M.T.H. Responds To DCC Lawsuit Allegations

[Roadtrp]

You guys are a bunch of GRUMPY OLD MEN!! [;)]

Music CD's were not compatible with either cassette tapes or vinyl lp's. But CD's were clearly superior, and soon put both vinyl and tape out of business.

Do we sit around and cry about that? Of course not. The superior technology won.

If MTH's technology is superior it will win. If it isn't, it won't. What's the big deal? If some of you guys had your way I'd be mailing this to you instead of posting it.

[:p] [:p]

Edited to add/change smileys. I really am not as grumpy about this as I sounded... just a little mystified. jfugate did a pretty good job below explaining the difference between my CD analogy and the DCS situation.

[davekelly]

Wow the MTH guy is complaining about misconceptions and misreprentations about what MTH is doing. Perhaps he hasn't seen the numerous posts asking why MTH waiting so long before saying anything. MTH had the ability to correct any misconceptions months ago and blew it. I think marketing guy has forgotten a fundamental rule. You snooze you lose.

[davekelly]

MTH has accomplished one thing. I did some checking. Went back 28 or so pages on this forum and noticed that none of the Digitrax vs Lenz vs CVP vs NCE topics have been posted recently. MTH has accomplished what many would have thought impossible. Peace among the various DCC users lol. I had a political science professor that use d to say "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." lol

[JerryZeman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Roadtrp

You guys are a bunch of GRUMPY OLD MEN!!

Even though there is a hole in my hair, I don't consider myself old.[:D]

QUOTE: Music CD's were not compatible with either cassette tapes or vinyl lp's. But CD's were clearly superior, and soon put both vinyl and tape out of business.

And should I desire, I can either burn media currently stored on my tapes and LPs, or I can elect to purchase the CD (if available, a lot of the jazz fusion from the 70s that I like isn't readily available). So, I haven't lost anything except tape hiss and LP crackle and pop. Chick Corea and his Electric Band doesn't have to MU with Hank Williams.[:)]

QUOTE: Do we sit around and cry about that? Of course not. The superior technology won.

All I want is for DCC to have a chance to continue to be a superior technology, and continue to evolve. That is kinda hard with the Big Bad Wolf salivating at the prospect of litigating his competion out of business.

QUOTE: If MTH's technology is superior it will win. If it isn't, it won't. What's the big deal?

Since I also model in three rail O, as well as DCC HO, I get to see both technologies in action. I don't want to see DCC manufacturers suffer, just so MTH can prosper. I have no desire to star wire my layout and place insulators every third track section either side of a jumper to attempt to keep the DCS signal intact. DCS superior technology? Rubbish. Just go over to the "O Gauge Railroading" DCS forum and read all the crap that a DCS user has to go through to get the stuff to run on a home layout, never mind a modular layout.

If MTH isn't cajoled into participating with the DCC community, then we are headed for the same type of TMCC vs. DCS crap that three railers have to put up with, at the expense of the DCC manufacturers. And the common standards that so many people have worked so hard to develop will be for naught.

regards,
Jerry Zeman

[Big_Boy_4005]

Good morning Andy, and congratulations!

This topic has set a record here on this forum. It has the highest ratio of views to posts ever. Which means that a lot of people are watching. In one week it has been viewed over 5000 times!!! Of course at least 40 of those viewings are mine.

If the purpose of starting this topic was to get publicity for MTH's new product, I'm not sure if it was a success. This probably isn't exactly the kind of publicity you were after, but I suppose it is better than being ignored.

So, let me see if I have this straight. MTH is releasing a new HO line of fully DCC compatable engines. All of the basic features that DCC users are acustomed to can be accessed via standard existing DCC systems. The locomotives also have a number of EXTRA features, but those can only be accessed using DCS.

So, If I had a DCC layout, I could buy one of MTH's engines, put it on the tracks, and everything would work just the same as all of my other engines, no extra equipment, right? That would be cool. Of course they are priced a little higher than some of the other similar engines out there, but they have more features if I'm willing to add a DCS controller.

Back to the topic at hand. I have gone to the MTH website, and looked at the patent. I see that there is a lot of material that says prior art. Back EMF is appearently part of that. My question is, what part of DCS is NEW?????

