Compairing the lawsuit engines

[Anonymous]

I asked this question on the ogauge board and it got zapped so will try it here.
It really should be a non controversal question.
All I would like to know is how much of the mth engines that were copyed by lionel according to the verdict are the same.
Does anyone have one of each to tell us if there was any "exact" copying done. thanks for any honest answeres as this is my first question here and could be controversial. dave.

[Anonymous]

Dave, I know what you mean. I can't answer your question, but you'll find that you WILL get honest answers here without being censored or deleted. This is the best O gauge forum you can find.

[macdannyk1]

Well, hopefully there's some rich person out there that owns both engines. From what I've heard, some "subassemblies" of the Lionel product are "based on" the "stolen" MTH plans.

[nblum]

Here's what Frank Maguire, a very experienced engineer whose opinion I for one, trust implicitly, had to say about the issue on the OGRR Forum:

"posted July 31, 2004 03:57 PM
*** Maddox said that he was there at the time, and he does not believe that anyone at Lionel had any knowledge of the situation in Korea (personal correspondence). Nor does he believe that they should have. Let me add a comment from my own experience on that.
My line of work included the design work for bridges, some of which were complex structures indeed, and usually for some governmental agency as owner. At the same time, portions of this work could be required to be subcontracted to meet various required distributional goals. It was a full-time job just to assure that this subcontracted work met the required technical standards, whenever we acted for the owner in this.
At such times, we remained responsible for the technical correctness of the subcontracted work, and yet in most of those cases had no way to know exactly how the work was procured in every detail -- in fact, in general only the independent auditors (ie, accountants) had any authority to look into such matters, and not every job was audited. Now that is here in the US, where payment is strictly limited to the tasks assigned by the government contract. That's a typical American practice (to protect the subcontractors' financial information). As for the technical plans, 90% of an engineer's work is simply to know the technical standards and to apply them -- all technical plans look much alike. There are standards for spacing simple rivets, and there are standards for sizing complex gearing, even in small sizes. So I believe *** Maddox without reservation.
It is accordingly my view that the CTT editorial position, that TCA should find someone from Lionel to expel from its membership, is a most regrettably ill-informed and overly simplistic position.
--Frank Maguire"

[Anonymous]

I believe the award to MTH to be excessive . I also believe the lawsuit will further polarize collectors and hobbyists alike. These 2 companies, like so many others in the country, are no longer manufacturers, they are importers.I, for one,will spend my money on any AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS, as few as they may be. Finally, Mike Wolf has finally become what he has wanted all his life, to be a modern J.L.Cowen. Only he has done it with a lawsuit, not talent.

[Anonymous]

It is nice to try to take the high road with LIONEL's actions in the matter.
However, the facts that were determined by the jury after listening to ALL the evidence speaks differently.

We do not have all the facts that were presented. I have read a few of the Korean Depositions that were on the web.( and no one I have heard so far has read all of the transcripts of the trial)

To now second guess the jury is like saying that you disagree with our legal system where all testimony and evidence is weighed in by folks like you and me. Lionel HAD their "say" and it came up LAME.

For Maddox or anyone to now say otherwise makes it appear that the jury did not hear their words. That is simply untrue and should be discounted at this point

As to the award....... well yes it seems a quite high; but here again LIONEL will have another chance to appeal the amount.

As to the original question of the thread; the parts were copied exactly; so isn't the Shays the same and also the articulated engines??

Alan

[nblum]

Alan, with all due deference to your legal training, these issues are not purely legal. You may have 100% confidence in our jury system, but the record would suggest the record is not quite so perfect, anymore than medical judgements and decisions are perfect.

Juries are notorious for making errors or at least reversible judgements in trials that involve highly technical issues, such as medical malpractice, for example. Any experienced medical malpractice defense attorney could cite you any number of cases where the defendant was clearly innocent of malpractice, but a jury awarded the plaintiff significant victories in cases that were acts of God, not malpractice.

The jury system is clearly the best of a poor set of choices for criminal trials but is fundamentally flawed when it comes to complex technical issues. It's entirely possible an extremely able plaintiff's attorney could convince a jury the moon is made of green cheese. The jury system was not conceived to evaluate highly technical civil cases, and is ill suited to them, IMO.

[Only some of the parts for the drive trains are in question. The rest of the locomotives are, apparently, clearly made from tooling of different origins.]

