent, which is very long and confusing, you will see that B.E. has done there homework and covered pretty much everything in this patent. You could also say that the impellar/propeller design also is an infringement too...

Doesn't look too good for they boys at Odyssey...

Also, this could be a bit of retaliation. Don't forget that the guys at Odyssey used to work for CCM/Viewloader. When B.E. took over, they quit and went on to form Odyssey LLC.

B.E. has a good argument, and I hate to say they have every right to sue. Odyssey is going to have to redesign the sensor idea. Maybe use a vibration sensor, if that hasn't been patented by AGD.

As far as a monopoly, no, B.E. doesn't have that. They have a patent. This protects there design from being copied. If I had designed, manufactured and sold the motorized loader, I would have patented it also. It protects the ideas and design from being stolen by others.

Hasty8

03-12-2002, 11:58 AM

Dave

According to Odyseys own words the IR is used to detect the presence of a ball, not the lack of a ball which is exactly the opposite of what the BE sensor system does.

Antoher point to aruge is that the BE system relies on a vert feed tube while the HALO has a bent feed tube. This may also be enough of a design alteration to allow Odyssey to continue production.

Three difference between HALO and REVVY.

BE sensor detect lack of ball to activate system. HALO sensor detect presence of ball.

BE depends on vertical feed tube while HALO uses bent tube.

Halo also has a mechanical switch in the feed tube. BE does not.

Food for thought but I think there is enough of a difference here for HALO to get away with it.

Webmaster

03-12-2002, 11:58 AM

In talking with the guys of Odyssey - they feel they have worked around/changed enough things to beat the BE patent. Remember - the people who DESIGNED and filed for the original patent are the same guys at Odyssey.

However, since BE has bum loads of cash- why not try to launch a lawsuit. They may loose - but it may damage Odyssey so bad they go under.

Bummer - rather jerky of BE if you ask me - but I guess they got to try to protect thier patents - since thats the only thing they have going for them.

Hasty8

03-12-2002, 12:01 PM

Rob, the difference lie in the use of the sensor. If the sensor detect a gap then Odyssey is in trouble but if it mactually detects the presence of the ball then they are fine.

steveg

03-12-2002, 12:08 PM

If the sensor detect a gap then Odyssey is in trouble but if it mactually detects the presence of the ball then they are fine.
and thats exactly why halo's have a problem with black paint. the ir reflector sees a black ball as no ball and
keeps on cranking (blending) It uses the presense of a ball to stop turning

Hasty8

03-12-2002, 12:13 PM

That may be true steve but I doubt that will have any bearing on the TM infringement case.

That's more of a design flaw than a TM infringement. As for that problem with black paint I have yet to use black paint. I have also yet to use the HALO for that matter.

steveg

03-12-2002, 12:24 PM

OK let me restate that. VL uses a "broken beam" optical
pair to start and stop the motor, there is an emitter on
one side of the ball and a reciever on the other,
when the ir beam is broke the motor stops.

Halo uses a reflected back ir beam the emitter and
reciever are on the same side of the ball.

the vl starts the motor with the recieved beam,
the halo stops the motor with the recieved beam

this was the difference halo was assuming would pass the
test

Hasty8

03-12-2002, 12:42 PM

And it would steve.

Trademarks are very stringent on things like that.

The description you just supplied, of the beam being straight on one and reflected on the other, even if the ir beam served the same function would be significant enough to result in the case being dismissed.

The added fact that the reception of the beam results in different action taken is just another feather in the cap of Odyssey.

The only thing I can see here is if BE somehow came up with a brand new IR transmitter and rceiver that HALo is using. Then that might be infringement.

kenshinkandon

03-12-2002, 01:07 PM

Well we can sit here and guess as to whether the civil preceding will go in favor of Odyssey or not. I know one thing I will do is get rid of me Revy and turn to something else like the Ricochet or the HALO. I say we encourage others to boycott BE and and hurt them where it hurts in the wallet.

davej946

03-12-2002, 01:16 PM

Allow me to play 'Devile Advocate' (no pun inteneded...),

If the sensor detect a gap then Odyssey is in trouble but if it mactually detects the presence of the ball then they are fine.