OK, so MTH has this patent, and sends out a letter to the DCC manufacturers informing them of this. If I was a DCC manufacturer, and got this letter, I would have to stop what I was doing, waste a lot of time and money, and make sure I wasn't wasn't in violation, because I know full well, that MTH has LAWYERS, and they aren't afraid to use them!!!!

Now pretend you're an HO modeler, and you have been waiting for this new engine for a really long time. You're waiting, and you're waiting, and then the manufacturer says that they got this letter, and production has to be put on hold while they review things. Wouldn't you be inclined to say, "THIS IS MY HOBBY, DON'T MESS WITH IT!!!"

I'm afraid there is only one place to point the finger and that is at MTH.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JerryZeman

QUOTE: Originally posted by Roadtrp

You guys are a bunch of GRUMPY OLD MEN!!

Even though there is a hole in my hair, I don't consider myself old.[:D]

QUOTE: Music CD's were not compatible with either cassette tapes or vinyl lp's. But CD's were clearly superior, and soon put both vinyl and tape out of business.

And should I desire, I can either burn media currently stored on my tapes and LPs, or I can elect to purchase the CD (if available, a lot of the jazz fusion from the 70s that I like isn't readily available). So, I haven't lost anything except tape hiss and LP crackle and pop. Chick Corea and his Electric Band doesn't have to MU with Hank Williams.[:)]

QUOTE: Do we sit around and cry about that? Of course not. The superior technology won.

All I want is for DCC to have a chance to continue to be a superior technology, and continue to evolve. That is kinda hard with the Big Bad Wolf salivating at the prospect of litigating his competion out of business.

QUOTE: If MTH's technology is superior it will win. If it isn't, it won't. What's the big deal?

Since I also model in three rail O, as well as DCC HO, I get to see both technologies in action. I don't want to see DCC manufacturers suffer, just so MTH can prosper. I have no desire to star wire my layout and place insulators every third track section either side of a jumper to attempt to keep the DCS signal intact. DCS superior technology? Rubbish. Just go over to the "O Gauge Railroading" DCS forum and read all the crap that a DCS user has to go through to get the stuff to run on a home layout, never mind a modular layout.

If MTH isn't cajoled into participating with the DCC community, then we are headed for the same type of TMCC vs. DCS crap that three railers have to put up with, at the expense of the DCC manufacturers. And the common standards that so many people have worked so hard to develop will be for naught.

regards,
Jerry Zeman

I see that the 2 Jerrys have met. [swg] By the way Jerry (Roadtrp), the stuff in question here is a little large for N scale. It has taken years to squeeze it all into HO.[:0][;)]

[Anonymous]

Andy: please tell me what part of my interpretation of what is said in the MTH book is wrong. That is not a fair statement to flame somebody by saying it is outright wrong without saying what is wrong with it.
I reread the section on the MTH Lionel parting of ways before I made the post and find what I said (paraphrased) to be what was said. (in my opinion)
Give me a chance to defend myself on what is wrong and I will reread that part in the book and glady appologise for what is different from the book.
dave roxin

[amedleman]

William,

Thank you for your forum post regarding your specific concerns about M.T.H.'s DCC/Patent intentions. Hopefully you will find the below responses satisfactory.

1. No, M.T.H. is not interested in patenting features currently in use by the DCC community. Because that technology is already in use, it would qualify as prior use and wouldn't be available for patent protection by our or any other firm. Our patent claims extend solely to the technology we developed. Our notification to the DCC community was meant to inform that community what we had patented so that they could guide their own future technology development appropriately and avoid any infringement issues.

2. M.T.H. is already working with the DCC community to ensure that our HO locomotives will function with DCC controllers. This means that if you have a DCC controller from any manufacturer, you will be able to control our locomotives in command mode and have access to certain features. These features were listed in an earlier post.