[Anonymous]

This whole thread is a crock. Roxin is a QSI dealer who's been bashing MTH since they junked QSI's PS1 in favor of PS2 -- he has a vested financial interest in making QSI look good and MTH look bad and he does so every chance he gets. And Neil, well, Neil is a physician and we all know about malpracticing physicians and lawyers so seeing him trying to impugn the quality of American justice because his beloved Lionel lost in court is hardly a surprise. Let alone he's been, for years, the preeminent MTH basher on the face of planet Earth.

Wellspring bet the company on winning and Wellspring lost. If you're angry at anyone for Lionel's plight, blame the corporate financiers who run Wellspring -- they care about money, not trains.

[nblum]

Beware of anyone who appropriates the name "truth" for themselves. They are usually lying through their teeth :). He who is hiding behind this name is probably an MTH employee, dealer or loyal Lionel basher.

No one is impugning the jury system, merely repeating the well known fact that it is not perfect, and it is particularly ineffective at sorting out the truth when highly technical issues are at stake. This jury got it wrong, based upon information that is both detailed and publicly available.

[macdannyk1]

"Truth" -- your whole reply is a crock. Those of us not ruled by the iron fist of Rich would like to see what the various positions on this issue are. Trying to shut it down with crude and baby-ish personal attacks is something that should be left to the AOL'ers.
Besides, you haven't told us anything we didn't already know. :)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Here's what Frank Maguire, a very experienced engineer whose opinion I for one, trust implicitly, had to say about the issue on the OGRR Forum:

Now here is a real shocker since his post favors your "wishful thinking".[:o)][;)]

[Anonymous]

Go MTH, otherwise known as Rod M. the ultimate OGR apologist AND Lionel basher.
The Truth is another lackey as well.

Neil B. is right on!!!

[Anonymous]

Neil

I guess you would be surprised by studies conducted on our jury system. We lawyers ARE concerned about the vary question you raised and inaccurately answered; "How accurate is the jury system in the country."
The jurors decide the truth of the evidence presented.

Well Surprise; many many studies conducted ariound the country with a broad spectrum of jury panels on cases that varied from simple to complex; the results demonstrate that our jury system for weeding out truthful testimoney (the facts!) is extremely accurate. In fact in 80-90 percent of the cases the jury ruled the same way as the judge would have ruled reviewing the same set of facts. Only in extremely complex cases was there a difference. And in those complex cases the decisions were split evenly.

So in conclusion our jury system for determining the truth of the evidence is actually quite close to perfect. I guess not what you'd expect or thought.
.
If the jury system was nearly as bad as you imagine then there would be good reason to modify it. Instead, it does work. Maddox may proclaim his innocence now but given all the facts; the jury saw it differently; very likely correctly.

The jurors are composed of you and me ( well maybe not me because usually no lawyer will ever be selected to be on a jury) However, if you can say what you said and think what you thought then so too can another member of that Lionel jury. And a majority of them didn't! Jurors are like you; they don't like large awards either.

In truth, the large med-malpractice awards and P.I. awards are few compared to the lower awards of the other hundreds of thousands that don't make the morning news.

Alan

[nblum]

Alan, I never said the jury system wasn't 80-90% perfect. Or even 95% in some instances. It clearly is. I'm saying there is plenty of room for error in complex cases like this. This case involves international differences in standards of business practices, complex technical issues, and subtle questions of business ethics. I think the jury did not view sympathetically the claim that Korean business practices in this industry are very different from American business practices, and that the sharing of supposed "trade secrets" made little to no difference in the business outcomes in the United States. Obviously the judge's decision to allow the Korean verdicts into evidence greatly affected the outcome. And so on. Based upon many of the details of the case made public through trial documents and conversations with those involved (from the Lionel side and neutral experts, obviously), and intimate knowledge of what happened in the marketplace in 1996-2002 I am persuaded the jury made a bad decision that reflects neither technical realities nor, in particular, justice.

I'm saying this verdict, in my view, is almost certainly in those 10-15% of cases the jury got it wrong. As one piece of evidence that the jury went completely "off the rails" :) and misunderstood what had happened, one can cite the ridiculous and bizarre monetary damages awarded. Completely out of touch with what actually happened in the marketplace and why it happened. This jury was certifiably nuts. Your mileage may vary.

