M.T.H. Responds To DCC Lawsuit Allegations

[Anonymous]

Thanks to Andy Edleman for his professional and rational response to this issue. I'm also excited about DCS coming to HO. MTH is the leader in O gauge trains and will become the same in HO in a matter of time. HO really needs a shot in the arm and Mike Wolf is capable of doing it.

[Anonymous]

Why doesn't the industry have an organization who could patent technology intended to be shared so that some unethical entity could not come along after the fact ant patent it. free licenses could be offered to all comers and the technology would be protected from someone who would take it from the hobby for selfish benefit.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul3

amedleman wrote:

QUOTE: 1. Sorry about the lack of a signature. It was checked in my profile and appeared in the Preview window but not in the actual posting.

Hmm... It's still not showing up.

I can see it.

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rhales

Having used DCS now for two years, I will NEVER go back to anything less! And it is now exciting for me to hear of DCS coming to HO.

Good that you've had success with the products.

QUOTE: I am 56 years old but I still embrace new technologies.

O.K. So do many modelers, including the ones on this forum.

QUOTE: The DCS system provides many new and awesome features that are ONLY possible with it's "two way communication".

You mean transponding? Just coming around the corner in DCC.

QUOTE: I upgraded from VHS to DVD. And when Hi-Def DVD comes out I will ugrade to that. And Hi-Def DVD will be backwards compatible with today's DVD. Just like DCS is to DCC. And as software upgrades are available to DCS, it will continue to provide new features and enhancements.

With a couple of exceptions, DCC technology products on the market are also "backwards" compatible. With the increasing popularity and size of the DCC market, MULTIPLE manufacturers (instead of JUST ONE), the cooperation and support with the NMRA, customer feedback, and the strong support from the manufacturers, DCC is pretty much on the same boat only with a MUCH BIGGER network. But AGAIN, this post is not about which of these two technologies is better. That's like comparing Toyota and Honda. This is about what seems to be the legally right, ethically wrong litigation.

QUOTE: But I am probably wasting my time as did Mr. Edleman.

No. This forum is about ideas and opinions whether one's opinions are in the minority or the majority. We're all hobbyists here.

QUOTE: Too many people are afraid of change (or is it of a new brand name.)

Sorry, can't agree here. Who on this forum has indicated a "fear of change" when in fact change (and advancements) are what most of us are looking forward to. However, the DCS system, while a very good product, has not shown itself to be "overwhlemingly superior to DCC" as far as user friendliness, and cost, and support. Again Toyota vs. Honda. Chevy vs. Ford. (though in this case the DCC market dwarfs DCS in size and customer base in the HO arena. And not to forget N scale).

QUOTE: Most of you guys are just plain nuts!!! And some even quite rude.

Mr. Rhales, that's really uncalled for ("most of you guys"). Sir, with all due respect, you're the gentleman that is being quite RUDE! [V] Are you forgetting that we're fellow modlers, just like you?!

From what I've read no one here disputes MTH's product quality, even though most have likely never purchased them. THE ACTIONS OF MTH are what have been in dispute here, nothing else. Please re-read the posts. Some of these guys that you're referring to as "plaint nuts" are hard working people that replied with the utmost sincerity and intelligent wording.

If a modeler chooses to purchase MTH products, no one here is going to "hang him".

Best wishes to you Mr. Rhales.[:D][;)]

[Paul3]

amedleman wrote:

QUOTE: 1. Sorry about the lack of a signature. It was checked in my profile and appeared in the Preview window but not in the actual posting.

Hmm... It's still not showing up.

QUOTE: 2. I am not familiar with the actual specifics of the speed control methods the other manufacturers utilize. If they aren't in violation then there is no problem. Their engineers need to determine those issues which is why they received notification in the first place.

Ok. How about explaining how DCS scale MPH increment works? Does it adjust the speed of the motor to match the scale MPH reading on the throttle? Or does it only repeat on the throttle what the loco is actually doing?

QUOTE: 3. Please remember that you do not need a new control system (DCS) to operate an M.T.H. HO locomotive. Any exisiting DCC controller will work. If you have already invested in a DCC system it will run the M.T.H. engine in command mode.

What is command mode? Oh, and will DCS operate DCC locos?

QUOTE: Below are the features you will have access to when using a DCC controller:

- Operate Locomotive At Scale Speeds

Do you mean that DCS locos will operate at 1 scale MPH increments on DCC? Or something else?

QUOTE: Next, are the features you will have access to when using a DCS system:

- 16 Adjustable Chuff Rate Setting.

How is this different from the above DCC ability?

QUOTE: - 3 Adjustable Smoke Intensity Settings

You know, I've never been a big fan of scale smoke. It never looks very realistic (even the old American Flyer), it smells, and it usually leaves a film of oil on the roofs of equipment.

QUOTE: - Adjustable Brake Sound Effects

How so? Squealing brakes sound like squealing brakes.

QUOTE: - 4 Adjustable Diesel Engine Ditch Lighting Effects

Hmm... AFAIK, there are only two ditch light effects, oscillating "wig-wag" when the horn blows (US-style), and always on (Canadian-style). What are the other effects?

