FEBRUARY UPDATE> MIKE'S TRAIN HOUSE DCC LAWSUIT

[Anonymous]

Does anyone remember the legal battles with Software Enhancements Associates' (SEA) ARC compression program and Phil Katz and his PKARC program in the early days of personal computers?

SEA released ARC as shareware and even released the C source code. Phil Katz copied ARC and converted the compression routines from C to optimised assembler code, which made it much faster. SEA initially tried to license Katz's archiver, called PKARC, but Katz refused. SEA then sued Katz for copyright infringement and won.

During settlement, Katz still refused to license PKARC to SEA, instead agreeing to pay SEA's legal fees and stop selling PKARC. He then went on to create his own file format PKZIP, and the .ZIP format he designed was a much more efficient compression format than .ARC. Once PKZIP was released, many users abandoned PKARC because of its slower performance and because they were convinced that Katz was the "good guy" being unfairly treated by an evil corporation.

Phil placed the format, the compression algorithms, and the ZIP extension into the public domain in 1989. System operators quickly replaced virtually all ARC files with ZIP files as a show of support for Phil.

PKZIP lives on. The ZIP format he invented is literally everywhere. Phil's company, PKWare, has grown up. It has become another successful software company with a board of directors and a long-term marketing plan. Software Enhancements Associates and ARC are now no more than a few paragraphs in the personal computer history books. The success of PKWare and the eventual failure of SEA was not decided by the courts, but rather by the little guy; the paying customer.

MTH should take note. You may win the battle but in the end you will lose the war.

[Anonymous]

You know, reading this thing has given me new respect for a couple of folks/entities. Rapido made its N scale coupler open to all. Yes, its ugly and not the best performer. But in the early days of N scale you could by equipment from anyone and it was compatable. I think this had alot to do with the rise of N scale from obscurity to the 2nd most popular scale. Does anyone remember the coupler wars from the early days of HO? You HAD to convert couplers if you were to buy from different manufacturers. And how the guy that had many articles in Model Railroader for early digitial control and comoputer interfaces? (Was it Bruce Chubb? I don't remember). Hopefully he made enough money selling the boards and kits to make the effort worth his while. And I have to take my hat off to those that developed the NMRA standards for digital control. A lot of effort went into that. NMRA could have patented or trademarked the idea and made lots of money - instead several companies out there are able to profit and us modelers get new technology that is comptabible regardless of the manufacturer (for the most part) and the competition between those manufacturers have resulted in higher quality products at lower prices. MTH is not a hero in my book.

[Anonymous]

Reading about the MTH vs. the Model Roalroad Industry threads, leads one to believe that MTH is doing a lot of damage to the industry as a whole , while seeking to make gains. You the consumer have the final say. Remember this when you shop, or all this talk /discussion ,is useless.

[bcammack]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gthomp10

Does anyone remember the legal battles with Software Enhancements Associates' (SEA) ARC compression program and Phil Katz and his PKARC program in the early days of personal computers?

Thanks for the reminder. It's a shame that Phil Katz ended up dying penniless and alcoholic after all that. It's another one of those tragic computer industry stories like Gary Kildall and Digital Research.

[jrbernier]

IIRC, Lenz was involved in the original DCC standard and gave it to the industry for free. The NMRA had the good sense to adopt it and add/improve it(and that still continues). The transmission of the standard DCC packets is up to the manufacturer - as long as they come out the same from each command station/booster! The command stations differ(Loconet, throttles, etc...) and that is the one thing the the manufacturer has to differentiate himself from the rest of the DCC crowd.
MTH has tried to force royalties via the courts - typical last attempt to keep afloat. I have heard rumors that they are taking pre-order deposits before they even have engines contracted for. I have seen no confirmation of this, but maybe some of the tinplate guys are familiar with MTH's policies.
I suspect the DCC thing will blow over, but it has stalled a lot of development in the DCC arena. MTH has also won a $41 million judgement against Lionel, but I suspect the award will be reduced on appeal - standard operation in the current court system.

Jim Bernier

[cspmo]

Lionel should sue MTH for using three rail track.

[darth9x9]

Hey cspmo,

Does Lionel own the patents on three rail track? ..........I didn't think so.

