FEBRUARY UPDATE> MIKE'S TRAIN HOUSE DCC LAWSUIT

[AntonioFP45]

February 11, 2004

Hello again, everyone. Below is the letter I received from Bruce Petrarca at Litchfield Station. It's worth reading whether you're into DCC, about to get into DCC, or staying with traditional DC. This is not about promoting LItchfield Station!   Thankfully, Bruce is making the effort to keep all of us informed wheras others in the DCC arena are understandably remaining "tight lipped"- AFP45.

From Bruce Petrarca; Litchfield Station

What follows is from impressions, not specific statements and if you choose to read to the end of this eMail, you'll understand why information is so scarce.

The Tsunami will be a worthy successor to Soundtraxx's flagship DSD 150. While the final features are still a bit cloudy for reasons which should become clear as you read this eMail. The Tsunami offers, amongst other features: better sound, better motor control, and more features than were possible with the hardware available when the DSD 150 was designed. The Tsunami has been in planning for several years. Part of the time was waiting for promised microprocessors to become available. Finally, last September enough technical work was done that Nancy and Steve were willing to announce the product to those of us who attended the DEALER SEMINAR. We dealers were "BLOWN AWAY" at the performance, and orders started flowing in with a prospect of DECEMBER 1st release of the "1 AMP version with the 3 and 5 amp versions promised to follow.

An ATLAS LIGHT BOARD version was suggested by the dealers and taken under consideration by the technical folks. I can tell from orders that it would be a marketing success, if it can be put together technically. (over half of the orders I've received for diesel versions so far would go with an Atlas lightboard if it were available). As anybody who has done any work in technical production will tell you, the last few weeks before release are killers. Long hours working on little "Gotchas". Getting all the diagnostics and documentation correct. Turning on production and finding things that need to be tweaked - they worked fine on a handful of prototype boards, but in quantity they don't meet the criteria.

Well, the folks in Durango were deep into this work when MIKE'S TRAIN HOUSE (http://mth-railking.com/) threw a "monkey wrench" into the works! MTH sent registered letters detailing their patents and claims to EVERY DCC MANUFACTURER I've talked to in the fall of 2003. As I understand these letters, they state that there are "certain intellectual rights" which are covered by these patents and MTH is NOT INTERESTED in licensing the technology. Also, MTH has sued QSI over the patents and issued a "cease and desist order" to QSI (QSI sound is used in Broadway limited locomotives).

The U.S Patent Office, it seems does not research much in the way of prior art when they issue patents. You can read the patents at http://www.protosound2.com/. My reading of them (and many with whom I've talked) feel that the claims are too broad to be new art and include prior art as shipped by LENZ, DIGITRAX, and others prior to the filing of the MTH patent applications. However, possession is 9/10 of the law and MTH has the patents!

Industry response to the "legal roughings" was rapid!

Broadway Limited (QSI equipped) disabled BEMF motor control in their locos. Soundtraxx decided that none of their EXISTING products were potentially infringing, but saw that there was an "area of dispute" in the BEMF motor control in the TSUNAMI and the BI-DIRECTIONAL communication for the Soundtraxx. So, the release date for the 1 amp Tsunami was changed from 12/01/03 to TBA. Our friends in Durango got to spend their time and money working with lawyers trying to decipher what the patents mean, what might be upheld and what impact that would have on Tsunami and Soundtraxx. I'm sure more Midnight Oil went into contengency plans like shipping Tsunami with BEMF disabled,etc,.

REMEMBER: This hit just at the time that folks would normally be working from dawn to exhaustion getting the new Tsunami geared up. I remember leaving my plant at 3a.m and being back to work at 7a.m during times like these. One manufacturing engineer who worked for me at Ampex during a new product release worked parts of ALL 18 SHIFTS every week for 2 weeks! It's a little like being halfway through a marathon and getting an entire swimming pool dumped on you!

Soundtraxx is "mum" on future plans - read why later. There are rumors of technical problems. I believe, but I don't know, that they have worked out a business plan which will keep the DCC world happy and will be releasing the Tsunami SOON, as designed last summer. What is going on now in Durango, IMHO, is restarting that "final tweaking" that was happening last fall before the shoe hit the floor. Technical problems? I don't think so- it worked TOO WELL when I saw it in September. Lots of technical and production details being attended to - absolutely!

