CAZEPHYR wrote: Nataraj wrote:QUOTE -- The lawsuit is against the representative in the USA that handles Loksound. -- END QUOTE Who is it directed at exactly??? This is what I know from the article. ESU, LLC is located in central Minnesota. We have been promoting the product line for the past two and a half years through the internet. We are well acquainted with what you are looking for to enhance your layout and we know this product line is your answer. With the LokSound and LokPilot product lines, “You’ll swear you’re there!”
Nataraj wrote:QUOTE -- The lawsuit is against the representative in the USA that handles Loksound. -- END QUOTE Who is it directed at exactly???
This is what I know from the article.
ESU, LLC is located in central Minnesota.
We have been promoting the product line for the past two and a half years through the internet. We are well acquainted with what you are looking for to enhance your layout and we know this product line is your answer. With the LokSound and LokPilot product lines, “You’ll swear you’re there!”
I can say for sure that thanks to a good friend, I heard a Lok Sound equipped HO locomotive up close and personal. All I could say was "Wow!' I am looking forward to seeing more products from this company. Installed with the correct speakers and baffling, IMHO, Lok Sound decoders give Soundtraxx and QSI some much needed, high quality competition!
As for this lawsuit, guys I still think we don't have to "sweat it" so hard. I doubt that is ESU should lose it not will go under. Especially now that sales and product popularity are up. As I stated on another thread, Soundtraxx has some very serious competition with this company.
As for comparison to the MTH vs. QSI lawsuit? AW, PU-LEASE!!!!! That really is a bit of a joke. Regardless of the intent and statements to the contrary, the DCC community was impacted. Or were the owners of Tony's Trains, Litchfield Station, Soundtraxx, and Digitrax hallucinating when they commented on the impact back in 2004?????
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
It's an interesting development. I don't ever remember any model manufacturer suing or being sued until recently. It seems that there have been several lawsuits the last couple of years (i.e. MTH, UP suing manufacturers, etc).
you need to check again. Lawyers write the laws, make them, judge on them, and fight over them and take most of the settlement $$$ themself.
This hobby is going to end soon if lawyers dont stop running it by the courtroom instead of the train room.
davekelly wrote: CurtMc wrote:Lawyers are the source of most of the worlds problems including these. I may be wrong, but last time I checked a lawyer cannot sue on behalf of anyone unless the lawyer has been directed to by his or her client.
CurtMc wrote:Lawyers are the source of most of the worlds problems including these.
I may be wrong, but last time I checked a lawyer cannot sue on behalf of anyone unless the lawyer has been directed to by his or her client.
Guess I'll have to get my granddaughters to come over and make "choo choo" noises until the model railroading sound gurus stop suing each other.
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
cmrproducts wrote:andrechapelon But what happens when a company decides it does not have to abide by this agreement. Case in point. Japan made exact copies of CAT dozers and sold them as Komatsu. And where was the stink about them, as they are at work every day in to good old USA. Now I am not trying to cause a problem but am siting different instances about different countrys. Now in modern times it may be different and this is like others have said only going to hurt us the modelers. BOB H - Clarion, PA
Are you sure they weren't licensed from Caterpillar and are you completely sure they were/are exact copies? Absent a license, Caterpillar would have raised a big stink. In any case, Caterpillar doesn't seem to be hurting as it is still the largest manufacturer of heavy equipment in the world http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060721/earns_caterpillar.html?.v=16 and its stock hasn't done too badly for an old line manufacturing company. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CAT&t=my
Japan also built F-86 and F-104 fighters as well. These were built under license from North American and Lockheed respectively.
Come to think of it, Komatsu is also in the electronics industry. The company I used to work for was in a joint venture with Komatsu to manufacture flat panel displays. Everything legal and above board, so I would tend to doubt any story about Komatsu manufacturing earth-moving equipment in violation of Caterpillar's patents. OTOH, if the patent(s) has/have lapsed, there is no patent violation.
