M.T.H. Responds To DCC Lawsuit Allegations

[Anonymous]

Elliot,

I think a very wise political science professor I had in college said it best "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Not that you TCA/O Scale types are my enemy! It's just that often times a common evil binds people together that would normally not even say "hi" to each other.

[Big_Boy_4005]

This is such a strange and interesting situation here, because it involves two distinct groups of modelers who might not otherwise meet. Each group has it's own reasons for taking a stand against MTH. Normally each group stays on it's own side of the tracks.

I can't think of too many other members here that are as active in both groups. This makes my position somewhat unique. I feel as if I know almost all of you, though some better than others.

To my HO friends, I'm sorry that you had to meet Mr Zimmer. As Ben said, he is a well known notorious character in the O gauge community. For those of you that may not have fully understood my earlier chiding of Mr Zimmer, the term "York" may need some clarification.

York is York Pennsylvania, the site of a twice annual train meet. However, unless you are a member of the TCA ( Train Collectors Association ), you are not invited. At this meet all of the major O gauge manufacturers are present showing and selling their products, and hob knobbing with the faithfull. This show has something of a cult following. I am not a member of that cult, in spite of being a member of the TCA.

Though we all speak "model railroadeese" there are two distinct dialects. I like to think that I am fluent in both. This is why I have my member numbers for both the NMRA and TCA in my signature.

Perhaps MTH is doing us all a favor here, by forcing us to come together.

[Anonymous]

Are you lot for real? DCC has been around for years. It may well have only been "standardised" recently, but the theory has been available since before the 1970's. We've just been waiting for powerful enough processors and cheap specific IC manufacture - so who patented them?

[Anonymous]

After I submitted my thoughts on what Mr. Zimmer had stated, I thought I may have been dupped by a troll!

It would be nice to be able to tell whom these folks are when reading a post. However, his statement was stupid and I should have seen it for what it was.

Mark DeSchane

[AntonioFP45]

Ben10Ben and Big Boy. [:D]

Looks like I did respond hastily. [:0] I should have read your posts first instead of stopping at Zimmer and responding. Like you guys say, he's apparently trolling. [:-^][tdn]

Mr. Zimmer, you need to realize though that if you support MTH you are actually succeeding in fanning flames against MTH and based on about 80% of the overall responses to this thread, they're at "blow torch" temperature. [B)][:0][B)]

I'll continue to monitor this thread, but won't likely post anymore as I've stated my thoughts, opinions, and suggestions several times. I like to enjoy myself on this forum and would like to continue to do so. [8D][:D]

Time will record MTH's outcome and legacy.

Peace!

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by H. ZIMMER

You HO guys should welcome Mike and MTH with open arms! He's the one who saved O gauge and he'll revive HO too.

Hello, H Zimmer,

I wasn't going to respond to this topic anymore but your comment..................I'll be cordial in asking you: Where in the world did you obtain the impression that the HO market needed a revival? [%-)][%-)][:P] I'll admit this, I would agree with you 100%...........if this were the 1980s!!

Currently HO and N are among model railroading's strongest markets! Please tell us what reviving the HO market needs? And what reviving can be expected with MTH's litigation? In the past decade there has been a huge upsurge in products and advancements in the HO market, not just DCC and electronics but locomotives, freight cars, passenger cars, wheels, detailing parts, paint, structures, and layout design products. I find myself a little overwhelmed sometimes when I go shopping at my LHS!

Trainlne, InterMountain, Stewart, DPM, Branchline, Proto, Cannon, Digitrax, Tichy, used to be obscure names a few years back, not anymore! If thrown, the Walther's HO Catalog is heavy enough to break through a plate glass window!

I realize that perhaps you're passionate about Mr. Wolfe for his contribution to O scale, which declined as HO, N, and even G scale gained popularity over the past two decades. But think about it, if MTH were to dissappear tomorrow it's a sure bet that the HO and N markets will continue to grow.

Welcome with open arms? Some will, but it's more like MTH is a business that's going to put its products out there. Some will buy, some won't as with any other business.

[Anonymous]

Polska and connor are NOT the same person.

[Anonymous]

A point brought up in another MTH thread that I would like to see what MTH's reponse might be: Will MTH be selling DCS decoders to for use in locomotives other than MTH products?? I think this is an excellent question because I doubt the DCS system will go too far without seperately available decoders.

