M.T.H. Responds To DCC Lawsuit Allegations

[Anonymous]

Here is a link to a New York Times story about the need for patent law reform. Viewing it requires registration, but maybe you could use bugmenot.com. The article is relevant to this discussion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/27/technology/27patent.html?th

John J. Blair

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JerryZeman

Dear Mr. Edelman;


Yes, the DCC community received your notification, and has elected to ignore you. This is kinda like the kids in the schoolyard ignoring the bully that shows up. Since nothing out there in the DCC world current offered conflicts with MTH's beloved patents, they have no reason to talk to you.

All you have accomplished is throwing future development of DCC, a common platform, into doubt. They have a potential legal hand grenade thrown into their midst , and either don't have the resources to fight it, or don't know the best way to respond to you. As a DCC user that has no involvement with the DCC SIG, I can't say for sure which it is.

Excellent and well put by Jerry Zeman!! This is the "Perception" that so many in the model railroad arena have of MTH, both customers and LHS dealers and even some that sell MTH products. How much clearer does this need to be?! Hopefully everyone here understands this by now!

QUOTE: From the user perspective, all I can say is I am incensed that DCC development is being constrained by MTH's actions. You may be legally correct, but your public relations has taken one hellofa hit.

My advice to you would be for MTH to contact the DCC SIG, and try to work through issues in a businesslike forum that works for the betterment of all concerned. Here is the link:
http://jdb.psu.edu/nmra/dccsig.html

Jerry, it would benefit all of us if your advice were taken.

QUOTE: I believe that MTH would maximize it's investment in your HO offerings by playing within the current structure as opposed to the current path down which you have embarked. I, for one, would be favorably disposed toware MTH product if this was to occur.

More than likely, so would many of us here.

QUOTE: If you choose to follow the current path, then no matter what your offerings, I will ignore any of your future offerings.

[#ditto]

[JerryZeman]

Big_Boy_4005:

QUOTE: Jerry, you must not be a 3 railer, because if you were, you would know that Pennsylvania is the center of the "TOY TRAIN UNIVERSE".

I am primarily an HO modeler, GN and NP, 1952. I dabble in three rail with a modular hi-rail group in Chicago. I understand that Pennsy is the center of the toy train universe, but it pains my heart to see such a beautiful appliance as the belpaire firebox desecrated in a Pennsy application [:D]. I better run for cover now[:)]

QUOTE: Did MTH announce their entry into the HO market in Seattle at the National Train Show, or just at York (PA), a closed show for TCA members only? I am honestly curious.

I read about their entrance into the HO market about a week or two ago on the O Gauge Railroading Forum. I don't think this announcement was made at the NMRA convention in Seattle, and I didn't think the York show occurs until next month. The announcement to the best of my knowledge was on their web site.

regards,
Jerry

[jfugate]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Roadtrp

MTH is offering what it feels is a superior product. Those who are more concerned about features than compatibility will probably buy their product. Those who are more concerned about compatibility probably won't. The marketplace is all about choice, and MTH is providing an additional one. Why does that arouse so much anger?

As I said... I'm a rookie, so I guess I just don't understand.

If MTH simply came out with DCS and that was it, there would be no anger. I think what gets people riled is for MTH to also send threatening letters to DCC manufacturers that they may be "stealing" MTH's technology, including some forms of back EMF.

Now it appears that MTH has to do some "damage control" and is back peddling somewhat.

The whole affair runs counter to the spirit of DCC, even though the letter of the law is being followed. DCC and offshoots are intended to foster a standard, "dream come true" way to run model trains. Then along comes some company who wants to carve out a part of the market as proprietary and their "intelectual property" turf and starts threatening other manufacturers.

One thing for sure, MTH is making a name for themselves. Maybe that was their intention all along? I hope not, but sure makes one wonder.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

One thing for sure, MTH is making a name for themselves. Maybe that was their intention all along? I hope not, but sure makes one wonder.