Restarting an introduction is much harder than just slugging through the process once - I've done it. Remember, Soundtraxx is a SMALL company and when the time and energy of top management is taken up with legal issues and contingency plans and the production folks are making the current product, that doesn't leave many hours to be working on introducing a product to production.

Regardless of what happens with Tsunami, there are BIGGER ISSUES here. IMHO, if these patents are upheld - or allowed to go unchallenged - there will be an ENORMOUS IMPACT on the model railroading industry - more so than the UNION PACIFIC TRADEMARK FLAP. TELL YOUR FRIENDS! I see the following being delayed, or lost:

1) New BEMF decoders - NCE has already held off based on the patent filings.
2) NMRA Bi-Directional communications standards.
3) Surroundtraxx and any possible competitors.

If interepreted broadly (IMHO unlikely), these patents could impact:

1) Handheld and wireless throttles, whether DCC or NOT.
2) DCC itself.
3) Sound in locomotives.

My opinion, as an engineer who has worked with intellectual property for decades, is that everybody has a right to what they invent and to patent protection for that time and effort. HOWEVER, I SEE THESE PATENTS AS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT ON THE EFFORTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF MANY OTHER MODEL RAILROAD MANUFACTURERS WHO HAVE GONE BEFORE MTH!

What can you do:

[1] Do not boycott dealers who sell MTH - they are business folks who didn't create this situation. Suggest that these dealers make thier displeasure and the unhappiness of their customers known to MTH.

[2] Do suggest that your retailer Pledge NOT to place FUTURE orders for MTH or RAIL KING items until this is settled.

[3] Do get the word out to everybody in model railroading - this could impact us all, not just the DCC world.

[4] Even if you model in a smaller scale where MTH or Rail King are not currently making items, let them know your displeasure ([e-mail]) . They may very well be looking at enlarging their market and need to know that they are soiling their reputation amongst their potential customers.

Why no "official word" from Soundtraxx when QSI is being so "open and caring"? I don't know for sure, but if I were part of the decision making team in Durango, I'd vote for mum myself. QSI has been sued and what happens there becomes public record or already public record. Why telegraph to a possible adversary in a lawsuit what your plans, actions, and motives are?

Bruce Petrarca
www.LitchfieldStation.com
Arizona, USA
Authorized dealer for Digitrax, Lenz, Soundtraxx, and TCS
YOUR DCC installed here!
Newsletter: [e-mail]

[Anonymous]

I hate MTH! They sue everbody over everything!

[dharmon]

So.........World's Greatest Hobby ...........yeah, baby!

Can anyone remember where I put my Atlas block control swtiches???I think I'm gonna need them again..........

[AntonioFP45]

Guys,

As I stated on another thread.

Modelers from the U.S, Europe, and Austrailia read these threads! It is so easy for all of us to e-mail MTH and let them know how we feel about the negative impact they're making on our hobby.

We also need to strongly suggest to our hobby dealers to consider not supporting MTH until this senseless litigation is resolved.

[amedleman]

The above subject is very misleading and inflamatory in regard to the actual situation referenced in the original posters letter. Below follows the response any consumer, including Mr. Petracra, has received when they have contacted M.T.H. Electric Trains regarding this issue.

Thank you for your email message expressing your concern about M.T.H. Electric Trains' patents. We certainly appreciate your feedback for without consumer input we would be hard pressed to continue producing a product line you find appealing.

Please accept our apology for any confusion you may have regarding M.T.H.'s patents. We would like to take this opportunity to explain our position regarding the patents we have received for our digital sound system, Proto-Sound 2.0 and its digital command control system, DCS. In addition, we'd like to clarify exactly what actions the firm has taken regarding the protection of these patents to offset any confusion resulting from online posts made by others in the past few weeks.

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.

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.

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.

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.