Guy

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ben10ben

Mark,
What you are really seeing is a person with a good many aliases alive and well on this forum. The person who posted that previously, either Bill Conner or Joe Polska, are all one in the same with H.Zimmer above. He also operates under the alias of Hans Zimmer, and a couple of others that slip my mind at the moment. We have been dealing with him for a while on the previously mentioned OGR forum, although he's left us alone recently.

My best advice for all Model Railroader forum members is to not respond to any of the comments that he makes, as they are nothing more than trolling in its purest sense. I try to make it a general habit now to not respond to anything he says.

Yes Ben, I am familiar with a number of these names, and this message has come across on the CTT forum too. Others have said similar things about an even longer list of screen names being related. In this situation rather than make the claim that they are all one in the same, let's just deal with them as they come up.

I agree Mr Zimmer is trolling here, and so have a couple of others earlier in this topic. Ignoring their comments is a good way to deal with the problem, but sometimes it is difficult to let such outrageous comments go un challenged. I think we are doing pretty well given the nature of the topic.

[3railguy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by H. ZIMMER

You HO guys should welcome Mike and MTH with open arms! He's the one who saved O gauge and he'll revive HO too.

LMAO! Now that was a good one Hans. Engines advertised to pull 50 cars except they blow their traction tires off and sizzle the reverse board doing it.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by H. ZIMMER

You HO guys should welcome Mike and MTH with open arms! He's the one who saved O gauge and he'll revive HO too.

This is a perfect example of the attitude that frustrates me the most. What a crock. I am not in HO, and in my opinion many of MTH's actions over the years have done nothing more than drive a wedge between people in the O gauge community. You and I clearly don't see eye to eye on this.

If you want to kiss Mike's "whatever" go over to the OGR forum and take a number. Then when you get to York, your place in line will be guarenteed.

Revive HO??? HO needs this about as much as they need another model of a 40' boxcar. I have a felling that when all is said and done, there are going to be a lot of Pennsy K-4's without a home.

[ben10ben]

Mark,
What you are really seeing is a person with a good many aliases alive and well on this forum. The person who posted that previously, either Bill Conner or Joe Polska, are all one in the same with H.Zimmer above. He also operates under the alias of Hans Zimmer, and a couple of others that slip my mind at the moment. We have been dealing with him for a while on the previously mentioned OGR forum, although he's left us alone recently.

My best advice for all Model Railroader forum members is to not respond to any of the comments that he makes, as they are nothing more than trolling in its purest sense. I try to make it a general habit now to not respond to anything he says.

[Anonymous]

H.Zimmer,
HO is like 60-70% of model railroading! It is alive and well. Rumors of its' needing a revival are greatly exaggerated!

This is the second time someone has stated this about HO in this thread, where did this opinion get its' start?

Mark

[rrinker]

Again. I fail to see where HO needs any 'reviving'. We have excellent models with incredible detail from Proto 2000 and Atlas. And the new Athearn Genesis, not to mention Stewart and Kato.
Sound? Well, BLI beat MTH to the punch by a few years there,and now we are getting factory equipped sound from Atlas, Athearn, and Proto 2000 as well. Heck, Lionel beat MTH into the HO market (by a LOT of years if you count the OLD Lionel HO from the 50's).

Reviving? Sorry, can't agree with you there. ANd if the photos int he MTH ad in MR are anythign to go by, that is goign to be the most tinplate looking HO 'scale' model of a K4 on the market today. Revival? Of what, the HO that looks like a toy market? OK, maybe that DOES need reviving, seeing as how even Athearn's 'basic' line has been greatly improved in recent years with better details and far nicer handrails.

--Randy

[Anonymous]

You HO guys should welcome Mike and MTH with open arms! He's the one who saved O gauge and he'll revive HO too.

[Anonymous]

Big Boy,

Excellent thoughts. Yes, I think we've all learned something about the vaiours players and have become more informed consumers. I think the same is true on many of these topics. Want to know the plusses and minuses of Digitraxx vs. Lenz? There's a topic. Proto vs BLI? There's a topic. Code 83 vs Code 100? and on and on. I dare say many of the folks here (myself included) have made purchasing decisions based, in part on what has been posted here.

