M.T.H. Responds To DCC Lawsuit Allegations

[AntonioFP45]

That is interesting.

But to be fair, every manufacturer does have problems from time to time with the dealers or distributors they sell to, whether it's their own fault or the dealers.

Looks like MTH has other areas to work in as well!

Cheers!

[robengland]

It is easy to sound reasonable. I think the excessive ambit of the MTH patents has been adequately discussed elsewhere in these forums. Go search.
I for one am convinced that MTH are not patenting to protect their own IP but rather to constrain competition and in particular to prevent the expansion of public-domain DCC.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mthrnd

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.

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

DAve

I am glad you came on and stated your position. I am a little confused why BLI pulled certain features from their products and listed the situation with MTH and Lionel as their reason or at the very least, they were being cautious.

The model railroad hobby industry is really quite small compared to most other industry product lines and we should all work together if we want better products.

My problem is MTH decided on an engine I like, but it is following the K4 from BLI, which is due almost any day now.

I listened to a number 1 scale MTH Daylight at a show recently and the sound was incredible, but the speakers are very large compared to HO size. Can we hear the new HO sound soon?

I believe MTH, like any other new entry into the HO field, had better have a good product and customer service, unlike Lionel. I did purchase the Challenger from Lionel, but that is the only money they will get from me. I emailed them about my concerns, but they did not answer any of the questions about the engine. We are a small hobby community and we talk about good products and we talk even more about products that are poor. Be advised, the quality issue will get around quickly either way.

Good Luck with the product line, but remember, good quality usually makes Good Luck also.

[Anonymous]

It's been a whole page of new posts and I still can't get over how much more reasonable and accommodating the tech guy sounded vs. the marketing guys legal BS. Read the first post on this string, then read the tech guys post. Makes the company almost appear schizophrenic. Is MTH going the ‘money, guns & lawyers’ route or the ‘feature, function, benefits’ route ? I’ve got no idea, but I’m not convinced that I should buy anything from a company for my HOBBY that starts off a post with a page full of legalese. Model Railroading is fun? or is Model Railroading just the next target for trial lawyers? Geeez, I just wanna play with my trains; not get caught up in depositions and class action law suits. I’ll pass on MTH

(I still like the tech guy though, fire the ‘suits’ and put the tech guy in charge)

[Anonymous]

With all the controversy going on regarding MTH entering the HO market and also being a MTH National Authorized Service Center in Canada I just had to join the group.
To antonioFP45:
regarding that other dealer who chooses not to carry the MTH HO product line, please keep in mind that he is referring to the Railking product line which is somewhat used more by the newbies as compared to the premier line being full scale, more detail
and appealing more to the full scale crowd. the possibility exists that this somewhat disgruntled dealer never really understood the product line and/or how to market it
by demonstrating to the customers who walk into his store. Attitude and bias toward
or against one certain product line or company can make a huge difference. If this dealer did not like the so called hard slam approach from MTH, maybe, just maybe ,this dealer had not followed the dealer guidelines set out for him as a MTH. Authorized dealer. In all fairness to MTH consider the source.

The MTH website has a list of authorized demo centers across the county, if you have never seen DCS in operation, go visit a demo center and give it a try, it may not be for you or you may love it, different strokes for different folks. I realize you would only be able to view the O scale and 1 gauge versions of DCS at this time but at least this would give an insight as to what protosound 3 may offer.

Tom Bellfoy
Toy Train Workshop
Canada

[JerryZeman]

Dear Mr. Krebiehl;

I've intersperced my comments within your response.

QUOTE: Originally posted by mthrnd

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.

It is good to hear from the tech guy relative to DCS / DCC issues. I would assume that Mr. Edleman finally got hit with the clue bat, and realized that the HO community is not a bunch of sycophants.

QUOTE: 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 can assure you that your headache was nothing like the ones that the folks in the DCC community had when they received MTH's letter.

QUOTE: 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.