According to Odyseys own words the IR is used to detect the presence of a ball, not the lack of a ball which is exactly the opposite of what the BE sensor system does.
Just a thought on this, I'm no TM lawyer, so I'm not sure exactly how tight TM law is, but... Think logically. If the IR is used to detect the presense of a ball, then doesn't also detect the lack of presense? Simple boolean operations, if it can detect one, it can detect the other via negation. This may prove to be the simple matter over looked by the huys at Odessey.

The description you just supplied, of the beam being straight on one and reflected on the other, even if the ir beam served the same function would be significant enough to result in the case being dismissed.
You may be right, I'm no expert on TM law, so I'll concede that to you. ;)

Again, I wish the guys at Odessey the best of luck in their dealing with this matter.

Later ~

toymyster

03-12-2002, 01:19 PM

I think everyone but webby missed the point!!! The point is not weather the copyright was infringrd or not, the point is, BE is trying to put Odyssy out of business!!! If not by the copyright, by sheer expense of the lawsuit!!! If Odyssy goes far enough in debt over the cost of defending itself, then BE has succeeded in their goal!!!

Spaceman613

03-12-2002, 01:22 PM

heres an interesting thought. Could BE sue for intellectual property? Since the guys that designed the egg went on to design the halo, couldnt BE say they designed the halo on BE time and therefore belongs to BE??? I know my company has certain clauses in this area.

I personally feel that all this "boycott BE" talk is funny, do you boycott all of Bud Orr's products because of his lawsuit against aka? And didnt AGD have a lawsuit also? Granted, they won, but the same could be said for them.

Food for thought, Patents are there to protect the people that provided the capitol to produce and develop the product. Since BE spent the money (in the form of buying viewloader) they feel the are entitled to protect it with a patent lawsuit. Simple business

Spaceman613

03-12-2002, 01:23 PM

and about putting Odessy out of biz, I bet that was Bud's idea when he sued AKA... Such a nice boy!!!

Webmaster

03-12-2002, 02:13 PM

Grr - just to clearify:

A Copyright protects a work of text, music, or an image from being copied unlawfully, Very easy to do - just put a (C) on it and bam! ( (P) for recordings)

A Trademark is a filed entitiy that protect a brand - from colors, to logos, to "mottos". This is harder to do - but protects your brand identity from theft.

A Patent protects an invention, from a mechanical doodad to an algorithm.

I just want to make this clear because we are having lots of words being thrown around here...

In AGDs case, they should have a copyright on thier EMag manual, a trademark on the Lion logo and "Quality always shoots stright", and a patent on various parts of the emag.

Spaceman613

03-12-2002, 02:16 PM

Just to clarify, I was referring to something I heard on the TG from a reputable source, that AGD wona lawsuit over a company that was making 6-packs or a similar item. This was years ago...

Maybe our British friend can chime in, I know he was in the discussion on the TG

Hasty8

03-12-2002, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by davej946
Just a thought on this, I'm no TM lawyer, so I'm not sure exactly how tight TM law is, but... Think logically. If the IR is used to detect the presense of a ball, then doesn't also detect the lack of presense? Simple boolean operations, if it can detect one, it can detect the other via negation. This may prove to be the simple matter over looked by the huys at Odessey.

First off this is patent and not trademark infringement.

Trademark is the use of another company's brand or market identity for your own purpose. Like if I was to start my own computer company called MS. Even if my initials are Michael Schwartz MS is a registerd trademark of Microsoft.

In regards to to patent, when you make an application for a patent you have to one, supply the office with either a working model or diagrams sufficient to create and working model.

Second, you have to explain the purpose and function of every single nut, bolt, screw and weld on that contraption.

If BE says that their sensor detects the lack of a ball then it is perfectly legal to create the exact same type of system that searches for the presence of a ball.

