FEBRUARY UPDATE> MIKE'S TRAIN HOUSE DCC LAWSUIT

[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.

[darth9x9]

Hey cspmo,

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

BC

[cspmo]

Lionel should sue MTH for using three rail track.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[darth9x9]

One of the major problems with anything that comes out of MTH is that many of their business decisions are made on pride and not sound judgement based on market research. They often don't listen to what consumers want - only what MTH wants. They would to keep as possible proprietary.

[AntonioFP45]

$1,000! That price would still come down eventually.

I think I'll stick with the 'onboard" sound systems.

[Don Gibson]

Antonio FP45. (affectionately referred to as "Tampa Tony'' )
Thank you for renewing my interest by posting this:

It would appear that Edelman (MTH) is trying to loosely patent bi-directional communication on DCC by getting there first, and avoiding the NMRA's wi***o have everybody contribute to standardization. Kaydee was pointed out as not going this route so everyone waited for the patents to run out before manufacturing competative knuckle couplers. Who among us can say KD was not thinking of KD when we used the fabulous 'horn-hooks'? My question is MTH's infringment problem is with QS Industries, so why are they suing QSI's customers? Perhaps therin lies their real motivation: Put QSI out of business by scaring off their customers. Next shoe?

EMF - Electro Magnetic Force is electricity from magnets. The only magnets in our engines are the motors themselves, and today's newer DCC products are including a feedback circuit from the motor's action to provide (blank).

20 years ago, Kenwood Audio had a proprietary amplifier circuit that monitored the movement of a cone loudspeaker and compared it to the output waveform of the amplifier, and (supposedly) corrected it to reduce cone distortion. - In short a feedback or BEMF circuit. It didn't seem to make any audible improvement (I owned one) but it blew out all my power transistors - while under warrantee.

I'm not privy to Tsunami, but their Surroundtraxx System uses Digitrax's EMF read to run an electronic 'balance control on an multi channel analog under-table audio sytem.
This was designed for smaller than HO scales that speakers would not fit in. it also provides for under 500Hz sound, which increases realism dramatically.

Lest anyone ru***o order this, expect it to add a thousand dollars or two to your layout.
Ah, the price of realism!

[Anonymous]

Disclaimer: I am not familiar with DCS, how it works or what its technical similarity is to NMRA DCC. I’m only thinking out loud.

Food for thought:

Could it be argued that MTH’s DCS is actually an implementation of the open-source DCC system as developed, designed and administrated by the NMRA? Extending this thought and running with it, could it not be argued that MTH is illegally charging for what is not their intellectual property? I am using the computer world as a reference in this with LINUX as the example. Companies like Red Hat, SUSE, etc cannot charge for the source code in LINUX, only the value added content and support they supply. So, again, could it be argued that MTH is claiming exclusive rights to patents that include technology that had previously been developed and been part of an open source / public domain technology? Could it be argued that MTH’s DCS is actually only IEEE 802.3 Ethernet transmitted over train rails?

[AntonioFP45]

Seems that the rumors are coming true about MTH getting into the HO market with their "DCS" system! It appears that MTH was planning to get into the HO market from the get go. Regardless of the debates, the bottom line is that BEMF and the related "concepts" (control in 1 mph increments using back emf?) is not a uniquely revolutionary concept.  

As pointed out to me by a computer industry expert, there have been countless electrical devices that produce BEMF for several decades, a noteable example being the VCR! The "idea" of using the BEMF produced by electronic devices is not new.

Based on MTH's litigation tactics with regard to DCC's advancement, I have absoluetly no intention of purchasing or supporting any MTH products, including their "DCS" technology products. Apparently, many of you have shared similar sentiments.

Guys, this isn't about "being vengeful" it's about sending the message to "Mike" and his lawyers that all they've done is hurt the hobby. Who's going to pay? US!
It stands to reason that many of you that are in the "under 25 crowd" will be pushing DCC forward as time moves on. It's saddening that this MTH "Hot Box" will be dragged along for the ride.

I've been monitoring two DCC related yahoo groups. Unforutnately several DCC manufacturers are choosing to remain "tight lipped" about some product advancements as they are concerned that posting information could potentially entangle them into the tentacles of the "MTH vs.QSI lawsuit". This is one reason why it is difficult to get more detailed information from DCC manufactuer's regarding the latest developments. Can't say I blame them.

Those of you that attend Great American Train Shows, Greenburg Shows, and NMRA conventions Don't forget to let the MTH/RailKing dealers that attend these shows know your feelings regarding this situation. No need to get hostile, but let them know that you're sending a message back to MTH headquarters.

Peace out!

[Anonymous]

MTH better get a lot of money from lawsuits ... I doubt that they will get much more from model railroaders !!!

[AntonioFP45]

Odd-d,

Interesting,

Many times in life we'll meet "nice people" that can be "not so cool", business professionals.

Now that this suit with Lionel seems to be winding down, I wonder how the outcome of the QSI lawsuit turns out. This is the suit that, depending on the outcome, will affect DCC, especially in the HO market.