3. As indicated above, our locomotives will be compatible with DCC controllers. Our DCS system is NOT DCC. We use a different, more efficient and robust method of communicating with our engines. This allows our system to control many more functions than a DCC system is capable of. Think of DCS as a fire hose and DCC as a sink faucet. Much more water or data can flow through the fire hose than the sink faucet thus allowing a Proto-Sound 3.0 locomotive to do many more things. We toyed with the concept of building into DCS a parallel DCC communication protocol so that users who desire to control DCC engines with DCS could do so. However, because DCC controllers are already available, we've elected for the time being to leave out the dual protocol which means that today DCS cannot control a DCC engine in command mode. Because the two systems are completely different, there is no way that a DCC controller can control a Proto-Sound 3.0 engine's DCS features.

4. M.T.H. is not strong arming anyone and we certainly aren't forcing consumers to use our equipment. M.T.H. cannot patent what came before us which means that features found in DCC today are available for any and all to use. What we are doing, however, is introducing locomotives that do far more than other engines currently available on the marketplace. If you wi***o utilize the advanced features found in a Proto-Sound 3.0 HO locomotive you must use a DCS controller. The best analogy to this can be found in the many brands of television sets sold today. Each manufacturer's set uses a remote control to access certain features of the TV. While "universal" remote controls can be purchased from an electronics store to turn on those TVs, change channels, etc. they may not activate the picture-in-picture, screen settings, favorite channel settings or any of the other unique features found in a particular TV set model. For those features, you need the manufacturer's specific remote control.

5. One of the false beliefs about DCC is that other manufacturers are sharing their features with one another for the good of the consumer. This is flat out false. What these manufacturers are doing is following a general set of rules established by the DCC community as the basis for locomotive command control. Each DCC manufacturer then proceeds to add additional features to their DCC controllers to help differentiate their product from those of their competitors. Those manufacturers developed those features to earn them more market share and presumably more profits. Sharing all these features with one another makes for a bad return on their investment. At the end of the day, each of these companies need to stay in business. Spending money to develop features that are then shared with competitors is a recipe to shutter your doors not keep them open. By incorporating DCC functions in our Proto-Sound 3.0 equipped locomotives, we ensure that the user can operate our engines with existing DCC equipment. Nothing is different here from what other HO locomotive manufactuers do. Yet, if the consumer desires to access the unique features in our engines, then he can do so with a DCS system. If he or she doesn't wi***o purchase a DCS system, he still gets access to features and functions that are accessible from any DCC controller. As a bonus, he will gain access to some features that other manufacturers don't include in their engines. In short, you get more fun out of your Proto-Sound 3.0 engine when you use DCC to control it. You get a lot more fun out of a Proto-Sound 3.0 engine when you use choose DCS.

6. Yes, we do plan on releasing HO diesels. More product announcements will be made in early 2005.

Big Boy 4005,

Your points are well taken and M.T.H. has obviously placed the fly in the punch in an effort to protect our patents. However, we offered to work with each manufacturer. We offered to license our technology - something we have not done in O. No calls, no letters, not a peep heard from them. We can be blamed for their delays if you wish and prosecuted for protecting our investment but once you've been ripped off by unscrupulous competitors you tend to look at your backside a lot more closely.

Dave Roxin,

Lionel had cancelled our subcontracting relationship prior to our promoting our own product line. Without the Lionel business, we had mouths to feed so we began promoting our own products which obviously led to our becoming a new competitor to Lionel. When they realized that we were going to compete with them, they cancelled our distributor status (we were their second largest account at the time). Certainly Lionel had the right to change their business direction. They underestimated that M.T.H. would respond to their actions by becoming a competitor and they then acted in a bullish manner by pulling our distributor relationship in response. Keep in mind that they did this despite the fact that their largest distributor (still today) was also a competitor to them in G Gauge at the time. By failing to include the fact that they cancelled our subcontracting relationship, you imply that we deserved to have our distributor status cancelled and that we relied on legal tactics to subsequently get our way. You paint M.T.H. as the bad guy in that scenario and that isn't fair. We relied on legal tactics because Lionel harmed us with their actions.

[Anonymous]

MTH, There are many great questions and statements here that you should consider responding too!

Will you?