BE in no way created the technology or the actual mechanical objects that perform that function (IR transmitter and receiver). All the did was create the housing and overall design of the loader.

Again, all this is up to the observations of the overseeing judge but I honestly think that any judge with half a brain in his head would see that there are significant enough differences to allow Odyssey to continue with production.

Just my 2 cents.

Hasty8

03-12-2002, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Spaceman613
heres an interesting thought. Could BE sue for intellectual property? Since the guys that designed the egg went on to design the halo, couldnt BE say they designed the halo on BE time and therefore belongs to BE??? I know my company has certain clauses in this area.

Spaceman. Unless the BE guys can show that the Odyssey boys signed such a claus or verbally abreed to such a condition there is no such protection against intellectual property.

Look at the Handspring PDA by Visor. These are created by the people who created the Palm line of PDAs and uses essentially the same software yet there is not infringement of intellectual property.

Second. BE cannot claim intellectual property on the agitating hopper. The first person to use one of the old oil can setups who shook his marker to get the balls to feed has that right. It can only be argued that BE bought the company that did it better.

Hasty8

03-12-2002, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Webmaster
Grr - just to clearify:

A Copyright protects a work of text, music, or an image from being copied unlawfully, Very easy to do - just put a (C) on it and bam! ( (P) for recordings)

A Trademark is a filed entitiy that protect a brand - from colors, to logos, to "mottos". This is harder to do - but protects your brand identity from theft.

A Patent protects an invention, from a mechanical doodad to an algorithm.

I just want to make this clear because we are having lots of words being thrown around here...

In AGDs case, they should have a copyright on thier EMag manual, a trademark on the Lion logo and "Quality always shoots stright", and a patent on various parts of the emag.

Webby - it's not quite that eaasy to copyright something. The easiest way to do it is to mail yuorself a copy of whatever intellectual property you are trying to protect AND NEVER OPEN THE LETTER ONCE YOU GET IT!!!

That way you can show, in court exactly what yuo sent yourself.

Example. If I took the words to a song and recorded the song and acted as if it was mine but someone else could prove that they wrote the same song a day or a millenium before I came along that song would be long to them.

A Trademark, on the other hand is extremely easy to protect. Just register it with the US Trademark and PAtent office and then it is up to you to police the market for misuse of it.

You can even sue a company to take their brand away if they allow it to fall into a negative state.

An example would be the Enron "E". Say you have an idea and you want that to be your logo (why I have no idea) but you could, theoretically sue Enron for possess of their brand claiming hey treated it in a disrespectful manner and allowed it to fall into a state of negative public view.

Aint' TM and Patent law great!

shartley

03-12-2002, 02:49 PM

And even more clarification…..

To be protected under U.S. Copyright Laws, you don’t even need to put the copyright symbol on the work (common misunderstanding). So just because something does not contain a copyright symbol or date, does not mean it is not protected. And putting the symbol on something is not how you are protected….. quoted from Circular 1 of the US Copyright Office:
Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in copy of phonorecord for the first time. ….

I suggest anyone who has questions about this to simply visit the US Copyright and Patent Office’s site and do a little reading. I advise starting with Circular 1.

In that circular, there is a nice little section called “How to secure a copyright”. It contains only 3 paragraphs but says a lot.

And then if you continue reading you get to a section titled “Notice of Copyright”… and in it, it says:

The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial.This changed as of the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989. There is more, but I will not paraphrase the entire circular or laws…. Go read them… they are free to the public and easy to find.

I keep copies of all the circulars here in my office, in full print AND digital format. I suggest anyone who deals with this type of thing do the same. The circulars break it down quite nicely and then direct you to the actual laws. Good reading.

shartley

03-12-2002, 02:56 PM

Hasty8

Webby - it's not quite that eaasy to copyright something. The easiest way to do it is to mail yuorself a copy of whatever intellectual property you are trying to protect AND NEVER OPEN THE LETTER ONCE YOU GET IT!!!

That way you can show, in court exactly what yuo sent yourself.