To help inform others, M.T.H. posted its patents online for all to review and would encourage you to do so as well. They can be found at www.protosound2.com. A review of the patents’ 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. Beyond that, 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. In patent cases, invalidating a U.S. Patent can occur when prior art has been documented to exist. Prior art is deemed to be published works on the technology in question. These can be in the form of published articles or operator’s manuals that specifically describe how the technology works. Conversations between individuals, online or at train shows is not considered prior art. Should prior art be found to exist, then our claims will be modified or amended. If, as we believe, no prior art is shown to exist then our patents and our concepts are as unique as we claim.

M.T.H. invested over $3.5 million dollars in the development of our Proto-Sound 2.0 and DCS Digital Command Systems. We developed these products because we felt that the current technology standards at the time (Lionel’s Railsounds and TMCC command control in the O Gauge AC marketplace and DCC in the HO DC marketplace) were no longer innovative enough to attract new hobbyists into model railroading. 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. If our efforts are as unique as we believe, they should be protected under patent law. If the concepts lack uniqueness, then no protection should be afforded and others can benefit from them by copying our technology. From a business standpoint, we must treat our patents as insurance against our investment, something technology firms have done for years and years.

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. Such was the goal when our technology was developed. Yet M.T.H. realizes that many model railroading hobbyists may not even be aware of just what types of developments we have created that are worthy of the U.S. Patents we have received. Our experience has been that once a consumer understands just how innovative and exciting this new technology is, then its importance as a tool to expand the hobby becomes much clearer. A complimentary promotional DVD on M.T.H. technology can be obtained by contacting M.T.H. via email at [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Andy Edleman
Vice President - Marketing
M.T.H. Electric Trains

[Anonymous]

As a self proclaimed "collector" of Broadway Limited locomotives, this situation concerns me greatly, but what bothers me most about this situation is how it seems MTH waited patiently to see what exactly the response would be to the BLI (and other manufacturers) offerings.

It seems that they have let the other companies go forward with these products to do a little market test for themselves (who would have guessed I would have paid $300+ for a plastic HO steam engine!). Then when it looked as if BLI was getting a hold on the market, MTH slaps them with this lawsuit. Personally I feel that this was all dirty pull! This can't be good business practice (IMHO), seems to me that MTH is just shooting themseves in thier own foot and biting the hand that feeds them (US! The modelers).

Anyway thats my .02 Thanks for letting me vent!
Wes

[dharmon]

Well folks it looks like the ugly side of business is now starting to rear it's head in the model railroading world.....We got rising prices......and like lawsuits don't help cutting the overhead, we got takeovers, buyouts and exclusive distrubution going, poor customer service and product quality, official licensing agreements, good old American model trains coming from China now.....and now manufacturers sueing each other over patents.....all we need now is Microsoft to enter the model business to make this complete.....

Oh yeah I almost forgot....I wonder if MTH is going to threaten to stop advertising in MR if they don't pull the plug on this thread?

It business...we were just isolated from it for awhile...I think that's why it was called a hobby.....

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

Oh yeah I almost forgot....I wonder if MTH is going to threaten to stop advertising in MR if they don't pull the plug on this thread?

I don't think MTH advertises in MR, they advertise in CTT, and I don't think either one cares a lick about this thread. This thread is "ants vs elephants". By the way, I work in 3 rail O, and I won't buy MTH electronics, so I guess that sort of puts me on your side, and I'm doing all I can to help, which for me is EXACTLY NOTHING. Actually, I do buy Lionel's version of command, TMCC, and have no desire to add DCS to or switch from that position. Good luck on this one, you're going to need it.

[Anonymous]

First off, Who does MTH think they are? Do they not make modern tinplate? I have seen MTH trains and I feel them to be highly toy like. Second DCS is not DCC and thus they have no case in that department I beleave. Third I feel their case to be totally bogus becasue Pacific Fast Mail had an onboard sound system back in the 1970s.

I feel that given their totally degenerate behavior, MTH can go to hell. They don't make anything I want anyway.

James

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Grayhound Challenger

First off, Who does MTH think they are? Do they not make modern tinplate? I have seen MTH trains and I feel them to be highly toy like. Second DCS is not DCC and thus they have no case in that department I beleave. Third I feel their case to be totally bogus becasue Pacific Fast Mail had an onboard sound system back in the 1970s.

I feel that given their totally degenerate behavior, MTH can go to hell. They don't make anything I want anyway.

