Brass Eagle announces settlement of Odyssey lawsuit

[manike]

Taken from Brass Eagle's Website

"Bentonville, AR, January 31, 2003 - Brass Eagle Inc., (Nasdaq: XTRM) the worldwide leader in the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of paintball products, and Odyssey Paintball Products LLC of Garland, Texas, jointly announces the settlement of Brass Eagle’s lawsuit against Odyssey, alleging violation of one of Brass Eagle’s loader patents that was pending in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.

Odyssey Paintball agreed to pay Brass Eagle an undisclosed sum of money and both parties have agreed to dismiss the suit.

John Flynn, Vice President and General Counsel of Brass Eagle, said “We reserved the right to relitigate this matter if necessary, however, at the present time, we are satisfied with the results of this litigation. Brass Eagle will continue to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights.”

See the original HERE! (http://www.brasseagle.com/news/default.asp)

[Chonky]

i hope brass eagle goes bankrupt... there just angary that that oddessy paintball makes a better product then them.

[Muzikman]

Well, that's sorta good news... I hate the fact that if you settle out of court that they can turn around and sue you again for the same thing. It sounds like the dirty dog thing that BE would do too;)

[BobTheCow]

argh, st00pid BE...does anybody really think they could come up with something like the halo on their own anyway???

[pito189]

At least they settled so they can both go about their respective buisness.

[Jonesie]

Stupid! Why do I forsee Odyssey getting royally messed over in the end? That whole bit about reserving the right to relitigate makes me nervous. What's to stop BE from suing Odyssey until they go under? :rolleyes:

Jonesie

[shartley]

Originally posted by Chonky
i hope brass eagle goes bankrupt... there just angary that that oddessy paintball makes a better product then them.
Brass Eagle brings a lot of folks into paintball. And they are not just angry because someone made a better product than them. Let’s be honest about it, BE is not after the high end market and the Halo did not really negatively affect THEIR target demographic’s sales.

It was about rights to something they claimed was their idea. Anyone would have done the same thing. I seem to remember AGD getting on someone for trying to copy them as well. And I know I would do the same….. anyone here like to step up and claim they would not try to protect the rights of something they saw as theirs? ;)

These things happen, and they get ironed out. As it seems this has been for the most part. It is part of doing business, and if BE had no legal claim, it would have ended as soon as they began litigation. BE is not “bad” for doing this.

[JEDI]

Originally posted by shartley

Brass Eagle brings a lot of folks into paintball. And they are not just angry because someone made a better product than them. Let’s be honest about it, BE is not after the high end market and the Halo did not really negatively affect THEIR target demographic’s sales.

It was about rights to something they claimed was their idea. Anyone would have done the same thing. I seem to remember AGD getting on someone for trying to copy them as well. And I know I would do the same….. anyone here like to step up and claim they would not try to protect the rights of something they saw as theirs? ;)

These things happen, and they get ironed out. As it seems this has been for the most part. It is part of doing business, and if BE had no legal claim, it would have ended as soon as they began litigation. BE is not “bad” for doing this.
You're so annoying

[elpimpo]

maybe be does bgring people in to paintball but it usually shoots them right back out because they get ripped up. i think they need to learn that someone made a better product and to quit wineing

[WARPED1]

Originally posted by BobTheCow63
argh, st00pid BE...does anybody really think they could come up with something like the halo on their own anyway??? They were suing over the HALO A's infrared eye to detect gaps,a patented system that BE accuired when it bought VL.

[shartley]

Yeah, I am so annoying. People can bash a company for sticking up for what they claim is theirs, but I am the one who is annoying. LOL

If BE did not have a case, they would not have settled out of court. Does anyone think if Odyssey was not infringing on BE’s intellectual and design property rights that they would not have said “Sure, let’s take this to court.” I sure as heck would have.

This was a business decision, and both parties agreed to it. And it has nothing to do with BE being a quality company or not, or that they are whining because someone made a better product than them. It was about them standing up for what they perceived to be their rights…. And I would not stop ANYONE from doing that, or think badly of anyone who did.

Some of you may want to, and that is fine. But if you are thinking what you are simply because you don’t like BE products or the company itself, and not for the principled behind this, I hope YOU never have someone take your ideas without just compensation…. And that they are more “popular” than you are.

As for what is to prevent BE from suing Odyssey so much they go out of business… how about Odyssey not infringing on BE’s Intellectual Property Rights? Whether it was intentional or not, Odyssey got themselves in a pickle. And they know better now. Folks may not like BE, and may LIKE Odyssey, but that does not mean the “liked” party can get away with doing something wrong. Popularity is not a legal defense…. and shouldn’t be. Although it seems that for some here it IS... and that is unfortunate.

[Kevmaster]

Originally posted by JEDI

You're so annoying

Hes so right

[WARPED1]

I think thats half the reason they went with the HALO B design,completly original,not infringing on anyones copyright.I agree that Odysee did infringe on copyright laws,I just think its silly BE wants to sue EVERYBODY.(IT mat just seem that way.)

[manike]

Originally posted by WARPED1
They were suing over the HALO A's infrared eye to detect gaps,a patented system that BE accuired when it bought VL.

But the Halo B doesn't detect gaps ;) :D (nor did the A actually either...)

[pito189]

Originally posted by WARPED1
I think thats half the reason they went with the HALO B design,completly original,not infringing on anyones copyright.I agree that Odysee did infringe on copyright laws,I just think its silly BE wants to sue EVERYBODY.(IT mat just seem that way.)

The HALO B, still uses the eye does it not?

[manike]

Originally posted by shartley
Yeah, I am so annoying. People can bash a company for sticking up for what they claim is theirs, but I am the one who is annoying. LOL

If BE did not have a case, they would not have settled out of court. Does anyone think if Odyssey was not infringing on BE’s intellectual and design property rights that they would not have said “Sure, let’s take this to court.” I sure as heck would have.

This was a business decision, and both parties agreed to it. And it has nothing to do with BE being a quality company or not, or that they are whining because someone made a better product than them. It was about them standing up for what they perceived to be their rights…. And I would not stop ANYONE from doing that, or think badly of anyone who did.

Some of you may want to, and that is fine. But if you are thinking what you are simply because you don’t like BE products or the company itself, and not for the principled behind this, I hope YOU never have someone take your ideas without just compensation…. And that they are more “popular” than you are.

As for what is to prevent BE from suing Odyssey so much they go out of business… how about Odyssey not infringing on BE’s Intellectual Property Rights? Whether it was intentional or not, Odyssey got themselves in a pickle. And they know better now. Folks may not like BE, and may LIKE Odyssey, but that does not mean the “liked” party can get away with doing something wrong. Popularity is not a legal defense…. and shouldn’t be. Although it seems that for some here it IS... and that is unfortunate.

I disagree. If BE could have taken it all the way and won I think they would have.

Sometimes companies settle out of court because they can't take the risk of it going further.

[pito189]

So the HALO B doesn't have an eye at all?

[WARPED1]

As far as I'm concerned,the HALO B is the better loader.

[shartley]

Originally posted by manike
I disagree. If BE could have taken it all the way and won I think they would have.

Sometimes companies settle out of court because they can't take the risk of it going further.
Well, I guess we will agree to disagree on this point. ;) And the reason I still stick to my guns on this is that if BE would not have won in court, why on earth would Odyssey settle out of court? That makes NO sense at all. Unless their lawyers are retarded. ;)

If you took ME to court over something, and we both knew that it was total BS… and you came to me and said “Sam, I will drop this if you pay me XXX.” I would tell you “Sorry Simon, we both know this is BS… see you in court.” What on earth would make ME say “Yes, we both know I would win in court, but I will pay you anyway just so we don’t have to go to court.”? LOL

And since the records are not public domain, we will never know. :D

[WARPED1]

Originally posted by pito189
So the HALO B doesn't have an eye at all? I don't think so,the B stands for "belt drive".The only true force feed loader.