Example. If I took the words to a song and recorded the song and acted as if it was mine but someone else could prove that they wrote the same song a day or a millenium before I came along that song would be long to them.
Although a good idea, this is not quite accurate. You are talking about two different things, copyright protection, and PROVING actual date of copyright. Those are quite different things. Please read my last post and you will see why your statements are not correct.

Although a good, and interesting way to protect yourself on copyright dates, it is not a requirement to be protected under copyright laws, or a requirement for the process OF copyrighting.

In my last post you will clearly see that it IS easy to copyright stuff… even more easy than Webby stated. Yes, TM and Patent law IS great, as well as copyright law.

Webmaster

03-12-2002, 03:21 PM

shartleys right - (looks up in the sky - nothings falling, continues) - the copyright laws were changed, what, 10, 15? years ago to really protect the person/company who created the image/recording/text. Yep - that means technically your doodle on your trapper keeper is copyrighted.

By putting the (c) you let others know its not intended to be freely distributed.

Now - PROTECTING your copyright is a harder thing to do - even for professional companies - look at the music industry! Or software! Even though no one stakes a claim to thier right, they loose billions a year.

For the average guy who wants to protect something they made from being "stolen" there are ways to do so, so that in court you would win should somone contest it. Something from the notory public or mailing yourself a sealed manuscript is one way (although not a 100% guarentee). The best way is to have it published (which in this digital age is easier and easier to do!)

shartley

03-12-2002, 03:27 PM

Hasty8

I never said it was Shartley, merely that it is the easiest way to provide a timelime that clearly demostrates ownership of written materials which is in essence the foundation of copyrighting.
Yes you did…

Webby - it's not quite that eaasy to copyright something. The easiest way to do it is to mail yuorself a copy of whatever intellectual property you are trying to protect AND NEVER OPEN THE LETTER ONCE YOU GET IT!!!
Sorry, those are your words not mine. You are now expanding on your original thoughts, but I was responding to your actual words as originally posted, not your intent.

I fully agree that PROVING a date of copyright is harder than being “protected” by copyright, or enforcing one. I even stated so in my post. The rest of it is all semantics.

How about this? It costs virtually nothing to actually FILE for copyright, and it is super easy to do. So if anyone is THAT worried about copyright, or their ability to enforce their rights under copyright law, go and FILE at the Copyright and Patent Office. LOL Anything short of that is just playing with what the law actually says and how it can or can not be enforced. And in that case, the EASIEST way to copyright something is to create it… period. ;)

Hasty8

03-12-2002, 03:28 PM

I've been re-reading and re-reading shartleys post and I concur with webby (and shartley too :p).

I've been facing the problem for so long from a defensive posture, in the way of protecting the songs of the music groups we represent, that I was talking from the wrong side of the fence.

Once again shartley demonstrates his near godlike wisdom.

shartley

03-12-2002, 03:31 PM

<--- tossing a noodle at Hasty8

QUIT IT!!!!! ;)

(But still a great thread!)

steveg

03-12-2002, 03:43 PM

At the risk of dragging this thread back on topic;)
And in reference to manike's frequent comment on
the nonsense that gets patented as an original idea, how
did VL/BE patent a photocell or ever its application?

there is no question that the viewloader is an original
idea and if Odyssey had simply copied it than BE would
have every right to protect their idea

but they did not, the halo is also an original idea that
shares nothing but the function of holding and feeding
paintballs on demand

begin discussion now

Hasty8

03-12-2002, 04:09 PM

Steve.

BE never patented the photocell.

But the did patent it's use in this particular manner.

That manes that anyone else can use the photocell (provided that it is public domain) but they cannot use it in that way.

However, there is legal manuvering room here.

As I posted earlier there are three major discrepencies between the HALO and the revvy type loaders that I can see and I'll need to examine the BE patent's wordin a bit more carefully before I put any stock in these assumpotion but here is my list:

1: The Revvy type loaders specifically look for a lack of a paintball to start the motor where the HALO looks for the presence of a ball to stop the motor.