No, we are discussing model railroading here. The distinction between model trains and model railroading is significant to understanding the mindset here. By and large, this group is not content to run trains around in circles, won't tolerate gross inaccuracies in the models they purchase, and couldn't care less about playing Christmas music through their locomotives.

QUOTE: 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.

Very good point. Keep in mind that once again, most of the folks here couldn't care less if Lionel dried up and blew away tomorrow. Lionel is a non-entity in HO. As I dabble in hi-rail, I can sympathize with your position, as I feel that Lionel hasn't done anything to grow the hobby. I will further recognize that if not for MTH, we wouldn't have all of the fine offerings available in hi-rail and two rail O scale today. For that MTH is to be commended.

QUOTE: 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.

Somebody in an earlier post pointed out the high cost of selling "starter sets" with DCS and decoder-equipped locomotives. If that is what MTH is basing their marketing efforts on, I sure hope your long term employment or annual bonus isn't dependent on it. I applaude your efforts to expand the hobby, but in my humble opinion, the way to do that is to ensure that the uneducated consumer doesn't get tripped up by purchasing a non-standard control system. If your DCS system in HO configuration has the ability to control current DCC decoders equal to or better than today, then by all means, bring in on. Keep in mind though, that compatible means such things as the ability to build consists with competitors decoders, something that DCS can't do with TMCC equipped locomotives.

QUOTE: After spending years and millions of dollars developing DCS, MTH decided to utilize the system in other scales as we expand.

OK, now we are getting to the heart of the matter. MTH came out with a control system that in it's current configuration is not compatible with DCC. While the DCS purists will skewer me for the following comments, MTH spent $4M developing DCS, which has gained limited acceptance in the three rail community, due to the Lionel vs. MTH silliness, and the fact that DCS is a very finicky animal when it comes to layout wiring, which is not something that DCC experiences. The market in three rail O is limited.

So now that the $4M has been pissed away, MTH is looking for ways to maximize it's investment. MTH is a for-profit organization, so you obviously have to do that to stay in business. Sitting out there is the HO market, which is gargantuan compared to three rail O. So now MTH wants to deploy DCS in the HO market. Up to this point, there is no problem. But at the same time, MTH decides to muck up the works of what to this point is the gold standard for control systems in two rail applications by sending out what is interpreted as a very predatory letter. As another poster pointed out, MTH needs to hire a public relations manager that has a clue.

QUOTE: 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.

OK, at this point, all is good. MTH wants to produce locomotives that can run under any system. You are to be commended for this decision. Now if somebody would whack the marketing guy with a cluebat regarding the introductory product, you folks would be in good shape. Another K-4? [V] This has to be the most overdone steam locomotive in HO steam, kinda like NYC J4e Hudson in O.

QUOTE: 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.

Protecting patents is one thing. Predatory practices against an NMRA standard, benefiting at least 10 manufacturers that compete but yet work together under a common standard is another. I think if a review was done on the 80 patents that were listed in the back of the your patents, you won't find any that patent anything as vague as speed control in 1 MPH intervals.

QUOTE: Our notifying various manufacturers that out patents exist is standard legal protocol and was done at the insistence of our patent attorneys.

Here is another fundamental difference between MTH and the DCC manufacturing community. I doubt that any of the DCC manufacturer's have any need to regularily consult with a patent attorney (yea, there are a few patented items out there), but generally, the items patented, such as Digitrax "Loconet", are architecture related. All the systems run other manufacturers DCC decoders. So, using this analogy, DCS would be patentable, and nobody would care less. However, when you start to patent features, that are a natural extension of the DCC standard, that is when the fur starts to fly.

MTH is now stepping into a market where the manufacturers are far smaller than the mega-companies in three rail like Lionel. So when you employ legal tactics that may be tolerated, and even encouraged in the three rail arena, it is viewed with disdain in this market.

QUOTE: 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.