BC

[AntonioFP45]

HI Crew, .........Please don't start flaming.

I think a lot of us have "cooled off" our feelings since I first posted this topic. I brought it up to page one in hoping that there really is closure.

Here's why:
According to several modelers that I've spoken to, including a new DCC vendor, this controversial MTH vs. QSI lawsuit has basically been pushed off into "goo-be-gone" land and appears to have no chance of winning.

However, I was hoping that some of you that keep up with current events had more information. Is it over for sure? I've noticed that the new Tsunami decoder has BEMF.....so hopefully that's a positive sign that all of us, including MTH, can move forward in a positive light.

Thanks.

[n2mopac]

This is no flame intended, but this thing has been going on sooooooo loooooong. Is anyone besides me tired of hearing about it? Sorry, just my [2c].

Ron

[Fergmiester]

I for one find this very interesting as I would like to see the situation resolved and justice served.

Fergie

[AntonioFP45]

N2Mopac,

The purpose of this is "Closure", not rehashing.

Things have changed since 2004 (for the better), however, there's been no offical word from anywhere as to the status of this suit other than some pretty strong rumors that MTH is on the "losing end" of the MTH vs. QSI lawsuit.

It's better to know the facts for sure instead of adopting the rumors. I was hoping that some of you might have heard or read something "more concrete" especially since from what I remember there is at least one and possibly two members of this forum that are attorneys!

Peace and a Cautionary Yellow.

[davekelly]

It would appear that this suit has moved into a status that many lawsuits go into - terminal nothingness. The causes of this are many but can often include: (1) neither party wants to expend the money to go further (2) neither side is confortable with their possibility of winning (3) one or both parties wi***hey had worked out problems before suit began (I can't tell you how many "sue them now!" or "I'll not settle - defend until the last dime" clients turn into "can't this just go away?" types after a few months.

If I were to take a guess, I'm thinking that this will slowly die and end in some sort of settlement. If this happens the terms will most likely be known only to the two parties - thus allowing both parties a "graceful" public exit.

Would love to learn more about this - but I haven't found nor heard anything for a very long time.

[MidlandPacific]

QUOTE: It would appear that this suit has moved into a status that many lawsuits go into - terminal nothingness. The causes of this are many but can often include: (1) neither party wants to expend the money to go further (2) neither side is confortable with their possibility of winning (3) one or both parties wi***hey had worked out problems before suit began (I can't tell you how many "sue them now!" or "I'll not settle - defend until the last dime" clients turn into "can't this just go away?" types after a few months.

If I were to take a guess, I'm thinking that this will slowly die and end in some sort of settlement.

So in railroading terms, "Proceed, prepared to stop."

[AntonioFP45]

Dave,

Thanks! At least some of us will have a little better understanding of how things like this can happen, since we haven't heard or read of any progress in this lawsuit.

Hopefully the "gracefull public exit" is exactly what will happen.

Again, I want to emphasize that while originally I had a hostile attitude towards MTH, I hope that things will "cool down" on all sides as the technology moves forward.

I sincerely hope that Mr. Wolf will decide to work with the DCC industry and the NMRA, especially since DCC's future is looking very bright.

Peace.

[sundayniagara]

As a sidebar, I spoke with Mike Wolf at the Aventura Florida Mall model train exhibit. I asked about his K-4, which he showed recently at Miami's Ready-To-Roll shop. He stated that the tooling is not yet ready. What that says to me, is NO DEMAND. I would like to see companies, like Walthers & Horizon stand up and challenge these patents. My guess is they would go away very quickly.
Mark

[Big_Boy_4005]

This is slightly off topic for this discussion, but the latest news is UP is going after MTH over the old trademark issues. It was really only a matter of time before they caught up to him.

As if Mike's plate wasn't full enough.[;)]

QUOTE: As a sidebar, I spoke with Mike Wolf at the Aventura Florida Mall model train exhibit. I asked about his K-4, which he showed recently at Miami's Ready-To-Roll shop. He stated that the tooling is not yet ready. What that says to me, is NO DEMAND. I would like to see companies, like Walthers & Horizon stand up and challenge these patents. My guess is they would go away very quickly.
Mark

That would be my interpretation as well.

