Trains.com

Re: Major MTH/Union Pacific announcement

2231 views
23 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2006
  • From: Clarendon Hills, Illinois
  • 1,058 posts
Posted by johnandjulie13 on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 3:36 PM

Does this mean that Lionel will get their money back?

Regards,

John O

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: West end of Chicago's Famous Racetrack
  • 2,239 posts
Posted by Poppa_Zit on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 4:24 PM

So we can also expect MTH to lower its prices?

>>Started with calendars

Wolf credits Nils Huxtable of Steamscenes calendars for getting the ball rolling against the original licensing program. Huxtable, whose company produces Union Pacific and Southern Pacific calendars, challenged the Union Pacific's demands using his own money, Wolf said.

"Give that guy credit. He stood up and fought for his principles. He's my hero," Wolf said. Huxtable is included in the new licensing provisions, but other non-model railroad licensees are not covered, Wolf said.<<

So, Huxtable is the only one who can produce a Union Pacific calendar without paying fees? Is that fair?

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled, however, to their own facts." No we can't. Charter Member J-CASS (Jaded Cynical Ascerbic Sarcastic Skeptics) Notary Sojac & Retired Foo Fighter "Where there's foo, there's fire."
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Silver City, NM USA
  • 1,370 posts
Posted by Deputy on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 4:40 PM

Ogaugeoverlord: Thanks for posting that. I received a notice in e-mail from MTH about it too. BTW...it appears some folks would gripe if they were hung with a new rope. Geez. Sad [:(]

Dep

 

 

Virginian Railroad

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • 1,991 posts
Posted by Frank53 on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 4:53 PM

It don't matter to me. They can't collect a licensing fee on stuff made 50 years ago, and I am building my layout around the northeast anyway.

However, if many of my train buds are better served by it, it's a good thing.

On the other hand, was Lionel just majorly duped by UP, or is there an underlying story?

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 5:19 PM
"So, Huxtable is the only one who can produce a Union Pacific calendar without paying fees? Is that fair?"
----------------------------------

Sure seems fair to me!  That fellow fought long and hard to protect his interests, and as far as I am concerned, he does deserve to be included in any settlement agreement.
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Silver City, NM USA
  • 1,370 posts
Posted by Deputy on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 5:21 PM
 Frank53 wrote:

It don't matter to me. They can't collect a licensing fee on stuff made 50 years ago, and I am building my layout around the northeast anyway.

However, if many of my train buds are better served by it, it's a good thing.

On the other hand, was Lionel just majorly duped by UP, or is there an underlying story?

 

Ditto for me. Pennsy and NYC. Lionel cut a seperate deal with UP. LOL...it would be funny if they paid big $$$$$$$ and now find out they didn't have to. Yay MTH!!! Big Smile [:D]

Dep

Virginian Railroad

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Wisconsin
  • 2,877 posts
Posted by Bob Keller on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 6:09 PM
Manufacturers who had previously signed agreements will need to sign new agreements with the UP.

There isn't a down side to this for the hobby.

Bob Keller

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • 1,991 posts
Posted by Frank53 on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 6:30 PM

It strikes me that if uP tried to hold Lionel to a royalty agreement, that could be quickly overturned in court, and could almost be perceived to be colusion. Lionel sees a hard line stance and makes an agreement to pay royaties. Two weeks later, after getting a royalty agreement from Lionel, UP says - ok nobody has to pay royalties EXCEPT Lionel.

 

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Sandy Eggo
  • 5,608 posts
Posted by dougdagrump on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 6:37 PM
Hhmmm, now it makes one wonder about the so-called "Exclusive Rights" to the Heritage paint schemes that was supposedly given to Lionel.  Question [?]  Question [?]  Question [?]  Question [?]

