Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
My reply to Mr. Andy Elderman, V.P. - Marketing @ MTH I see this is your first post, so welcome to Model Railroader Forum. I hope you can stand the heat. Apparently not many folks who are model railroaders support MTH. [quote]QUOTE: Andy Edleman Vice President - Marketing M.T.H. Electric Trains First and foremost, with the exception of a counter suit against QS Industries (QSI), M.T.H. has not sued any DCC manufacturer for violations against any M.T.H. patents. There are many rumors floating around in cyberspace that M.T.H. is threatening or is suing all DCC manufacturers. That is simply not true[/quote] Sorry Mr. Elderman, that, and your third statment, doesn't make me feel good about the future. [quote]QUOTE: Secondly, M.T.H. is not claiming any patents on the concept of Back EMF as has been reported recently. Back EMF has been in existence for years and is not applicable to our technology. It was simply referenced as an existing form of speed control in our patents and some folks misread these patents and assumed we are claiming it as our own invention.[/quote] I'll wait to see what is argued in court to believe this statment. [quote]QUOTE: 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.[/quote] Well Mr.Elderman, how do you think those roumors, that you mentioned in your first statment, got started? "ADVISE THEM" ? That's leagalese - spin doctor - double talk for threat. You wouldn't happen to be Saddam Hussein's former Minister of Information would you? [quote]QUOTE: Fourth, not one of the DCC firms has yet to respond to our letters or has inquired about the possibilities of a potential licensing arrangement. Frankly, any DCC firm that has informed consumers that M.T.H. has filed suit against them is not revealing all of the facts and one should at least question their motives if they have indeed told you this was the case.[/quote] Why would other DCC firms be interested in a licencing arrangment if they believe their products do not infringe on MTH patents? Almost sounds like extortion. As for DCC firms revealing that they have a pending law suite, they have to tell their customers why they can not release their product. I wouldn't expect them to tell MTH's side of the story either. I'm sure they are advised by their attorneys to limit their statments. Is there anything specific you would like to claim they had done? Click on [url="http://www.qsindustries.com/train%20page.htm"]QSI Press Release.[/url] I prefer to do buisness with companies whose philosophy is to share technology to help grow the market. For example, this is from the FAQ on the Lenz Elektronik, GmbH website: [quote]QUOTE: Why is Lenz releasing this technology to the NMRA DCC Working Group? Three reasons. 1) The future of multi-manufacturer DCC depends on all manufacturers working closely with the NMRA DCC Working Group to enhance DCC in an orderly fashion. To fully realize the full potential of RailCom will require multiple manufacturers to implement the protocols. 2) To gain the full potential we will need some additional packets and we feel that these should be created in a joint fashion. 3) NMRA DCC is not a static control system, but one which can grow for many years to come. To gain the benefits we have all enjoyed for the future means that we must plan for the growth now. But don't you loose your competitive advantage by releasing your intellectual property to the NMRA DCC Working Group? We have no problems competing in an open market. We believe that standards help the overall market grow and as the market grows we also grow. While it is true that we have invested a lot of time and resources into the development of RailCom, we believe our investment can best be realized by worldwide adoption of this technology. What if the NMRA DCC Working Group changes the technology? No problem. If the NMRA improves on the technology, then of course we will adopt it.[/quote] Now that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. Lenz is doing something good for the hobby. MTH just worries me. [quote]QUOTE: A review of the patent's language will enlighten those who feel our claims are baseless and indicate the level of prior art we provided to the U.S. Patent Office to substantiate the claims in the first place.[/quote] That is for the court to decide. I'm not an attorney and I have no opinion on weather or not MTH has a valid claim. The documents you refer to can be interpreted many different ways as there are people reading them. I'm sure though the attorneys for MTH will argue in favor of MTH. [quote]QUOTE: M.T.H. encourages each DCC firm (or any individual for that matter) to bring forth evidence now that our claims are in fact invalid.[/quote] Either the attorneys for other DCC firms or individuals believe that MTH has nothing that will stand up in court and are not willing to commit resources in such a pursuit. or they may be waiting to see what happens in pending litigation. [quote]QUOTE: M.T.H. invested over $3.5 million dollars in the development of our Proto-Sound 2.0 and DCS Digital Command Systems.[/quote] What, if anything, has MTH done for the model railroading community except make millions from it? [quote]QUOTE: We developed these products because we felt that the current technology standards at the time were no longer innovative enough to attract new hobbyists into model railroading.[/quote] That sound like a load of $[-]!+. New customers is what you mean. Is MTH willing to submit their superior technology to the NMRA to set a new standard? [quote]QUOTE: To stand pat and allow any and all competitors to develop or utilize similar products based on the ground breaking developments we created would be an incredible waste of our efforts[/quote] Similar products? That's open to interpretation isn't it? Ground breaking? Hardly. What was groung breaking was the availability of micro processors. I know MTH didn't invent that. [quote]QUOTE: If our efforts are as unique as we believe, they should be protected under patent law.[/quote] I'll give you that. But nothing good for the hobby will come of it. [quote]QUOTE: Finally, M.T.H. would encourage consumers to stop and consider that there may be a better way to operate and enjoy model trains than what exists today.[/quote] Yes, you're right there is. However it's not the MTH way. I really don't know what MTH is doing, but I do know they seem to be making a lot of enemies.
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