DCS + HO = DEAD DOG [:O][(-D][(-D][2c][swg]

[sundayniagara]

Here's the link.
Mark

http://www.trains.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/006/398dlbpc.asp

[rrinker]

Not to drag up yet another old dog, but based on what that article says, I can't belive the previous lawsuits were not turned aside. It's one thing to require some sort of royalty for use of your trademark, but that other requirement of complete disclosure of your marketing budget, manufacturing processes and so forth seems more than a bit extreme. So much for proprietary business information... Of course, since the Lionel and Athearn cases are over an ddone with, that set precedence.

--Randy

[davekelly]

A thing to keep in mind. This lawsuit involves a very techinical issue and can only be decided after the testimony of a couple of "experts" is given. As model railroaders we find this stuff kinda interesting. I can see jurors becoming totally lost in the technical discussion at the best and falling asleep at the worst. Because of this human factor, the outcome of what appears to be a slam dunk case cannot be a sure thing.

I once sat in on a deposition of a computer expert that would testify why one data base software package was a copy of another data base package. After about 30 minutes of discussing computer code the only people wide awake were the testifying expert and the expert for the other side.

This is another reason why I think we'll see this matter simply fade away and be settled behind the scene.

[waltersrails]

ok ???

[AntonioFP45]

Wow! I read the info on the above link. UP doesn't discriminate, that's for sure!

What really puzzles me is that Mike Wolf had to know about UP's previous lawsuit against Athearn. [%-)] The Model and Toy hobby worlds were buzzing with the story. This forum was loaded with UP bashing treads. [:(!][V]

So why didn't Mr. Wolf proceed ahead and take the steps necessary to prevent this. He must have seen the writing on the wall. Athearn and the other manufacturers came to an agreement with UP. Even if MTH were in a financial bind, seems reasonable that he should have contacted UP right away to meet with a company representative to work things out..

From my limited understanding, UP's royalties are pennies or nickels on the dollar, but I could be mistaken. (Didn't CSX adopt a licensing program as well?)

I hope they work it out. Even though a number of modelers (yes, me too) were resentful regarding MTH's past actions, a model or toy train manufacturer getting sued is no cause for celebration. [V]

[davekelly]

Antonio,

Yeah, CSX has a program also. Someone several months ago actually posted a link to the actual CSX licencing application.

If I am remembering things correctly, UP is using a percentage forumula for its licening while CSX is using a per piece formula. Interesting. One can make the argument that this difference would result in more CSX (and its predecssor) high end models and the fading away of low cost CSX models and the reverse for UP (and its predecessors) models. Haven't seen that yet, though.

[rrinker]

QUOTE: Originally posted by davekelly

A thing to keep in mind. This lawsuit involves a very techinical issue and can only be decided after the testimony of a couple of "experts" is given. As model railroaders we find this stuff kinda interesting. I can see jurors becoming totally lost in the technical discussion at the best and falling asleep at the worst. Because of this human factor, the outcome of what appears to be a slam dunk case cannot be a sure thing.

I once sat in on a deposition of a computer expert that would testify why one data base software package was a copy of another data base package. After about 30 minutes of discussing computer code the only people wide awake were the testifying expert and the expert for the other side.

This is another reason why I think we'll see this matter simply fade away and be settled behind the scene.

Off-Topic, but this is why I am AGAINST software patents and FOR software copywriting. I certainly should not be allowed to copy someone else's work and claim it as my own, but if I findmy own way to solve a certain problem then I should not still be somehow beholden to the original author.

--Randy

[scubaterry]

I for one will never purchase from or support MTH in any way shape or form. Greed is a terrible thing particularly when it affects so many people both on the marketing/manufacturing side and us consumers.
Terry

[davekelly]

Randy,

Understand completely, but copyright stuff can be quite involved also. I'm thinking of the Vanilla Ice thing. While I don't quite remember the specifics I don't believe the data base case was a patent case. It turned into quite the effort to show copying and on the other hand to dispute the expert that said there was copying. Fun stuff to be sure!