Once again, the cluebat should be used with maximum effect. The proper, community-friendly way for that to occur is for yourself, the techie, to contact somebody from the DCC-SIG. Through that group, a meeting of techies can sit around a table, and rationally discuss where the DCC-SIG felt the DCC standard was heading, and MTH could provide immediate, personable, feedback to the community without involving an army of lawyers. I'm sure that rational business people could reach consensus in a meeting of this type, particularily when failure means potentially expensive litigation on both sides, where nobody wins.

QUOTE: 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.

No apology required. You have succinctly stated your concerns from MTH's perspective, and you have offered me, the DCC user, an opportunity to respond. Hopefully the time I spent typing a response has not fallen on deaf ears.

QUOTE: 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.

Patience is a virtue that many, including this writer, have difficulty exercising. The concerns surrounding the letter issued to DCC manufacturers was issued months ago, and this issue needs to be sorted out between MTH and the DCC community with all due haste. I once again encourage you to contact members of the DCC-SIG, and start a dialog on issues which will benefit all parties concerned.

regards,
Jerry Zeman

A System1 / NCE DCC user since 1997

[Anonymous]

A kind gentlemen (?) pointed out to me some of you been thrashing this around for almost nine months now and nobody has come up with good proof in that long time? I could of had a baby by now.

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?page=1&TOPIC_ID=12207

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TMCCexpert


I could of had a baby by now.

I'm sorry, I've been trying to be open minded about this, but thats funny![(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

[Anonymous]

As an attorney I would like to point out one thing. It's not the lawyers that are driving this thing . . .or at least not good lawyers. A good lawyer does what the client tell him to do after hearing all of the pros and cons of several options. A good lawyer will always advise a business client to consider not only the legal issues but the business issues also - which include public perception/relations. If MTH decided that they wanted to just inform others of their patents etc in a non threatening way - the lawyer would draft something along the lines of "dear dcc folks - we are developing the following product with the following technology that we have patented. your product may or may not infringe upon our patents. if you feel that our patents are invalid or based on prior art, please contact us so that we may discuss this in an friendly atmosphere and hopefully reach a conclusion that is beneficial to all." Would this have caused the uproar? I don't think so. Of course the key is - that the lawyer - in a proper attorney-client relationship does what the client tells him/her to do. Again - if MTH"s came off as threatening and bullying - then it's because that's what the client, MTH, told the attorneys to do. I would never right a threatening letter for a client that wanted to enter into friendly discussion with a competitor. I feel that would be legal malpractice on my part. If it was the attorney's fault that the letter sent by MTH was threatening and that is not what MTH wanted - there is a simple solution - fire the attorney and hire one that works for what is best for his/her client.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TMCCexpert

A kind gentlemen (?) pointed out to me some of you been thrashing this around for almost nine months now and nobody has come up with good proof in that long time? I could of had a baby by now.

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?page=1&TOPIC_ID=12207

Ahhh yes, Antonio's original topic. That is where Mr Edleman first entered the discussion. Since then there have been some developments, as we have learned that MTH has chosen to enter the HO market. Prior to this announcement, the patent issues were almost moot since MTH wasn't competing directly.

Will we ever know which companies were working to develop features that were ultimately abandoned or forced to be redesigned as a result of the MTH patent?

I should say thanks to Dave for his calm explianation of the creation process of DCS, and I apologize for my cynical tone. The whole chain of events makes more sense when told without a lot of rhetoric.

Once again Jerry has really captured my feelings on this whole business.

By the way, it was MTH that had the baby, and they seem rather proud too. [swg]

We should all thank Kalmbach for allowing us to have this conversation!!! There are a lot of other forums that would not allow it to continue.