Bull dozers and chips. Now there's a manufacturing combination you don't see ever day. Kinda reminds me of the old Peter Cook/Dudley Moore routine about a restaurant called The Frog And Peach. The restaurant had two specialties:
1. Frog a la Peche. This consisted of a frog baked with a peach in its mouth.
2. Peche a la Frog. This was a peach stuffed with tadpoles and then baked.
Andre
.
cmrproducts wrote:A question here – Is not LOC sound a German company and QSI an American company? And since when does an American patent apply to a foreign company? BOB H - Clarion, PA
The lawsuit is against the representative in the USA that handles Loksound.
bn7026,I suspect its the improvement made to DCC over the years that's causing the fuss...However,I can fully understand why companies are protecting their vested interest when less then a third of the modelers uses DCC..Over the past years there was different DC systems used and you never heard of law suits.IMHO DC power manufacturers had more vested interest in the hobby back then DCC suppliers have today.
Think of this..Did Lionel sue other manufacturers over "choo-choo smoke" when several companies stated using it? Did MRC sue other companies that developed power packs?
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
I've been watching this patents / law suit behavior in our marketplace for the last year or two and I've got to say this really irks me.
If it wasn't for Lenz giving their rights of their DCC system over to the NMRA we wouldn't have this great control system that we can use to take our loco's onto other layouts without fear of non-compatabilty. We'd be still using analog DC control in the most case (i know I would be). And none of the companies that produce DCC systems, decoders and accesories would have the sales level they have now.
All of these companies should recognise this effort that was handed to them virtually free on a plate before they contemplate the negative activity that we have seen of late.....
OK - I'll get off my soapbox
There's a load of stuff out there on international patent agreements.
Too much to look for something specific.
Suffice it to say that most, if not all, industrialized countries recognize each other's patents so that if an American company wanted to build something patented in Germany, they would have to do so under license from the entity holding the original patent (unless, of course, they were the entity in question).
For instance, ALCO was allowed to use the Gresley-Holcroft (UK) conjugated valve gear on the 3 cylinder locos they built as they held a license allowing them to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresley_Conjugated_Valve_Gear
ALCO could have been sued in a US court if they hadn't obtained the license.
GearDrivenSteam wrote:You know, you just never know how these things will turn out. We may get something positive out of it.
davekelly wrote: Interesting to say the least. Perhaps the patent office itself needs to be reviewed. Are patents being granted in such a way that patent suits are needed to pin down what exactly is being protected by a patent? In today highly technical world where a series of 1s and 0s can be the key to a new and novel idea, is the patent office staffed appropriately to ensure that the question of what a patent covers is black and white and not gray? Having sat in on a discussion between two experts concerning the coding of a data base program (for a suit I was involved in years ago) and then comparing that to the coding of another one I can say that this stuff is way complicated - or can be. Maybe the patent office needs to tighten up the documentation needed to get a patent so it can be more clear about what is covered. Of course, I'm just thinking out loud and nothing to back up my thought that the base of this problem could be in the patent process itself. Dave
Interesting to say the least. Perhaps the patent office itself needs to be reviewed. Are patents being granted in such a way that patent suits are needed to pin down what exactly is being protected by a patent? In today highly technical world where a series of 1s and 0s can be the key to a new and novel idea, is the patent office staffed appropriately to ensure that the question of what a patent covers is black and white and not gray? Having sat in on a discussion between two experts concerning the coding of a data base program (for a suit I was involved in years ago) and then comparing that to the coding of another one I can say that this stuff is way complicated - or can be. Maybe the patent office needs to tighten up the documentation needed to get a patent so it can be more clear about what is covered.
Of course, I'm just thinking out loud and nothing to back up my thought that the base of this problem could be in the patent process itself.
Dave
There was an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer several months ago (I think that's where I read it), dealing with this issue. Basically, it said that the Patent Office is woefully understaffed, and is basically rubber stamping patents without doing a through review for previous work. The highly technical nature of many electronic and software patents, exacerbates this problem.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
CAZEPHYR wrote: QSI probably can't do anything about a new start up, but they would certainly have some kid of a long term contract for furnishing BLI with qualtiy products. BLI would have to break off and start up a new business to use Loksound and then PCM will be taking a great portion of the future business including all of the new N scale sound. This has to be a gold market for PCM and Loksound since it is start up time for sound in N scale.. . I have not read the information about the lawsuit or action.
QSI probably can't do anything about a new start up, but they would certainly have some kid of a long term contract for furnishing BLI with qualtiy products. BLI would have to break off and start up a new business to use Loksound and then PCM will be taking a great portion of the future business including all of the new N scale sound. This has to be a gold market for PCM and Loksound since it is start up time for sound in N scale.. .