[RamboPreacher]

All you nay-sayers can bash BE all you want...
I am going to go out on Monday and by me some more stock!

[Muzikman]

MONEY! It's all about the money Sam. Think of it this way. Big BE who has money to burn could keep this in litigation for years and burn up poor Oddessey's money until they go under. This has happened with MANY small software companies over the years.

[hitech]

Originally posted by manike
Sometimes companies settle out of court because they can't take the risk of it going further.

That is a very common reason. You can rarely be SURE that you will win.

Another reason for settling out of court is that it will cost you MORE to win. If it costs more to win, did you?

[WARPED1]

BE is to paintball what Microsoft is to the computer world.And that's all I have to say about that.

[cphilip]

Well first of all let me step in here and Moderate just a minute...

Calling someone annoying is flaming. And its childish flamming at that. If all you have to say to Sams argument is that, then you need to not post at all. Resorting to Grade school behavious and going NA NA NA NANA is not realy something I realy think is worthy of a post count now do you? Now then, look up at Simons response. Take an example from that. He dissagreed but he puts forth a good argument for why. Now there is a fine example of how to disagree with a point and make a counter point. But just calling someone a name is just childish. And unnessicary and not in the AO spirit at all. Plus its against the rules!

OK now for my take on this...

It seems the patent office will issue a patent on just about anything these days. No one should have given VL a patent on something so simple. Seems Odyssey presented the biggest challenge to them so they were the best target. But seriously folks someone needs to get real in the patent office. Just because you have the filing fee and some paper does not give you the right to patent something so simple and widely used in other manufacturing techec's

[Muzikman]

I will agree with you there. I have seen a few things out there that makes no sense as to why someone has claim to it. Take "Instant Messaging", since AOL bought ICQ a few years back, they went to court and now has the right to sue anyone that uses the idea of messaging someone who is on the internet. It doesn't even matter if they are using the same technology. If I can find the article, I'll post it, it's pretty damn funny.

The other case of this is the company that came up with the protective plastic covers for PDAs. They now have full rights to a clear plastic sheet that covers the PDA, regardless of how it works and/or attaches.

To me, these cases almost sound like a monopoly. I mean come on, just cause something looks like something else or serves the same purpose does not my you should be able to sue that person. If this were the case, we would only see Fords driving around. Hmm...wonder if I can get patent on a box with 4 wheels and some sort of propulsion device?;)

[SpongeBobSquarePants]

I think BE was wrong in what they did, I mean I don't think oddessy infriendged (sp) on anything. I mean I haven't read the patents but if you look at the way the halo and the VL oporate its a totally different. I mean if I was a big CEO sitting back at BE not careing a damn think about are sport I woul be thinking "Lets sit back and watch this till they are in the money, then hit them and ride it all the way to the bank." That would have been the logicl thing for them to do. But do they wait till a company is strong enough to defend its self? No they don't they want a great product of the market for some reason. Some people should be slaped. Ok I just had to vent.

[Dragoon]

Originally posted by RamboPreacher
All you nay-sayers can bash BE all you want...
I am going to go out on Monday and by me some more stock!

:) :p

Sad but true.
I think I may do the same.

Douglas

[Kevmaster]

MORE NEWS ON THE ISSUE


this is straight from BE's mouth(well...my contact at BE):
“Odyssey and Christopher agree that as of the effective date of this Agreement, and for a period of four (4) years thereafter, they will not directly manufacture the products at issue in this litigation.”

those "products" include the HALO A and HALO B....so Id say BE took a pretty big win here

[Muzikman]

Hmm...interesting...Wonder how many halo's they got in stock, might have to buy a few.

[krafty]

I wonder if this has anything to do with the new Rip Drive from Odyssey?

I do find it difficult to believe that Odyssey would settle a lawsuit that required them to completely shut down their product line (considering the TSA isn't available yet).

I've already decided my Revvy is getting sold. I don't think I'll be buying or supporting BE anymore.

[halB]

until any of u patent anything on ur own, or produce something u take pride in, i think u naysayers should leave the legal world of patent law to the big boys.

[Muzikman]

halB,

Hmmm...I have two patents pending right now. So can I speak? (sorry, neither one is paintball related;))

[manike]

Oh, and I have patents also ;)

[shartley]

I have no patents, no patents at all!

Oh, I mean patience, sorry. ;) But that works too!

[Kevmaster]

Um...what is BE doing wrong here? They patented an item. Anoter company infringed that patent. They sued for intelectual theft...what is wrong with that? Thats self preservation.

[demonguy8]

Originally posted by halB
until any of u patent anything on ur own, or produce something u take pride in, i think u naysayers should leave the legal world of patent law to the big boys.
or buy it from someone else, make a killing on it, and get mad when somone who operates outside of 99% of your target market makes a similar arguably supperior product....:rolleyes:

It IS at the heart a business thing though and although I dont personally like it I cant disagree that it is legal and completely fair game.The thing that makes me mad is the 4 year production ban. The lack of halos being made is too me a HUGE blow to loader progress in the sport and is a shamefull request by BEs lawyers..

Perhaps somone with enough cash to go to court could/ should sue BE for monopolizing the HIGH end loader industry?... Microsoft had monopoly proceedings over much less of a stranglehold over an industry that BE has.. Then again maybe noone cares cuz even as the most profitable paintball company, theyre still only pulling in a fraction of the $$ that microsoft was...

Edit: odysey was stupid imho for allowing BE to resue them.. If I was BE I would already be making arrangements to resue...

[manike]

Whoah there Kev. Where does it say that someone infringed BE's patents? It doesn't.

I believe if there was a valid enforceable case then BE would not have settled.

I'm still waiting for any information to confirm what you posted above. It's not been officially released by BE or Odyssey so there is no confirmation of the four years that you state. Did you get that from a phone conversation or an e-mail?

You would have though if it was true that it would have been included on the BE website along with the talk of 'undisclosed sums'.

There was no verdict and therefore no infringement. We don't know the settlement or undisclosed sum it could have just been arbitrary...

[Clare]

Oh, and I have patents also

sleep typing, aye!!

:p ;)

[PolishSausage]

In my personal opinon the line on infringing on patents isn't defined well enough, similar to the lines you cross when you plagerize.

Example: The english boards states that you plagiarize when you "borrow" an idea without citing it, unless it common knowledge(in more than 3 sources). So they now expect you to cite every idea you have unless you take the time to find out weather or not it is in 3 or more sources. Makes little sense to me.

It's the same thing with patents. There is no clear line as to what is an infrignment. If I create a motor that sucks in air and blows it back out, have I now violated a patent copyright of a Black and Decker leaf blower? Of course not, its rediculous to even think like that. I really don't see why BE would persue a case like that, or why Odyssey would think that BE would win. So at this point can BE go after any company that happens to use an "eye" system, even outside of paintball.

And None of you can say how far BE would have gone, my guess is had they been able to completely destroy Odyssey, they would have.

[madmatt151]

I agree with the fact that BE might have more money that Odyssey and that is why they settled. I have seen many legal cases go for years and years, and cost all kinds of money. It may have been cheaper for Odyssey ot settle, even if they can't sell the halos for 4 years. We really do not know all the detials, and until we do, we cannot judge too much. As for the intellectual property, if I was designing a hopper, honestly, ho wmany parts are there? I would take the time to see if any of those dozen or so parts has a patent on it, especially when you know BE is involved. If Odyssey made the eye kowing full well that BE had a patent then they were wrong. If they didn't bother to look up the patent, then they were sloppy and have paid for it. It happens.