[Anonymous]

I agree. The R and D guy did an excellent job of discussing the DCS and some of the work that went into it. The marketing guy, well, just marketed me against MTH with his spinmeister speak. I think there is a reason for that. Most engineers (ME was my undergrad degree) follow the belief that "if you build a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to your door." They also are trained to follow logical paths from problem to solution. Marketing guys, however, look at things differently (MBA grad - yeah I'm dysfunctional). They always seem more concerned with "product differentiation" and "market demographics." To them it doesn't matter that the product is better (they will point out Beta vs VHS) it's all about how it is packaged. There's a reason that Budweiser pays big bucks to get its names on Dale Earnhardt Jr's race car and it has nothing to do with the quality of Bud. Unfortunately, I don't think model railroaders fit the standard marketing model (wonder if MTH's marketing guy is a model rail?). We pretty much are pretty well informed of the products out there and are not easily swayed by marketing hype - and in fact as this thread shows are sometimes turned off by it. In fact, I dare say that given the skills gained by model rails, we are all more engineers than marketing types. MTH's marketing guy doesn't understand this and was obviously dumbfounded why the folks here turned on him after he gave a great marketing spin on MTH's product.

While I do admire MTH's R and D guy for his ability to so clearly state a position and I would love to see more input from him, MTH's initial position in this flap has turned me off big time and the marketing guy with his mumbo jumbo turned me off even more. Maybe the R and D guy can change my mind, but he's got a heck of a climb.

[simon1966]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dkelly

Marketing guys, however, look at things differently (MBA grad - yeah I'm dysfunctional). They always seem more concerned with "product differentiation" and "market demographics." To them it doesn't matter that the product is better (they will point out Beta vs VHS) it's all about how it is packaged. There's a reason that Budweiser pays big bucks to get its names on Dale Earnhardt Jr's race car and it has nothing to do with the quality of Bud.

OK, I fess up, I am an evil marketing type as well[:D][;)]

Marketing in the MRR industry seems to be limited to sending press releases of new product to the mags and papers and dealers. Sending out models for review. Production of the odd catalog and designing web sites and packaging. Some companies have tried to control pricing through managing the distribution channel (Horizon and now NCE). The main tactic used for boosting sales and managing the business is limited production runs.

Model RR's are very well educated consumers, but even we like to see professional marketing. If I am not mistaken, did not Digitrax recently undergo an image upgrade in their print advertising and most noticeably on the Web site beacuse of model RR's pointing out that they looked unprofessional and not a leader in the DCC field!

[Anonymous]

Isn't the following at the fore front of this issue? The NMRA's DCC committee designed standards and RPs for DCC to fit into. The standards and RPs were open and not patented so all could use this technology for free. It's my understanding (right or wrong) MTH has claimed prior art on some of this technology.

[Anonymous]

deschane,

The question about prior art seems to be the question and nobody has a clear answer. It would seem to me that all it would take would be to have a meeting between the tech guys of the various manufacturers. One that is based on a friendly exchange of ideas (with perhaps an agreement that nothing said at the meeting could be used in litigation). Although this may not solve the problem at hand at least everyone would have a clearer idea where everyone stood. It would most likely save all the parties tons of money.

[Anonymous]

I'm usually pretty quiet on message boards. I only speak up when I feel that I have something to offer. This thread is very extensive. There are many valid points and quality inputs. I would like to share some of my thoughts. My Dad was a Lionel man. I grew up an HO man. I had a Tyco as a kid and moved up to Bachman and Athearn in the 80s. In the 90s, I finally chose a railroad to model, the EBT, a narrow-gauge. Now, as many of you are aware, we NG'ers have rarely been shown a smile from the major companies, let alone a model. Pretty much ALL of our equipment is brass, resin, or wood. But, some like myself, do have interchanges with a 'mainline' railroad that allows us to feel a little like a mainstream model railroader.

My thoughts:
1mph
I keep running into the 1 mph interval aspect to the MTH DCS. Without looking at anything other than the phrase, I would surmise it would be tied into a sensor on the frame reading a mark on an axel or wheel. This is the way you do it to time your sound outputs with the visual cues. You would simply need to match the number of reads per minute(rpm) with the driver size and you can determine the speed. Work it the other way, I want a particular speed for a particular driver size, here is the rpm to set it for. There would be some effort in determining the correct motor, gear ratio's, and power requirements. But NWSL has excellent guides just for that purpose. Trust me, it's work, but it's worth it to repower some of the brass steamers. NWSL has work sheets and charts that provide a guideline for what kind of motor rpm and gear ratio you need to result in a particular speed for a particular driver size. Tie in a speed table that you worked out, and, viola! You can control your locomotive in whatever speed increments you want. You want the shifter to be able to move at speeds between 0.00 scale mph and 19.25 scale mph. You got it. And, it will work that way on ANYONE's DCC system.
I guess, my point is, the 1 mph interval is way too obvious. They may have something I don't know about that makes a difference. But all in all, it seems more like an adaptation of a sound matching system being applied to speed than anything else.