2: The Revvy types require a straight feed tube whereas the HALo uses a bent feed tube.

3: The Revvys use on optical triggering mechanism whereas the HALO uses an electormechanical triggering system. A switch further down the tube completments the ir switch.

A fourth argumentative point is that the Revvy type loaders merely attempt to clear a blockage inside the storage compartment while the HALO seeks to activly force feed the balls down the feed tube (Yes, I know it is not an active ssytem, please do not let us go there again).

In my experience these differences alone should be sufficient to have the case rapidly dismissed, thereby preventing BE from over whelming Odyssey with an financially exhausting litigation.

And thanks for dragging us back ont rack here Steve:D

(Shartley insurance: While I stand by these words I do not at this time attest to their truth and/or validity and reserve the right to, at any time, change my meaning by later providing a more clear, concise, accurate and factual definition of these aforementioned words. :p )

ShinyGuy

03-12-2002, 08:50 PM

It sounds to me as though BE patent is trying to cover the concept of useing a photocell to trigger a loading mechinism. While they may have the first system like this for paintball I see no funtional difference between a revy and industrial part loading systems (don't know when these were invented but I've seen some at least 25 years old). I assume these systems are patented in which case BE should reference them (which they don't) or the idea of feeding based on a photocell is considered "obvious".

Doobie

03-12-2002, 09:29 PM

I agree with the early post. This has nothing to do with patent infringement or intellectual property. It has everything to do with BE trying to squeeze capital out of Odyssey in the hope they will go broke defending the lawsuit. I don't think anyone at BE thinks they can win it. They are just banking on getting it into court. Maybe there is a good patent lawer out there who can see what is happening, plays paintball, and will defend the HALO guys for free! That would help ruin BE's plan. Court fees would still hurt though. All in all, I wish the Odyssey guys well and want everyone to know that I like my HALO and any questions I have had were answered quickly. They even sent me a new lid IN CASE I break my current one. Lets see BE even respond to an E-mail personally.
Good Luck Odyssey!

billmi

03-12-2002, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Spaceman613
heres an interesting thought. Could BE sue for intellectual property? Since the guys that designed the egg went on to design the halo, couldnt BE say they designed the halo on BE time and therefore belongs to BE??? I know my company has certain clauses in this area.

The Egg was designed by Brass Eagle employees after Brass Eagle bought the Viewloader product rights and brand name from CM Support.

One of the partners in Odyssey Paintball (the company that makes the HALO) was a CM Support employee up until the time that Brass Eagle bought the Viewloader line.

No Odyssey employees were involved in the design of the eVLution (Egg) loader, on Brass Eagle's time or otherwise.

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

Bad Dave

03-13-2002, 04:33 AM

Someone mentioned an AGD lawsuit, it may have been against european paintball supplies who made and sold mag clones, nearly exact copies but with aluminium bodies and frames.

Spaceman613

03-13-2002, 07:33 AM

Thanks for clearing it up Bill... Didn't know what the status of employment was with all the guys in question.

Good to know for future reference...

btw, the cocker you sold me at the BBT sale in Sept...
I love it, thanks (it was the cole cocker)

billmi

03-13-2002, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Spaceman613
btw, the cocker you sold me at the BBT sale in Sept...
I love it, thanks (it was the cole cocker)

Sweet. Wat that the one with the arros in the side and that brown/yellow over-ripe bananna color scheme? I like the way Cole does his P-Blocks, because of how they ramp together rather than hit corners together and bind like some do.

We just confirmed last weekend that we'll be going up for the PigRoast and sale again this year We were going to bail because August is so busy, but Ren talked us into it - it's always a fun party in the store weekend. This year we are probably going to only roast one pig, and then also do turkeys and shishkebab beef or something similar, for more variety of meats.

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

Webmaster

03-13-2002, 10:41 AM

IIRC - there was an AGD clone in europe - instead of using lawyer I believe they just lowered the price on mags so far (loosing money on it) and drove the guy out of business.