[Kneedragger]

Originally posted by Muzikman
Hmm...interesting...Wonder how many halo's they got in stock, might have to buy a few.

Don't sweat it, we'll be providing HALO B's for quite a long time. You should know better then to believe everything your read on the internet. :D

[Kneedragger]

[Kneedragger]

Originally posted by Kevmaster
Um...what is BE doing wrong here? They patented an item. Anoter company infringed that patent.

False statement there. Better re-read the press release. You must have missed the part about the suit being DISMISSED.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Kneedragger


False statement there. Better re-read the press release. You must have missed the part about the suit being DISMISSED.
Actually I am not going to argue who was right or who was wrong (BE vs O).. but technically your statement is wrong as well.

A case dismissed does not mean something didn’t happen. If someone hits you with a ball bat and you are asked if you want to press charges, and you say no, does that mean you were not hit? ;) When someone molests someone and instead of going to court the parties involve dismiss the court case and settle out of court, does that mean nothing happened? ;) The press release in question only states minimal facts. It leaves many holes (on purpose) for people to fill in for themselves. And we have seen both sides filling the holes in this thread. ;)

So again, the press release does not say one way or the other about actual copyright infringement (whether you are correct on the matter of none happening or not), and can not honestly be used to argue proof one way or the other either.

[Timmee]

Well, I think that my Halo and my Revys can peacefully coexist in my gear bag, so I'm keeping them. And while many of you hate BE (for it's business practices, it's quality control, etc), I feel that they offer a good product for their cost. Can a Stingray compete in BPS against an Angel/Intimidator/Bushmaster/....? No, but can the Angel/Intimidator/Bushmaster/... toting player be eliminated by the person carrying the Stingray? Definitely! Can a Revy feed paintballs faster than a Halo? No, but it definitely beats a non-motorized hopper.

Many people keep trying to demand the performance of the Halo out of Revy's , but what they forget is they are approximately half (maybe a little more or less, depending on where you buy each) of the Halo's price. It's a simple matter of performance (Halo) vs. cost (Revy). I'll be picking up a Halo B soon though (to keep my Halo A from feeling outnumbered), so don't feel as though I'm dumping on Halos.

I'm glad to hear the suit was settled, now everyone focus on the important thing: playing paintball! :D

[shartley]

Originally posted by Timmee
I'm glad to hear the suit was settled, now everyone focus on the important thing: playing paintball! :D
...... could not agree more. :)

[Kevmaster]

Ok...let me rephrase that....

BE patented an item. Another similar item was made. BE felt that infringed on their intellectual property. BE took them to court. BE/Odyssey settled it before it got that far.



Manike, I got that from a personal conversation with an E Business Analyst(who acts as a liason --approved by the upper execs-- to the BEOG) of theres and it was confrimed by their head of R&D (id be happy to PM you the names)

you can see that EBiz Analysts' post restating this on the Brass Eagle Owners Group forums Here (http://pub101.ezboard.com/fbeogfrm21.showMessage?topicID=86.topic)



sorry about the confusion. Ill see if thats been published anywhere

[Kevmaster]

Oh...and those of you questioning BE...If you wnat a company to support thats gunna be around in 10 years...choose BE...$104 MILLION in Gross revenue last year...over $8 MILLION in NET PROFITS

Just a little FYI...

[speeddemon]

http://www.odysseypaintball.com/halob.html

Just wondering, but isnt it a little odd that odyssey got a patent on the halo. I don't know what exactly they patented, but it seems kind of odd that they would issue a patent on a product that is supposedly infringing on another patent. Oh well, just something else to think about.

[Snake847]

If any of you slow people don't know BE owns Viewloader and viewloader makes evolution II which On the PBgear site says to have better feed rate than the Halo all though I think ia 1 or 2 PBS slower because I owned a Halo and own a Evo II.

[Kevmaster]

In my experience...my HALO B will not feed fast enough for my old EMag and i was shooting ~14bps. Ive used my eggo to 14 FA on my Rainmaker....so for practical purposes they feed just as fast if you ask me

[cphilip]

Musta been something wrong with that one Kev. Mine will keep up with 20 BPS no problem.

[Kevmaster]

yeh, i dunno phil

i got the eggo free...so i cant bash BE too hard (BE does seem to like me...Free Eggo...Free JT 5.0...)

[Kneedragger]

Originally posted by shartley

Actually I am not going to argue who was right or who was wrong (BE vs O).. but technically your statement is wrong as well.

A case dismissed does not mean something didn’t happen. If someone hits you with a ball bat and you are asked if you want to press charges, and you say no, does that mean you were not hit? ;) When someone molests someone and instead of going to court the parties involve dismiss the court case and settle out of court, does that mean nothing happened? ;) The press release in question only states minimal facts. It leaves many holes (on purpose) for people to fill in for themselves. And we have seen both sides filling the holes in this thread. ;)

So again, the press release does not say one way or the other about actual copyright infringement (whether you are correct on the matter of none happening or not), and can not honestly be used to argue proof one way or the other either.

No, technically, my statement is right. We are discussing the facts of a leagal case. This is a civil case. In other words, it's up to the judge to make that determination. Until he does, it's all opinion, and completely meaningless. So by law, it mens that NOTHING HAPPENED.

Your examples are criminal acts, criminal law is completely different, but the the same basic reasoning still goes. By law, a person is still not guilty until judged so. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure criminal cases aren't "settled". There may be lesser charges accepted, or even cases dismissed.

The press release is what it is. A simple statement agreed upon by both parties. There no longer is a law suit. So it's really pointless to argue about the merits of the case since there is no case.

[Kneedragger]

Originally posted by Kevmaster
Ok...let me rephrase that....

BE patented an item. Another similar item was made. BE felt that infringed on their intellectual property. BE took them to court. BE/Odyssey settled it before it got that far.



There you go. You got it right. :D

[shartley]

Originally posted by Kneedragger
No, technically, my statement is right. We are discussing the facts of a leagal case. This is a civil case. In other words, it's up to the judge to make that determination. Until he does, it's all opinion, and completely meaningless. So by law, it mens that NOTHING HAPPENED.

Your examples are criminal acts, criminal law is completely different, but the the same basic reasoning still goes. By law, a person is still not guilty until judged so. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure criminal cases aren't "settled". There may be lesser charges accepted, or even cases dismissed.

The press release is what it is. A simple statement agreed upon by both parties. There no longer is a law suit. So it's really pointless to argue about the merits of the case since there is no case.
LOL Sorry, but you are still wrong.

Civil or Criminal, a case pending in court does not in itself indicate if an action has taken place or not taken place. If I hit your CAR with my CAR and I gave you money for it, and it didn’t go to court, it does not mean I never hit your car.

If I hit a baseball and it went through your window, and I paid for your new window, but we did not go to court, it does not mean your window was never broken.

If someone broke into your house and stole a bunch of stuff, and they never caught and tried anyone for the crime, it does not mean that it never happened.

Your argument hinges on a case actually going to court and being proven or disproven for something to have actually happened (criminal AND civil)… and that is just not true.

Again, I was not arguing the merits of any case, but the fact that just because a case does not make it to court does not mean in itself that nothing happened. And THAT is what makes your statement, and your last post as well, wrong.