I have not read the information about the lawsuit or action.
You have hit the nail on the head with this post. If you look back when MTH started developing the PS2 and DCS system, you will find the situation was very similar. Here's the chain of events as I remember them:
1- QSI built the PS1 system for MTH in an OEM agreement.
2- Looking for a command control based solution other than Lionels TMCC system (which QSI built product around at the time), MTH decided to build there own system as they believed QSI could not or would not.
3- Once the discovered MTH was building their own system, QSI threw a tizzy and stopped sales and warranty support of PS1 boards to MTH puting them in a terrible positiion.
4- Because of the lack of PS1 products, MTH scrambled and came up with Locosound (anyone remember this?) as a stop gap until the PS2/DCS system was built. This cost MTH a bundle and delayed products for more than a year in some cases.
5- Once the PS2 system was available to the public, QSI took one apart and filed suit based on patent infringments.
6- MTH filed a countersuit based on lost profits and a broken OEM dealer agreement.
As an MTH dealer during this time, I can assure you this not only hurt MTH, it also hurt the hobby shops as many lost orders for products that didn't ship on time. This was all caused by QSI and had they honored their agreement with MTH, none of it would have happened as the gap between the PS1 and PS2 systems would have been months and not years. So fast forward 5 years...
1- BLI needed an N scale size sound system for it's new N scale products and QSI was either unable or unwilling to satisfy this request.
2- BLI started PCM in order to circumvent the contract between them and QSI, and started an agreement with ESU for the Loksound micro decoder.
3- QSI again got their panties in a bunch and decided they were mad at someone and decided to sue ESU. Who knows where this will end up but it's not good for anyone I can assure you.
Now if you can't find any similarities between the QSI/MTH situation and the QSI/ESU situation, you are either not looking very hard or you just don't care...
Jeff
boxcar_jim wrote: Now you could be right, but it seems like a lot of a coincidence to me ... maybe they had to change some components or software? We will never know why really.
Now you could be right, but it seems like a lot of a coincidence to me ... maybe they had to change some components or software? We will never know why really.
Jim, some of us who have taken the time to contact Soundtraxx do know why. As I've already explained this, you either don't believe me or them. Either way, I hate to see people spreading rumors based on unfounded information.
The point I was trying to make however is that product developemt slows when the lawyers get involved. Many of the smaller firms can't afford to get sued, so they're more cautious. That's bad for us as modellers.
You are absolutely correct here, and I couldn't agree more. If you venture over to the OGR forums ever, you will notice that I'm involved in several discussions about the O scale command systems and how everyone would be better off using a common protocol like DCC. Apparently Lionel didn't hear me (or anyone else for that matter), because after years of development and great cost, they just announced TMCCII . My views are not limited to one side or the other, but as a dealer I'm often careful when choosing sides and I absolutely don't like manufacturer bashing when the person doing the bashing doesn't understand the in's and out's of the situation. So no hard feelings Jim, you are of course entitled to your opinions, and an online forum such as this is a perfect place to express them.
boxcar_jim wrote: Actually they're not absured Jeff, just maybe I ought to choose my terminology better in future. The MTH patent application in the way it was written (and I was around on this board with my previous screen name at the time, so read all the background papers which were all available on line) was written so generally that it could be read to include many of the concepts central to DCC. I think I can be justified in saying that this struck at the heart of the open source DCC concept developed by Lenz and progressed through the NMRA. As someone else said we can all be thankful that all this appears to have fizzled out ....
Actually they're not absured Jeff, just maybe I ought to choose my terminology better in future. The MTH patent application in the way it was written (and I was around on this board with my previous screen name at the time, so read all the background papers which were all available on line) was written so generally that it could be read to include many of the concepts central to DCC. I think I can be justified in saying that this struck at the heart of the open source DCC concept developed by Lenz and progressed through the NMRA. As someone else said we can all be thankful that all this appears to have fizzled out ....