Your point about Ford? It's funny - how many corporate wonks don't understand that. A similiar but different auto/family story. When I was first married to the ex - we couldn't afford a new car, although we really needed one. We were looking at the Hyundais (they were really inexpensive in 1986). My dad, was not too keen on the idea. (old time GM man). He then heard on the news that the company had donated a large sum of money to either a Korean war memorial or veterans fund or something like that. Suddenly - our car was pretty cool. He's even the one that suggested that we look at one of Hyundai's new models when it was time for our second car!

[robengland]

I'm not calling Ben names, I'm calling the company names. I too am a tech at a company that had a pretty bleak reputation, so i sympathise with him at a personal level.

Yes MTH may never recover from this PR disaster. On the other hand their target market may never care or even hear of it. Either way my main point is that I don't think all the flack is going to make them change the strategy. It has worked for them before apparently, going by some of the recent posts in ths topic. It is their corporate culture. They don't seem to be sensitive to criticism. I know just how thick skinned a company can be.

[Big_Boy_4005]

I think that it is interesting to see where this topic has gone since Andy started it. It has turned into a wonderful discussion of all of the issues surrounding the product and the company and it's business tactics. All of these things are important to consumers these days.

Here's a little story of how, once formed, a loyalty or hatred for a business can run long and deep.

Henry Ford was a brilliant man, but he was also a well known anti-semite. To this day, no one in my family has ever owned a Ford. That is three generations, 7 different drivers, and at least 40 different automobiles, spanning a period of over 80 years.

Times have changed, and I'm not even a religious person, but you will never find a Ford in my garage. General Motors has benefited from most of those purchases, just because my grandfather didn't like what the founder of Ford Motors stood for. It has nothing to do with the quality of Ford's products.

[Anonymous]

MDonaldson,
what ever came of all your queries?
Did anything ever come of them?

I do not have any of MTH dcs system installed, because of time constraints, but I will.
Ben has provided a great deal of assistance in his replies, I think that calling him names is beneath this forum.

[Anonymous]

Legal business tactic doesn't always translate into smart business move. I've had this discussion with many of my clients - you may be legally right, and win the battle, but lose the war. While MTH has every right to protect its interests, it could have done so in a more open, cooperative way. Who knows, had they done so, all the DCC guys might have signed licensing agreements already and everyone DCC/DCS would be involved in a symbiotic relationship. The down side is that this very popular topic would have never come up!

[robengland]

Hi JerryZeman

I agree Digitrax and MTH have shown opposite poles of attitude and intent. No dispute there. But at the end of the day they've done the same thing: patent a bit of what would best be open standard. My point is not to attack Digitrax but to (Lord help me) defend MTH. I don't like what they did but it is a legal business tactic (whether the patent is defensible or not). MTH are not going to get kinder and gentler: their seemingly successful strategy is to be aggressive assholes.

Re fragmentation: I think it runs deeper than just transponding. I think the NMRA missed an opportunity by only standardising on the on-rail signal and not the control signal too. I'm locked into LocoNet.

Finally, I'm using transponding because I like cool technology :-) Right now that's all it gives me. One day it will allow me to buy Surroundtrax, giving me realistic sounds without a speaker or decoder in every loco. And who knows what else over time..... Ten years ago we'd have seen DCC in the same light.

cheers
Rob

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cjcrescent

MTH is talking about how much better their control system is over DC and DCC. Great that they're even going to try to prove it on a DCC wired layout. But one thing I don't think I've seen addressed by them in 12 pages of discussion is, will they have their "decoders" available separately? I, for one will not buy a control system of any onboard type, that can only be obtained by buying only one brand of locomotive. I will not be using DCS, or any DCC product, ie BLI, that I can not install the system into any locomotive I already own. If MTH or QSI doesn't make their "decoders" reasonably priced, and user installable, I personally believe they are both missing a very large and lucrative part of the market.

If their actions in the O gauge market are any indication, then the answer is NO. I think that is a major mistake. How do they exlect to capture market share with a single engine?

[cjcrescent]

MTH is talking about how much better their control system is over DC and DCC. Great that they're even going to try to prove it on a DCC wired layout. But one thing I don't think I've seen addressed by them in 12 pages of discussion is, will they have their "decoders" available separately? I, for one will not buy a control system of any onboard type, that can only be obtained by buying only one brand of locomotive. I will not be using DCS, or any DCC product, ie BLI, that I can not install the system into any locomotive I already own. If MTH or QSI doesn't make their "decoders" reasonably priced, and user installable, I personally believe they are both missing a very large and lucrative part of the market.