Also criminal cases ARE often “settled”, it is called a plea-bargain agreement. ;)

(ADDED: I did not leave anything out of quoting you... you edited your post. I let my post stand as is. ;))

[Kneedragger]

Originally posted by shartley

LOL Sorry, but you are still wrong.

Civil or Criminal, a case pending in court does not in itself indicate if an action has taken place or not taken place. If I hit your CAR with my CAR and I gave you money for it, and it didn’t go to court, it does not mean I never hit your car.

If I hit a baseball and it went through your window, and I paid for your new window, but we did not go to court, it does not mean your window was never broken.

If someone broke into your house and stole a bunch of stuff, and they never caught and tried anyone for the crime, it does not mean that it never happened.

Your argument hinges on a case actually going to court and being proven or disproven for something to have actually happened (criminal AND civil)… and that is just not true.

Again, I was not arguing the merits of any case, but the fact that just because a case does not make it to court does not mean in itself that nothing happened. And THAT is what makes your statement, and your last post as well, wrong.

Also criminal cases ARE often “settled”, it is called a plea-bargain agreement. ;)

(ADDED: I did not leave anything out of quoting you... you edited your post. I let my post stand as is. ;))

There's a flaw in your reasoning. Everything you use as an argument includes actual physical damage. In patent infringement cases, the only damages that could occur is loss of revenue as a result of the infringing company taking business away from the infringed company. There is no damage unless it can be proven that infingement took place. If there's no ruling of infringment, then how can there be any damage? It's pretty much all supposition and opinion. My statement is correct. Without a ruling of infringement, there is no damage, therefore..... NOTHING HAPPENED. It's the same as if the case had never been brought up.

[Kevmaster]

i agree, knee. Thats the exact reason BE "reserved the right to pursue this matter again"....right now, in the eyes of the court, no crime has been committed

[shartley]

Originally posted by Kneedragger
There's a flaw in your reasoning. Everything you use as an argument includes actual physical damage. In patent infringement cases, the only damages that could occur is loss of revenue as a result of the infringing company taking business away from the infringed company. There is no damage unless it can be proven that infingement took place. If there's no ruling of infringment, then how can there be any damage? It's pretty much all supposition and opinion. My statement is correct. Without a ruling of infringement, there is no damage, therefore..... NOTHING HAPPENED. It's the same as if the case had never been brought up.
Not quite, sorry. I understand your way of thinking, but if that was transferred to, let’s say, a defamation of character case. Under your argument, if a Newspaper writes an article about you, and you claim defamation of character, and then file a lawsuit… then you and the Newspaper settle out of court, the Defamation never happened? Wrong. You just chose to not have the COURT determine the amount of damage done or penalties given.

Again, where you are going wrong in your line of thinking is where a COURT has to determine whether something happened or not. And this is not the case at all. Things settled out of court do not make things “not” happen, the parties involved just chose to remedy a situation using another avenue available to them. Taking things “private” or “out of court” does not mean something didn’t happen, it only means that both parties agree to not take it to court. And any agreements as to what happened or damages done are determined in private, and not in a court of law.

This does not make the decisions reached by both parties less legal, or prove something didn’t happen. And that was my point. A private settlement does not indicate lack of a bad thing happening just because a court did not “touch it” or form a ruling on it. Also, there are thousands of cases where damage was assessed and payments made without ANY court filings at all, let alone court rulings. Take a look at the Insurance industry. By your way of thinking, nothing that happens out of court ever happened at all. But I can tell you that is far from being the case.

And again you only need to look at Defamation cases settled out of court to more than prove how wrong your way of thinking on this matter really is. And that transfers rather nicely to an infringement case.

[Kneedragger]

I do agree with you that a defamation case is the same. With defamation, just like infingement, the damage can only occur, if a violation can be proven. And sorry to disagree with you, but, defamation only occurs if it's ruled on. A paper prints an article about you that you don't like and you think they have defamed you. Just because you are of the opinion you've been defamed, does not make it fact. You have to have a ruling that in fact states you've been defamed or it did not happen.

Now I'll take it the next step:
So you sue the newspaper. The newspaper decides, what the heck I'll offer this guy some money to just go away instead of paying 10 times the amount in leagal fees to fight it. You go away happy that you got some money in your pocket, and teh paper is happy because they didn't have to spend a butt load of money for a legal defense. Because even if the paper wins the case, they are still going to be out the money. I know what you're thinking, well, The paper can turn around and sue you for bringing them to court and making them spend the money. Well, the problem is the paper has to prove that you acted mailciously to be able to show damages. In the US, you have the right to your day in court. You can't be forced to pay for someone elses legal fees if you felt that you had the right to bring the suit regardless of if you were wrong or not.

Companies get sued all the time and settle even though they are in the right, just because it's cheaper.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Kneedragger
I do agree with you that a defamation case is the same. With defamation, just like infingement, the damage can only occur, if a violation can be proven. And sorry to disagree with you, but, defamation only occurs if it's ruled on. A paper prints an article about you that you don't like and you think they have defamed you. Just because you are of the opinion you've been defamed, does not make it fact. You have to have a ruling that in fact states you've been defamed or it did not happen.

Now I'll take it the next step:
So you sue the newspaper. The newspaper decides, what the heck I'll offer this guy some money to just go away instead of paying 10 times the amount in leagal fees to fight it. You go away happy that you got some money in your pocket, and teh paper is happy because they didn't have to spend a butt load of money for a legal defense. Because even if the paper wins the case, they are still going to be out the money. I know what you're thinking, well, The paper can turn around and sue you for bringing them to court and making them spend the money. Well, the problem is the paper has to prove that you acted mailciously to be able to show damages. In the US, you have the right to your day in court. You can't be forced to pay for someone elses legal fees if you felt that you had the right to bring the suit regardless of if you were wrong or not.

Companies get sued all the time and settle even though they are in the right, just because it's cheaper.
This is true to a point. But under your thinking, if anyone settles out of court, NOTHING happened. They are only doing it to save court costs. And sorry my friend, that is not true in all cases. Which goes right back to the fact that just because a case is settled out of court does not prove one thing or another.

It does NOT say NOTHING happened. ;)

[Aliens-8-MyDad]

so basically BE is putting them outta buisness... how can a company survive without selling their main product?

[shartley]

Originally posted by Aliens-8-MyDad
so basically BE is putting them outta buisness... how can a company survive without selling their main product?
I don't think they are putting them out of business.

[Kevmaster]

I suppose Ody has something else to sell...and I guess its better than BE owning them if you ask Chris...

[thetex]

It's OK to have an opinion.
You decide.
Here you go. The skinny on HALO vs. BE

It's time to put some things on the table that will help clarify the difference.
1. Their patent (Bell 232') says a sensor to detect the absence of a paintball and then the sensor turns the motor on. If you ask them, they say their (BE) products are based on their patents. Fine.
2. If there is a gap (or absence of a paintball) required for their inline sensor configuration to activate the motor, does this mean that the ball stream is not intact at the time of motor startup? Of course it does.
3. If the ball stream is not intact, then how can the feed mechanism, regardless of what it is, apply any force to the balls being supplied to the gun at that time?
4. The only force to these balls at that time is gravity.
5. This is a digital signal from the sensor. It's on during the absence or it's off when the beam is blocked.
This is the reason that the EII feeds differently on the gun rather than when it is off of the gun. They simply have software that tells the motor to over run the output from the sensor.