James

NO, THEY DO NOT MAKE MODERN TINPLATE!!!!
They make a variety of products, including some beautiful, full 1:48 scale models!



I am not condoning MTH's behavior, but I am defending their products. On the other hand, if you spent 3.5 million dollars to develope a new product you might protect it too.

[dharmon]

Umm that looks like 2 48s to me.

[Anonymous]

I have read both the MTH Patents, and the various manufacturer's comments (though admittedly the comments are third party in most cases.)

In my opinion, the MTH "email response" above is marketing spin. It is beautifully crafted, but just their public "response."

The meat of the issue is that bi-directional communication is not all that their patents are "crafted" to cover. They may not have sued ALL DCC companies, but in effect their patents are so broad that all of the companies have had to stop and legally "justify" their new products. While this may seem like it is a voluntary action on the downwind side, it is most definately part of the benefit of the broad patent scope.

MTH effectively halted or threatened all other manufacturers who were working on or producing bi-directional communication and / or sound devices. Sorry, but if you look at the patents, and then think like a business, you have to stop and consider your legal exposure. The truth is the products like Surroundtraxx, Transponding, and integrated signaling, are all a natural progression of the DCC open standard that has been flourishing for many years PRIOR to the MTH patent.

I do suggest you read the patents as well. I agree they have a right to patent unique ideas, but the patents are very general and broad, and can be construed by a cold light of day court to include ALL variations of DCC. MOST CERTAINLY they can be construed to affect onboard sound, "tracking" sound, transponding, integrated signalling, and any other DCC or bi-directional DCC product.

This is exactly why MTH calls it DCS instead of the open standard of DCC. Regardless of what actions they undertook, they reached the goal of claiming the technology that is strikingly similar to DCC products that appear to have been in development by isolated people as an extension to an OPEN STANDARD. In a HOBBY, that is considered an artform, with historical connotations.

Is it legal, sure. Is it absolutely 100% above board.... well, it is suspicious. It is deeply troubling that they are quoted as saying:

"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."

Where is the specific correlation to their "sound" devices? Not in the statement of the "ONLY" two issues...

I mean, that statement of the speed control in 1 scale mile per hour increment alone smacks of overreach. So what if another manufacturer's controller is able to display accurate speed based on programming. This is the same as "setting" your decoder to match the speed curve of a dial precisely to mark off various "speeds" that happen to match scale speeds. Not a new technology at all... in fact, with speed tables, it is EXACTLY what many of us have been doing to correctly "match" speeds of all locos for operating on the same line in the same direction YEARS BEFORE THESE PATENTS! (Note, even MTH does not say they have a specific "digital" readout, etc.... They also do not say that this is based on feedback from the loco using bi-directional communication.) What about signaling using bi-directional communication? (I am not even talking about transponding, just simple "feedback to a central command station," or computer!) ((When you read the patents, this line will really hit home.))

All I am saying is, WRONG ANSWER... DCC was supposed to be an open standard for a reason. Companies are supposed to be building this stuff FOR us, because we thought of it (OPEN STANDARDS BY NMRA, ETC... PUBLISHED FOR YEARS IN MR, ETC..., input from clubs, individuals, companies...) We can build it ourselves with the same technical "blueprints," but have chosen their products because they are RTR.

Sorry, I read the patents, and read the threads, and have followed the technology. I learn more everyday, and have been wrong about many things. But, the patents alone are a huge issue. NO company should have stepped forward to claim any aspect of DCC. I know others may have done so, but nothing has caused the damage to DCC as a whole as the current maelstrom that MTH has unleashed. It is because of the crafty legal language and descriptions of the technology that this issue hits the industry so hard. It should be "Void for Vagueness," but now a court MUST decide.

Last but not least.... what company would come forward to discuss licensing? It is not decided that the patent is valid yet. Not when it could potentially affect so much of a DCC companies business... Why even hint that other companies have not "come forward," because of the legal waters MTH has surrounded itself in, I wouldn't stick a toe in until someone can prove they won't pull me under.

[AntonioFP45]

Mdemt

Outstanding! You've reallly been doing your homework! Very well and "accurately" stated!