Also - I emailed Albert Schilling and I got this reply:

HI Steve,

Things have been going pretty crazy around here. [personal stuff deleted] As for the BE thing, it's no biggie. It's all public record so I don't have any problem talking about it. It's their opinion that we are willfully infringing on their loader technology, and it's our opinion along with 2 independent patent attorneys that reviewed the patents before we ever went into production that it isn't. Therefore, we feel quite confident that we will win the court case and be fully exonerated. Obviously IP cases are the type that don't get settled overnight, so this could take as much as 4 or 5 years to come to a conclusion. In the mean time, we'll continue on business as usual.

Albert

DarkRipper

03-13-2002, 10:44 AM

I buy Pre-BE revs when possible. I don't buy BE.

FWIW

DR

CRySyS

03-13-2002, 11:16 AM

Everyone is comparing the HALO to the revy but your forgetting that BE also own the Evlution patent. The original revy patent covers the eye and the egg patent is a similar design to the HALO. Also the egg was patented by CM support before being bought by BE IIRC. All things considered the eye does work differently and the impeller design if patented by either doesn't stand since prior art exists. (Namely tippmanns star feed, they may actually hold the patent for that, I'm not sure.) I wish Odysee the best of luck, they have a great product and it would be a shame to see them run to the ground by a stupid lawsuit.

ZyperioN

04-15-2002, 05:00 PM

dude this is funny as hell, look at this patent by brass eagle.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=6&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ft00&s1='Brass+eagle'&s2='Brass+Eagle'&OS="Brass+eagle"+AND+"Brass+Eagle"&RS="Brass+eagle"+AND+"Brass+Eagle"

It basically says they own the right to sup'air and speedball. Ahahahhahahhaha!! They are so gay, it makes our sport look bad. A company can own the right to the , how pathetic is that.

Creative Mayhem

04-15-2002, 05:48 PM

Look, I don't own a halo I've never used one, but I do believe that VL has gone down the tubes since the purchase by BE. I think this is just thier way of damaging other companies and recouping there own loses after everyone found a better system than the one they screwed up. Their hoppers are too thin the break after one hit, I have seen this happen personally. I own an old VL2000 Shredder It's a heck of a lot thickerit won't break and it probably never will. Like I said, I don't own one but I do know from what I've read that the halo is superior. My view may be tainted by what I've seen in my years of playing and ownership, but I do believe they are just trying to get back at those doing better than them.

This is just my .02 though.

Creative Mayhem

Snooky

04-16-2002, 01:24 PM

I'm in favor of BE on this one. If they have violated the patent than halo should be brought down. Even if BE is doing this only to make them going belly up i would think its a good plan for them. i mean why compete when u can conquer. its just good buisness.

jah871

12-11-2002, 10:24 PM

bringing this thread back because i have a few questions for odyssey. if i buy a new halo now will you guys service them if need be or will i be out of luck if anything happens to it?

CRog075

12-11-2002, 10:42 PM

Yeah..what happened in this case?

xen_100

12-12-2002, 12:32 PM

there is one thing you guys are forgetting............BE filed for anf got this patent in 1994. a patent is only good for 7 years. it expired, what can they sue for exactly????

as for sueing just to put a company out of business. sony did that to bleem INC. they made emulator disk so that you could play "play staion" games on Pc's and dreamcasts. of course sony didn't like this at all. they really didn't have a case, and lost case after case after case. but they kept sueing for every little piddley thing and eventually bleem couldn't keep up with the lawsuit bills and folded up shop. suck huh?

Tom Sparkman

12-12-2002, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by xen_100
there is one thing you guys are forgetting............BE filed for anf got this patent in 1994. a patent is only good for 7 years. it expired, what can they sue for exactly????

No, 20 years. From the US patent office:

"A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees"

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/

Tom

xen_100

12-12-2002, 03:26 PM

oops....I though it was 7 m y bad

bornl33t

12-12-2002, 03:36 PM

In other words ppl, we need a full scale Boycot on anything BE. I will never buy BE stuff, no matter how much I need something, and incourage everyone else to do the same.