QUOTE: - 3 Adjustable Locomotive Direction Start-up Engines

I don't understand what that means...

QUOTE: - Simple Lash-up Creation
- Simple Route Creation
- Simple Scene Creation

I'm still clueless. Is all this explained on MTH's website?

QUOTE: - 120 Speed Steps – Control engines speed in increments of 1 smph.

- 120 Adjustable Engine Speed Settings

Aren't these the same?

QUOTE: - Diesel Rev Up/Down Sound Control

This I know you can do already with DCC. I've seen it done.

QUOTE: - Engine Sounds Mute Button
- One Touch Headlight On/Off Control

That is "F8" on my Digitrax DT400 or Zephyr controller for mute, and "F0" for the headlight.

QUOTE: 3. The K-4 is just our first HO engine. We have made over 200 models in our Premier Line O Gauge product line having long ago recognized that O consumers have different tastes. We expect no different a reaction from HO consumers. If the K-4 isn't your bag, wait for the next engine. Incidentally, the K-4 is $50.00 less than the Broadway version and contains many more features as detailed in both the DCC and DCS lists above.

Well, I've never bought a BLI loco, so I'm not up on the prices for their steam (I know that the E-units are going for about $200 a pop). But for me, both BLI and you would have to do something pretty spectacular for the New Haven in order for me to shell out that much change. Sound is neat and all, but if it's not New Haven, then I'm not interested. I'd rather shell out for a nice sound decoder and install it in one of my New Haven brass engines.

QUOTE: 4. Amperage draw is a big factor in O because most of the locomotives are produced from die-cast metal and are thus quite heavy...Our experience in testing DCC in an AC, hi-amp environment (a locomotive and string of seven passenger cars can easily draw 6 or more amps) was very underwhelming.

I would imagine so considering that I don't think anybody's ever made a 6 or 7 amp DCC decoder (I could be wrong). Any use of a DCC decoder under those circumstances would "let the magic smoke out" pretty darn fast.

QUOTE: More importantly, DCC is limited by the number of features it offers and the complexity of its operation.

Really? Why is that? DCS sounds just as complex if not more so. And number of features? I suppose, but Bi-D will take care of that. It's simply too useful to remain on the shelf.

QUOTE: If we were going to invest in a control system (DCC or otherwise) we needed to be very confident that the return on the investment to develop the control system would be worthwhile.

To me, it doesn't sound like an all-new command protocol, you sound like you are simply making a new DCC system with extra features. Because up 'till now, I have to tell you that I thought DCS was a whole new system that was not DCC based at all. But since they are cross compatible (apparently), DCS is like Lenz, NCE, or Digitrax.

QUOTE: 5. Since none of the DCC manufacturers ever bothered to inquire what our licensing terms would be, they can't comment on whether they were favorable. As with any legal agreement, the terms would be confidential anyway.

Understood. However, in as broad and general terms as possible, would licensing of DCS technology to other companies be more or less than "a little"?

Thanks for your time.

Paul A. Cutler III
*****************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*****************

[Anonymous]

Good Golly! Did some of you even finish reading the initial post before spouting off? I can't help but wonder if these aren't the very same people bashing MTH on the other internet boards. The language appears to be the same.

Mr Edleman, I admire your fortitude. You had the composure to reply to the naysayers. Keep up the good work. As you might guess from my moniker, I prefer "the other" control system. But I don't hold animosity against DCC or DCS.

[Anonymous]

Having used DCS now for two years, I will NEVER go back to anything less! And it is now exciting for me to hear of DCS coming to HO.

I am 56 years old but I still embrace new technologies. The DCS system provides many new and awesome features that are ONLY possible with it's "two way communication".

I upgraded from VHS to DVD. And when Hi-Def DVD comes out I will ugrade to that. And Hi-Def DVD will be backwards compatible with today's DVD. Just like DCS is to DCC. And as software upgrades are available to DCS, it will continue to provide new features and enhancements.

But I am probably wasting my time as did Mr. Edleman. Too many people are afraid of change (or is it of a new brand name.)

Most of you guys are just plain nuts!!! And some even quite rude.

R.H.

[Anonymous]

Last April I had the opportunity to chat with Mike Wolf one on one for at least an hour while he was visiting my local hobby shop. He is a very nice man and very interested in his train systems. The subject turned to the lawsuit with BLI. I had recently purchased a BLI On30 2-8-0. I said that I was disappointed that I did not get all I paid for. Mr. Wolf explained that the whole point of the suit against BLI was the one mph speed increments. He pointed out that MTH engines could be timed with a stopwatch to prove that they were running at the rate of scale mph they were set for. I asked about Lionel and the rest. He said that they were all OK. As he seemed to be getting a little testy I did not ask how anybody could patent a rate of acceleration. It seems like somebody trying to copyright the alphabet or an arithmetic operation like long division. Since I have no training in electronics I would like to know how the electronics involved in making the trains accelerate in one MPH increments differs from the electronics needed for any OTHER rate of acceleration. Isn't it just a matter of settings? Shows how much I know....Odd-d

[Phil1361]

What I'd like to know is why wasn't there an uproar when Lionel came out with TMCC? The public relations reason was just like MTH's-the AC amperage.