Re: The letter from Litchfield Station.

It was neither "misleading" nor "inflammatory" as Mr. Edleman states. Mr. Petrarca specifically stated and separated what were facts and what were his opinions. He is among a group of DCC related business professionals that are taking a "very hard hit" as a result of MTH's actions. Like QSI, he presented the information because so many of us were inquiring, and getting no clear answers for the reasons stated in his letter. (Thanks Bruce!)

The intention and purpose of this particular thread is to encourage model railroaders to stay informed regarding DCC's future and the current events that are affecting it. There will be agreements and disagreements, which is what freeedom is about. But burying our heads in the sand (IMHO) only encourages more opportunistic abuse as we have seen in the MTH case!  

Big Boy 4005 says that this is ants vs. elephants and that he's doing nothing since this doesn't affect him. It's interesting though that the "ants" got an unexpected response from the "elephant"! We all do make a difference!

BTW: I e-mailed copies of this thread to several DCC manufacturer's and vendors
(TCS, Soundtraxx, Digitrax, Lenz, Gadget Tom, RegisDCC, H & R TRAINS ) .

Peace!

[Anonymous]

Great Job AntonioFP45 and Mdemt! Thank you very much for this information. I was aware something was afoot, but was not informed to any real degree! I too thought the auto response from MTH was likely cotton candy. This is an issue deserving all our attention and if needed, monetary support to fight!!

[Big_Boy_4005]

So, what I hear you saying Mdemt, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that while MTH may have invented "SOMETHING", they have in effect, swooped down, and claimed the patent rights to ideas and concepts that were developed, and previously not patented, because they were created as part of a cooperative effort under an NMRA standard.

If that is the case, it doesn't surprise me in the least, because its just another example of the same opportunistic business style that gave rise to MTH in the first place. Please remember that as one who does 3 rail O trains, I have been well aware of MTH, long before the company ever came onto the HO market's radar screen. Frankly, I have always felt that DCS was developed, at least partly, out of SPITE for Lionel. Unfortunately, the HO market has been dragged into this war, a fact which is a detriment to the entire model railroading world.

P.S. Please remember Antonio, that its going to take a lot of ants to eat this elephant. In my own special way, I'M ON YOUR SIDE, AND I DO VOTE WITH MY DOLLARS BY NOT SUPPORTING DCS!!!! Let Mr Edelman respond to that.[;)]

[Anonymous]

Big_Boy_4005,

Absolutely... That is one of my primary statements here. I am sure that the bi-directional communication is a natural evolution of the product that in fact is an OPEN STANDARD. It is reasonable to assume that no one "thought up" the bi-directional communication alone... it is the only way to integrate the digital stuff with the "regular" electronics that we have been using for YEARS.

But yes, most importantly, the broad scope of the patents is in itself the main thrust of the issue. In fact, when you read the patents, you will have a hard time determining just what is being patented. Not surprising, except WE ARE model railroaders with a working knowlege of the technology we use!

Seriously... Read the patents, then quietly sit there and visualize a "command station." Does that mean Control Panel? Control Room? Computer? Power Pack? Indicator Panel? It is not clearly defined, and that is the heart of the bi-directional communication cited! Talk about vague, it goes on to cover many other issues that if you stop and close your eyes, it is stuff that is not even CLOSE to new technology. But yet, it is definately also about new technology.


By the way, as a matter of fact I have quoted you in previous threads about how this is not new news in the 3 rail world (MTH issues...) keep up the good posts...

[Anonymous]

Hope this all resolves to the satisfaction of those concerned. Good luck. As Big Boy mentions, it will take a lot of ants to eat the elephant.......and it may take them quite a long time, too.[xx(]

I am ostensibly unaffected, as under my layout are 10 speakers....on the edge are two old MRC 8000 sound machines hooked to the cabs, and on top are [gasp] BLOCKS.

However, under a really aggressive legal onslaught, I too, could be vulnerable, based on something as simple as a 12-step program confession:

"My Name is
Mike....and I have
Trains....in my
House.[;)][;)]"

...that Mike Rowe fellow did get some attention from Bill Gates' legal crew, didn't he...[:D][:D]
regards
Mike
..please excuse the levity, I realize many here find this topic very serious.