And if the BE ppl read this.... here's a big ol' mooning for ya ( Y )

Spaceman613

12-12-2002, 04:12 PM

So you will never buy anything Vieloader? JT? Or Brass Eagle? Never play at Challenge Park? good luck

Its hard to be completely without Brass Eagle in some form. They have thier hands ina lot of pies.

rdb123

12-12-2002, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Spaceman613
So you will never buy anything Vieloader? JT? Or Brass Eagle? Never play at Challenge Park? good luck

Its hard to be completely without Brass Eagle in some form. They have thier hands ina lot of pies.

Well, I've got a HALO, Dye gear, and I live in FL so it's not like I can go play in Illinois every weekend. Looks like I'm safe =)

Anyway, did BE lose this suit?

-Ron

EsPo

12-12-2002, 05:11 PM

revvy = poor mans halo hehe

rdb123

12-12-2002, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by EsPo
revvy = poor mans halo hehe

Lol you got that one right. The 12v Revvy couldn't keep up with the old RT Pro I used to have when I would let the trigger bounce off my finger.... Turned it into a paintblender and yes, I had a Level10 properly installed in it. But I tried it on my friend's identical setup and it works perfectly with a Halo B. Ha! =)

-Ron

paintballbeaver

12-12-2002, 05:26 PM

you guys need to relize what brass eagle is trying to due
they are trying to file suit against odessy to make them go bankrupt they figure that odessy is a small enough company that they can end up winning after odessy runs of of funds to support there case and then brasseagle will take over patent rights and start production on a pos loader that they will call the halo

what brass eagle does not relize is that odessy has backing from smartparts and other companys so i hope brass eagle has fun but our leagal system will either throw the case out or odessy will get enough backing that brass eagle will drop suit

davidb

12-12-2002, 06:05 PM

Brass Eagle isn't going to put Odyssey out of business. This suit may carry on for a good long while, and cost the boys at Odyssey a good deal of money, but during that time, Odyssey is going to continue business as usual. During that time, Odyssey is going to cut into BE's market share even further with their Halo SA. My guess is, they're going to undercut the Revvy's price, with a better product. From there, they might try to lighten the Halo B. They already are dominating the market for expensive loaders, and it won't be long before they do the same for cheap ones.

I would love to see Oddysey countersue BE for a bad suit.

I, for one, will now be content to wait for the SA to come out to buy a loader for my backup gun, instead of looking at something from VL. And I can't wait to send my Halo in for a "B" upgrade and a new shell.

JT2002

12-12-2002, 07:22 PM

halo and revvies have several different characteristics which have already been stated in this thread so i wont bore u all with restating them.

Originally posted by Snooky
I'm in favor of BE on this one. i mean why compete when u can conquer. its just good buisness.

no not really. it's sort of sneaky, snobby, cheap, and all out bad business IMHO. conquer instead of compete is bad business. everyone has a right to have his/her own businesses. BE is just trying to take that away so they can monopolize loaders since, as we all know, BE's guns, masks (except for any jt made equipment minus the sh1++y excellerators), and especially their paintballs all suck beyond belief.

but, u know, BE is special because i mean, where else can u buy a ball that will always give u an innacurate spiral or curve with every shot!

snooky. basically ur saying this "Hi everyone were Brass Eagle owner of the Revolution and Evolution hopper line. were a good company, nice, and friendly. although we have some really crappy customer support, we make decent cheap loaders during the week, and run companies with a better product out of business for fun on the weekends. "why?" you ask? because were a bunch snobby, filthy rich men.