To the opposite side, HALO is "force feed" by the way of utilizing a sensor that can only detect the presence of a ball. This was stated in the original patent filing by OPP and it clearly showed the deficiency of the BE patent. This analog signal from the sensor can be interpreted as the detection of motion and away we go. We don't have to wait for a gap (or the absence of a ball). We see the intact ball stack being accelerated by the spring tension that is stored, and we turn the motor on. There is only a signal from our sensor during the presence of a ball.
If you do not have resistance of the ball stack then the spring tension is never allowed to reach its full potential. This is why, without resistance, HALO doesn't appear fast when it is off of the gun. It's the storage of the spring energy and the sensor setup itself that allows HALO to overcome the deficiency of gravity based sensor setup.

1. They detect the absence. We detect the presence. Both of us have patents stating this.
2. We have and utilize the ability to detect motion. Their sensors and teachings of their patents do not allow them to do this.
This is the focal point of the argument. You can decide for your selves.
3. The sensor in HALO is different physicaly than their patent in the way it is configured.
4. The electrical characteristics are different as far as when the sensor signals. Only when there is a ball present. BE's sensor only signals when there is the absnece of a paintball.
5. The end result is substancially different than what their patent discloses. We can and do maintain an intact ball stack thereby giving HALO the distinct advantage of being a true "force feed loader". Their patent states that they depleat the stack sufficiently enough so that the sensor detects the absence of a paintball to activate the motor. BIG DIFFERENCE!

Have we had problems with the HALO design?
Yes, its a balancing act to ensure HALO pushes enough to keep the spring wound while allowing the player to feed the most brittle paint possible. Also there is the consideration of speed.
We have acheived the fastest feed rates in the industry that are posted to date for a stand alone production loader. We are always looking for improvements as well as the updates the consumer needs. Just wait till you see what's next! No more on this one for now.

We don't and won't ask to many questions as to the service needs of any one of our loaders. Sometimes we are slow. Sorry.

The lawsuit is settled and nothing more will be said about the settlement. Read the press release.

OPP thanks all of you for the support that will get us through and we will be here providing HALOs and other fine products for years to come.
TEX

;)

[shartley]

Thanks for your post Tex. I love your products!

Good luck in the future and I look forward to seeing more great products from your company. (I still want a Halo B.)

Now I would like to know if BE would like to post their case, seems though that they really don’t need to… after all, they won because according to the press release you still have to pay them. In my opinion you should have stuck to your guns where and when it mattered. And any arguments put forth AFTER the issue has been settled in their favor (heck, you signed the agreement) is too little, too late… and should not have been posted at all.

I don’t dislike BE (unlike others), but this would have been a great “David VS Goliath” story. I believe in justice and doing what is right, and if you were right, you should have stayed the course. But you settled, and now want to plead your case on a public forum…. I have uneasy feelings about that.

[paintball8869]

Shartley- I agree with your opinion on doing what is right, ie sticking to your guns if you feel you're in the right. However, I don't think I would if i were OPP in this case. Just becuase of the sheer cost of it, compared to what the settlement might be (gotta weigh out the costs of each and decide from there). If you pursue the case and win, but lose all your money fighting in court, then you lost. It's just that simple. You can be right all you want, but when you have no money and no way to produce further products (because of the lack of money), well you know who the real winner is at that point.

[Webmaster]

shartley - I would love for Tex to talk more about this case - but I am sure like many legal things its best to keep mum...

The core of the arguement was the eye and as Tex showed the design was different from BE(and they didnt willy nilly decide this, they too hired patent lawyers to ensure a court would reach a favorable verdict).

Yet BE sued anyway. Why? Because they can. Perhaps they had a right that the ODD design was too close to the BE. That arguement is often dependent on how it plays out in court.

You said that BEs doesnt market to high end players - but it DOES. With both its JT and VL line, it DOES supply most of the sport with both protectve gear and loaders. Infact, till the Richochet and Halo came out - they had a monopoly on powered loaders in this country. So it is within thier best intersts to try to kill any competition before it gets a foot hold.

I see this as a victory for ODD though. BE had the money to see this through the end - they must have felt shakey to want to continue for fear of loosing and having no other future recourse (except for -I dunno MAKE BETTER PRODUCST - theres an idea!)

ODD on the other hand is a much smaller company. I am sure going to court was taking in many ways. A settlement means they can stay in business and make thier product. If they saw it through to the end - they may or may not have won and would have possibly driven themselves into the ground in the end.

just some thoughts

[shartley]

I am not dismissing your arguments or opinions, because I agree with them on a certain level…. But it would be a cold day in hell before I give anyone, or any other company one dime when I am right. I would sooner close up shop and open back up under a new name than to pay them money for not doing anything wrong. I would also have kept selling my product and made THEM prove any real damages first.

Folks seem to forget that companies run for YEARS when they are in court battles, and disputed products still get sold. And even when companies claim a LOSS (look at AOL) they still pay employees, provide services, and sell products.

I agree, that it would be nice to hear more…. But unless BE ALSO provides that information, it would be in VERY bad form for the losing party to keep posting about the case. And that is what I was saying. The case was settled out of court, one way or the other, and it should have stayed with the Press Release on the matter. And I am not sure that what was posted by Tex was acceptable (or would be considered acceptable by BE). But even if it was, it still does not sit well with me.

And honestly, it does not matter what I think, OR what you think, OR what anyone to include the parties involved thinks or posts. What has been done has been done. It does not change how it turned out. Odyssey lost. Little losses do not make a victory. That is like saying if you jump into a ring with Mike Tyson and make it 1 round and are not killed, you WON. It does not work that way. You still lost.

Only when you WIN do you win. And I don’t call having to pay another company money “winning”. But if you do, I will let you “win” with me any day of the week. ;)

Saving yourself from losing BIG is a good thing, and very smart in many cases, but it still isn’t winning.

[thetex]

I've made our point about the case as the facts sit.
The case is settled and nothing more will be stated about that fact.

On to the good stuff.
If two cars are running neck and neck in a race, and the race is called halfway through due to rain then there is no apparent victor. A lot of dissappointed fans, but no victor.
So, if you could enlighten me, how can there be a loser?
I truely don't understand. I'm baffled with the logic.
It's a good one though.

This assesment could be nothing more than conjecture and opinion at this point because no one knows for sure about all of the parameters of the case.

Is it true to say that it "is your opinion that OPP lost?"

I'm truely interested in your views on this. It's not slanderous. It's just that I want to see if someone has a different perspective than the senerios that our team looked at when we made this decision. All decisions are calculated and both parties are entitled to their opinions.

I can tell you this for fact that cannot be disputed.
OPP is very happy with the decision to settle the case.

I'm interested in hearing your point of view. It's OK to have an opinion.

Hey! To everyone else, keep it civil. No flaming! Although, they are pretty good on this board about that anyway.

TEX
:cool:

[paintball8869]

Tex- are you going to be changing from the eye system to some sort of audible trip device (ie sound activated intellifeed type thing)? Just wondering, because from what I gather on this, i obviuosly have no clue about what specifics are of the settlement, but it seems that you cannot make them anymore with the object in question (being the patent of BE/VL on the eye).


Also, on a quick sidenote, any ideas on how to slow down my halo? I mean it's great that it feeds fast, but it busts brittle paint. I've got the newest software, belt drive, etc.


And the new ripper drive (i believe that was the name of it) on your website. What's that gonna do?

Thanks man. Keep up the good work.

[shartley]

Originally posted by thetex
I've made our point about the case as the facts sit.
The case is settled and nothing more will be stated about that fact.

On to the good stuff.
If two cars are running neck and neck in a race, and the race is called halfway through due to rain then there is no apparent victor. A lot of dissappointed fans, but no victor.
So, if you could enlighten me, how can there be a loser?
I truely don't understand. I'm baffled with the logic.
It's a good one though.