[Anonymous]

Observations of a "Rookie"

I am not overly familiar with DCC having just returned to the hobby after a "leave of absence" of about 8 years:but I have been involved in a couple of patent suits.

I made the attempt to view and read the patents by clicking on the link provided above. The following is the result:

Under Construction
The site you were trying to reach does not currently have a default page. It may be in the process of being upgraded.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try this site again later. If you still experience the problem, try contacting the Web site administrator.

Personally I find that the page is currently being modified very interesting indeed.

I can tell you from experience that if a patent is worded as vaguely as some other posters claim, it will almost certainly be declared invaled. I don't know who MTH are, again I am a bit of a rookie, but they may be simpley trying to get as many of their perceived competators as possible to "bite" on a license agreement without having to actually go to court and defend the patent.

I have seen this very tactic work, at least initially, in other industries. The smaller guys go for the license because it is far less expensive than the alternative. Eventually someone steps up, accepts the suit, goes to court and the patent is declared invalid.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Thanks Mdemt, I should appologize for the remark about my doing nothing, as the more I think about it, the more I realize that I'm really doing quite a bit.

I walk a thin line with MTH, because I love some of their products, but hate others. I won't buy their engines because of this whole DCS thing, but I still love their cars, as you may have noticed in one of my responses above. I defend them against someone who esentially considers them worthless, but dispise them for creating this war in the first place.

This whole thing reminds me of the old cold war struggle between the US and USSR, only now it has escalated into a hot war, on a European battlefield. HO is caught in the middle of a conflict that they wanted no part of, the war between MTH and Lionel.

I have read some of the patent material, and the truth is that it makes me crosseyed, and dizzy[%-)][%-)][%-)] I believe you and trust that you are correct, the question is, if presented to the court, what will the judge decide?

Antonio is trying to rally the troops, maybe the call needs to go out to the 3 rail community, and ask for their help in fighting the "Evil Empire". I'm sure that there are some more people like me that are sympathetic to your cause. I am not in a position to raise this issue over in the CTT forum, but if a dicsussion is started, I will join in.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Guys, the link above was written badly it picked up a period at the end. This works!!!

www.protosound2.com

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005
I defend them against someone who esentially considers them worthless, but dispise them for creating this war in the first place.

Please note. As an HO modeler most of my MTH exposure has been what I have encountered in window displays at the hobby shop. All the MTH K-Line pieces I have encountered have had proportions that I would consider Semi-scale at best with detailing and paint jobs similar to those found on old Tyco, AHM, and Life-Like equipment. As such I consider it modern tin-plate. (Even though I am fully aware that it is injected molded platic) I was unaware of their other "Scale" side of products. While I shun the semi scale proportions I mentioned erlier, anything in scale, even if it runs on three rail track I do not consider worthless. But the semi Scale stuff. Just give it to the kiddies becasue its a waste of my time. (The toy train people are probably going to fry my butt but I am just being honest and stating how I feel about the issiue)

Another thing that really chapps my *** is the sound issiue. When one examines the technology, it is clear that Soundtraxx and QSI are advancements and developments on what was pioneered back in the 1970s by Pacific Fast Mail. These are serious attempts to provide the modeler with realistic train sounds to further enhance the realism of his layout. In my view, the Lionel and MTH sound systems while producing a decent realistic sound, includes such toy like sounds like "Train Wreck" "Mooing Cow" and i also seem to remember "Babbling brook" There were also items like all aboard and highball that clearly were spoken by someone in a less than railroad tone. So as it stands. MTH can just kiss my *** becase they did nothing for me before, and now have invaded my layouts private sanctum. If I felt like I could get a way with it, I would be really tempted to blow up MTH headaquarters.

Well that is eneugh of my angry and exasperated ramblings. Oh and THanks Big Boy 4005 for informing me about their scale efforts.

[vsmith]

Unfortunately as we become a more technological society and new technonogies are disseminated we will see this kind of story more often. Who creates the new science, who patents it, and who manufactures it are now not nessecarily the same entity.
Look at the BS going on in the music industry with Napster and music downloads, thats a technology that steals money from not just the record companies, but the artists, those that work for the artist, and the mom and pop stores that sell the record. This issue about who has the rights to this technology will not be solved here.