Mark DeSchane, ***

[Anonymous]

Andy, You have answered my questions. It is not illegal to make a better mousetrap. The DCC standards are protected, and as a bonus, MTH is making yet another range of DCC compatible locomotives available to the hobby. it is now up to the DCC development community to continue to develop better DCC features which do not infringe on MTH's patents. However, MTH should work with the DCC community to insure that all players in this issue can work harmoniously together without resorting to the courts. Remember, the NMRA is the "AAR" of model railroading. those "Standards and Recommended Practices" DIRECTLY correspond to documents of the same title published by the AAR. The model railroad supply industry is better served by adherence to these standards. That is why MTH was wise to make PS3 compatible with DCC. To not do so would limit PS3's market. Furthermore, PS3 users need to be assured that they can buy DCC locomptives and run them with their DCS handheld together with their PS3 locos.The NMRA S&RP documents are a roadmap to profits for the model railroad supply industry. We can look forward to better trains and better technology, not just from MTH, but from the rest of the industry. if these considerations are met.

[jfugate]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Roadtrp
[Music CD's were not compatible with either cassette tapes or vinyl lp's. But CD's were clearly superior, and soon put both vinyl and tape out of business.

Do we sit around and cry about that? Of course not. The superior technology won.

If MTH's technology is superior it will win. If it isn't, it won't. What's the big deal?

True, CD technology has won out because it advances technology.

However, CD technology was released into the public domain for all to enjoy. If you had to always buy your CD burners from SONY and your blanks from SONY -- and *only* SONY (I use SONY just as an example here), the technology would have gone nowhere.

Further, if MOTOROLA had developed the DVD, and SONY threatened lawsuit because they claimed they had patented the CD disk form factor as their sole intellectual property, then things would get really sticky.

Had this sort of thing occurred, we would be enjoying neither the CD nor the DVD today. It's not a case of being a bunch of technophobes, its a case of trying to be too protective of technological innovation.

The reason the CD and DVD technologies have taken over like they have is because they have been made available for use without threat of litigation.

It's all of the legal maneuvering and letters from lawyers coming from MTH that has been causing the angst. And that's what bothers many of us. Not fear of new technology.

I'd much rather see the DCC standard enhanced with firms following Lenz's lead and adding to the standard by proposing new enhancements. Trying to carve off a part of this market for yourself to the exclusion of others is the philosphy that I have issue with.

[Anonymous]

Hmmmm. MTH's market guy's last post is thought provoking. I need to digest it for awhile, because although it sounds reasonable, I do have an aweful taste in my mouth from earlier. Lesson learned for MTH: Get the word out early. Don't let a problem (real or perceived) sit and fester - it can only get worse. MTH has quite the hole to climb out of on this one. Let's hope everything get back on track in such a way that no one gets hurt and we can all enjoy our hobby.

[Anonymous]

All I had wrong is the timing of when the lawsuit against lionel took place. Not bad. I was under the understanding that Kughin did not want MTH to sell stuff under mth's name that would compete with Lionel and Mike would not go along with it. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn;t this discussion take place in a car at york.? If lionel was going to import through MTH, then Lionel did not want MTH to also go in driect competion with them. Thus began the problem.
Mike would not go along with it and then somewhere in THAT TIME SLOT the lawsuit took place. If you say it was before you produced product I believe you.
To take and make it sound like every statement I made was wrong, when it was only the timeing of the lawsuit, sure is getting picky.
I can see that you are tempormental about this and I do not blame you, but the fact is HO people do not want their DCC messed with just like I did not want the qsi 3 rail stuff messed with. You guys took care of that by having someone else develop your DCS system without even letting QSI know they were going to get cut off until after the fact.
Now qsi is a thorn in your side with their excellent DCC system.
This is my
opinion and only mine.
Sorry for the misinterpretation of the timeing of your 1st Lionel suit but the rest of the information is correct, right. dave roxin.

[Anonymous]

FYI, Dave Roxin is a QSI dealer and is very anti-MTH. He posted similar information on the OGR forum until it was deleted for inaccuracies. Definitely a conflict of interest and a agenda to pursue!

[Anonymous]

The OGR forum -- real objective place -- Yeah, righ!!!

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by amedleman

William,

Thank you for your forum post regarding your specific concerns about M.T.H.'s DCC/Patent intentions. Hopefully you will find the below responses satisfactory.