Patents
I'm not surprised that MTH's patent attorneys advised that letters be sent out to the DCC community advising them that they may be violating one or more of MTH's patents. After all, if they didn't send out the letter, a company being sued by MTH for patent infringement may be able to complain ignorance of MTH's patents. Since they did send out the letter, a company being sued by MTH would have a tough time of making the same claim. So... Why is the claim important? Unknowingly infringement of a patent equals damages. Knowingly infringing on a patent equals triple damages.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the idea of sending out letter to the DCC manufacturers about MTH's patents. However, such a letter, in a hobby such as ours, should have included a meeting of the minds. A gathering of DCC tech types, MTH's tech guy and some NMRA folks to discuss the various patents would have been highly productive and perhaps, dare I say it, have lead to cooperation within the hobby and an advancement that would have benefitted all. These types of letters do not have to instill fear in the recipient. We are in a small hobby. It never ceases to amaze me the respect that the major magazines have for one another. Competitors? You bet! But you'll never see either talk bad about the other. In that kind of environment, everyone wins - especially us hobbiests.

[jfugate]

QUOTE: Originally posted by robengland
I for one am convinced that MTH are not patenting to protect their own IP but rather to constrain competition and in particular to prevent the expansion of public-domain DCC.

Whether this was the intention of MTH or not, this is how it was received by the DCC manufacturers and DCC committee. If this was not the intention of MTH, then they should have moved swiftly make it very clear this was not their intent.

Many months have gone by and only now are we seeing some movement on MTH's part to "clarify" or "soften" the original perception they created. It's their lack of swiftness at first to rectify the shock wave that went through DCC land that leads me to believe their original intent was "rather to constrain competition and in particular to prevent the expansion of public-domain DCC".

Claiming this was not the case *this late* in the game (after letting everyone else live in angst for months from their initial volley) comes off sounding like further self-preservation tactics rather than a genuine interest in the well-being of the hobby for all.

If MTH really means all these nice sounding words, why didn't they come out and say so *immediately* after they realized they had set the DCC segment on it's ear?

[Anonymous]

We must look way back when MTH was a hobby store and sold lionel and other companies products.
MTH got into an importing business with samhongsa in korea and had locos made for weaver and some of their own copies of lionel.
Then Richard Kughun had MTH import from samhongsa, for lionel, their first new scale model steam engine, the reading T1 in O -3 rail with their 1st edition of digital(lionels) railsounds. After many enchanges (read it in the big MTH book) MTH started to make his own new stuff and Kughin did not like it. Anyway to make a long story short,Lionel pulled their dealership away from MTH, and Mike sued lionel for in essence taking away his business and MTH won the lawsuit.
Bingo mike had the bucks to start his own company on lionels behaff.
Now he gets to progress again on lionels behalf with 40+million bucks.
The only problem, and I have access to this by having been a qsi 3 rail dealer from 1989 tell they stopped making 3 rail stuff i s qsi has a lawsuit against mth for patent infringements in the making of their DCS system. Copying >>>>just what lionel got sued for.
This lawsuit is supposed to come up after the lionel one gets settled.
MTH has basically been built by copying and sueing lionel twice to get a large protion of their funds. Like it or not this is the past history for those of you who have not been in 3 rail from the 80-s tell now.
If you want proof of what I just said it is all in the very large book MTH put out afew years ago.
Remember this is my opinion and if you disagree with me that is fine as we all have the right to freedom of speech, but do not have the right to force someone to not think for themselves. dave roxin.