i really have had the pleasure of dealing with BE's customer support. theyre so helpful. you can only buy general parts for your loader so, if u lose something like a battery clip or the plastic adapter that holds ur x board they say to u " oh no sorry u cant get that youve got to buy another x board from us" . some customer service eh? they dont care about the ppl who use their products. all they care about is how many they sell and how much they make and oh yeah, they also want to know when their next competitor will be poor and run out of business. this lawsuit shows BE's character. theyre just like John (i think thats his first name lol :D) rockefeller with the same one goal in mind. Monopolize and you will own all. rockefeller's monopoly is the one and only reason why we now have gas franchises like mobil, shell, , amoco, and such. they and others all originated from the once "Standard Oil Company"

dam, i always hated school essays and look at this.
i bet we could write a large novel with all the posts written here. i think ill call it "How to monopolize an industry, by Brass Eagle inc." oh wait, thats probably already been copyrighted by BE anyways, ,oh well.
;)

DOWN WITH Brass Eagle!!:D

BajaBoy

12-12-2002, 08:14 PM

ive ALWAYS hated brasseagle... me and my friend are calling them tomarrow (DTM)

im really mad at BE.

rikkter

12-12-2002, 08:16 PM

"down with Brass Eagle", and for you it'd be
"Up for assumtions!"

no, they're balls dont always have a innaccurae spiral or curve with every shot. matter of fact. i shot LITERALLY 8 month old Brass Eagle paint in my mag. about 140 of them(bout a 140 pod full) and NOT ONE BREAK. they went fairly straight. now i'm not disagreeing, because when i got about 10 shots left, one curved, hit the house behind the fence. and i had to jump the fence and clean it. but that was 1 our of like 130 shot..

you have a revvy right? :eek: BE!. DOWN WITH BRASS EAGLE! now ihave to spend 110 dollars on a halo, or 60-80 on a loud richochet that holds 140 paintballs. :rolleyes:

you have to realize that BE obviously isn't looking for the pro players to buy their stuff. now thats obvious and i'm sure you know. i do agree with you where they want money. but then again we all do. AGD is a GREAT company with more then needed custormer support. they're smart.they know this attracts players. BE doesn't know this i guess.

"and run companies with a better product out of business for fun on the weekends. "why?" you ask? because were a bunch snobby, filthy rich men. "
same thing DYE is doing to JT. same thing JT is doing to DYE, same thing Smart pArts is trying to do. etc etc etc. not really trying to boot others out of business, but to be on top. now BE could easily make products jsut the same, but they know they make cheap products that people buy when they have a limited cash flow and aint into paintball tall that much. but JT and DYE and other compans don't do it because they're 'snobby flithy rich men'
if BE came out with a better product that did the same thing but durability was beter then a different companies, which one would you buy? ok.

i'm not trying to flame, it just bugs me how people go and rant on a buisness trying to be succesful, which they have succeeded at.
if they wanted to make top of the line gear, they could, just as JT, and DYE can.

Mossman

12-12-2002, 09:51 PM

While i agree this is total crap, and i hate BE for this (as well as many other things), It worries me.

Fortunately, it seems it may have worried the great guys at oddysey enough to put together a sound activated loader too :)

I think we'll be alright. Maybe Oddysey can make a deal like "BE gets 25% of all halo B profits from here on out", then be super sneaky and discontinue the Halo B and get that Halo TSA goin :) Not sure if thats allowed but it'd be sweet :)

rikkter

12-12-2002, 10:54 PM

BE sued them because of the HALO A because it used the same type of mechnaisms are the revvys did which were patended. why would they have to make a deal with their HALO B which is totally different then the HALO A or the revvys?

Ityl

12-12-2002, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by personman

Yup. That would be the talon.
Only costs $20 and breaks after the first day!

Actually no, I still have my talon from almost 5 years ago and it still works. It's one thing to put down a manufacturer about making a bad product, it's another saying they make a bad product when they don't. Yes the talon is cheap, but what can you expect for the money?

Mossman

12-12-2002, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by rikkter
BE sued them because of the HALO A because it used the same type of mechnaisms are the revvys did which were patended. why would they have to make a deal with their HALO B which is totally different then the HALO A or the revvys?

The halo B is just a revamped Halo A...they still work in basically the same way. If they had a sensor to see how much pressure on the ball stack they were exerting It would be different, but halo's do have an optical sensor to see when balls are in the tube and when they're moving across the tube, and that is what BE has patented.