1. No, M.T.H. is not interested in patenting features currently in use by the DCC community. Because that technology is already in use, it would qualify as prior use and wouldn't be available for patent protection by our or any other firm. Our patent claims extend solely to the technology we developed. Our notification to the DCC community was meant to inform that community what we had patented so that they could guide their own future technology development appropriately and avoid any infringement issues.

2. M.T.H. is already working with the DCC community to ensure that our HO locomotives will function with DCC controllers. This means that if you have a DCC controller from any manufacturer, you will be able to control our locomotives in command mode and have access to certain features. These features were listed in an earlier post.

3. As indicated above, our locomotives will be compatible with DCC controllers. Our DCS system is NOT DCC. We use a different, more efficient and robust method of communicating with our engines. This allows our system to control many more functions than a DCC system is capable of. Think of DCS as a fire hose and DCC as a sink faucet. Much more water or data can flow through the fire hose than the sink faucet thus allowing a Proto-Sound 3.0 locomotive to do many more things. We toyed with the concept of building into DCS a parallel DCC communication protocol so that users who desire to control DCC engines with DCS could do so. However, because DCC controllers are already available, we've elected for the time being to leave out the dual protocol which means that today DCS cannot control a DCC engine in command mode. Because the two systems are completely different, there is no way that a DCC controller can control a Proto-Sound 3.0 engine's DCS features.

4. M.T.H. is not strong arming anyone and we certainly aren't forcing consumers to use our equipment. M.T.H. cannot patent what came before us which means that features found in DCC today are available for any and all to use. What we are doing, however, is introducing locomotives that do far more than other engines currently available on the marketplace. If you wi***o utilize the advanced features found in a Proto-Sound 3.0 HO locomotive you must use a DCS controller. The best analogy to this can be found in the many brands of television sets sold today. Each manufacturer's set uses a remote control to access certain features of the TV. While "universal" remote controls can be purchased from an electronics store to turn on those TVs, change channels, etc. they may not activate the picture-in-picture, screen settings, favorite channel settings or any of the other unique features found in a particular TV set model. For those features, you need the manufacturer's specific remote control.

5. One of the false beliefs about DCC is that other manufacturers are sharing their features with one another for the good of the consumer. This is flat out false. What these manufacturers are doing is following a general set of rules established by the DCC community as the basis for locomotive command control. Each DCC manufacturer then proceeds to add additional features to their DCC controllers to help differentiate their product from those of their competitors. Those manufacturers developed those features to earn them more market share and presumably more profits. Sharing all these features with one another makes for a bad return on their investment. At the end of the day, each of these companies need to stay in business. Spending money to develop features that are then shared with competitors is a recipe to shutter your doors not keep them open. By incorporating DCC functions in our Proto-Sound 3.0 equipped locomotives, we ensure that the user can operate our engines with existing DCC equipment. Nothing is different here from what other HO locomotive manufactuers do. Yet, if the consumer desires to access the unique features in our engines, then he can do so with a DCS system. If he or she doesn't wi***o purchase a DCS system, he still gets access to features and functions that are accessible from any DCC controller. As a bonus, he will gain access to some features that other manufacturers don't include in their engines. In short, you get more fun out of your Proto-Sound 3.0 engine when you use DCC to control it. You get a lot more fun out of a Proto-Sound 3.0 engine when you use choose DCS.

6. Yes, we do plan on releasing HO diesels. More product announcements will be made in early 2005.

Big Boy 4005,

Your points are well taken and M.T.H. has obviously placed the fly in the punch in an effort to protect our patents. However, we offered to work with each manufacturer. We offered to license our technology - something we have not done in O. No calls, no letters, not a peep heard from them. We can be blamed for their delays if you wish and prosecuted for protecting our investment but once you've been ripped off by unscrupulous competitors you tend to look at your backside a lot more closely.