Remember the Veterans. Past, present and future.

www.sd3r.org

Proud New Member Of The NRA

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Plymouth, MI
  • 1,615 posts
Posted by chuck on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 7:06 PM
I just went back and re-read the Lionel announcement.  It never states the agreement was "exclusive".  I suspect the eighth unannounced loco will be exclusive as the real loco will probably have Lionel markings on it as well as whatever UP Heritage markings UP uses.
When everything else fails, play dead
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Western Pennsylvania
  • 687 posts
Posted by prewardude on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 11:44 PM
Wow. Just wow. Shock [:O]

 - Clint
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Centennial, CO
  • 1,192 posts
Posted by kstrong on Thursday, November 9, 2006 12:56 AM

 Allan Miller wrote:
"So, Huxtable is the only one who can produce a Union Pacific calendar without paying fees? Is that fair?"
----------------------------------

Sure seems fair to me!  That fellow fought long and hard to protect his interests, and as far as I am concerned, he does deserve to be included in any settlement agreement.

I'll agree that anyone who contriubuted to the fight should be included in the settlement, but since the settlement covers model manufacturers who weren't financially involved with the suit, it stands to reason that a publisher who was also not financially involved would have a very good case to tell UP to stick their fees as well. It depends on (a) the specific language of the settlment, and (b) the depth of the pockets of the challenging publisher. I would imagine, however, that the major calendar players (Cedeco, et. al.) are already quite used to licensing fees relative to the myriad other corporate trademark calendars they publish. An operation like that far less likely to stand on principle. To them, the fees would be cheaper than the legal costs involved in fighting it.

Personally, if I were a small-time calendar manufacturer who produces UP calendars, I'd be a bit bothered by that settlement if the langugage granted royalty-free exclusivity to one single publisher while blanketing all model manufactuers regardless of who brought the suit.

(Don't misunderstand--I'm thrilled with the settlment! I'm glad UP came to their senses.)

Later,

K

Moderator
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Wisconsin
  • 103 posts
Posted by Neil B. on Thursday, November 9, 2006 8:36 AM
Guys,

I interviewed Mike Wolf face-to-face in Maryland about the licensing deal. Mike strongly believes that a healthy model railroad industry increases sales for everyone in all scales. Mike is focused on the model railroad industry because that's what his company does (MTH doesn't make railroad calendars, coffee mugs, or RR-simulation software).

Nils Huxtable's calendars are included in the settlement because Mike told me that he greatly admired the way that Nils stood up against the original licensing program, even using his own money to defend against the Union Pacific. He and Mike have had conversations about the licensing issue, and while I was in MTH's office coincidentally Nils Huxtable called.

Because Mike admired what Nils did, he requested that Union Pacific include Nil's calendars in the settlement.

Neil Besougloff
editor

Neil Besougloff

editor, Model Railroader magazine

  • Member since
    April 2006
  • 8,048 posts
Posted by fifedog on Thursday, November 9, 2006 8:40 AM

It would seem that Union Pacific had bigger things on it's plate then putting a lot of energy into squeezing a few extra pennies out of the Model Railroad Industry. They need to promote whatever pencil-necked geek who suggested this royalty movement to their shipping department---isn't that where they have been faltering as a company anyway?

Thanks to Mike and his efforts.

It was cool to see his Heritage engines on display at YORK.  I was wundering to myself how that legal argument was going when I saw them.  Thumbs Up [tup]

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Silver City, NM USA
  • 1,370 posts
Posted by Deputy on Thursday, November 9, 2006 9:55 AM

Sounds to me like Mike is a stand-up guy and a credit to the toy train industry. Glad he is on our side.
As to the price of MTH trains...I am a firm believer in "you get what you pay for". If folks can't afford to buy an MTH loco or rolling stock piece, then they have two options...

#1 Buy a cheaper version in Lionel or K-Line, or #2, back off on the "instant gratification" thing and SAVE UP FOR IT. Saving seems to be something that has been forgotten by many folks. They want things RIGHT NOW and get upset when they can't have that instant gratification. I'd rather pay more for a quality product, than be offered a plethora of cheap crap. The high quality stuff from Lionel is just as expensive as MTH. So I don't see where the gripe is.