[railman]

While unfamilliar with much of this going on (non-DCC guy) I find it disheartening that in hobby that has recently done some "come-together" stuff (WGH), that yet another spike has to be driven into things. Just another distraction that takes away from the trains in our hobby.

[cmarchan]

Having read much of this very long post, I decided I would put in my two cents. I am concerned regarding MTH's actions. We have come a long way in the Model Railroad arena. I am impressed with the products available, the closeness to realism many of them bring, and the electronics used today to create a flexible operational environment. I am an electronics professional ( bench tech for 12 years, taught electronic theory for 8 years). My interest in this hobby led to my career! DCC has truly brought us forward operationally. I have been an H.O. scale modeler since 1973; I suffered through the TYCO, early Life-Like and other "poor quality" equipment over the years to see major developments in locomotive mechanisms, electric motors and drive trains. Digital Command Control is the icing on the cake, so to speak. However, I firmly believe in establishing standards for command control to maximize compatiblilty, reduce confusion and frustration on behalf of the consumer, and to create an environment that wont frighten away "technology challenged" modelers.

MTH's actions have caused quite a ripple in the DCC waters. Despite the responses from their "people", I believe their actions threaten the advancement of ALL non-MTH command systems.

MTH's DCS system is quite an achievement in the CC realm. However, adding another proprietary system supported by one manufacturer tends to pull us apart; DCC allows us to run each other's equipment on club layouts, invite friends over to run their DC AND DCC motive power and rolling stock, etc.
If DCS has a one-way compatiblilty with DCC, it will do more harm than good.

Transponding and back EMF are types of feedback that greatly enhance control. Is MTH willing to let the other manufacturers use these enhancements without issue? I'm not sure they will.

Before this issue started, manufacturers co-existed in a hobby where cooperative effort benefited everyone involved. Throwing an monkey wrench in the works helps no one. I realize there is bad blood between BLI and MTH; but why do we have to suffer because of it?

Model trains and litigation were not used in the same sentence or even in the same paragraph before this. We all played well in the sandbox before the big bully came along and started kicking the sand in everyone faces.

To be fair, I have not demonstrated the DCS system; I am using DCC and enjoy the expanded operating capablilties it brings and the potential it has to grow. DCS may have more features than DCC, but the full potential is experienced at this time using only ONE manufacturers system. IMHO, MTH is telling us they want us to use their system exclusively. I has been my experience in technology, that this way of thinking gains few patrons and fewer profits.

[Anonymous]

Gentlemen,

It seems to me that this is a one sided conversation. MTH has come on the forum to explain themselves. No one from any of the companies that have been affected by the "letter" last fall has presented their side of this. If you think about it, it would be unwise for them to comment publicly at all. With the exception of BLI, every one else is mum.

I am not going into details, but if you look at what has happened over the last year in DCC development, I think that you have to say the "letter" has had a negative impact. There have been delays, etc...The fact that MTH hasn't sued anyone is irrelevant, it is the threat of lawsuit that is the problem.

QUOTE: M.T.H. is not claiming any patents on the concept of speed control using Back EMF as has been reported recently. Back EMF has been in existence for years and is not applicable to our technology.

This is not what I am hearing. No one will speak on the record, but one company recently refused to use the words BEMF to describe their motor control that they were referring to as BEMF a year ago.



Others have commended MTH for coming on the forum and explaining themselves. I'm not so sure I agree with this sentiment. It is very easy to present your side when the other major players are silent. If the actions of MTH in the beginning had matched the words we see from them now, none of this would have been necessary.

Guy

[Anonymous]

Guy,

Bingo! Exactly right. If MTH had come forward at the very beginning, perhaps this topic would not exist. I think MTH has hurt itself bigtime. It may turn out that MTH is 100% legally justified in its actions against the other guys, but they alienated a good number of potential customers. Winning the battle is irrelevant if you lose the war!

