Brasseagle really suing Halo

**Hasty8** · 03-12-2002, 10:34 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, 10:36 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, 10:45 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, 10:49 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, 10:49 AM

If I'm reading this correctly then HALO is home free.

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-P...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.

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, 10:52 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.

WARPIG - World And Regional Paintball Information Guide

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, 10:53 AM

Quoted from WARPIG HALO Review:

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, 10:54 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, 10:58 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, 10:58 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, 11:01 AM

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, 11:08 AM

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, 11:13 AM

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, 11:24 AM

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, 11:42 AM

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.

Brasseagle really suing Halo

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment