FEBRUARY UPDATE> MIKE'S TRAIN HOUSE DCC LAWSUIT

[bcammack]

If somebody managed to get a patent on a broad, vague technical notion that has prior art, should they be allowed to defend it an demand compensation from everybody?

[BRAKIE]

Well,guys simply put if I design,made and patented a item and another company copied it dang right I would want my royalties.why should the other companies make a profit on my design and I don't receive my fair share?.

Answer honestly..How many of you would do the same? Would you let any company make money off of your invented and patented item..
Perhaps you should check to see who the villain(s) is before passing judgment?

[AntonioFP45]

Latest Update for the Tsunami decoder release is June 2004. You can still pre-order the one amp Tsunami for $138 from LItchfield Station instead of the regular $179 retail price.

From the input I've gotten from dealers that went to the demo, the steamer sound is dynamic and very crisp. Modelers won't be dissappointed.

[AntonioFP45]

One bit of good news in the "AHEAD IN THE FUTURE CATEGORY".

A close friend of mine who is a professional in the computer consultant industry strongly feels that in the not too distant future, DCC manufacturers will be able to sell cheaper DCC "sound capable" decoders that will have the basic "Bare Essential CVs". Modelers will go to a Model Railroad "Sound" web site and be able to download specific: Diesel Horns, Steam Whistles, Prime Movers, Exhaust, Chuffs Brake Squeals, etc. and using a personal PC with a DCC type interface, "custom-program" his or her sound/motor decoder. Equipping locomotives with sound in any scale would be very cheap and there would be a big surge in modelers with sound on their railroads!

The technology is ALREADY AVAILABLE. It's a matter of a manufacturer willing to assess profitability, market demand, and to be willing to get involved in the long, costly paperwork process to make this happen. An software engineer that I met at my LHS made a similar prediction. What's nice about this is that it would basically "chop off" a lot of the tentacles that the MTH lawsuit currently has on DCC. Hopefully Soundtraxx, Digitraxx and Lenz are already "looking down the line" as far as feasability.

I was skeptical at first until the engineer reminded me of the "Recordable CD", "MP3 files"and the "CD Burner". These are cheap, readily available and just a little over a decade ago were just consumer fantasies.

[MudHen_462]

Once again, this newbie is "just looking for an answer".... I am returning to the hobby after a 40 years absence, and have my benchwork, track and DCC system just about set up. However, I have had on order for almost four months now, a BLI Mikado 2-8-2 (GN), and a BLI model E-7A (GN)... with apparently no delivery date in sight.

Is there any possibility of the NMRA (or another group) acting as a "clearing house" for all new developments in this litagation ? This forum has been great, but maybe we could get some direct information that way.... or do you think it would only become a "media" outlet for the parties involved ? I agree with AntonioFP45, "we need a source for updates on this subject".
Thanks.....
Iron Goat (Engine-less in Kansas City)

[sundayniagara]

Any news/updates on this subject?
Mark

[AntonioFP45]

A number of you have given all of us a GREAT WEALTH of information on the inner workings of the patent process. A special salute to Mdemt! Thanks!

Another contributer made a very "sobering point". IMHO, regardless whether MTH wins or loses, DCC's advancement will likelyindeed be affected. Manufacturers may become more "tight lipped" about sharing new developments and advancements with each other. With this situation, who can blame them? It will cost all of us, including MTH. 

Does anyone know if there if there is a websight that shows the progress or status on this lawsuit filed by Mike's Train House? Is it in Maryland? If so, has a date been scheduled for hearing(s) in court yet? Since lawsuits are public record, it may stand to reason that the info may be available as per "the freedom of information act".

Peace!

[Big_Boy_4005]

Well guys, it seems like the only one in this conversation who can vote is ME. Unless, I missed something everyone else is in HO. I don't own a lot of MTH stuff either, and with a few exceptions, it was picked up in the secondary market on eBay, and what wasn't was purchased before the release of DCS.

Grayhound, I'm not mad at you. I can sense your frustration with this whole issue. Here's a little background. The 3 rail market has come a long way in the last 10 years, and full scale equipment is really catching on. Lionel started making some. Weaver, who has been making stuff for years, started marketing to 3 rail. Atlas, whom I know and love from my time in HO and N, saw the opportuinty and restarted their O line bigger and better than ever. Then of course there's MTH.

The semi scale stuff is still important though, because it can be used on tighter curves, and not everyone has the kind of space that I have. There are a lot of people out there that have a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood.

MTH has 3 basic product lines, Tinplate which is mainly reproductions of sheet metal prewar trains. Rail King, which is the smaller "semi scale" cars and engines, and are easily spotted at train shows in their yellow boxes. And finally Permier, which is the stuff that I like, and comes in purple boxes. It's the RailKing and Premier engines that come with DCS that are the source of the trouble, and that I DON'T BUY.

VSmith, was talking about patents and the patent office, and I thought of something interesting. When the patent office was started, everything was MECHANICAL. People took patents on their gizmos. All of that has changed as a result of modern technology. Does anyone know if there is actually anything more than a clever use of existing electronic parts involved in this mess? MDEMT[?] By the way, the coupler is nothing new, Lionel has had that technology since 1942, maybe earlier.

[soapbox]Finally, here's some food for thought. The size of the market interested in DCS, is probably one tenth the size of the market interested in DCC. To the best of my knowlege MTH has no plans to get into the HO market, which means that they are just being a bunch of f [censored] a [censored] h [censored] about this whole thing.
Right GC?[:D][;)]

Actually the more I think about it, the more I think that someone needs to just challenge the patent, bring it to court and make MTH PROVE THAT THEY INVENTED SOMETHING NEW!!!! The easy way to do that is to produce the product, and let them come, but be prepared to fight. Who knows, this may all be a bluff.

Is MTH willing to spend the money on legal fees to defend what sounds like a questionable patent?

[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

[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]

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.

[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'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 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."

[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

[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!

[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.

[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.

[Big_Boy_4005]

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

www.protosound2.com

[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.

[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.

[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]

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...

[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]

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!!

[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]

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.

[dharmon]

Umm that looks like 2 48s to me.

[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.

[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