[Big_Boy_4005]

I had an idea many years ago, and whenever people saw it they thought it was very clever. Many suggested that I patent it. I even talked to a patent lawyer, not seriously, just in passing. He said he didn't think I had anything that could be patented. Patents are supposed to be for THINGS you invent, although there is a thing called a "use patent" if I'm not mistaken.

If a patent has indeed been issued for putting a slide switch in an engine to convert between 2 and 3 rail, then I should have no trouble getting a patent for my idea.

What is this obsession with running to the patent office over every little thing? I don't think it's the value of the licensing potential, especially not on this idea. There is NO MARKET for a convertable 2 to 3 rail engine. Atlas doesn't make their engines that way for a reason.

It isn't as if a whole lot of development went into this concept. This is just to stop the other guy from doing it. But if the other guy doesn't want to do it, what was the point?

[3railguy]

QUOTE: Same with MTH's 1 mph speed control idea. A no-brainer concept. You can't patent general and obvious concepts, if I understand things correctly. But MTH *can* patent their *method* for doing 1 mph speed increments

You would be surprised at some things MTH patented in the 3 rail world. For instance 2 rail O scale engines that convert to 3 rail using a multi contact slide or toggle switch (MTH Proto Scale). Something a few 2 rail O scalers have done for years. If Atlas O were to add this simple feature now, they will be facing a lawyer. If you have foam board scenery on your layout, be sure to get a patent otherwise you'll soon see MTH Proto Foam.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by roxin2002

If any of you are checking OGR fourm in the past few days, they are squeakly clean. I do not know if this is because of whats going on here or not, but if it cleans up their act then thats great.
The main fourm is where all the comments made here are talking bout.
Dave/

The only thing that will clean up their act is for them to get an attitude adjustment and end the absurd censorship.

[Anonymous]

If any of you are checking OGR fourm in the past few days, they are squeakly clean. I do not know if this is because of whats going on here or not, but if it cleans up their act then thats great.
The main fourm is where all the comments made here are talking bout. The seperate fourms like TMMC and the DCS are seperate and I only read the TMMC as I am not using DCS and the reverse is true also.
The two rail fourm is fairly new and so so.
The prototype form is the best one as it is mainly question and factual answer.
Dave/

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

I'm not a patent lawyer so I may be off base on what I am about to say.

It seems to me that you cannot, for example, patent the idea of two-way DCC communication through the rails. It's just a no-brainer as a development. But you could patent a *method* of two-way communication through the rails.

Same with MTH's 1 mph speed control idea. A no-brainer concept. You can't patent general and obvious concepts, if I understand things correctly. But MTH *can* patent their *method* for doing 1 mph speed increments.

At least that's how I understand things.

The biggest problem with patents are that they are being written overly broad. This problem is more of an issue with software patents. The thing with modern electronics like DCC/DCS, they are in reality just a computer. Like your watch or TiVO. There isn't an actual physical process that occurs. There isn't really a method.
The 'method' that is claimed is closer to a solution to a mathematical problem. For example, how you add 1 and 1 to get 2. Well, I take one finger, I take a second finger, I add them together. That process is not patentable. But currently, how I might possibly find the last digit when I divide 22 by 7 is. (22/7 = pi = ~3.14, never ending)

[jfugate]

I'm not a patent lawyer so I may be off base on what I am about to say.

It seems to me that you cannot, for example, patent the idea of two-way DCC communication through the rails. It's just a no-brainer as a development. But you could patent a *method* of two-way communication through the rails.

Same with MTH's 1 mph speed control idea. A no-brainer concept. You can't patent general and obvious concepts, if I understand things correctly. But MTH *can* patent their *method* for doing 1 mph speed increments.

At least that's how I understand things.