Joe, you're exactly right. Publicity is publicity, good or bad. I had never heard of MTH until all this fuss. It hasn't done them any good from my stand point, because I won't buy from them...but maybe they want to be the "bad boys" of the model train world! [;)]

[Anonymous]

According to the two hobby shops I patronize, they both tell me that N scale is outselling HO. So maybe HO isn't growing as some of us may think. Maybe we need the new blood and innovation that MTH will bring to HO!

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JerryZeman

Big_Boy_4005:

QUOTE: Jerry, you must not be a 3 railer, because if you were, you would know that Pennsylvania is the center of the "TOY TRAIN UNIVERSE".

I am primarily an HO modeler, GN and NP, 1952. I dabble in three rail with a modular hi-rail group in Chicago. I understand that Pennsy is the center of the toy train universe, but it pains my heart to see such a beautiful appliance as the belpaire firebox desecrated in a Pennsy application [:D]. I better run for cover now[:)]

QUOTE: Did MTH announce their entry into the HO market in Seattle at the National Train Show, or just at York (PA), a closed show for TCA members only? I am honestly curious.

I read about their entrance into the HO market about a week or two ago on the O Gauge Railroading Forum. I don't think this announcement was made at the NMRA convention in Seattle, and I didn't think the York show occurs until next month. The announcement to the best of my knowledge was on their web site.

regards,
Jerry

Actually, York is twice a year, spring and fall. I have been in the TCA for 23 years and have never gone, and have little desire to go. I did hear on the forums though, that they were showing off an HO version this past spring. My point is, if that is indeed what happened, MTH was simply "preaching to the choir".

For a moment, let's forget about all of the rhetoric and finger pointing here, and focus on the practical and logistical side of this offering.

How many units does MTH expect to sell? 2000 in my opinion would be highly optomistic, given the price point and current hobby market conditions. This seems like a major up hill struggle, going against the established companies.

Are the dealers excited about this product? After all, they are the ones who will make or break this venture. This is a product that will have to be demonstrated in order to sell.

Will the customers like all of the "extras" that this system offers? This group sounds pretty ambivilent.

[nblum]

If you object to the way MTH has approached the HO market, one obvious response is to carefully focus on finding and purchasing Broadway Limited models with QSI sound. This firm supports the DCC open standard and have not threatened other vendors with legal action in HO and is one of the main targets of MTH's activities in the HO world. QSI, who believes it has been wronged by MTH's use of their patents in their PS2 system and pursued legal action, has worked co-operatively in the past with several major manufacturers (including MTH for some years). Korea Brass the manufacturer of Broadway Limited's locos, has also worked with multiple vendors in the three rail world. Only MTH has shown a desire to go it alone, consistently acting through word and deed to intimidate and stifle competition. Thus if you feel strongly about these issues, send the only message that counts, your dollars, to MTH's competitors.

[Anonymous]

This subject is really a HOT item as it has generated more views and responses in four days than anything I can remember lately.

I heard the MTH sound at one of the shows for the #1 large scale Daylight and it was very impressive. However, it does not make sense that we are getting two Pennsy K4's from MTH and BLI in just a few months, and many of the locomotives that people would buy are not made.

It is my perception that the plastic models have better cast in detail than cast metal also. So why would MTH and BLI bring in the K4 in cast metal?

[rrinker]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bangert1


It is my perception that the plastic models have better cast in detail than cast metal also. So why would MTH and BLI bring in the K4 in cast metal?

That perception is driven by thinking of 'cast metal locomotives' as the Bowser/Penn Line and MDC engines of yore. The Germans seem to have perfected this - take a look at the latest Trix offerings. The Big Boy AND Mike are BOTH cast metal! Cast metal no longer means 'no detail', this stuff is amazing! The BLI GG1 is all metal as well, and it has better body detailing than the plastic AHM/Pemco ones.
Although, I do agree, the same loco from 2 manufacturers at the same time IS pretty silly. But how many F units do we need? Everybody and their brother makes an F unit these days, there were several FT's released at the same time, etc. Like someone else said, they could have always chosen to make yet ANOTHER F unit. Since all these different companies produce F units and are not in danger of going out of business, I can only assume there are a lot more non-serious people buying trains who happen to like the way F units look, or something, because I think over the years enough have sold to give every model railroader a complete roster of every protoype unit ever produced. It's insane..

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker

QUOTE: Originally posted by bangert1


It is my perception that the plastic models have better cast in detail than cast metal also. So why would MTH and BLI bring in the K4 in cast metal?

That perception is driven by thinking of 'cast metal locomotives' as the Bowser/Penn Line and MDC engines of yore. The Germans seem to have perfected this - take a look at the latest Trix offerings. The Big Boy AND Mike are BOTH cast metal! Cast metal no longer means 'no detail', this stuff is amazing! The BLI GG1 is all metal as well, and it has better body detailing than the plastic AHM/Pemco ones.
Although, I do agree, the same loco from 2 manufacturers at the same time IS pretty silly. But how many F units do we need? Everybody and their brother makes an F unit these days, there were several FT's released at the same time, etc. Like someone else said, they could have always chosen to make yet ANOTHER F unit. Since all these different companies produce F units and are not in danger of going out of business, I can only assume there are a lot more non-serious people buying trains who happen to like the way F units look, or something, because I think over the years enough have sold to give every model railroader a complete roster of every protoype unit ever produced. It's insane..

I own two of the Trix Big Boys and you are correct in reminding me they have improved very much. I think the details such as bolt heads and rivets are still better in the high end plastic models, but I have to admit, the models are really good. I will probably purchase at least one of the K4's, just to check out the features. Now to decide on which one.

[Anonymous]

Bangert1, with all the hub-bub, how could you possibly think of anything other than a BLI K-4? Like we're all talking here, vote with your billfold!

Mark DeSchane

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by deschane

Bangert1, with all the hub-bub, how could you possibly think of anything other than a BLI K-4? Like we're all talking here, vote with your billfold!

Mark DeSchane

I certainly will look at both of them for detail and sound quality before I buy. The BLI engines I have so far are very good for the money and BLI replaced the chip on my PRR J1's and the Santa Fe northern, so I have a lot of respect for their customer service department.

I received an email response from BLI today concerning the SF E6 that is on its way. To quote BLI, Yes it will have plated sides to represent stainless steel. They really are trying to do things right.

[Anonymous]

Hello everyone. My name is Dave Krebiehl and I am the VP of R&D for MTH. My name can be found on the DCS patents as well as most others held by MTH. I am the person primarily responsible for overseeing the development of our DCS and ProtoSound 2.0 systems. Please do not misunderstand these statements as arrogance or patting myself on the back, I just want you to know the basis for my perspective. Actually, I can only accept a portion of the credit for DCS. I simply had the privilege to coordinate the ideas and marry them with technology.

I have been reading the posts following Andy Edleman’s explanation of MTH’s position, goals, and intentions and frankly, I too now have a headache, as someone else put it. After a break and some Tylenol, I feel compelled to make a statement.

I agree with many of you that venom, insults, threats, and the like are counter productive. After all, we are discussing model trains here, right? I will try to adopt a tone of discussion opposed to argument.

First of all, MTH developed the DCS system in order to provide our O gauge customers with a command control solution other than TMCC. Even if we were interested in licensing TMCC at the time, you can imagine the terms may not have been favorable. We studied DCC and decided that for the features we wanted, it was not a feasible solution. For example, you cannot stream Christmas music down the rails and through your train via DCC. While this is clearly not a true model railroading feature, it was important to us in order to market starter trains to non-train enthusiasts. We, as a manufacturer, must always strive to expand this great hobby.

