Like it or not, you are paying for Union Pacific

[wrmcclellan]

Dave,

Not all companies decide to enforce their IP and trademarks the same way. Some are at genuine risk for lack of effort. Some are not under attack for their IP and trademarks.

Jaabat makes a good point - what if you started a winning business and a guy across the street was allowed to copy it and take your business or worse - represent himself as you - do a bad job, take peoples money without delivering product - who suffers - you and your customers.

For those leveling blame only at UP - that is misguided. Again - the fees are small, even smaller when spread over an entire product line. Prices are starting to go up regardless of UP licensing.

Regards,
Roy

[Jumijo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by FJ and G

Jim,

Main argument isn't with the "evilness," rather with the way that the toy train companies recoup the costs.

I know. But likening this to sweat shops, hopes of UP's demise because they protect their identity ,etc in the thread prompted me to address the "evilness" of that nasty, mean, old Union Pacific. See what I'm saying?

Jim

[Anonymous]

This has been going on for years. If any of you buy diecast farm toys or trucks you have been paying for a license fee for years. John Deere will not let a product be built with out their approval.
Get used to it, it is a way of life.
Dave.

[underworld]

That's why I like the Chinese toy train manufacturers....usually small battery powered or clockwork ones. I KNOW they aren't paying the fees.....as their prices have not gone up.

Stick it to the man! [(-D] [swg] [oX)] [:-,] [}:)] [soapbox] [:D]

underworld

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[FJ and G]

Jim,

Main argument isn't with the "evilness," rather with the way that the toy train companies recoup the costs.

[Jumijo]

Licensing and enforcement of brands is not an evil act. It is done to protect an identity and to make a legitimate profit. If you had a company and I made a consumable good with your logo on it, how would you feel? You'd want to control your logo's use and get paid for it's use.

Some companies are taking it to the levels of absudity, like airplane manufacturers that want to be paid licensing fees from model companies for kits produced 40 - 50 years ago. Companies are profit driven, but that's shameless greed in my opinion.

Jim

[Anonymous]

I dont know what to say, I mean all large conpanys have their evils, but compare the UP
to wal-mart, we couldnt get along easily without either, but on the other hand wal-mart
has sweat shops & UP has this. I wonder what Richard Kugn did on the BNSF
prouducts ?

[Anonymous]

This is an Outrage,

Union Pacific should not have put that licsincing fee on toy train products in the first place. Well, I only plan to purchase a few Union Pacific Items, such as a Lionel Huson, and Postwar Lionel Union Pacific FA-2 A-A Passenger Sets.

I hope Union Pacific will crash and burn. It would serve them right for all thsi tyranny.

Bert and Mary Poppins aka Nick

[Jumijo]

It used to be that some railroads paid to have a toy train with it's logo, etc on it as a form of advertising. But that was a long time ago when copyright infringement wasn't the huge issue it is today. It was also a time, before air travel, the growth of the trucking industry, and widescale use of automobiles to commute, when the railroads were a very, very big part of people's lives. They didn't need the licensing money as they do today. Roadnames on toy trains actually helped bolster people's allegences to a particular railroad.

If a model train maker signs a licensing agreement, they pay the fee whether or not the consumer buys the licensed items. It's up to the model train maker to recoup those costs in what ever manner they deem appropriate. Many times, a licensing agreement only covers a specific and set number of items produced, let's say 1000 locomotives. If the train maker knows that they can absolutely sell those 1000 items, then they factor it directly into the cost of those locos. But if the agreement is broader, some sort of blanket agreement, and applies to rolling stock of all kinds, locos, etc, the fee will be spread out over the train maker's entire line to ammortize costs and keep like items, box cars for example, all the same price regardless of roadname. If you saw 2 Lionel box cars of equal quality for sale, but one was more expensive than the other solely because of the roadname, whould you buy it? I wouldn't.

There are many ways to pass along licensing fees. But one thing is for certain, one way or the other, it is passed on to the consumer.

Jim

[Anonymous]

Even though the cost is spread aross the board, it seems to me if the model railroading community stops buying products with the Union Pacific road name the point will be made. Why should we have to pay extra to advertise for Union Pacific? Wasn't it the other way around in the good old days when the railroads paid to have their road name on certain toy trains?

[FJ and G]

Jim,

Then how are other model train companies coping with the costs?

Roy,

Just curious why all railroads then don't enforce their trademarks.

[Jumijo]

The quickest way to recoup the licensing fee is to spread out the cost of that fee across the board. If only UP items are marked up, and people stop buying those items, the company still has to pay the fee to produce the item, but they also have a bunch of product that isn't selling, making their profit margin smaller. When profits shrink prices go up. By spreading out the cost, it ensures that the fee costs are covered, whether or not the UP products sell. Either way, you're gonna pay whether you buy UP products or not, either as a licensing fee or through higher prices to shore up sinking profits. It's a snake eating it's own tail. The only way to avoid higher costs due to licensing in your example is to stop producing the UP products.

Jim

[wrmcclellan]

Dave,

UP only charges around 2-3% for licensing based on revenue. If a retailer or manufacturer is jacking up prices more than 5% on UP branded products to cover this - then there is a problem with the manufacturer or retailer. Price rises across the board attributed to only UP is simply an immature attempt by those entities to shift the blame to another vevnue when in fact there may be a need to raise prices due to many other factors. The manufacturer or retailer thinks that focusing you on UP (or whoever else they blame) will make you still buy products because it is not "their" fault. Baloney.

Having been involved in IP licensing at a previous employer - the problem for corporations in recent years is if you do not "aggressively" (legal view) protect your IP and trademarks, then you may legally loose all your rights to them (and not only to legitimate enterprises). Not a pleasant thought for a corporation.

The incredible rise in illegal and unscrupulous use of others intellectual property in recent years is the underlying cause of this problem. A company and the courts are not allowed to punish only the "bad" guys - so all must be treated equally - unfortunately for all of us.

Regards,
Roy

[FJ and G]

if you purchase toy trains. Some model train companies in other scales are raising prices on UP trains exclusively (as opposed to other roads) but not toy train companies. T

Instead, toy train companies are spreading out the costs across the board, apparently, leaving fans no way to show their displeasure for UP and saddling everyone with UP fees.

Not fair, IMO.