This assesment could be nothing more than conjecture and opinion at this point because no one knows for sure about all of the parameters of the case.

Is it true to say that it "is your opinion that OPP lost?"

I'm truely interested in your views on this. It's not slanderous. It's just that I want to see if someone has a different perspective than the senerios that our team looked at when we made this decision. All decisions are calculated and both parties are entitled to their opinions.

I can tell you this for fact that cannot be disputed.
OPP is very happy with the decision to settle the case.

I'm interested in hearing your point of view. It's OK to have an opinion.

Hey! To everyone else, keep it civil. No flaming! Although, they are pretty good on this board about that anyway.

TEX
:cool:
Actually your race car analogy does not work, and that is because in your analogy neither driver is penalized.

In your case with BE, when all the smoke cleared you still had to pay them something. So again, if you think that paying another company money is NOT losing, let me get in touch with my lawyers, and I will get right back with you. ;)

OPP may have made a good choice, and a smart business move in settling the way you did, and THAT is not in dispute. What IS, by at least myself, is that you can not call it “winning”, when you still have to pay BE anything. That is just a smaller loss which allows you to remain in business with minimal damage done. And that does not indicate who was actually right, or wrong, but who pays who. And sadly, you have to pay BE, so you lost.

Since when did the winner have to pay the loser?

It is like going to court over a murder charge, and you didn’t do it. Then when the case is over you have to serve 7-10 for manslaughter. Sure, you could have gotten LIFE, or even the death penalty… but would you consider it a victory that you still have to sit in jail for 7-10 years for something you didn’t do?

Or how about this? You get your arm crushed in a car accident. The doctors tell you that you have to either have the arm cut off, or face the definite possibility that keeping it may cause you to lose your life. You then tell the doctor to cut off the arm. You live. But did you “win”? No, you lost your arm. You can tell yourself that it could have been worse, and that your decision was the right one to make, but you still LOST your arm.

The BE/OPP case and how it turned out is quite the same. You may be happy things didn’t end up WORSE, but how can you honestly call it anything but a loss? A smart loss, yes. A good decision, yes. But neither of those things indicate that you didn’t lose.

I again will openly state that I love your company and its products. I hope you come back harder and stronger and with even better products and sales. HONESTLY. But that does not change that you have to pay BE money and they don’t have to pay you a dime. That my friend is a loss.

[hitech]

But, what might BE have to do? Since we (well at least me) do not know all the details of the settlement, it is possible that BE had to give up something that is more valuable that the amount of money payed to them. Without the details it hard to determine who "won".

[shartley]

Originally posted by hitech
But, what might BE have to do? Since we (well at least me) do not know all the details of the settlement, it is possible that BE had to give up something that is more valuable that the amount of money payed to them. Without the details it hard to determine who "won".
Irrelevant. And I say that because OPP has not only posted their “case” for public viewing, but TWICE pointed back to the original Press Release dealing with the settlement (which ONLY mentions OPP paying BE money). They did not issue their own Press Release stating what “they” got out of the deal, or that BE gave up anything aside from the actual court case. And without that, your argument can’t even be used. At that point it is pure speculation, while what I am using is information actually put out by both BE and OPP.

If indeed BE had to give up something more valuable (must have actual monetary value since what OPP has to pay them IS money) I would LOVE to hear about it. But until I do, or anyone does, any arguments about what “might” have happened is totally irrelevant. And what stands is that BE walked away from the table WITH OPP money, and OPP walked away with NOTHING that belonged to BE.

That again, indicates that even if it was an acceptable loss, it was a loss. They both did not walk away from the table with nothing more than they brought to it… BE walked away richer, and OPP walked away with less money. Again, a loss.

Folks can argue semantics all they want, but it will not change what it means to win, or lose. It will only make us feel “better” about losing.

[1stdeadeye]

I'll bet that sum they paid is quite small. $1 and BE gets to claim victory. They were paid and get to save face. OPP gets to hand over a buck and claim they won because the settlement was foavorable to them. Both sides save face!

[shartley]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
I'll bet that sum they paid is quite small. $1 and BE gets to claim victory. They were paid and get to save face. OPP gets to hand over a buck and claim they won because the settlement was foavorable to them. Both sides save face!
Now if THIS was the case, I can agree on principle. But if there was actual “funds” that had to change hands (you know what I mean) I stand by my other posts.

But if it was a saving face thing only, OPP would have NO need to even post their arguments on the case. They should have just let it drop and keep selling their product as if nothing happened. That would have been a big enough thumbing of the nose all by itself. I honestly don’t think the average customer cares one way or the other as long as they can buy one. ;)

If you can still MAKE and still SELL your product, why the need to come to AO and “prove” anything? Your being allowed to make and sell it would be, and should be, enough. Again, I think the average customer could care less as long as it IS being made and IS being sold… that way THEY win. ;)

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by shartley

Now if THIS was the case, I can agree on principle. But if there was actual “funds” that had to change hands (you know what I mean) I stand by my other posts.

But if it was a saving face thing only, OPP would have NO need to even post their arguments on the case. They should have just let it drop and keep selling their product as if nothing happened. That would have been a big enough thumbing of the nose all by itself. I honestly don’t think the average customer cares one way or the other as long as they can buy one. ;)

If you can still MAKE and still SELL your product, why the need to come to AO and “prove” anything? Your being allowed to make and sell it would be, and should be, enough. Again, I think the average customer could care less as long as it IS being made and IS being sold… that way THEY win. ;)

It is probably very small. That is why the terms are always confidential. OPP probably stating their case because they are so happy about this type of result. A humbled loser would sulk away and hide. OPP is doing the opposite!;)

[shartley]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
It is probably very small. That is why the terms are always confidential. OPP probably stating their case because they are so happy about this type of result. A humbled loser would sulk away and hide. OPP is doing the opposite!;)
However on that same note….. a pissed off loser might try to post something to gain public support. And even a happy “winner” should follow good form, and let their sales and products to the “nose thumbing” (as I said before), this does not look good no matter HOW you want to shade it. ;)

That coin has two sides, folks should remember that before tossing it into the air. :)

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by shartley

However on that same note….. a pissed off loser might try to post something to gain public support. And even a happy “winner” should follow good form, and let their sales and products to the “nose thumbing” (as I said before), this does not look good no matter HOW you want to shade it. ;)

That coin has two sides, folks should remember that before tossing it into the air. :)

Too true. I guess that is why these settlements are kept confidential...to keep people like you and I guessing!:D

[shartley]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Too true. I guess that is why these settlements are kept confidential...to keep people like you and I guessing!:D
VERY true.... and that is why usually both parties stick to press releases ONLY, and don't go and post their case on a public forum. ;)

[thetex]

Shartly,
I've got to hand it to ya. This has to be one of the most intellegent forums I have personally seen, outside of MENSA, where they most often are talking about nothing more than trivial BS. You bring a very clever argument to the table. However, your assesment is for your own pasification to find a difinitive winner or loser. If you want an assessment from our perspective, and I would like to hear BE's on this one, we were both losers. This is my opinion and doesn't even nessisarily include the ones of my colleagues.
The lawyers were the difinitive winners so by your reasoning (monitary transfer or value of exchanges), both companies were the losers. Yea, we lost. OH well.
We don't blame BE for their actions. And, in a court of law, both companies could claim loses. That doesn't mean they were right or that one company won or lost. There was no decision made in the court.
You as the consumer can claim loses. So what? Does that mean you lost? Does that mean they won? I assure you, if you go to court the lawyers will win all of the time. If neither side can see value and they decide to quit fighting and it's acceptable to both parties when they sign, is there a winner? Loser?
OK, we lost.
Want a HALO?;)
Good argument. I don't know if I could hold water if I were sitting down for a beer with you. Then what would be the point of holding water when your having beer anyway.:rolleyes:
OPP will be providing the paintball industry the HALO as well as other fine products for years to come. We will continue to improve on our products and meet the demands of our customers as best we can. Look for alot from OPP in the near future.
Peace,
TEX
:cool:

[Webmaster]

"But it would be a cold day in hell before I give anyone, or any other company one dime when I am right. "

While noble - not always practical. I am sure you recognize that in business, certain things must be done to survive... And the "good guy" doesnt always win. I am sure if you look around you will see many examples of one company not playing fair with another - or with thier own employees.