[davekelly]

Speaking of software. I watched a very interesting show once on the history channel where they interviewed the two guys that invented the first spread sheet software program. Of course they didn't protect their efforts. I can only imagine how their lives might have been different had they did. Wow - could have quite the collection of BLI steamers!!!!

[jondrd]

Re: UP action re logo licensing [2c]

UP management probably asked their Intellectual Property Dept to contribute something to the bottom line. In other firms this would result in an effort by IP to seek out possible licensees of their firm's unique technology. Apparently UP's IP Dept. had a limited portfolio to market via licensing and thus came up with the logo thing re model railroading.

Good target-which manufacturer in the MRR industry has deep enough pockets to go one on one with UP's IP Dept attorneys and their outside litigators? Talk about a foregone conclusion. [:(]

UP's PR gibberish will maintain that they only took this action to protect their logo. Their argument: If they continued to let MRR manufacturers use their logo without license and payment of fees well then they would be opening the door to any and all firms to make use of their logos/trademarks without license. Guess they never heard of the concept of a dollar-a-year
fee to cover the trademarks used by the modeling industry. Contract could even be written so that the total fee due would consist of a dollar/year plus recognition by UP of services rendered by the MRR manufacturers to UP in generating good will and promoting UP's image by MRR manufacturers by said usage. But that limited portfolio of possible licensing opportunities probably dictated which track(sorry, couldn't resist) UP attorneys would take.

Interesting that Lionel and SantaFe collaborated on Lionel's warbonnet F units to assure accurate representation of SF's logo and locomotive color scheme. Of course this was an earlier era when SF(and obviously their peer Class 1 roads) considered their logo and locomotive colors displayed on models was good public relations. H**l they might even have thought they were creating a reservoir of good will with potential future customers. Possible senior mgmt comment: "Those kids running model trains with our logo on them are the future businessman of America and we want 'em as SF customers." [tup]

Desiring to be a leader in the transportation industry UP elected not to take the path less traveled. [tdn] JMHO

Oh, wait.......couldn't be that UP thinks they won't be around when current kids in model railroading grow up to be customers? Nah, probably just the bucks. And so it goes.

Jon

[jondrd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nblum

"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"

Strange to say, within a few weeks of this post, it was no longer true :).

Counter suit against QSI? BLI says QSI is being sued by MTH hence deletion of certain functions from BLI's intended suite of features. Are there so many lawsuits flying around in the industry that the affected manufacturers can't keep track of who's sueing who?

Guess I'll go to QSI's site and read their comments on litigation.

I've got enough trouble trying to comprehend manufacturers technology let alone their lawsuits. Meanwhile the industry's customers sit and fume [:(!] while the wheels of justice grind sloooooooow. Whatever happened to the concept of a speedy trial? Guess that's one right that doesn't have a champion.

Jon

[jnichols]

Is the topic of this post really MTH DCC lawsuit? Oh brother, apparently the sky is falling again we better run for cover... [sigh]

For the last time, when did MTH ever sue a DCC manufacturer? The litigation with QSI has nothing to do with DCC, and never has. I wi***he people who were actually interested in this topic would go read the facts before wasting white space here on the forum... [;)]

Jeff

[AntonioFP45]

You're correct JNichols. Seems that most of us are aware that it was regarding the speed control in "1 scale m.p.h increments". Yet still, there was an impact on DCC manufacturers and it started with QSI's letter on its website stating it was disabling BEMF. Was BEMF disabled because it was used in controlling speeds in scale 1 mph increments? I don't know.

Did BLI/QSI cleverly write that letter because managment knew that modelers would become outraged at MTH? Don't know that one either. But we all witnessed what happened. The DCC world was in an uproar. Forums left and right were also discussing and debating it and before you knew it MTH "seemed to have become quite unpopular.

Rightly or wrongly HO, N, and even larger scale modelers were incensed and convinced that Mike Wolf wanted to eliminate DCS's competition, primarily DCC.  To be fair, we have to acknowledge that  MTH did invest an enormous sum of money into their DCS technology, but it was the litigation threat methods that many of us took as Mr. Wolf rattling a huge, sharp sword.

I had brought this thread back up to see if anyone had "closure info" since so little was known of the lawsuit's status. This was so that this this topic could be closed appropriately and let slip into forum history.