Dave Roxin,

Lionel had cancelled our subcontracting relationship prior to our promoting our own product line. Without the Lionel business, we had mouths to feed so we began promoting our own products which obviously led to our becoming a new competitor to Lionel. When they realized that we were going to compete with them, they cancelled our distributor status (we were their second largest account at the time). Certainly Lionel had the right to change their business direction. They underestimated that M.T.H. would respond to their actions by becoming a competitor and they then acted in a bullish manner by pulling our distributor relationship in response. Keep in mind that they did this despite the fact that their largest distributor (still today) was also a competitor to them in G Gauge at the time. By failing to include the fact that they cancelled our subcontracting relationship, you imply that we deserved to have our distributor status cancelled and that we relied on legal tactics to subsequently get our way. You paint M.T.H. as the bad guy in that scenario and that isn't fair. We relied on legal tactics because Lionel harmed us with their actions.

Thank you Andy, this is by far your most helpful and informative post to date. It may even serve to help reform some opinions.

All of this has lead me to wonder what the opinion was at my local hobby store. On Wednesday I stopped at one of the largest stores in my area. This is a store which already stocks a small amount of MTH O gauge product. When I asked the clerk, he was clueless, but in his defense I haven't seen him step away from the cash register too many times over the years.

Then I asked the owner, whom I'm better aquainted with anyway. He knew all about it, and we proceeded to discuss his plans regarding stocking the new HO line. His response was simple and based on his experience. He stocks what his customers ask for. He kind of laughed at your selection of a Pennsy steamer. It would be easier to sell snowballs here in Minnesota. A Great Northern steamer would be a different story, he would get requests for that.

I realize that you can't do everything all at once, but you might make a bigger splash with a diesel which could have a number of paint schemes, and would cover more local tastes.

As for the DCS aspect of all this, in my area you have a different problem entering the HO market. The only DCS demonstration location you have listed, in Minnesota, is III Rail Trains. I'm sure that you and or Mike have met George and have visited his store. Great place, but one problem. As the name of the store implies, George is an exclusive O gauge dealer, NO HO! I suspect that you have some other dealers in your network with similar businesses.

There's another aspect of marketing, that others have mentioned, where you might have difficulties. I guess from MTH's perspective it's like, well, we have this system that we spent a lot of money on, we might as well try to sell some in HO. It was designed with the O gauge customer in mind, but trains are trains. Do all of the extra features of DCS really mean anything to HO modelers? It's kind of like trying to sell Bat-mobiles or James Bond cars to guys who just want a Cadilac.

I apologize for being a little provocative before, but I think this conversation may have finally turned the corner, and become very CONSTRUCTIVE.

Sincerely,
Elliot Feinberg
AKA Big_Boy_4005

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by johnblair

The OGR forum -- real objective place -- Yeah, righ!!!

That's what worries me about Rich's policies, and that's why I like to stay here. I don't fault Rich for having those policies, I just wish he didn't have to.

I started off taking a very hard line against MTH, as did a number of other members. I think we're starting to get some real answers now, and that helps. It has only come after asking a lot of tough and sometimes ugly questions. In the end, I hope this discussion makes things better for EVERYONE.[:)]

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by roxin2002

..............but the fact is HO people do not want their DCC messed with just like I did not want the qsi 3 rail stuff messed with.

----A very common sentiment with many of the HO and N modelers that have been posting. Mr. Endelman pointed out in his words that this was not the intent, but this is exactly what happened and not working with the NMRA sure didn't help things any.

This is only "my opinion" and may be incorrect but it seems "Perceptionwise" that since MTH is "financially well established" in the larger scale market, its management may have arrogantly felt that it did not need to sit down with the NMRA nor work out a better alternative to the issues leading to the litigation. Instead, the company goes ahead ahead at full throttle and "JOLTS" the DCC market as a result. Suddenly, trying to get info from Soundtraxx or Broadway Limited on DCC product developments was like trying to pull teeth! BLI completely disables back BEMF, losing potential sales as a result. It seems like the effects of the litigation were not considered nor addressed by MTH's reps.

Bruce Petrarca from Litchfield Station was willing to have his "opinions" posted here on the Forum back in February 2004 only because the managers of the other DCC manufacturers suddenly and understandably "Clammed Up". Some might have thought: "Ah, he has an agenda!" Well of course! His business along with everyone else's was possibly going to be affected! But because of his willingness to test his credibility on this forum this is why I respected and complimented Bruce on more than one occasion. Nothing more. I didn't get any "kickbacks" from him as one poster suggested.