Well, gee whiz a company came out with it later on but you know what there was no interest in it. Why? Because it wan't Lionel. I personally talked to the owner and saw it run first hand at York. It was called "3RailDCC". It worked great.

But there were no outcries like you see here. Why couldn't Lionel stick to the NMRA Standards. I'll tell you why so they could have a proprietary system that was better than what everyone else out there hed. Lionel had NO Intention of licensing TMCC until they got wind of MTH's DCS. Lionel wanted to be the only player on the block.

And if somone had tried to come with something similar to TMCC does anyone here think for a second that Lionel would act differently than MTH?

I applaud Andy Edleman for coming on here and stating his case but it is sort of like a Red Sox fan trying to convert the views of a Yankee fan. Just ain't gonna happen. I wouldn't blame him if he left all future PR to the magazines.

Personally I wish neither company came out with their system and instead used 3RailDCC mainly because we would then have the compatability HO has.


Nuff said!

[rrinker]

Many of those "DCS Only" features for sound control are ALREADY available in all but the simplest of starter DCC systems. So again, what's the compelling reason to switch?
And if many useful features will not be accessible to the DCC user, what's the compelling reason to purchase the product, when I can get a similar model elsewhere that DOES allow me access to those features, without scrapping my existing control system?
There's been over 10 years of development of DCC control systems. A lot of issues have arisen as more and more users adopt the technology, and they have been solved in various ways by the various vendors. Some things to think about - current limiting for the smaller scale, reverse loop control, LARGE layouts needing multiple power supplies to mee the demands. DCC handles all this in a nice seamless manner.
Will this kill MTH? I highly doubt it. The 'traditional' MTH customer is still there, at least I see plenty of MTH product moving at the shows I attend. Legally right or wrong, I don't see any action by MTH that would increase support from the traditional scale HO modeler. Quite the contrary. Scale HO has the NMRA, tinplate O does not. There's a reason all the other command control systems disappeared once the NMRA DCC standard was established.
Which reminds me of another point - I see nothing in the link provided, but can an analog DC locomotive run on a DCS system like it can on DCC? Can a DCC locomotive run on DCS? Given the increasing number of retail products with DCC and/or sound factory equipped, if this is not possible then there is a compelling reason NOT to use a DCS system.

[jfugate]

The whole philosophy with DCC was to get away from proprietary systems and to move the hobby forward.

Had MTH joined with this philosphy, they would be heros today if they had opened DCS up as an advancement of DCC. As it is, they have thrown a serious monkey wrench into this whole part of the hobby.

The MTH posts are all about "our rights", "what we own", "other firm's ulterior motives" and so on. It may all be very true, but when that's your constant focus you come across sounding like a self-serving predator and not especially interested in what's best for moving the hobby forward for the most number of people.

It's going to take some major benevolent moves on the part of MTH to change the perception of their company now. As for myself, I'm not interested in another proprietary system no matter how good it is. If that company ever goes out of business, your stuck. With lots of manufacturers supporting the DCC standard, you are covered.

It's like the IBM PC open standards model and the Mac closed standards model. The Mac might be the superior technology, but because of their proprietary stance, they lost market share. I forsee the same happening to MTH with their proprietary stance on DCS unless they can figure out some way to save face and get on the open standards band wagon.

[Anonymous]

Interesting that MTH has no problem whatsoever about using DCC when it suits them. Let others develope technology that MTH can access and use for free and then if they make improvements to it charge others to play.

Seems like a one way street to me.

Probably perfectly legal, but no where does it say it is illegal to be a jerk.

[rexhea]

Gee's! I guess I need to get to the patent and see if I can interpret exactly what MTH is talking about , but I don't understand what all the fuss is about with two-way communications for speed control.

Industrial Variable Speed Motor drive units (they use Pulse Width Modulation just like DCC) have been doing this for years by using both electrical and mechanical devices, with each type having many different methods including BEMF. Display and control of exact RPM's is based on calibrated feedback just as SMPH would be. MTH should sue Allen-Brandly, Toshiba, Cutler Hamner, GE, etc...[:D]

[amedleman]

Paul3:

1. Sorry about the lack of a signature. It was checked in my profile and appeared in the Preview window but not in the actual posting.

2. I am not familiar with the actual specifics of the speed control methods the other manufacturers utilize. If they aren't in violation then there is no problem. Their engineers need to determine those issues which is why they received notification in the first place.

3. Please remember that you do not need a new control system (DCS) to operate an M.T.H. HO locomotive. Any exisiting DCC controller will work. If you have already invested in a DCC system it will run the M.T.H. engine in command mode.

Below are the features you will have access to when using a DCC controller:

- Operate Locomotive At Scale Speeds
- Activate Whistle/Horn or Bell Sounds
- Hear Squeaking Brakes
- Enjoy Synchronized Puffing Smoke Timed To Driver Revolutions
- Activate Passenger Station or Freight Yard Sound Effects
- Activate Doppler Sound Effects
- Control Smoke Operation
- Control Locomotive Master Volume
- Adjust The Locomotive Chuff Rate

Next, are the features you will have access to when using a DCS system:

- 22 Independent Volume Control Settings
- 16 Adjustable Chuff Rate Settings
- 3 Adjustable Smoke Intensity Settings
- Adjustable Brake Sound Effects
- Adjustable Wheel “Clickity-Clack” Sounds
- 15 Selectable Custom Sounds
- 4 Adjustable Diesel Engine Ditch Lighting Effects
- 120 Adjustable Engine Speed Settings
- 3 Adjustable Locomotive Direction Start-up Engines
- Simple Lash-up Creation
- Simple Route Creation
- Simple Scene Creation
- Record/Playback 90 Minutes of Operation
- Downloadable Locomotive Sounds Sets
- Independent Locomotive Chronometer
- Independent Locomotive Odometer
- Independent Locomotive Trip Odometer
- Track Signal Quality Test
- Linear Track Length Meter
- Trip Odometer
- 2 Independent Engine Reset Features
- Doppler
- Broadcast Your Voice Through The Train's Speaker
- Independent Whistle & Bell Sounds
- 120 Speed Steps – Control engines speed in increments of 1 smph.
- 42 Levels of Programming Option
- Labor/Drift Chuffing Sound Control
- Diesel Rev Up/Down Sound Control
- Speed Boost & Brake Control
- One Touch Smoke On/Off Control
- One Touch Volume Level Control
- Engine Sounds Mute Button
- One Touch Headlight On/Off Control
- One Touch Proto-Cast™ Control
- One Touch Engine Startup Control
- One Touch Engine Shutdown Control
- One Touch Passenger or Freight Sound Activation
- Sound Packages Downloadable from MTH Website

3. The K-4 is just our first HO engine. We have made over 200 models in our Premier Line O Gauge product line having long ago recognized that O consumers have different tastes. We expect no different a reaction from HO consumers. If the K-4 isn't your bag, wait for the next engine. Incidentally, the K-4 is $50.00 less than the Broadway version and contains many more features as detailed in both the DCC and DCS lists above. You'll find even more details at www.mthhotrains.com

4. Amperage draw is a big factor in O because most of the locomotives are produced from die-cast metal and are thus quite heavy. Our AC operated O Gauge Challenger engine outweighs our G gauge model by about five pounds even though the G model is 17 inches longer (engine and tender). It takes more power and amperage to get those O trains moving. Consequently, the electronics must be robust enough to handle the more intense power requirements. Our experience in testing DCC in an AC, hi-amp environment (a locomotive and string of seven passenger cars can easily draw 6 or more amps) was very underwhelming. More importantly, DCC is limited by the number of features it offers and the complexity of its operation. Since DCC had no presence in the O Gauge AC market, developing a newer system that was easier to use and had a lot more features would be far more appealing to new consumers. Our long-term goal is to expand the marketplace by attracting new consumers. If we were going to invest in a control system (DCC or otherwise) we needed to be very confident that the return on the investment to develop the control system would be worthwhile. If new consumers are attracted to the hobby, whether it be in O, G or HO because of DCS, then our return on investment will continue to be strong. The marketplace as a whole will also be greater if more consumers are attracted to it. We think DCS does that.

5. Since none of the DCC manufacturers ever bothered to inquire what our licensing terms would be, they can't comment on whether they were favorable. As with any legal agreement, the terms would be confidential anyway.

6. Sorry for the confusion about the notification. As my original post indicated, the DCC community was notified about both our method of speed control (in one scale mile per hour increments) and our form of 2-way communication.

[Anonymous]

Paul

Way cool. Can't wait to see MTH's response.

[bcammack]

Regarding alternate, non-standard digital command control systems for HO, N, Z, G, et al: That train left the station several years ago, IMO. Anybody presuming that people will abandon a standard in which they've invested hundreds, if not, thousands of their discretionary dollars, simply to have digital scale MPH display/control, is engaging in commercially fatal hubris. That simply is not a sufficiently compelling feature, sorry.

As far as snagging new adopters, I doubt it seriously. Not when you can get a turn-key Bachmann EZ-Command system with a decoder-equipped HO locomotive for $100.

Apparently, bolstered by the $40 million judgement, MTH is taking a page from the Microsoft playbook to bully it's way into an established market. I think they will be disappointed in the long run.

Perhaps they hope to leverage their position amongst O scalers for a strong entre into the HO market, but I doubt that they can gain enough traction that way. Horizon/Athearn/MDC Atlas, and BLI in HO aren't the same as Lionel in O was when they started competing with them. At that time there was a vacuum that they could fill in the marketplace. I don't see that today.

Just my thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Anyone else pull out their waders, seems we're standing deep in double talk and something that smells fishy. Sorry don't buy the excuses and don't buy the products, Reputations make or break companies and all i see is MTH's Reputation going down, fast. net result, will we see MTH 10 years from now? who knows, all i know is i still won't be buying from them if they are.