[Anonymous]

As an ex-HO modeller and now an ardent HiRailer (that is full scale O scale models on three rail track) I am really upset by the recent lawsuits by MTH. I met Mike Wolf earlier this spring when he was touring local hobby shops in the area. There were no other customers in the shop so I got to spend almost an hour one on one with Mike Wolf. He is very personable and good humored. He demonstrated DCS on the hobby shop layout for me. He ran a Lionel diesel (UP by the way) and a MTH diesel. At first he wasn't sure if the UP diesel was MTH or Lionel until we inspected it. He pointed out that MTH locomotives were set up to increase speed at one mph increments,and that it was possible to clock the speed of a MTH engine with a stopwatch to verify that it was going at the rate shown on the control. The subject turned to the lawsuits especially in regard to my BLI On30 2-8-0. He said his only beef was that it also increased speed at one mph increments. I asked if that was all."That's it", he replied. I asked if he would complain if the speed would increase by something other than one mph increments (one kilometer per hour for example) and he said that would be OK. I asked him if he was suing Lionel et al about their speed controls and he said no, Lionel was OK with him. I thought about asking him how he could patent a rate of acceleration but I didn't want to be argumentative. He seems like such a nice man it makes one wonder if when he is alone he turns into some Gollum-like monster who looks at the model railroading hobby and says, "Preciouss-ssss! It's mine...all mine...", Maybe he doesn't care what we O gaugers think, but my collection of 25 brass HO steam engines allows me to speak as an HO gauger and say that he is killing himself in his attempt to enter the HO market especially when he is planning to market DCS adapted for HO. He is making himself hated by a large segment of the model railroading hobby. Sad because he has much to offer but will find that he can't jam things down our throats. Too bad. Odd-d

[the-big-blow]

Come on now. And I quote " tempted to blow up MTH headquarters" . Under the Orwellian Bush administration with a statement like that you could be treated as a terrorist. We live in a world we have to watch what we say. Even though I sympathetic to you frustrations on this subject a little restraint gotta watch it before the SS (secret service) shows up at your door. (Just Joking don't take this post seriously)

[Anonymous]

Cor, sorry but totally irrelevant in this thread...

Okay, being from Europe I have no idea how the US Patent Office and US legal system works, so my 2 ¢ might be a bunch of crap.

I know that Lenz submitted a working prototype of their RailCom system to the NMRA in 2002. That means that Lenz spend time and money in the preceding year (at least) developing it. I admit I didn't read the MTH patent so I don't know the timeframe they started with this 'bi-directional stuff'. If MTH couldn't proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that they concluded their development _prior_ to Lenz' submittion of their RailCom system, Lenz might argue that MTH 'borrowed' some of the RailCom techniques in their own system. That would mean the end of this legal battle as MTH then has no ground for a patent: parts of that patent belong to another mfg.... As stated, I have no idea if I'm on the right track (sic [;)]) here. Btw, Lenz is a German company and any US patent has no legal rights in Europe (as is the opposite [;)])

@moderators: I choose Forummaster as an alias as I was a Forummaster (of a Dutch forum) then, but with no intend to participate in this forum. Times changed, but I'm afraid I cannot change my alias as I did with my emailadress. Thus no disrespect on my behalf, but do you have advise on changing this situation?

Regards, M.V. Wesstein
the Netherlands

[Anonymous]

Bye the way,

QUOTE: [i]Originally posted by rails5
(also coupler activation but as an HO modeler that's Greek to me

This is "hot stuff" in Europe (well... at least in Holland and Germany) at the moment. [:)]

http://member.ycn.com/~krois/

Although i admit it’s based on European couplers. [:p]

Krgds
Cor

[Anonymous]

Hi Guys,

posted a link to this dread on an Dutch RR-forum to see what they think.

http://www.beneluxrail.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=62207#62207

(sorry its in Dutch only)

Rgds
Cor

[robengland]

Has everyone forgotten Kadee's twenty year monopoly on knuckle couplers? Now they are much-loved good ol' boys with a fine reputation in the industry...

That said, I just sent an angry email to MTH. I'm just making the point that it isn't the first time and it didn't do us much harm last time.

[AntonioFP45]

Rogermoore,

You were inquiring about the delay in the Surroundtraxx's release.

While there are some technical related problems, this lawsuit may be part of the reason for the delay as manufacturers have to "play the game" and consult with legal experts to make sure that they're not going to wind up "entangled" in more MTH style legal messes.

Just e-mail Bruce at:

[e-mail]

He's been very good about answering questions regarding this situation, as well as any technical questions DCC modelers may have.

Hang in there Amigo, Peace out!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

I..... I consider myself an "Ant".

Ever see the 1954 "B" movie called "THEM"?
Giant ants found in the atomic bomb test area attempt to take over the world.
Special appearence by the Santa Fe railroad!

[Anonymous]

I have read this thread and thought on it a few days. I have several BLI HO Locomotives on my list and will add them to my collection this year.