I really do hope everything can get sorted out to the benefit of the DCC manufactureres, us model railroaders and yes, even MTH.

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cmarchan

MTH's actions have caused quite a ripple in the DCC waters. Despite the responses from their "people", I believe their actions threaten the advancement of ALL non-MTH command systems.

MTH's DCS system is quite an achievement in the CC realm. However, adding another proprietary system supported by one manufacturer tends to pull us apart. DCC allows us to run each other's equipment on club layouts, invite friends over to run their DC AND DCC motive power and rolling stock, etc. If DCS has a one-way compatiblilty with DCC, it will do more harm than good.

Transponding and back EMF are types of feedback that greatly enhance control. Is MTH willing to let the other manufacturers use these enhancements without issue? I'm not sure they will.

Before this issue started, manufacturers co-existed in a hobby where cooperative effort benefited everyone involved. Throwing an monkey wrench in the works helps no one. I realize there is bad blood between BLI and MTH; but why do we have to suffer because of it?

Model trains and litigation were not used in the same sentence or even in the same paragraph before this. We all played well in the sandbox before the big bully came along and started kicking the sand in everyone faces.

To be fair, I have not demonstrated the DCS system; I am using DCC and enjoy the expanded operating capablilties it brings and the potential it has to grow. DCS may have more features than DCC, but the full potential is experienced at this time using only ONE manufacturers system. IMHO, MTH is telling us they want us to use their system exclusively. It has been my experience in technology, that this way of thinking gains few patrons and fewer profits.

A solid 10-4 on the above post by Cmarchand, especially in the last sentence! MTH's "strong slam" approach with the litigation demonstrated "short term" market thinking when it came to gauging the intelligence, tastes, and the manufacturer/customer relationships of the average HO modeler.

I am by no means putting down O scalers but what MTH should also have considered is that many HO and N modelers today take the relationships between themselves, manufacturers and the NMRA very seriously!! As much as we may criticize the NMRA, many of us do share the common sentiment that we owe the NMRA a debt of gratitude for working very hard in helping set fundamental standards with cooperation from manufacturers and modelers alike. MTH "intentionally or not", seemed to look down and thumb its nose at the NMRA as well as the other manufacturers. That, IMHO, was a MAJOR mistake on MTH's part.

As stated earlier MTH's responses on this forum, some received positively but looked upon with skepticism by the majority, seem more "Damage Control" oriented than anything else. Nine months? Especially now that MTH's HO products are coming on line and the company will now need to "Recoup" on its investment .

I still sincerely believe that the best thing that could happen is if MTH loses this case. EVERYONE in the long run would benefit, including MTH.

Cheers Cmarchand and 10-4!

[Anonymous]

Back electromotive force is the way the qsi three rail sound system has worked since day I. They had it available in there 3 board systems way before MTH decided to go with proto 1 sounds,which was made by qsi.
If mth thinks they invented bemf, qsi was the 1st to use it in 3 rail and I can;t tell you if anyone used it before them or not, but mth did not invent bemf or as far as I know patent it.
But if it is true that you can patent 1 mph speed increments, then our patent system needs to be overhauled.
|Why don;t the dcc people just use 1.5 or .75 etc speed increments.
You can eat me alive for saying this as it is my opinion only that MTH is playing poker here with the threat of sueing over scale increments.
Have they actually told anyone the patent number or numbers they are referring to in the letter to DCC companies.
This would be very interesting to find out. Anyone out there interested in researching patents????????????????????????dave roxin

[Anonymous]

I think either earlier in this thread or in another thread that discusses MTH, there is a link to MTH's patents

[Anonymous]

I dug out the instruction manual for the "Keller Engineering Onboard Locomotive Sound & Control System ". Copy wright 1984 . In which he explains "counter emf " as he called it . Along with a simple diagram . I would say this is prior art . This was pretty high tech at the time . Certainly predates MTH as well as others .
I just cast my vote by buying an NCE dcc system for my HO layout . I'm also into O scale . No MTH for me . Not now ,not ever ! It's a matter of principle . Don't like the way MTH does business and will never suport them . There's plenty of better products out there .
Joe

[davekelly]

The Keller system rocked. I was just in high school when my dad and I went to a club open house. Neither of us had heard a sound system before and were fascinated by it. A club member invited us to his house to see his layout and wow it was fantastic. What ever happened to Mr. Keller? I'm assuming that the standardization that was DCC left him behind. What a bummer. I often wondered how his system would have evolved.