As you noted many firms fight lawsuits for YEARS. And you are right. But I would like to point out ODD isnt AOL, Philip Morris, or even a company 1/100th that size!

Granted I dont know all the facts - but if I owned a small company and had a lawsuit against me with the aggresor being large enough to easily survive a long lawsuit - I would probably jump at the chance to settle out court and still be able to make my product in peace and make a living at it.

[Marchborne]

(1) In almost every settlement, the contents of that settlement are stipulated by the parties to be confidential, with some exceptions (e.g., the parties agreed in this case to issue a joint press release). Those confidentiality clauses usually have BIG penalty clauses for violations, which is likely why BE and Ody are just saying "check out the press release."

(2) Also, in almost every settlement, both sides stipulate that the settlement is NOT an admission of wrongdoing. In other words, there may indeed have been a violation, or a wrongful act, or whatever is at issue in any given litigation, but neither side is going to admit to it. THAT'S ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF SETTLEMENT.

(3) There are lots of reasons to settle. Some of them have been discussed. Most often, money is at issue. Shartley, I have to respect your "never-say-die" attitude, but there are times when it's just not worth the fight. Plus, if you (hypothetically, of course) litigated 'till bankruptcy, closed shop, re-opened, and started selling an (allegedly) infringing product again, rest assured, the dogs would be huntin' again.

(4) Sounds like what they did was one of two things: (a) dismiss without prejudice, which means the exact same issue can be brought to court again, if necessary; or (b) the dismissal was with prejudice, which means the exact issue and facts cannot be re-litigated, and what the press release is referring to is BE's ability to take further alleged infringements into court.

P.S.: These are just general observations, DO NOT construe any of my posts as legal advice. :D

[shartley]

Originally posted by thetex
Shartly,
I've got to hand it to ya. This has to be one of the most intellegent forums I have personally seen, outside of MENSA, where they most often are talking about nothing more than trivial BS. You bring a very clever argument to the table. However, your assesment is for your own pasification to find a difinitive winner or loser. If you want an assessment from our perspective, and I would like to hear BE's on this one, we were both losers. This is my opinion and doesn't even nessisarily include the ones of my colleagues.
The lawyers were the difinitive winners so by your reasoning (monitary transfer or value of exchanges), both companies were the losers. Yea, we lost. OH well.
We don't blame BE for their actions. And, in a court of law, both companies could claim loses. That doesn't mean they were right or that one company won or lost. There was no decision made in the court.
You as the consumer can claim loses. So what? Does that mean you lost? Does that mean they won? I assure you, if you go to court the lawyers will win all of the time. If neither side can see value and they decide to quit fighting and it's acceptable to both parties when they sign, is there a winner? Loser?
OK, we lost.
Want a HALO?;)
Good argument. I don't know if I could hold water if I were sitting down for a beer with you. Then what would be the point of holding water when your having beer anyway.:rolleyes:
OPP will be providing the paintball industry the HALO as well as other fine products for years to come. We will continue to improve on our products and meet the demands of our customers as best we can. Look for alot from OPP in the near future.
Peace,
TEX
:cool:
LOL Thank you.

And yes, your observation on lawyers is dead on… but you got to love them. :D

Do I want a Halo? LOL Hell yes! LOL But I have said that before. They are the best loaders on the market. :)

I go with beer as well, and would sit down with you and drink a couple any time. I am very glad you did not take offense and realized that my arguments were not about YOU or your company, but about the process. It was a good discussion.

Thank you.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by thetex
Shartly,
I've got to hand it to ya. This has to be one of the most intellegent forums I have personally seen, outside of MENSA, where they most often are talking about nothing more than trivial BS. You bring a very clever argument to the table. However, your assesment is for your own pasification to find a difinitive winner or loser. If you want an assessment from our perspective, and I would like to hear BE's on this one, we were both losers. This is my opinion and doesn't even nessisarily include the ones of my colleagues.
The lawyers were the difinitive winners so by your reasoning (monitary transfer or value of exchanges), both companies were the losers. Yea, we lost. OH well.
We don't blame BE for their actions. And, in a court of law, both companies could claim loses. That doesn't mean they were right or that one company won or lost. There was no decision made in the court.
You as the consumer can claim loses. So what? Does that mean you lost? Does that mean they won? I assure you, if you go to court the lawyers will win all of the time. If neither side can see value and they decide to quit fighting and it's acceptable to both parties when they sign, is there a winner? Loser?
OK, we lost.
Want a HALO?;)
Good argument. I don't know if I could hold water if I were sitting down for a beer with you. Then what would be the point of holding water when your having beer anyway.:rolleyes:
OPP will be providing the paintball industry the HALO as well as other fine products for years to come. We will continue to improve on our products and meet the demands of our customers as best we can. Look for alot from OPP in the near future.
Peace,
TEX
:cool:

Okay Sam,
Now I really think that I am onto something with that $1 guess. A big corporation with tons of lawyers like BE will have a more professional approach. A small firm like OPP might act like more of a renegade.:eek:

[shartley]

Webby and Marchborne


Good points, but nothing I don't know (or even agree with). My arguments and statements were not meant to be "legal" alone. There was more to it. ;) And I am sure you both realize that. :D

[shartley]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Okay Sam,
Now I really think that I am onto something with that $1 guess. A big corporation with tons of lawyers like BE will have a more professional approach. A small firm like OPP might act like more of a renegade.:eek:
However, you know me… I will not argue what is not presented as facts of the case. ;) Therefore even if someone argues and ends up being correct, but did so without facts, they would win because they were lucky and nothing more. The other party could actually been correct in their assessments given what was actually public knowledge, but be wrong in the end because of information not available.

Me… I would take the side of proven facts and available information over any guess. It tends to make you correct more times than not. ;)

But again, this discussion was not about right or wrong, or who was right or wrong….. it was about a though process. :)


NOW... I have to go to the bank!

[thetex]

Your right. Sometimes you have to think outside the box to do what we do. Being part of the status quo is not always desirable either. You have to challenge the system to make yourself established as being the tip of technology. And you have to observe, defend, make your point and establish your presence every chance you get when your small. Some call it being a renegade. That's OK. Cool! We call it, "IT'S ALL WE'VE GOT." That's why small companies act different than larger ones.
Hey, now maybe I can act more like them and take out a magazine add???? We'll see.
Shartly,
I have one very important question for you and you better not skate around it.
Who's buying? ;)
Later,
TEX

[FutureMagOwner]

as i was going to state at the begining of the thread(but i descided to read the whole thing which showed me it was already stated) all around its smarter money wise to just settle after litigation fees lawyer fees and so forth, you end up paying more than the settlement in most cases and it saves you the headache of having to deal with lawyers(lol if you cant tell i dont like corporate lawyers in most cases :) )

[hitech]

Originally posted by shartley

Irrelevant. And I say that because OPP has not only posted their "case" for public viewing, but TWICE pointed back to the original Press Release dealing with the settlement (which ONLY mentions OPP paying BE money)...If indeed BE had to give up something more valuable (must have actual monetary value since what OPP has to pay them IS money) I would LOVE to hear about it. But until I do, or anyone does, any arguments about what "might" have happened is totally irrelevant. ...