[Anonymous]

In response to "truths" bashing me. I really do not know how the question of comparing the two engines has anything to do with MTH bashing.
Yeh I am not pro MTH but this is a free country and we can say as we wish-right.
I have come over to this board as there are too many MTH fans on the Ogauge one that get Rich to erase anything that doesn;t bow down to MTH.

[Anonymous]

Neil

What you are saying is what a lot of people who have little contact with the legal system think and it is just wrong.

You are not that special. Sorry. But it only takes one or two jurors as smart as you are to see through the so called tricks on the other side and they lead the other jurors; and as studies have demonstrated guys like you appear on juries frequently. because in the jury selection process (voir dere) it is hard to exclude all the smart educated guys like you.

Guys and gals that are not fooled by lawyer tricks. And if the trick is good then you have the opposing counsel who is not fooled to object or ask the right questions to show the judge who can overrule or not depending on what evidence is raised to make it clear to the jury whenever the other side is playing them.

It is called an adversarial system for good reason That is why is works so well not as you seem to imagine; 95% percent MEANS that there is Not "plenty of room for error"

The point is that LIONEL's attorneys did every thing they could to sway the jury just like MTH's lawyers did to sway them their way, with the judge acting as the referee. Again Maddox and Company were not represented by the blind, the deaf and the dumb!!!



Alan

[DSchmitt]

This whole discussion is non-proiductive and divisive, however an answer to the original question woud be interesting.

[nblum]

Alan, you are talking in generalities, none of which I specifically disagree with. I'm talking about this specific case where the claims and facts are well known due to the publication of the Korean trial transcripts and the availability of various public documents on PACER. Individuals who provided testimony have also commented directly or indirectly on the case in private, and occasionally in public. At least one juror has commented to an interested bystander after the case. We'll just have to agree to disagree about what likely happened in this case, and whether the outcome was just and reasonable. With any luck the appeal process will render this discussion moot.

[Anonymous]

My thoughts are this. If the lionel people have been dealing withthe same people for a while, they should ahve a good idea of how long a sub-assembly would take to be designed. So if i'm an engineer and ask for a design, and normal design times for engine subassemblies take three months, and they get back to me in three weeks, i should be asking questions. However i believe in the jury system, it may not always be right, but i trust it more than the alternitives. Plus that is what appeals are for. For eash screw up or bad case, how many good ones go thru? Still a good question.
Also why are the Go mth and truth people so afraid to use their normal log on names. I perfer to have and honest dissagremment witha Man, not a wealsel or troll with only a cyber backbone. Bill

[3railguy]

I agree with Neil. Our jury system isn't perfect. Jurists are often badgered into making decisions over technical things they aren't inclined with . Additionally, the jurists may of not been train people or known how the train industry evolved into what it is today. Had the court selected a jury panel off the AOL boards, the trial would of been much fairer.

[FJ and G]

I don't see anything wrong with your question & don't know why it was zapped over "there."

I don't know if we ever will get to the bottom of exactly who did the dirty deed. In white collar crime, it's usually the other guy's fault. Everyone has an alibi.

As to your question, I don't have the answer.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Go MTH, otherwise known as Rod M. the ultimate OGR apologist AND Lionel basher.

Umm. I don't think so! I am not Go_MTH. I do attend the Friday night chats when accessible through an OGR thread, and yes I do use the phrase, "Go MTH" for the benefit of the likes of Ben10ben, LVR (Chris), BNSFScotty, and anyone else whom I might be chatting that I know are Lionel die-hards, but I'm pretty sure any of them will tell you I do that in jest. Probably one of the many aliases that is constantly get kicked out of those chat sessions using my phrase for a handle. As for location, it's all in my OGR profile for all to see.

Anyone that has a problem with this, please feel free to email me personally! Don't know about my profile here, but on OGR, my Email address is listed so that anyone may contact me.

While I do prefer MTH products and DCS, please show me where I "bash" Lionel products. OK? Didn't think so. I'll have you know I have a command base, Cab-1, and a TMCC Crane that is awesome!

And yeah, what of it? I do prefer to post on OGR, gee I wonder why! The only person I know of that uses the word "apologist" all the time is "billfromwayne" of MTJ, but I won't go accusing M.Donaldson of being him.