[Paul3]

A few responses follow, but first:

Dear "amedleman",
It would be nice if you signed your posts with your occupation, if nothing else. That keeps folks like me from having to go into your profile here to find out if you are speaking for MTH or only yourself. Besides, you know how things get repeated on the 'net (for example, this has already shown up on Atlas). More people might believe in your message if you put "V.P. Marketing - M.T.H." after such a post. Thanks.

amedleman wrote:

QUOTE: 4. M.T.H. did send out letters last Spring to DCC manufacturers in the model railroading community who are developing or utilizing technology that could have violated our U.S. Patents...Specifically, we informed them of our method of 2-way communications and our form of speed control in one scale mile per hour increments. These are the only issues we have alerted the DCC community about.

Well, that should all be well and good since, AFAIK, the NMRA Bi-D format would use BEMF to determine scale MPH of the loco and display it on the throttle. Your MTH DCS apparently sets the speed in scale MPH on the throttle and makes the loco match it. Sounds like two totally different systems to me... Are they?

QUOTE: 8. 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...A complimentary promotional DVD on M.T.H. technology can be obtained by contacting M.T.H. via email...

Why don't you tell us what makes DCS better than DCC? I have heard many claims but few specifics. So far, I have to say I'm against changing due to the large commitment I've made to Digitrax (Zephyr, 3 DT400R's, UR91, a couple dozen engine decoders), not to mention the even larger commitment my RR club has made (Chief, dozens of throttles, hundreds of decoders, oodles of accesories). Please tell us what is it about DCS that would make a person or an organization that has already spent hundreds or thousands of dollars on DCC change to DCS?

kbfcsme wrote:

QUOTE: Oh, and that choice of the inital offering of the Pennsy K-4. Had the decision been mine, I certainly would not have produced an engine with a limited regional following and that was already on the market from several manufacturers.

I have to agree, here. LL started Proto 2000 with a BL-2, and BLI with the NYC Hudson. Both sold pretty well because they hadn't been done to this quality before. So far, I don't see much that seperates the K-4 from the pack (other than the high price). I, too, would have done something that hasn't been done. It could have been worse, however: they could have released another F-unit. [:)]

amedleman wrote:

QUOTE: M.T.H. developed the DCS system for AC O Gauge operation in 1999/2000. After long study, we determined that DCC simply didn't have the horsepower to perform well in the AC hi-amperage world of O Gauge model railroading.

Would you explain this? The above statement seems to imply that hi-amp O scale models are too much for DCC to handle, yet DCC seems to work just fine in even bigger G-scale models. Since I would think that if Digitrax can make a G-scale decoder, they could make an O scale one, your statement that DCC can't handle O scale seems rather odd.

QUOTE: Please reread my post. I realize it's long but in section 5 I point out that not one of the DCC firms responded to our offer to enter into a licensing arrangement. While we haven't made such overtures in the O Gauge marketplace, we certainly have in the HO marketplace.

Ah, but was your proposed license reasonable and comparable to other like-agreements in the hobby? For example, Digitrax's patented LocoNet has been licensed to various other companies (like LogicRail) for a "small fee" (their words) to ensure that they don't mess up the message traffic on the LocoNet and to ensure compatibility. Is this what MTH offerered?

QUOTE: You will see that of the patents we received, we only alerted the DCC community about speed control in one scale mile per hour increments.

Um, but you said earlier that you also alerted the DCC community about Bi-Directional communication. Specifically, we informed them of our method of 2-way communications and our form of speed control in one scale mile per hour increments.

Bill Conner wrote:

QUOTE: You HO guys will forget about Athearn Genesis once MTH puts their fine models on the market.

Surely, you are joking. Athearn Genesis F-units are the finest HO F-unit models that have ever been made in any medium (including brass), according to those that know these things (like Andy Harmon of the diesel modeler's list).

Paul A. Cutler III
*****************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*****************

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Bill Conner

MTH makes the best trains in O gauge and they'll do the same in HO. DCS is by far the best system in O gauge. You HO guys will forget about Athearn Genesis once MTH puts their fine models on the market. Mike Wolf doesn't get enough credit for his revival of O gauge and he'll do the same for HO.

Well..first they have to make something I want, then they have to make something I can afford. Right now they aren't doing either. Maybe in the future.....but Amedleman and MTH need to come to grips with the fact that right, wrong or indifferent.....this litigation stigma is going to take some time to get over....O scale may have needed revival, but let's be real, O scale is primarily a collecters gauge.....HO scale needs quality AFFORDABLY PRICED items, not another limited runs woo freaking hoo bells and whistles gadgetry.......If Mike Wolf is going to revive HO scale $400 a pop......it's going to revive it into right into the grave with the old rich guys that the hobby dies with.