[Anonymous]

Did a Google and found this .
http://www.modeltraincrossing.com/onboard.htm

His system was analog and it seems that he changed to DCC . But the hardware looks the same .

I still have his system like new in a box . I did get one brass steam engine up and running . Engine momentum control was too realistic . Ran it off the layout before I could get it to stop . Could have used a power kill swich . Another case of Beta vs VHS . And I still have a Beta camera and recorder packed away .
Joe

[amedleman]

Gentlemen,

Please forgive the following rant!

This thread has gotten so long that some of you have understandably forgotten just what was stated when I started it 140 some odd posts ago. If you are so inclined, review the first post in the thread and learn again that M.T.H. is not claiming any patent interest in the concept of back emf. The concept has nothing to do with our method of speed control despite the assertion by the last few posters.

Certainly the feedback you folks have provided is valuable and believe it or not, quite appreciated. However, the issues have become cloudy and uncertain in recent posts. Naturally, as the subject of the thread, it is even more disheartening when we read flat out misrepresentation of history depicted as fact by others or when facts are disregarded that were clearly stated by M.T.H. when the thread started. Mr. Roxin, in particular, has provided readers of this thread with an interesting slant on our past. Perhaps those of you who desire to read the book he refers to will come to a different conclusion about how M.T.H. became a competitor to Lionel (the book is for sale on the M.T.H. website). Should you do so, you will discover that Mr. Roxin's timing of history is flat out wrong.

I would hope that future posters will continue to refer to our posts within this thread before making comments that contradict or ignore those statements. At best it's confusing, at worse it’s misrepresentation. The beauty of a forum is that a person's statement is there for everyone to see and respond to. Theoretically posters shouldn't have to worry about his or her message getting "bungled" as it is "told from one person to the next". But those who ignore or forget what others stated undermine the value and power of this communication tool. Consider your fellow readers that correctly remember those statements. Don't let them lose confidence in the quality of your future posts or the information in general that forums such as these provide.

All manufacturers rely on the internet to gauge consumer interests, concerns and beliefs. M.T.H. has certainly benefited from this exchange but if it turns into posts full of ignorant statements that differ from what was originally stated, then it ceases to be of the same value. Posters certainly have the right to do so, but it serves no purpose to helping any firm effectively gauge consumer needs, concerns and interests.

OK. Sorry for the rant. Carry on.

[Anonymous]

Mr. Edlemen,

Dear Sir, I am a new and rather inexperienced modeler and I do agree that we need to stick to the facts in all matters related to this subject. With that said would you and yor staff be so kind as to state the facts for us?

Is MTH trying to patent the technology that is currently used for DCC systems currently on the market?

Is MTH willing to work with the DCC community in the devolpment of the DCC system with reguard to your system of DCS?

Will your system be compatable with DCC, and will DCC be compatable with DCS?

Is it the intention of MTH to strong arm the HO user in to your system by patenting this technology which may have existed before MTH?

Why would you not take the other manufacures lead and make you system open to the rest of them as they have DCC?

My belief is if you were to do this you would show a very strong statement of you good faith and I would then be interested in your system. I just can not say I am now because I am not willing to buy something from someone that may be trying to put the competition out of business. Please let me close my ranting by saying that I am not against you or your company I am just sitting on the fence watching and waiting for answers, I really hope that you will answer.

One last thing do you plan on doing any HO diesel engines?

To the rest of the forum posters I hope you wont flame me for trying to get some answers hopefully the tech guy will give them I liked him.


Thank you for your Time
William (Aka Polizi.)