Jim,
While I agree with you to some extent, and I'm glad you corrected your terminology, I have said this many times and will say it again. The patents have been issued and you can't blame MTH for anything concerning them. If you feel (and you aren't alone in this) that the MTH patents were awared unjustly, then get mad at the patent office. Here are the facts as I understand them:
There are three distinct patents that were awarded to MTH, and all three deal with model railroading control. Two of these have nothing to do with DCC and are very specific to DCS. Although much of the terminology is the same (remember we're talking toy trains here and there are only so many words you can use to describe the concepts within the hobby), there is little in these patents that associate what MTH was asking for with the current control methods of DCC. The third patent deals with speed control in 1 SMPH increments. While this is a little broad, I can't for the life of me believe this single issue is slowing the development of DCC products. I've also given to the fact that at some point a DCC manufacturer may have wanted to use this, but based on the broad range of aftermarket installations and different types of locomotives, doing this accurately from one installation to another using BEMF as a speed detection source would be very unreliable.
Besides, I've installed many decoders myself, and if I want to tweak the speed steps to match scale speed increments I'm pretty sure I can, and the MTH boys won't come kicking down my door afterwards demanding patent infringment...
boxcar_jim wrote: I don't know whether its been noticed, but in the Sept MRR there is a small piece about QSI suing ESU over technical infrigements of their patents for sound decoders. Now I'm not going to comment as to who is right or wrong in the case because I don't know or fully understand how these sound decoders work. I wonder however if it has its base in BLI/PCM (one of QSIs first big HO scale customers) swapping suppliers of sound chips? However, I put forward the argument that it is a worrying development. Legal action will surely slow down progress and is very much against the open architecture of DCC. This is why I was so critical of MTHs approach on entry to the HO market. I'm pretty convienced that it was the MTH lawsuits which helped slow the production of Soundtraxx's Tsunami to a slow painful 2-year crawl - my opinion of course.
I don't know whether its been noticed, but in the Sept MRR there is a small piece about QSI suing ESU over technical infrigements of their patents for sound decoders.
Now I'm not going to comment as to who is right or wrong in the case because I don't know or fully understand how these sound decoders work. I wonder however if it has its base in BLI/PCM (one of QSIs first big HO scale customers) swapping suppliers of sound chips?
However, I put forward the argument that it is a worrying development. Legal action will surely slow down progress and is very much against the open architecture of DCC. This is why I was so critical of MTHs approach on entry to the HO market. I'm pretty convienced that it was the MTH lawsuits which helped slow the production of Soundtraxx's Tsunami to a slow painful 2-year crawl - my opinion of course.
The fact that BLI does not offer Loksound but chose to start a second company that has the Loksound might tell you something. QSI still supplies all of the sound for BLI and PCM uses the Loksound exclusively.
There was no other reason for starting the second company in the building next door except but to isolate their companies from the two sound companies that are competing for their business.
jnichols wrote: Wow, more conspiracy theories... The majority of the slowdowns concerning the Tsunami were product suppliers discountinuing several needed components which had to be redesigned, and the software and setup relevant to the analog control of the decoder. I have confronted the folks at Soundtraxx on several occasions about this and the answer from them has always been the same: While the MTH patents needed to be reviewed to ensure there were no issues, they presented no significant delays to the product's release.
Wow, more conspiracy theories... The majority of the slowdowns concerning the Tsunami were product suppliers discountinuing several needed components which had to be redesigned, and the software and setup relevant to the analog control of the decoder. I have confronted the folks at Soundtraxx on several occasions about this and the answer from them has always been the same: While the MTH patents needed to be reviewed to ensure there were no issues, they presented no significant delays to the product's release.
At the time Soundtraxx were saying that they were about to come to the market with the finished Tsunami's, I even know someone who had heard a prototype. Suddenly, the MTH patent application comes along, then MTH get sued by QSI, and suddenly Soundtraxx are saying they are looking at their software and the patent applications very closely.
jnichols wrote: MTH's suit with who struck at the very heart of DCC? These comments are absurd.
MTH's suit with who struck at the very heart of DCC? These comments are absurd.
You are correct in saying that what followed in the QSI v MTH law suit was somewhat different, and was about the two companies playing games.
QSI rocks. I too saw the article in the september issue and dont have a comment one way or the other.
I have been watching some of the Precision Scale Models in HO scale being featured with the ESU sound. Just how is it possible for BLI to sue PCM over two different sound systems? I dont think that BLI/PCM is two seperate companies or is it?
I think the answer lies elsewhere, perhaps at the factory where one makes QSI and the other corner the ESU.
I try not to get too worked up about the lawsuiting, just want to buy quality products with quality sound wherever that comes from (EXCEPT HO MTH sorry.)