Brass Eagle announces settlement of Odyssey lawsuit

[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]

Where OPP is.

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]

[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]

[thetex]

????I don't understand????

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

[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]

Re: ????I don't understand????

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

[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".