Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
I have read both the MTH Patents, and the various manufacturer's comments (though admittedly the comments are third party in most cases.) In my opinion, the MTH "email response" above is marketing spin. It is beautifully crafted, but just their public "response." The meat of the issue is that bi-directional communication is not all that their patents are "crafted" to cover. They may not have sued ALL DCC companies, but in effect their patents are so broad that all of the companies have had to stop and legally "justify" their new products. While this may seem like it is a voluntary action on the downwind side, it is most definately part of the benefit of the broad patent scope. MTH effectively halted or threatened all other manufacturers who were working on or producing bi-directional communication and / or sound devices. Sorry, but if you look at the patents, and then think like a business, you have to stop and consider your legal exposure. The truth is the products like Surroundtraxx, Transponding, and integrated signaling, are all a natural progression of the DCC open standard that has been flourishing for many years PRIOR to the MTH patent. I do suggest you read the patents as well. I agree they have a right to patent unique ideas, but the patents are very general and broad, and can be construed by a cold light of day court to include ALL variations of DCC. MOST CERTAINLY they can be construed to affect onboard sound, "tracking" sound, transponding, integrated signalling, and any other DCC or bi-directional DCC product. This is exactly why MTH calls it DCS instead of the open standard of DCC. Regardless of what actions they undertook, they reached the goal of claiming the technology that is strikingly similar to DCC products that appear to have been in development by isolated people as an extension to an OPEN STANDARD. In a HOBBY, that is considered an artform, with historical connotations. Is it legal, sure. Is it absolutely 100% above board.... well, it is suspicious. It is deeply troubling that they are quoted as saying: "Third, M.T.H. did recently send out letters to DCC manufacturers in the model railroading community who are developing or utilizing technology that may violate our U.S. Patents. These letters were meant to advise them of possible conflicts with our patents that cover 2-way communications and speed control in 1 scale mile per hour increments. These are the only issues we have alerted the DCC community about." Where is the specific correlation to their "sound" devices? Not in the statement of the "ONLY" two issues... I mean, that statement of the speed control in 1 scale mile per hour increment alone smacks of overreach. So what if another manufacturer's controller is able to display accurate speed based on programming. This is the same as "setting" your decoder to match the speed curve of a dial precisely to mark off various "speeds" that happen to match scale speeds. Not a new technology at all... in fact, with speed tables, it is EXACTLY what many of us have been doing to correctly "match" speeds of all locos for operating on the same line in the same direction YEARS BEFORE THESE PATENTS! (Note, even MTH does not say they have a specific "digital" readout, etc.... They also do not say that this is based on feedback from the loco using bi-directional communication.) What about signaling using bi-directional communication? (I am not even talking about transponding, just simple "feedback to a central command station," or computer!) ((When you read the patents, this line will really hit home.)) All I am saying is, WRONG ANSWER... DCC was supposed to be an open standard for a reason. Companies are supposed to be building this stuff FOR us, because we thought of it (OPEN STANDARDS BY NMRA, ETC... PUBLISHED FOR YEARS IN MR, ETC..., input from clubs, individuals, companies...) We can build it ourselves with the same technical "blueprints," but have chosen their products because they are RTR. Sorry, I read the patents, and read the threads, and have followed the technology. I learn more everyday, and have been wrong about many things. But, the patents alone are a huge issue. NO company should have stepped forward to claim any aspect of DCC. I know others may have done so, but nothing has caused the damage to DCC as a whole as the current maelstrom that MTH has unleashed. It is because of the crafty legal language and descriptions of the technology that this issue hits the industry so hard. It should be "Void for Vagueness," but now a court MUST decide. Last but not least.... what company would come forward to discuss licensing? It is not decided that the patent is valid yet. Not when it could potentially affect so much of a DCC companies business... Why even hint that other companies have not "come forward," because of the legal waters MTH has surrounded itself in, I wouldn't stick a toe in until someone can prove they won't pull me under.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag

Update Reply

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Model Railroader Newsletter See all

Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!

Subscriber & Member Login

Edit post

Post Body

Tags (Optional)

Subscriber & Member Login

Users Online

Search the Community