[FJ and G]

Have you ever stopped and wondered in astonishment at how exciting the topic of toy trains can be?

dave vergun

[eZAK]

Has anyone here actualy served on a jury?

Well I have!
Three in fact.

And simply put, it is the lawer that presents the facts better AND can back it up is the one that wins.

If you don't like the verdict Don't complain! Serve on a jury!

[Anonymous]

The Lionel - MTH battles that seem to pop up more and more frequently are really becoming quite annoying. Those of you who want to continuously bicker with each other, start a thread and keep it there. This thread started out with a very good question that in two pages of responses has yet to even been close to being answered. If I wanted to know about the courts, the jury system,and legal theory. I would read the discussion boards at www.wearealllawyers.com. If I wanted to read personal attacks on each other I would look at www.grownmenfighting.com. However this is trains.com. Please keep it that way. With tht being said, what actually on the Lionel model is a copy of the MTH model?

[Anonymous]

Gentlemen,

Those of you who can't control their urges to bash each other on this thread and others threads will lose your log-in privileges without any warning. We do this in a manner that prevents you from creating another screen name and picking up where you left off.

The purpose of the Classic Toy Trains forum is to share information about toy trains and to make our hobby inviting to newcomers. Too many of you do neither of these things.

Sincerely,
Neil Besougloff
editor, CTT

[BigJim]

Back to the original topic of this post;

It was my understanding that the N&W Class A was one of the original engines accociated with this lawsuit. I would like to see the innards of the the MTH and Lionel versions compared side by side so that I could make my own judgement.

OGR did a side by side comparision of these two locos and this was well after all of the hub-bub started. They simply compared the two locos and did not delve into the matter that there were or were not any simalarities in their mechanical design. In other words OGR didn't bring the subject of infringement up.

CTT decided not to review the the MTH version and only through the back door of their web site did they offer a minimal on-line review of the Lionel version.

With all of the commotion this caused on-line back at that time (and even today), I find it disturbing that neither magazine (OGR and CTT), being the editorial spokesmen for the 3 rail hobbyist, would not even give the subject a sidebar (in the case of OGR) or public review (in the case of CTT). And to CTT, I consider hiding the review on-line out of the eyes of the general public, disturbing of itself.

[Anonymous]

Going back to the original question:

I saw the N&W A loco's side by side at the local Riders in Canton. A high roller had ordered both. The lionel loco had better fit and finish and details. The MTH loco had the nicer tender. The original OGRR review had photo's of the insides of both engines. They are not the same inside either. The reviewers noted this.

The Korean transcripts are still available on the Toy Train Review web site if you wi***o read them. If you do bother to read all four transcripts, you will note that no one involved directly had any contact with Lionel and only minimal contact with Korea Brass, aka the sub contractor's subcontractors were the ones involved. It should also be noted that the engineers involved did not "copy" the MTH design in as much as they designed two versions of the locomotives in question, one for their nominal employer (Samhongsa) and one for their under the table employer, Korea Brass. They used autocad template files that included the Samhongsa trademark (this is one of the things they were found guilty of in Korea). The primary trade secrets that were "stolen" had to do with the manner in which autocad files are used to make tooling, not specifically toy trains.

[spodwo]

Thank you, Neil.

[Anonymous]

Neil

I don't fault you for your feelings on the jury system. It is a common misconception that whenever one side wins that a sneeky lawyer tricked the jury. This just doesn't happen.
I think this feeling is brought about by too many TV shows, movies and books that are written to sell TV shows, movies and books but have no basis in fact. What you know about the legal system is what some writer thought he or she knew not what really happends. Unless you have litigated or sat on many many juries!

Juries dont get tricked, unless both the opposing counsel and the judge are sleeping through the presentation by the other side. That rarely occurs in a court room but, of course, occurs frequently on the court room stage. In real life, any time an opposing counsel gets tricky , we object. And if he was too tricky the judge agrees and sustains our objection.

Not like TV, where the jury hears the question anyway and decides based on the sustained question. Because we can take steps to see that the jury doesn't consider that objection in jury instructions.

Juries are composed of guys like you who are just as skeptical of the process. Studies show that one or two intellectual guys like you appear and are part of a jury. These guys or gals usually take the lead and convince the other less intellectual jurors of the facts. Why do you not believe that a guy like you wasn't on the Lionel-MTH jury??

Alan