[Anonymous]

Hmmmm Interesting. While MTH might have brought up some interesting and valid points in its rather long post, I do have a problem with it. Why so long? This should have posted immediately after the flap happened. Seems to me that they spent a long time trying to figure out how exactly to word their response. This will hurt them, at least in my eyes. I don't know how many of you remember the Tylenol scare. The company didn't hem and haw and point fingers. They acted in the best interests of their customers and recalled everything immediately - and then sorted it out. Result? Tylenol is still doing great business. MTH might be legally correct, but as a customer oriented business that wants to better the hobby while making a profit? Not in my eyes. Yes, they did do a bunch of copying of old Lionel things. Legal? Probably. But did they at least take the opportunity to inform Lionel of what they were doing? MTH says that it sent letters to the other DCC folks to let them know what they had patented, not as a threat, but rather to help them not infringe on patents. Did they send such a letter to Lionel saying "hey we're gonna remake some of your old stuff - if you think this infringes on your patents/trademarks etc. please let us know and we'll talk licencing." I haven't heard of any such letter.

MTH never addresses any attempts to work with the NMRA on DCC issues for the betterment of the hobby. Instead MTH met with NMRA and agreed that if prioruse is proved they won't sue. Big deal. I doubt anyone here would say I was being a great guy if I agreed that I would not drive off in your car because you own it.

MTH gripes that no one has responded to its offer of a license and attempts to say that shows how shifty the others are. Perhaps no one thinks that MTH's patents are valid. Perhaps no one likes to be threatened. If MTH's patents are determined to be invalid, then wouldn't it make MTH's offer appear to be blackmail? Would MTH agree to reimburse any licensing fees plus interest to those that got licenses if the patents are later determined to be invalid?

MTH and its attorneys are forgetting some important business/legal issues. You may be 100% legally correct in what you want to do, but it's not right and your customers/future customers will know it. What comes around goes around and no one is going to cut MTH any slack should it someday accidently use someone else's patent/trademark.

Everyone is entitled to make a profit and I will support MTH's right to do that. They just won't make any from me no matter how good their product is. Talk is cheap.

[AntonioFP45]

BillConner,

You may be correct, but if you re-read most of the posts, this is not at all about "Who's going to have the best system". Customer feedback will help determine this. Indeed MTH could have been "the hero" today had it joined in with NMRA and the rest of the Command Control groups in advancing this technology. [;)]

As for your inference about Mr. Wolfe's revival of O scale and "he'll do the same for HO?" please check last year's government consumer spending statistics for model railroading in the HO scale category. (Anyone remember the website?) The HO Market is the strongest out of all the scales between Z and G.

What kind of revival is Mr. Wolfe going to bring to HO? [?]

In spite of the Mr. Amedlman's responses the bottom line still is that the industry has been affected by the litigation. To top it off, even if DCS is slightly higher in quality; Digitrax, Soundtraxx, Lenz, TCS, NCE, and MRC are

[1] established with reputations of dependability
[2]have strong customer bases,
[4] have very good public relations.

They compete with each other, yet, the common platform technology is shared. Some componets are even interchangeable. Case in point: Digitrax and Soundtraxx have joined forces to develop SurroundTraxx. Though expensive, it looks like it's going to be a real winner! As is, quite a bit of DCS looks to be "stand alone". I may be wrong but the anology looks something like Studebaker competing against Toyota, Honda, Ford and GM even though the "Bakes" were for a while the better car.

The Point is that it's very doubtful that MTH is going to "Sweep" the HO market.. The company's products will be among the many that's already in a competitive arena. For now MTH's bad reputation is also out on the market and is a handicap. MTH's trains will sell and make a profit, but imagine HOW MUCH MORE they could be potentially selling were it not for this situation! Many modelers will not spend their hard earned $50 and $100 bills on MTH products, especially since HO modelers already have good, high quality options to choose from. [8D][;)]

I still firmly believe that the best thing that could happen is for MTH to lose in the litigation and join in with the NMRA and the command control groups. Since in the long run most consumers let bad memories fade when they see good products the sooner this case comes to a close the better. The "potential" monies lost from the litigation could be recouped in sales. Would be great for MTH to then move forward and offer modelers good products.

Mr. Wolfe:

If MTH wins: We lose and you lose out!
If MTH loses: We win and you win big in the long run!

[Anonymous]

MTH makes the best trains in O gauge and they'll do the same in HO. DCS is by far the best system in O gauge. You HO guys will forget about Athearn Genesis once MTH puts their fine models on the market. Mike Wolf doesn't get enough credit for his revival of O gauge and he'll do the same for HO.

[amedleman]

Thank you all for your comments. We certainly appreciate the additional feedback and look forward to your continued discussion about our entry into the HO marketplace. We truly hope you will each take the time to consider the points presented in our initial posting. We are confident that in time you will find our HO products to be a positive for the market and not a negative. We know that you will be impressed by how well our engines operate and how varied and realistic the features of Proto-Sound 3.0 and DCS are. In the meantime, I've provided some additional comments for some of the statements made in retort to our post.

kbfcsme:

M.T.H. developed the DCS system for AC O Gauge operation in 1999/2000. After long study, we determined that DCC simply didn't have the horsepower to perform well in the AC hi-amperage world of O Gauge model railroading. This is why DCC has never caught on in that market and why all O Gauge manufacturers have either developed their own system or used Lionel's TMCC system.