After spending years and millions of dollars developing DCS, MTH decided to utilize the system in other scales as we expand. First, we offered DCS in No. 1 gauge models in January of this year. Most customers enjoy even the simplest automatic features offered by DCS in conventional mode. We define conventional mode as AC or DC only operation. That is, no digital signals.

When we decided to continue to grow our business and enter the HO market, it was an obvious and natural choice to utilize our investment in DCS. Knowing full well that most of those running HO models in command mode (digital control) use DCC, we deliberately included a level of DCC compatibility in the design. Prospective MTH HO customers can enjoy running our models in conventional (DC only), DCC, and DCS modes. We aren’t forcing anyone to operate in any one of these protocols. We are simply offering the customers a choice. They can determine for themselves which is best suited for their interests.

As for out patents, most manufacturing companies that develop technology do so for profit. We would be fooli***o invest the resources and not take steps to protect our investment. Protecting our investment doesn’t mean suppressing others that want to develop new and innovative products. There were an awful lot of patents out there before we developed DCS. We listed more than 80 of them as references on our original DCS patent application. These patents did not prevent us from developing the system however, they shaped the way in which we did it.

Our notifying various manufacturers that out patents exist is standard legal protocol and was done at the insistence of our patent attorneys. This was not intended to be a threat and should not be perceived as one today. If someone blatantly infringes on technology we feel is proprietary and diminishes the value of our investment, of course we have to consider the best course of action. This doesn’t have to mean litigation.

When I set out to write this post, I told myself to be brief, to the point, and not write a book. Apparently, I have failed. I apologize for the long-winded statement however, there is probably even more that needs to be said.

As a preemptive measure against those who may criticize me for not replying regularly to subsequent posts, let me just say that we are very busy developing HO DCS. Please do not take my inability to engage with the forum in ongoing discussions as rude or uninterested. I will continue to read your comments and take your viewpoints to heart.

I hope that some of you with concerns can at least see our point of view even if you don't agree with it. Please be patient and try not to jump to conclusions about what we will or will not due. We are forging our way into this new territory with the objective to earn customers, not alienate them.

Best regards,

Dave

[Anonymous]

Hmmmmm. The technical guy did a much better job of explaining MTH's position than the marketing guy (perhaps they need to change jobs). I thought the marketing guy's original post was a lot of mumbo jumbo double talk. While I am still uncomfortable about MTH's actions, I now have something to think about.

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sandy Jorgenson

According to the two hobby shops I patronize, they both tell me that N scale is outselling HO. So maybe HO isn't growing as some of us may think. Maybe we need the new blood and innovation that MTH will bring to HO!

Sandy,

Did you ask them where they got there "stats" from? Remember that in overall product sales, there are "quarterly periods" where sales of certain items jump suddenly and then eventually drop to normal or below normal levels. This is part of the economic cycle. There are several ways to corroborate the facts including checking with official government statistics, contacting the various manufacturers, etc. Best thing to do is check the sales for the "Previous Year", which would give a more realistic picture.

N Scale has grown tremendously and has gained a lot of respect, especially among the under 30 crowd. However HO still ranks at the top as far as steady sales. The HO and N markets are constantly introducing new innovations and products. MTH will be bringing new products to the HO market, and will just be one of many companies doing so.

QUOTE: Maybe we need the new blood?

Good Goobly! It seems like we've been getting plenty of it in just the past 5 years! Personally I sometimes feel a little overwhelmed when looking through a Walther's catalog. Just in purchasing cars, equipment, details, or upgrade kits whereas it used to take a few minutes, HO modelers can spend hours researching which product line offers what for the price. And don't forget that most of the DCC manufacturers that offer HO products also offer N products![;)]

Don't take my comments negatively at all, Sandy. By all means MTH should go on ahead but as I stated a few posts back: MTH's DCS may be a decent product that offers a "few"extras" compared to DCC, but with the very wide variety of choices already available in the HO market it is doubtful that MTH is going to blow the market away and arrive on the HO scene with a lot of fanfare, bells and whistles. (Beta vs. VHS) Several companies have already beaten them to the punch a couple of years earlier and additionally have strived to maintain a "Positve" public relationship as well as work with enhancing the NMRA standards.

