Digitrax patent transponding. Another MTH?

[robengland]

With all the anger about MTH, I don't hear any comment on Digitrax (or more correctly AJ Ireland) patenting another bidirectional train control technology.

While Digitrax's claim is a much more reasonable one, to a specific technology design instead of some speculative ambit claim like MTH, I still wonder about the implications to DCC of Digitrax trying to take control of transponding...

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Digitrax fan, but I try to stay balanced about this - I just chose an imflammatory subject line to get people in to the discussion [}:)] If it's OK for Digitrax (and for Kadee once apon a time remember), why is it not OK for MTH?

[Sits back to watch the fireworks]

http://www.digitrax.com/faqtransponding.php
"Our customers asked for bi-directional features. We talked to the NMRA DCC working group and other DCC manufacturers and it was decided that there was “no way” it could be done without modifications to all existing decoders and command stations. AJ Ireland began exploring the possibilities for bi-directional communication outside the committee because he could not live with the idea that we would have to ask our customers to make modifications to all existing DCC equipment to add this feature. The NMRA continued to explore a bi-directional communications scheme that would require significant modifications to existing DCC equipment for it to operate with new command stations that would have this capability.

"About a year later, AJ discovered a way to make bi-directional communications work with no modifications to existing equipment. All that would be needed is transponders in the locos and instrumentation on the track. Transponding would not preclude operation of existing DCC equipment and would work on any DCC system. He patented his ideas and licensed the patent to Digitrax. Digitrax began shipping transponder equipped decoders. Since then, transponding has been widely accepted and installed on layouts all over the world. Our customers have what they asked for and we are now working on revealing the additional capabilities included in transponding technology.

"AJ Ireland and Digitrax have offered licensing for transponding to all other manufacturers at a nominal rate with very reasonable terms. Transponding and bi-directional communication are very technical subjects that are not easily explained to non-engineers. He is very happy to share this information with other engineers and to license the technology to other professional companies. Had AJ offered his method of bi-directional communication to the NMRA, it is likely that we would still be trying to explain it today. Another big factor in the decision not to offer the technology to the NMRA was that the NMRA DCC working group does not have well defined rules that are followed by the group for moving proposals forward and it was felt that the political climate within the group would likely have prevented the proposal from being accepted."

[Anonymous]

As you said, it is quite different from the MTH issue.

First, the FAQ says that they first went to the working group before even starting to develop a technology. The working group decided it was not feasible without modifications to existing systems. AJ found a way.

Second, the patent for transponding isn't owned by Digitrax. Digitrax just license's it. Under what terms, who knows. In theory, any other DCC manufacturer could potentially license the technology and add it to their existing systems. And, AJ does not appear to be sending letters to manufacturers saying they may be infringing.

Third, transponding in simply an add-on to DCC. There won't be anyone who says "But I don't want transponding! Why do I have to buy it?" There will be someone who says "But I don't want to stream music to my locomotives!" There won't ever be a DCC v. transponding discussion. There are DCC v. DCS discussions. Customers now have to make a semi-risky choice in purchasing which product.