Dep

 

Virginian Railroad

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Plymouth, MI
  • 1,615 posts
Posted by chuck on Thursday, November 9, 2006 9:58 AM
I believe that UP's top managment has undergone a change and the new president seems more amenable to dealing with license issues.  UP has no choice but to protect the brand image or risk losing control of it.  This means licenses.  It is the terms/conditions/requirements that have changed.  The new (and apparently more enlightened) management seems to be more interested in protecting the brand  than in shaking down model railroad/railroadiana fans. 

Kudo's to all parties  involved.Smile [:)]
When everything else fails, play dead
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 9, 2006 12:25 PM
There may be less here than meets the eye. The article with the URL <http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=a&id=907> states, among other things, "[Mike] Wolf announced that the deal, reached November 2, 2006, is royalty-free and continues in perpetuity."

It is a general principle of the law followed in the U.S.A. and in many common-law jurisdictions (the UK, Canada, etc.) that contracts that have no specified expiration date are voidable at any time by either party to the contract. Assuming that this basic principle applies to this situation (which I believe it does), then Union Pacific could change its mind on some future day, and terminate the no-fee licensing agreement.
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Wisconsin
  • 2,877 posts
Posted by Bob Keller on Thursday, November 9, 2006 12:49 PM
Thanks for trying to find that dark lining of the silver cloud. There isn't enough negativity in the hobby these days.

Bob Keller

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 9, 2006 1:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><table class="quoteOuterTable"><tr><td class="txt4"><img src="/trccs/Themes/default/images/icon-quote.gif">&nbsp;<strong>Ogaugeoverlord wrote:</strong></td></tr><tr><td class="quoteTable"><table width="100%"><tr><td width="100%" valign="top" class="txt4">Thanks for trying to find that dark lining of the silver cloud. There isn't enough negativity in the hobby these days.</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not try to find that dark lining. Rather, it was self-evident.

I was not, and am not, trying to introduce a note of negativity. Rather, I am simply pointing out a principle of basic contract law.

Please don't kill the messenger, who takes no pleasure in delivering the message.

I certainly applaud UP's willingness to scuttle its attempt to extract royalties, which I always thought was counterproductive. And I certainly hope that UP allows the program to continue in perpetuity. But from the standpoint of basic contract law, the hobby would have been better protected by a defined, long-term arrangement, with renewal rights for several long renewal terms, perhaps supported by nominal consideration, e.g., a token payment of, say, a dollar a decade.
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Wisconsin
  • 2,877 posts
Posted by Bob Keller on Thursday, November 9, 2006 1:43 PM
I believe I used the Jack-in-the-box icon to suggest humor.

Bob Keller

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Silver City, NM USA
  • 1,370 posts
Posted by Deputy on Thursday, November 9, 2006 1:46 PM

 J.J. McVeigh wrote:
There may be less here than meets the eye. The article with the URL states, among other things, "[Mike] Wolf announced that the deal, reached November 2, 2006, is royalty-free and continues in perpetuity." It is a general principle of the law followed in the U.S.A. and in many common-law jurisdictions (the UK, Canada, etc.) that contracts that have no specified expiration date are voidable at any time by either party to the contract. Assuming that this basic principle applies to this situation (which I believe it does), then Union Pacific could change its mind on some future day, and terminate the no-fee licensing agreement.

Sniff sniff...DANG!!! I smell a LAWYER!!! Disapprove [V]

Dep

 

Virginian Railroad

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Adel, Iowa
  • 2,292 posts
Posted by jonadel on Thursday, November 9, 2006 4:35 PM
This sounds like a faculty meeting where we were just given a big raise and a couple of extra paid holiday's when someone from the English Dept. would always stand up and say "this just isn't right, this isn't fair......... blah, blah, blah".

I sure miss those days..........................

JonClown [:o)]

Jon

So many roads, so little time. 

 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 62 posts
Posted by Santa Fe Kent on Friday, November 10, 2006 1:09 PM
Thank you Mike Wolf and Nils! This says really good things about the state of the hobby and the people in it.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER

Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month