Brasseagle really suing Halo

[kenshinkandon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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.

[Spaceman613]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial.

[shartley]

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.

[Webmaster]

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]

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.

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!!!

[Hasty8]

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

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.