[JerryZeman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by robengland

Hi JerryZeman

I like your reasoned rebuttal. Just one thing I don't agree with: if the rest of the DCC manufacturers are so squeaky clean:
"The issue is what is MTH going to do to constrain future development of DCC to preserve any competitive advantage that DCS has in train control and features."
...then what do you make of Digitrax patenting their transponding? Surely this will cramp future development of DCC standards to support transponding? http://www.digitrax.com/faqtransponding.php
I understand Digitrax's reasons for doing so, and I am a Digitrax user myself (I think i'm keeping them in business [:D]), but there is a question of objectivity here. Digitrax's ambit is probably more narrow, and they didn't indulge in aggressive tactics to assert their claim, and they did talk to the NMRA first, but seems to me it is in principle the same thing. Let's criticise both companies or neither. I'm already locked into Digitrax decoders AND control system by adopting their transponding system. The DCC space has fragmented. The NMRA is too late with standards.
MTH have behaved like a big ugly corporate and perpetrated a PR disaster. They have wasted precious time and money from the DCC community to strengthen legal positions. Someone is going to have to tackle them on prior art for bi-directional communications. Many like me will never buy MTH as a result. But they have behaved within the law, and they are not alone.
Let's get over it, scratch them off the Christmas wish list, and move on. They aren't going to withdraw the patent, any more than Digitrax are theirs. Pick your manufacturer and commit.

Hi Rob;

You make some interesting points. Being an NCE user, I was unaware of the issues relative to transponding. I spent some time last night reading the Digitrax site that you provided the link for.

1. The Digitrax site used the following verbage, which I found to be very non-threatening:

QUOTE: AJ and Digitrax have offered to share transponding technology under a nominal fee license agreement with other DCC companies. The intent was never to keep the technology from other companies but rather to facilitate its use in all DCC companies. In this way Digitrax was able to bring an exciting new technology to our customers within a reasonable time frame and be able to share this field proven technology with other companies.

I don't think this thread would have taken on the life it has if similar language had been used by MTH relative to the use of their patents when their letter was first sent out.

2. Yes, you are correct in your statements that a Digitrax user is "locked in" to one supplier if they want to utilize transponding. But what about the 90 plus % of users that will probably never get to this stage? Even with transponding added to a Digitrax decoder, Digitrax decoders, will still work on another DCC system, and the throttles will work on a non-transponder equipped Digitrax layout. If a non-transponder equipped locomotive is used on a Digitraxtransponder layout, it will still work, you just won't "know where it is" on a transponder equipped layout.

I have a hard time getting really upset about this being a Digitrax only solution, and patented at that. For starters, I personally have no desire to incorporate this level of technology. Hell, for that matter, I'm questioning the wisdom of my decision to use switch machine decoders on my double deck extension as opposed to panels and toggle switches. On my new staging yard, I have already had one switch machine decoder failure (don't know yet if it is a hard failure or if it just lost it's programming, but it is a PITA all the same), and based on a short operating session on Saturday, I think I have another one. All of this technology is wonderful when it works, but the troubleshooting gets more involved than simply checking voltage and continuity through a switch.

Further, I have no desire to automate my staging yards, or make a dispatcher aware of where a locomotive or car is located. I'm modelling 1952. The crew of a train is responsible for acting like a station operator, and OS his location to the dispatcher (no, my operating sessions haven't evolved to that point, yet, but I hope to be there next year). And why do I need to automate my staging yard when an operator can line up the proper tracks, and use his eyes to determine when he is clear of a fouling point?

You and I are not going to see this issue in the same light. You have embraced transponding, I haven't, and I am probably not likely to.

3. This whole issue seems to be tied to the MTH concept of 2-way communication. Maybe all of us who are taking MTH to task on this issue, this writer included, are granting too much importance to MTH's patents (at least the one on 2-way communication). If Digitrax has a patented 2-way communication method, and if the DCC-SIG has a plan for another method, it goes a long way towards explaining why DCC manufacturers haven't contact MTH relative to licensing their technology. They have found their own methods, either secured through patents, or with standards that evidently don't run afoul of the patents, that make MTH's patent on 2-way communication a non-issue to the DCC community.

4. I'm not ready at this stage to let MTH totally off the hook until I see a "kinder, gentler" MTH relative to it's relations with the DCC community. The e-mail the Mr. Adleman sent me is encouraging in this regard, and I hope that future actions by MTH will demonstrate a shift.

5. I've picked my manufacturer and committed back in 1996. He's dead, but NCE marches on as a fully compatible system. And even though I use System 1 / NCE, I do have decoders from other manufacturers on my railroad. That is why I feel that the NMRA standards, while they clearly suffer from dissention amongst the ranks, still offer the user a degree of compatability not known to us since those of us who embrace command control gave up on straight DC and block control. Even with transponding factored in, there is still a high degree of commonality. Since I'm not a transponder user, I don't view the DCC community as fragmented as you do.

Which of us is right? Time will tell.

Thanks for the thought provoking post. BTW, what exactly are you using the transponding feature to accomplish on your railroad?

regards,
Jerry Zeman