Cheers!

[rrinker]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dkelly

Hmmmmm. The technical guy did a much better job of explaining MTH's position than the marketing guy (perhaps they need to change jobs). I thought the marketing guy's original post was a lot of mumbo jumbo double talk. While I am still uncomfortable about MTH's actions, I now have something to think about.

Very true. But then, us engineers just like to design and built neat things, those business and marketing majors always try to ruin our fun [:D][:D][:D][;)]

[Anonymous]

Antonio,

You are certainly right about the Walthers catalog. Got mine Friday (just in time for the weekend!) and I think my fiance is still trying to figure out how I can spend hours flipping pages looking at pictures of doodads (she also questions the time spent on this forum). Of course, what does she know? She spends hours wasting her time looking through those silly bridal magazines and some wedding planner bulletin board. She probably has cooties also.

[dharmon]

Thank you Dave (mthrnd). That was clear, spin-free and non-headache creating.

[Anonymous]

The issue boils down to whether MTH will try to patent technology embodied in the DCC standards. (I believe that these are embodied in the current revisions of NMRA RP-9 and NMRA S-9 but there may be other documents I am not aware of.) If there is no threat to the DCC standards, then the HO community should welcome MTH with open arms because MTH has a track record of producing unique products anfd in at least one case opening up a whole new market segment (O-gauge 3-rail subway modeling)

[Anonymous]

How much says the R & D guy wasn't involved in all the stuff that created this whole issue?

[andrechapelon]

You fellers over t' MTH either need to quit dependin' so much on yore arsenal o' legal talent(?) and maybe hire or rent someone steeped in the lore of public relations. There's a lotta folks out there who don't like you and are mighty riled up by yore actions. I don't happen to be one of 'em, but I gotta admit I'm sure enjoyin' your predicament. Then again, free entertainment is almost as good as free beer.

Take a piece of friendly (and FREE) advice and hire someone with a modicum of people skills to speak for MTH.

On second thought, don't listen to me. I ain't done chucklin' yet.

Andre

[simon1966]

OK, so an MTH DCS HO locomotive will run on a DCC equipped layout. Will a DCC equipped locomotive run on a DCS layout? I have far more money tied up in DCC locomotives than I do in DCC hardware. If these locomotives can not run on DCS, there is no chance of switching to DCS.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by simon1966

OK, so an MTH DCS HO locomotive will run on a DCC equipped layout. Will a DCC equipped locomotive run on a DCS layout? I have far more money tied up in DCC locomotives than I do in DCC hardware. If these locomotives can not run on DCS, there is no chance of switching to DCS.

You, read the majority here posting, just don't get it. They are not asking any HO modeler to switch Command systems. If you run DCC and like one of their engines, it will run on your layout just like any other manufactures locomotive. If you don't run any sort of command, they will operate that way as well. A new comer to model railroading comes along, much like myself almost 2 years ago to O gauge, and they now have a choice.

February 2003 was my first purchase of any thing train related since my child hood TYCO stuff. I wanted something bigger, I wanted O gauge. I had no idea there were other manufactures out their other than Lionel. I did my homework, and being a person who thoroughly enjoys technology, I decided on DCS. Since, I have acquired TMCC as well.

To each their own though.

I would like to thank Dave Krebiehl and Andy Edleman for commenting on this particular subject. Every manufacturer should be so professional and have this type of qaulity personal.

Rod March

[Anonymous]

What did he say? Did some one invent something new? If I buy MTH will my engine run better? How much better?

so tired....., can't typ....