There will always be trains and sound on em. The massive legal suits are way above me, I consider myself an "Ant"

IMHO the public release statement by MTH is Baloney. Nice spin and careful use of words to create a soothing effect to ward off angry mobs of modelers with torches. All Baloney.

I am probably going to hunt for pre-lawsuit BLI engines. I think those will be quite valuable someday.

[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 :).

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Doggy

NO wonder evey thing is so expensive in Amercica so I'll Move to Canada when I can

DOGGY

Hold on there little DOGGY. Canada is a LOT more expensive to live in eh!
Better go south to Mexico, se!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AntonioFP45

Gsetter,[8D]

It's great to know that a company like Lenz is committed to expanding, enhancing and improving the DCC world.[^]

You worded your responses to Mr. Edelman's comments were exceptionally well writtten, point by point, without the "vague jargon" often given in situtations similar to this one.

Thanks.
Lenz involvement with the NMRA and their philosophy is a great example to other companies.

[Anonymous]

NO wonder evey thing is so expensive in Amercica so I'll Move to Canada when I can

DOGGY

[AntonioFP45]

Gsetter,[8D]

It's great to know that a company like Lenz is committed to expanding, enhancing and improving the DCC world.[^]

You worded your responses to Mr. Edelman's comments were exceptionally well writtten, point by point, without the "vague jargon" often given in situtations similar to this one.

[Anonymous]

My reply to Mr. Andy Elderman, V.P. - Marketing @ MTH

I see this is your first post, so welcome to Model Railroader Forum. I hope you can stand the heat.
Apparently not many folks who are model railroaders support MTH.

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

Sorry Mr. Elderman, that, and your third statment, doesn't make me feel good about the future.

QUOTE: 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.

I'll wait to see what is argued in court to believe this statment.

QUOTE: 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.

Well Mr.Elderman, how do you think those roumors, that you mentioned in your first statment, got started? "ADVISE THEM" ? That's leagalese - spin doctor - double talk for threat. You wouldn't happen to be Saddam Hussein's former Minister of Information would you?

QUOTE: 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.

Why would other DCC firms be interested in a licencing arrangment if they believe their products do not infringe on MTH patents? Almost sounds like extortion.
As for DCC firms revealing that they have a pending law suite, they have to tell their customers why they can not release their product. I wouldn't expect them to tell MTH's side of the story either. I'm sure they are advised by their attorneys to limit their statments. Is there anything specific you would like to claim they had done? Click on QSI Press Release.

I prefer to do buisness with companies whose philosophy is to share technology to help grow the market.
For example, this is from the FAQ on the Lenz Elektronik, GmbH website:

QUOTE:
Why is Lenz releasing this technology to the NMRA DCC Working Group?

Three reasons.

1) The future of multi-manufacturer DCC depends on all manufacturers working closely with the NMRA DCC Working Group to enhance DCC in an orderly fashion. To fully realize the full potential of RailCom will require multiple manufacturers to implement the protocols.

2) To gain the full potential we will need some additional packets and we feel that these should be created in a joint fashion.

3) NMRA DCC is not a static control system, but one which can grow for many years to come. To gain the benefits we have all enjoyed for the future means that we must plan for the growth now.

But don't you loose your competitive advantage by releasing your intellectual property to the NMRA DCC Working Group?

We have no problems competing in an open market. We believe that standards help the overall market grow and as the market grows we also grow. While it is true that we have invested a lot of time and resources into the development of RailCom, we believe our investment can best be realized by worldwide adoption of this technology.

What if the NMRA DCC Working Group changes the technology?

No problem. If the NMRA improves on the technology, then of course we will adopt it.

Now that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. Lenz is doing something good for the hobby. MTH just worries me.

QUOTE: A review of the patent's 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.

That is for the court to decide. I'm not an attorney and I have no opinion on weather or not MTH has a valid claim. The documents you refer to can be interpreted many different ways as there are people reading them. I'm sure though the attorneys for MTH will argue in favor of MTH.

QUOTE:
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.

Either the attorneys for other DCC firms or individuals believe that MTH has nothing that will stand up in court and are not willing to commit resources in such a pursuit. or they may be waiting to see what happens in pending litigation.

QUOTE:
M.T.H. invested over $3.5 million dollars in the development of our Proto-Sound 2.0 and DCS Digital Command Systems.

What, if anything, has MTH done for the model railroading community except make millions from it?

QUOTE:
We developed these products because we felt that the current technology standards at the time were no longer innovative enough to attract new hobbyists into model railroading.

That sound like a load of $[-]!+. New customers is what you mean. Is MTH willing to submit their superior technology to the NMRA to set a new standard?

QUOTE:
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

Similar products? That's open to interpretation isn't it? Ground breaking? Hardly. What was groung breaking was the availability of micro processors. I know MTH didn't invent that.

QUOTE:
If our efforts are as unique as we believe, they should be protected under patent law.

I'll give you that. But nothing good for the hobby will come of it.

QUOTE:
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.

Yes, you're right there is. However it's not the MTH way.
I really don't know what MTH is doing, but I do know they seem to be making a lot of enemies.