MTH may very well have a good reason, well, many million $$ reasons, to be fighting to retain control of it. Meanwhile I think they will have a very hard time in court if they try to claim that work done before they recieved their patent is also theirs by right. That would be like Ford trying to claim in Patent court that the Automobile was theirs and theirs alone. The Wright Brothers tried this claiming the airplane was theirs and theirs alone and that no one had the right to build airplanes but them. The courts decided that they only had the right to the particular way in which they built there plane, which had long since been superceeded by new technology.

Whatever existing before the patent was issued unless they can prove that it was them exclusivley that produced it, should be left out of their claim. It will be interesting to see how this is resolved.

[AntonioFP45]

Hello Grayhound Challenger,

You make some very good points, but take this as a friendly caution from a fellow modeler: Please be careful! (referring to the "If I felt that I could get away with it"......comment)

Anyone with a little common sense would say that indeed you are only venting, but some people might interpret your comments as "advocating violence".

(Of course, we all know that you are not! - but remember that Kids in school today, get suspended and/or expelled for writing or stating comments that may allude to violence)-

Times really have changed!).

Thanks for your great input!

[j1love]

I too am a newbie at this. I too am considering changing my locomotive collection to DCC. What I don't understand is this: why all of the concern and controversy? It seems that after reading constant threads on this issue, that most agree that MTH is at the center of it. They caused the issue by making a grab for more than they are entitled to. So VODTE WITH YOUR WALLET. I realize that they have a huge following in the 3-rail world, but I have not heard of any resounding endorsements of their products from anyone here. (Big Boy seems to respect their rolling stock efforts). If they (MTH) have less paying customers, then they cannot waste their valualble capital on useless endeavors such as claiming patent protection over the entire next generation of DCC sound boards. Spend your money elsewhere and they will capitulate to the model railroad community's demands. (I just bought a BLI T-1 and read the thread AFTER the train show left-that is my motivation for writing this reply). Just my 0.02

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AntonioFP45

[:)]Hello Grayhound Challenger,

You make some very good points, but take this as a friendly caution from a fellow modeler: Please be careful! [;)] (referring to the "If I felt that I could get away with it"......comment)

Anyone with a little common sense would say that indeed you are only venting, but some people might interpret your comments as "advocating violence".
(Of course, we all know that you are not! - but remember that Kids in school today, get suspended and/or expelled - times really have changed!).

Thanks for your great input! [:)][:D][8D][8)]

Point Noted. It just seems such a waste that what once was the common interest of man and king alike has become a sector suceptable to the antics of petty thugs. If push comes to shove I have the know how to make my own DCC decoders, and god and time willing I could probably figure out how to make the Sound Modules to. (And I would be willing to show everyone else how to do it to.) But having recently invested in a whole sale conversion to DCC I hope MTH will make me not have to come to that.

I would just like to say about my rough and tumble language is that it is a by product from living in Wyoming. Where the rumors about leagons of half crazed fire arm owners with a penchant for shooting first, shooting some more, shooing a few more times and then if anything is left alive, think about the possibility of asking a question of two, is true and I count my self a member of said group.

But alas I am left with one of Mr Spock's many classic lines from Star Trek VI. "What do you propose we do? Opening fire will not retreive them and an armed conflict is precisely what the captain wished to avoid."

[Anonymous]

I've been following the debate via QSI's web site since they and MTH started throwing lawsuits around, what is it now, about three years ago? I've now also read the patents displayed on MTH's web site.

On the one hand, it appears to me that there is some over-reaction in many of the posts here. MTH is NOT, to be fair, claiming that its patent covers the basic concept of DCC systems, or any previously developed wireless or hand-held throttles.

On the other hand, they are indeed making very broad claims regarding on-board sound systems and any control systems that make adjustments based on data received from the locomotive. In these areas (also coupler activation but as an HO modeler that's Greek to me), they are clearly trying to obtain a monopoly on actual concepts as opposed to specific means of achieving them. If they are successful, this will be very damaging to the hobby and truly, everyone will lose - including MTH.