[Anonymous]

If MTH does not try to somehow legally restrain the manufacture of DCC equipment as it is now manufactured, there is no issue, Period. If MTH comes up with better products, they deserve to protect the technology they developed. Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether those products are DCC compatible or not, MTH has the right to market them. (MTH has stated that PS3.0 WILL be DCC Compatible with reduced features) GOOD!!! The ONLY legitimate question is: Will DCC be protected? If so, look for better HO trains.

[simon1966]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Rod M.

QUOTE: Originally posted by simon1966

OK, so an MTH DCS HO locomotive will run on a DCC equipped layout. Will a DCC equipped locomotive run on a DCS layout? I have far more money tied up in DCC locomotives than I do in DCC hardware. If these locomotives can not run on DCS, there is no chance of switching to DCS.

You, read the majority here posting, just don't get it. They are not asking any HO modeler to switch Command systems. If you run DCC and like one of their engines, it will run on your layout just like any other manufactures locomotive. If you don't run any sort of command, they will operate that way as well. A new comer to model railroading comes along, much like myself almost 2 years ago to O gauge, and they now have a choice.


Rod March

Rod, I didn't miss any points, I simply want to know if DCS can run a DCC equipped locomotive? Regardless of if they can, or not, then you are correct a new person into the market has an additional choice, but if they choose DCS not much of a selection! A DCS user would be limited to running only MTH locomotives, which would rather restrict ones ability to pick an era and a location for a layout. As for asking HO scalers to switch to DCS, if they are not marketing to DCC users, why bother to point out in such detail all the things you don't get with DCC when using a DCS locomotive? DCC users switch mamufacturers all the time. If I get fed up with Digitrax (unlikely as I love it!), then I can purchase Lenz, NCE etc. and all my Locomotives will run. I simply want to know if DCS is even a viable option.

[AntonioFP45]

In the end guys (and ladys) it's what is done with the wallet or pocketbook that will have an effect.

Interesting encounter. I visited an LHS after Hurrican Jeanne, thankfully, didn't hit us with full force. A conversation started between the owner and a small group of customers. One of the customers asked the owner if he was going to stock HO MTH items (as he had Railking items in the past).

Honestly, he broke out laughing! His response: "Oh, No way!" One of the customers asked about potential sales. His comment basically was that:

#1. The customers interested in MTH-Railking items were far and few in between. He stated that almost always it's: collectors, newbies, or a parent getting a child a present..

#2. He absolutely disliked the "hard slam" actions taken by MTH! He equated it with UP and made some "colorful metaphors" which I won't repeat. So bascially he's not planning stocking the MTH line. He did state that what he's been doing is pointing the inquiring Railking customers to another LHS that does sells MTH products. Now this was actually coming from an LHS owner!

I found it a litlle surprising as he is in business to also make a profit, but yet the group of customers chimed in with comments similar to that of the shop's owner as well as many of the comments here.

The reason I point this out as many times before: Public perception of strong arm tactics. The perceived reality of the negative outcomes of the "lawsuit's" effects on Command Control's advancement to the industry.

Peace, out!

[Anonymous]

Here is another perceptiom MTH has to overcome in the HO community.

My friend Dan Welch of Chicago Illinois had this to say about MTH.

"M.T. Who? M.T.H? Oh Those guys that make three rail junk."

THen later in our conversation he stated

"They are making what? A Pennsy K4? Well First off Its Pennsy, Then we need another K4 in HO like we need antoher F-Unit.""

Just some tidbits to think about.

James

[simon1966]

Antonio,

Funny thing, I am in W. VA on business this week and dropped into a train store this afternoon that I noticed as I was driving along. The store was almost exclusively O scale. I started chatting with the owner about MTH. He had a bit of Rail King, but is liquidating it and not getting anything else from MTH. I was kind of puzzled about this as I had the impression that O scalers were fairly accepting of MTH. He knew nothing of the unrest in HO and had made this decision based on his past experience doing business with the company.