FEBRUARY UPDATE> MIKE'S TRAIN HOUSE DCC LAWSUIT

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by electrolove

Can someone please tell me what this really is about? If I understand it right with my crappy english, this is the reason we have to wait for the diesel version of the tsunami? Did the guys that was working to get it on the market sued?

Electro my friend, it's really a very long story which has been going on for quite some time. If you aren't familiar with Mike's Train House (MTH), and you really have no reason to be familiar with them, you are much better off.

If you really want to know, the issue at hand is about DCC and sound, and MTH's patent and all of the subsequent litigation. In short, it's a mess, which most would agree MTH created. The thing is MTH isn't even active in the HO market. MTH has announced plans to get into the HO market, but I am of the opinion that they will fall flat on their face.

I am also of the opinion that if MTH fails to enter the HO market, the HO manufacturers have a much better chance of getting relief from the patent.

If you want to know more, go back to the beginning of this topic and read. Note that it was started almost two years ago.

[electrolove]

Can someone please tell me what this really is about? If I understand it right with my crappy english, this is the reason we have to wait for the diesel version of the tsunami? Did the guys that was working to get it on the market sued?

[sumpter250]

As you sew, so shall you reap.
The comment I heard about the MTH booth at Trainfest 2005 was " If someone had tossed a frag grenade into the booth, one, or maybe two people would have been injured".
My own observation, the booth was not very heavily visited.

I hear there's a new book on the market....."How to win friends, and influence people, for dummies".
Authored by Union Pacific corporate staff.
Maybe Mike wolf has been reading[;)]

[AntonioFP45]

Sheesh!

Didn't want to see flames crackling again!

Personally I find it a bit difficult to believe that BLI/QSI was trying to deceive the consumer, especially since, inspite of a few problems, BLI units were an overall BIG HIT with the HO market. BLI was "the new kid on the block". I can't see them shooting themselves in the foot. Don't forget that several DCC vendors received the letter from MTH. "DCC" vendors, who had to get legal advice as to how to proceed forward in advancing the technology. Remember, the letter was "very vague" and broad.......so what did we expect BLI to do?

I'm not a technical expert but the speed control in 1 mile per hour increments? Someone please tell me that other model railroad manufacturers and electronic whiz kids would have never have thought of that! We've got young people today in their 20s building computers from the ground up.

So J, in seeing this it seems that MTH is not the helpless victim here.

Just my thoughts.

[Medina1128]

Well, since this is an open forum, I have only one thing to say: To ALL GREEDY MONEY GRUBBING SLOBS, THERE IS SUCH A THING AS KARMA, AND MTH, YOURS SUCKS. WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND, ETC....
Personally, I have NO plan to buy anything coming out of MTH... and to quote the Cowardly Lion, "NOT NOBODY.. NOT NO HOW!!"

[jondrd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jnichols

QUOTE: Originally posted by AntonioFP45

I also think it was their plan all along to sell you an "upgrade" after paying good money for the model in order to get speed control (which should have had this in the first place) .

Jeff

This is the part of this fiasco that angers me. The consumer thought he was getting speed control and didn't get it. [8] What is QSI's plan to make this right when the dust settles? If the solution is to charge for what you already paid for; then I think we might be in for another round of litigation. Let's hope this isn't the case.

Jon

[jnichols]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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 disable because it was part of the 1 mph control 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.

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.

Antonio,

I really don't know why QSI chose not to enable the speed control in it's products. Remember however, the speed control was active on the Lionel HO scale locomotives that used QSI systems, so one can only guess. My take!?!

I think you are partly right about QSI trying to finger point at MTH in order to turn the modelers against them. I also think it was their plan all along to sell you an "upgrade" after paying good money for the model in order to get speed control (which should have had this in the first place) . If this is true, I will wash my hands of QSI altogether. There are too many other good sound decoder options right now to deal with their smoke and mirrors crap, and you can buy virtually any of the QSI equipped models without sound at this point making aftermarket installations a snap!

Thanks for your post.

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.

[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

[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

[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

[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!!!!

[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!

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

[waltersrails]

ok ???

[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.

[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

[sundayniagara]

Here's the link.
Mark

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

[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]

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

[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.

[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."

[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.

[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.

[Fergmiester]

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

Fergie

[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