AntonioFP45:

In regard to your plea for M.T.H. to drop our lawsuit, I hope that you are also asking QSI to do the same thing. Remember, they started the litigation by suing M.T.H. first.

3railguy:

Please reread my post. I realize it's long but in section 5 I point out that not one of the DCC firms responded to our offer to enter into a licensing arrangement. While we haven't made such overtures in the O Gauge marketplace, we certainly have in the HO marketplace.

As for M.T.H. getting our start by reproducing past Lionel items, we're guilty as charged. However, the overwhelming majority of M.T.H. items produced since 1992 are not copies. In fact, we have released over 8,000 items during this period. Prior to 1992, our manufacturing did primarily consist of tinplate reproductions of Lionel pre-war trains. In fact, our success in that category prompted Lionel to enter into a subcontracting relationship with M.T.H. so that we could create their Lionel Classics Line of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Aside from those pieces, less than 400 of the 8,000 items we have produced since then are re-engineered Lionel items. More importantly, when we offered these pieces we always built a better product that sold for less money than the original. Clearly the marketplace benefitted from the value of these reproductions and clearly we learned much in the manufacturing and marketing of the product. Other O Gauge firms, including Williams and K-Line also followed a similar practice. We won't deny our history of manufacturing, but copies have been a very small part of our growth over the years.



Big_Boy_4005:

We are not trying to upset customers by pointing out the facts. Your understanding of the Lionel case is incorrect. This is not your fault as you were not in the courtroom and weren't privy to the evidence presented at trial. Your understanding of the patents is also incorrect. Please re-read my post. You will see that of the patents we received, we only alerted the DCC community about speed control in one scale mile per hour increments. We are not claiming a patent on the concept of speed control! As for two-way communication, we have patented our method of two-way communication. This does not mean that a DCC firm cannot invent their own method of two-way communication. We simply asked them to not copy our patented method without a licensing arrangement.

I appreciate your concern about guilt by association. The fact however is that Mr. Yang and Korea Brass operate out of the same residential home as Broadway Limited in Charlottsville, Virigina. This makes them associated in some manner and both Yang and Korea Brass were found liable in our suit. You are certainly entitled to believe that no association exists but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it may very well be a duck.

[cmrproducts]

The only reason MTH did so well when it first began to build O gauge trains was that it supplied items that Lionel was not making. In fact Lionel was not making many new items only doing reissues. And anyone can check this by referring to the old Classic Toy Train magazines (and Yes I have them all). It was at a time that the 3 railers were hungry for anything new. So MTH did very well.

Then MTH brought out exact copies of all of the old American Flyer operating accessories. The price was good and again they sold very well.

Now MTH thinks well we just can't loose, might as well go for the HO market too!

Well the HO scale market is not the same as 3 rail market. We have more than 4 or 5 manufacturers of engines and cars in the HO market. This also goes for DCC.

In the O scale market there are only 2 real manufacturers of 3 rail DCC but in HO we have 8 or so. So the modelers in HO are not going to stand in line for any new manufacturers system that has come out with something supposedly revolutionary. Like they did in the 3 rail market.

HO modelers want the convenience of buying any manufacturers decoders and that they will be able to use them with any DCC system, not just one specific manufacturers. This is expected now!

Now one way to have an advantage is to cause the other DCC manufacturers to be careful on how they do business because of a possible patent infringement. It might work in the 3 rail groups but in the HO groups that is a sure fire way to cause ill will and many will never buy one.

It also would not hurt that you really need to come out with engines that no one else has done or that have been out of production for a long time!

It will be interesting to see how the MTH HO entry goes with the HO modelers!

BOB H Clarion, PA

[AntonioFP45]

BigBoy4005, JerryZeman

Both of you have given great examples of CLEAR, WELL THOUGHT OUT THINKING!IMHO, your positions reflect the opinions of many model railroad customers around the globe regarding this situation.

Now, if only MTH's management would carefully read your replies and do some thinking also.

[Anonymous]

UPnut,
Thanks, but no thanks, I'll stay with my DCC system. MTH has a bad reputation (in my opinion) for how they conduct their business! I want no part of this and would be embarrsed to own anything MTH!
If they were to drop the law suits and simply conduct business in a gentlemanly fashion, I might reconsider. From what I understand of their track record, this appears unlikely.

[JerryZeman]

Being first and foremost a HO modeler, with a significant investment in North Coast Engineering DCC, I was very upset when MTH sent out their letter to DCC manufacturers. It certainly sent the DCC working group into a tizzy. Hopefully this letter will clarify the positions of all parties concerned, and those with DCC can get on with improvement of the DCC standards to the benefit of all DCC users.

There is obviously a lot of bad blood between MTH, QSI, and Broadway Limited. I don't which of these manufacturers is the "injured party" that spawned all the animosity, and the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of the positions between MTH and the other operations. As far as I'm concerned, all three can spend away and litigate themselves to death; it won't impact my enjoyment in my HO world, or, for that matter, my O three rail interests.