I disagree. It is certainly possible that they are restricted from disclosing what BE had to give up. I'll probably never know, but I still claim that it is possbile. Given that we CAN'T know all the details, WE can't determine the "winner". Other than the attorneys. ;)

[Kevmaster]

I dont think, after talking with some of the people at Brass Eagle I know, that you will hear a peep outta them on this issue. the Press Release is their statement and that's all they are willing to comment on. Dont expect Lynn Scott or anyone else to come in here and post on AO about their side of the case. They felt that Ody was infringing on a product they make and have patented, because of that--right or wrong--they tried to protect that intellectual property. The way it ended up was an out of court settlement.

Next, I dont think EITHER side would have settled out of court if they were sure they would win. In court, you can counter sue for lawyers fees if they lose, so Ody--most likly--could have regained their losses in lawyers and wouldnt have settled if they knew BE would lose. BE wouldnt have stopped short of virtually destroying Ody if they were sure they would win.

Finally, Tex, In speaking with BE staff(not gunna mention names here) I was informed that you will not be making a HALO A or B for four (4) years. That contradicts what you had to say in some previous posts....thats all


Thanks Tex!

[Marchborne]

Originally posted by shartley
Webby and Marchborne


Good points, but nothing I don't know (or even agree with). My arguments and statements were not meant to be "legal" alone. There was more to it. ;) And I am sure you both realize that. :D

Nah, I was with ya, Sam. :)

Going OT for a sec: To all those with the (potentially, maybe I'm misreading 'em) lawyer-bashing comments, would you say "only the plumbers win" if your faucet blew up because of a manufacturing defect, and you argued with tha manufacturer over who should pay for it? You would be amazed at the number of times settlements are actually encouraged by lawyers, because they see things objectively, and without the prejudice caused by being overly passionate about your "cause."

Ah, heck with it, back on topic. At least the parties settled, and (1) can now put their funds to better use (e.g., sponsor ME); (2) gave us more fun topics to chew on. :D

[Marchborne]

Originally posted by Kevmaster

In court, you can counter sue for lawyers fees if they lose,

Actually, in America, you usually DON'T get to recover your legal fees from the other side if you win. Usually when that happens, the issue of "the loser pays" came from a contract, or a specific statute. If you look at Black's Law Dictionary, under "American rule," you find: "1. The requirement that each litigant must pay its own attorney's fees, even if the party prevails in the lawsuit." But, there are some exceptions.

[Kevmaster]

well, then, i suppose im wrong any maybe Ody did have some advantage in stopping now...

[shartley]

Originally posted by thetex
Your right. Sometimes you have to think outside the box to do what we do. Being part of the status quo is not always desirable either. You have to challenge the system to make yourself established as being the tip of technology. And you have to observe, defend, make your point and establish your presence every chance you get when your small. Some call it being a renegade. That's OK. Cool! We call it, "IT'S ALL WE'VE GOT." That's why small companies act different than larger ones.
Hey, now maybe I can act more like them and take out a magazine add???? We'll see.
Shartly,
I have one very important question for you and you better not skate around it.
Who's buying? ;)
Later,
TEX
LOL I would buy, of course. :)

(But for some reason, I would bet that out of good form, you would end up getting the next round. ;))

[shartley]

Originally posted by Marchborne


Nah, I was with ya, Sam. :)

Going OT for a sec: To all those with the (potentially, maybe I'm misreading 'em) lawyer-bashing comments, would you say "only the plumbers win" if your faucet blew up because of a manufacturing defect, and you argued with tha manufacturer over who should pay for it? You would be amazed at the number of times settlements are actually encouraged by lawyers, because they see things objectively, and without the prejudice caused by being overly passionate about your "cause."

Ah, heck with it, back on topic. At least the parties settled, and (1) can now put their funds to better use (e.g., sponsor ME); (2) gave us more fun topics to chew on. :D
All I have to say is.... yup. :D

[cphilip]

Ok Tex, Chris or whomever can speak for Odyssey...

a few questions...

If I call you tomorrow and order some Halo B's will you have them?

And will you be allowed to sell them?

(Those two go to legality and supply so I seperated them)

And if indeed you have them, how long can you sell them?

Or...

Is there a deadline or is the product going to be allowed to be sold under this agreement?

Here are the answers I need/want:

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Forever
4) No

So what is it Tex? Or Chris?

[thetex]

Originally posted by cphilip
Ok Tex, Chris or whomever can speak for Odyssey...
a few questions...
If I call you tomorrow and order some Halo B's will you have them?
And will you be allowed to sell them?
(Those two go to legality and supply so I seperated them)
And if indeed you have them, how long can you sell them?
Or...
Is there a deadline or is the product going to be allowed to be sold under this agreement?
Here are the answers I need/want:
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Forever
4) No
So what is it Tex? Or Chris?

1. If you call tomorrow it depends on what quantity your looking for. We have changed our production facility to accomidate higher volumes. People have known about this long before the case was settled. It should be on line soon. Bottom line, if you are looking for one loader we have them. If you are looking for a large order you have to wait in line.
2. Yes we are allowed to sell them.
3. We will never stop supplying the paintball industry with HALO.
4. We cannot and will not discuss the terms of the agreement. If it were to be interpreted incorrectly by BE, action could be brought for breech of contract. I can not confirm or deny anything unfortunately.

The case is settled and that is all we can say.
I'll put it to you this way. OPP is happy with the settlement. In what I'm reading, I'm not so sure about BE.
OH well. Life goes on.
Want a HALO?
TEX;)

[cphilip]

OK fair enough and did not realy need you to tell me more. That was all I think we needed to know.

Nope tis not large, although I wish it was! But a small order of a half dozen or so... I will give Edward a call... see what you got! :)

Thanks Tex.

[Kevmaster]

Tex, Ive been told by BE that you are no longer allowed to produce the HALO B and HALO A. Is that just BS to impress me or is that the case

[manike]

Kev, he might not be able to answer that because it would be talking about the agreement...

[Kneedragger]

Originally posted by Kevmaster

Next, I dont think EITHER side would have settled out of court if they were sure they would win. In court, you can counter sue for lawyers fees if they lose, so Ody--most likly--could have regained their losses in lawyers and wouldnt have settled if they knew BE would lose. BE wouldnt have stopped short of virtually destroying Ody if they were sure they would win.



Sorry, but that's absolutely false. Winning a law suit does not give you the right to recover your legal fees. The legal system allows everyone their day in court. Win or lose you have your right to be heard. You can only counter sue if you can show malicious intent, which is extremely hard to do.

[Kevmaster]

thanks, but weve already established that i was wrong :rolleyes:

Manike...I know, he may not be able to discuss it, however he implis that he will be making more of them in his post to Phil, So i was just wondering if there was a difinitive answer

[cphilip]

I think we got all the answer we will get and will need.

1. If you call tomorrow it depends on what quantity your looking for. We have changed our production facility to accomidate higher volumes. People have known about this long before the case was settled. It should be on line soon. Bottom line, if you are looking for one loader we have them. If you are looking for a large order you have to wait in line.
2. Yes we are allowed to sell them.
3. We will never stop supplying the paintball industry with HALO...