Jon
So many roads, so little time.
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!!!
Dep
Virginian Railroad
Bob Keller
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.
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.
Neil Besougloff
editor, Model Railroader magazine
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
Remember the Veterans. Past, present and future.
www.sd3r.org
Proud New Member Of The NRA
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.
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?
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!!!
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.
So we can also expect MTH to lower its prices?
>>Started with calendarsWolf 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?
Does this mean that Lionel will get their money back?
Regards,
John O
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month