The post from LDB Enterprises is well worth reading. I've been an expert witness in a couple of patent cases, and the key message is that the U.S. Patent Office awards many patents that are successfully challenged. For better or worse, the Patent Office really do not set themselves up as the arbiter of what is and is not genuinely new. (As an aside, its noteworthy that most successful patent attorneys, such as my next-door neighbor, start out as civil servants in the Patent Office).

While I too agree that MTH, or any other company, has a right to enjoy the fruits of a genuine technical invention, I do not believe in the patenting of a concept. At the end of the day, it certainly appears that MTH is attempting to use law as a means of obtaining a market share that it would not achieve through the merits of its products in a competitive marketplace. Other things being equal, MTH would be unlikely to prevail to the full extent, based on the apparent merits of the patents. Sadly, other things are never equal, and the winner of this business is going to be the side with the best lawyers. As others have commented, its always a pity in a specialist hobby that has relatively small numbers of participants, to see time and money being invested in lawsuits instead of product development. Its also the case that many model RR companies lack the resources to mount legal challenges, and I'm absolutely convinced that MTH is in part counting on this factor. A Lenz or especially a Marklin could take them on, but I'm not sure there is any reason for them to bother.

If I were in O scale, my response would be a boycott of their products until they backed off on trying to monopolize these key concepts, as opposed to defending a specific way of achieving them.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by j1love

I too am a newbie at this. I too am considering changing my locomotive collection to DCC. What I don't understand is this: why all of the concern and controversy? It seems that after reading constant threads on this issue, that most agree that MTH is at the center of it. They caused the issue by making a grab for more than they are entitled to. So VODTE WITH YOUR WALLET. I realize that they have a huge following in the 3-rail world, but I have not heard of any resounding endorsements of their products from anyone here. (Big Boy seems to respect their rolling stock efforts). If they (MTH) have less paying customers, then they cannot waste their valualble capital on useless endeavors such as claiming patent protection over the entire next generation of DCC sound boards. Spend your money elsewhere and they will capitulate to the model railroad community's demands. (I just bought a BLI T-1 and read the thread AFTER the train show left-that is my motivation for writing this reply). Just my 0.02

Good question. However, we can't vote with our dollar if they own the patent. They can effectively make money on the patent, regardless of whose product you buy.

The real controversy right now is that we cannot get the products that we were waiting on, and potentially could see a freeze or loss of products that were being produced. This is a serious disruption to the flow of DCC technology. Sure, there was tension in the industry before, but this could create a truely adversarial relationship that keeps all of the companies from "sharing" any ideas. This could cause all DCC manufacturers to "patent" their changes, meaning the first one to the patent office would take the next step. Or worse, MTH is granted free reign, and they become the Microsoft of the DCC world. (This is not a slam on Microsoft, just a historical truth that MTH could be in charge of licensing major aspects of DCC, and could choose to only allow their own product or specification regardless of customer satisfaction.)

The bi-directional communication is the key to combining signalling, block detection, travelling or loco specific sound, etc...

[Anonymous]

I remember the bright guy who got the USPTO to issue a patent on the wheelbarrow some 30 years ago. He sent letters to all wheelbarrow manufacturers demanding royalties for all present and past wheelbarrow production. Got blown out of court in a NY minute but he had the patent...for a while. Now it wouldn't take too much for the various manufacturers to write amicus curii (friend of the court) briefs outlining what they developed and what concepts they had publically revealed which would limit the effect of this case real fast. It has already been established that only an implementation of a concept can be patented, not the concept itself.

[j1love]

OK, now I really understand what is going on....thanks mdemt for educating me. I don't think I will be buying any MTH products though. From what I see here and in other forums, they are greedy and very unscrupulous. So I guess we wait. In any case, if anyone has tips on how to convert Atlas RS-3's to DCC it would be appreciated! Thanks in advance!

[Anonymous]

The following is my response to MTH.

No matter what MTH intentions are, it will hurt us all in the pocket book. Any "threat" of patent infringement will force all mfg's of DCC to have to spend time,money and effort looking into the allegations. These costs will be passed on to us all.

DCC was a collaborative effort open to all to enhance our hobby. MTH is holding back DCC development.

Stuebsrr