The existence of DCC standards in my opinion has been a boom to promoting the use of command control in two-rail applications. While there are competing systems that use different bus architecture, there is true compatibility in the ability to operate any DCC decoder-equipped decoder on any system (some lower end and older systems have limitations to only 99 addresses). MTH cannot effect what is already out there and deployed, and evidently, as stated in Andy's letter, does not prohibit development of BEFM decoders in DCC. That is good news.

What has me concerned, however, is the obvious desire of MTH to constrain the future development of DCC standards, and the desire to promote the advantages of DCS over any current DCC system. I can understand MTH's desire to protect their investment in DCS, but why in the world is it necessary to play "big bully" and threaten DCC manufacturers from developing two way communication with decoders and scale MPH control? I'm sorry, but both of these features would be a natural evolution of the DCC standards, and MTH's attempts to constrain development in this area is a clear attempt to enhance the competitive position of MTH vs. all current DCC manufacturers. In my vision of a perfect world, the control circuitry that MTH uses to achieve these features should be patentable, not the simple concept. I suspect that if a DCC manufacturer was brave enough to want to risk litigation from MTH, they could develop these features in DCC, and "engineer around" specific MTH circuit designs to accompli***hat end. But, given the small size of the DCC manufacturing community, this probably won't happen, as none of these manufacturers is going to "bet the farm" on a chance of incurring the wrath of MTH's fine legal staff. Calling on the DCC community to show "prior art" in controlling train speed in scale MPH is in my humble opinion asinine. I haven't read the MTH patent, but given the language the Mr. Edelman uses, I'd be curious if the DCC user's couldn't have their systems control in KPH (kilometers per hour). Heck, I'd gladly do the math, and would love to see every DCC manufacturer place the disclaimer on their product literature that says "We cannot provide, you, our valued customer, the ability to perform speed control in MPH due to the existence of MTH patents".

If MTH wants to impress me, the consumer, then they should get actively involved with the DCC working group and embrace the development of standards that can work for all DCC manufacturers.

I would give serious consideration to selling my current DCC control system for some sort of MTH DCC-compatible control that contains the features of DCS. I like the way DCS controls DCC locomotives. The ability to "notch up and down" diesel engine sounds and change steam engine cut-off sounds is awesome. The speed control in scale MPH is way cool. But I won't even give DCS a passing consideration if it can't control my current stock of DCC equipped locomotives as good or better as I am today. I've lived with the compatibility issues in three rail O, and it sucks. And I have no intention of propagating that state of affairs into my HO world.

So, in summary, my comments to Mr. Edelman are as follows. If you want to play nice in the sandbox with the current DCC working committee, and work for the overall betterment of the hobby, then come on by with an improved DCC control system that incorporates the features of DCS. I'll gladly open up my wallet. If, however, you want to continue to constrain development of DCC just to enhance your competitive position in the HO marketplace, then my wallet slams shut to all of your offerings in HO and O.

regards,
Jerry Zeman

[simon1966]

Folks, don't get all hot and bothered about this. If you feel angered by MTH, just don't buy their products or DCS system. It may well be that DCS is a better solution than DCC, but this does not mean that it will ever gain much traction in HO scale. An obvious analogy is right in front of your eyes now.......Some would say that the Apple operating system is better than Windows, but which dominates the desk tops of the world? The huge advantage of DCC is the fact that it is an open standard that any manufacturer can work with. As far as I am concerned, every layout I have seen has taken huge compromises in scale distance. My layout has 100ft of main line. This equals about 1.6 scale miles. I don't care if I am running at a precise scale speed as i have had to compromise so much on distance compression!

[Anonymous]

This is some of the stup[dest positions I have heard. MTH has developed this system on their own and has patented it. Your intention to kill MTH is obvious and I ask what your ulterior motive is. Are you connected with other mfgr's? I know that Mr. Wolf coppied the early Lionel models because Lionel didn't patent , nor, keep any dies to make the again. Mr. Jerry Williams copied most of Lionel's pre-war trains because of the great demand. Most people are quite thankful for what he did.

The Korean Brass stole from MTH , dies, blueprints and lists of items to be produced. I believe that MTH complete production system and schedule had to be revamped. In the process they lost alot of sales for the very item they had developed and had to lay-off a lot of personel. It is pretty bad when your compeditor markets an engine built with a die you made

QSI was a one man operation when MTH contracted with him to make a sound system for their engines. MTH had ti put up with slow production and QSI could not meetthe demand. QSI assured Mike that their sound system could not be made compatible with TMCC MTH licensed Proto sound and paid to have QSI provide the sounds. Three months later QSI was marketing TMCC compatible sound on their own. MTH wanted better sound and QSI would not provide the service. MTH decided to build the DCS system.

The system is better than anything else on the market and it is compatible with most systems. DCC is a free system and a good one, but, the DCS system is better. Just try it!

I am getting old and have played with all the scalles for over 58 years and damit I want trains to operate like Trains.

[3railguy]

Big Boy, I was talking lawsuits in general and consumers in general. We as in a model railroad community. I'm mainly a 3 railer but into HO too. MTH is in the buisiness of litigating everything under the sun and they need to be reminded that they are litigating modelers as well. You put it well. The customer is always right despite what the law says.