Word was that some DCC manufacturers now wanted to get legal advice from attorneys since the "litigation hurricane" had caught many off guard . [:0][B)] If this did happen, then that's money spent by these companies that could have been used in further research and development! Who then would be affected?....DCC manufacturers, the LHS and finally the modelers........US! This is why so many in the DCC, HO, and N arenas were upset and based on the number of responses on that thread and this one, the feelings are well expressed. Fortunately things are starting to roll along better. Even Soundtraxx is becoming more forthcoming with info again.

So let DCS hit the market and best wishes to customers. It may hold its own but not mentioned by the MTH reps, it too has its quirks and disadvantages like DCC. As for Mr. Endelman's comment about the "Robust advantages". I don't think I need a "Station announcer" nor "Xmas music" on my railroad. More power to those that can use these features! [:D][8D][8)]

Peace out!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by johnblair

The OGR forum -- real objective place -- Yeah, righ!!!

They don't know what objective means on the OGR forum. It is loaded with MTH apologists who preach The Gospel Of Mike! If you don't agree with Melvin and his ilk, you are blacklisted and deleted. Roxin found this out when he complained about MTH. That's OK, like BigBoy says, it's much more comfortable over here.

OGR+RM=[censored]

[JerryZeman]

Dear Mr. Edleman;

QUOTE: Originally posted by amedleman

William,

Thank you for your forum post regarding your specific concerns about M.T.H.'s DCC/Patent intentions. Hopefully you will find the below responses satisfactory.

1. No, M.T.H. is not interested in patenting features currently in use by the DCC community. Because that technology is already in use, it would qualify as prior use and wouldn't be available for patent protection by our or any other firm. Our patent claims extend solely to the technology we developed. Our notification to the DCC community was meant to inform that community what we had patented so that they could guide their own future technology development appropriately and avoid any infringement issues.

I never thought that you could patent prior art, so I'm not awarding any bonus points for this response. As an earlier post pointed out, the method by which MTH informed the community what you had patented so that they could guide their own future technology was a public relations disaster.

QUOTE: 2. M.T.H. is already working with the DCC community to ensure that our HO locomotives will function with DCC controllers. This means that if you have a DCC controller from any manufacturer, you will be able to control our locomotives in command mode and have access to certain features. These features were listed in an earlier post.

Me thinks that I just got some marketing-speak here. Please define "DCC community". Have you actually contacted the NMRA or the DCC-SIG to ensure that your locomotives are compatable? Or, have you simply engineered decoder functions taking advantage of the existence of open standards (which are not patented) to ensure that your locomotives will function on a DCC layout? If you idea of working with is simply ensuring that your latest motive power products are DCC compatable, you get no bonus points from me on this issue either.

QUOTE: 3. As indicated above, our locomotives will be compatible with DCC controllers. Our DCS system is NOT DCC. We use a different, more efficient and robust method of communicating with our engines.

.

More Robust? [(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

OK, here is your chance to back up your claims here. I've got a 1200 square foot HO railroad sitting in my basement. It runs DCC flawlessly, as it was originally wired for Dynatrol Command Control. 10 guage bus wiring, 18 gauge feeders to track sections every approximately 8 feet with block sections. No terminal strips, all connections soldered. Over-engineered for DCC, but what was required to get Dynatrol to work.

I never clean my track, only oil it. I will agree to run five different DCC locomotives for your viewing, to prove that the layout runs DCC well. The track will not be cleaned. We can then run your Pennsy K-4 around in DCC and see what it does. Should work OK also. Then, you can hook up your DCS system, and I'll totally disconnect DCC from the layout. You are only allowed one connection point just like my DCC, no cheating by trying to hook up "star wiring" (or home-run wiring if you prefer that term).

If your locomotive can make one complete trip in my layout's point to point configuration (about a four - five scale mile run) without getting "Check Track Circuit" or "DCS communication failure" errors (not sure of the exact verbage of the last one, should know it by heart because I saw it so often), then, you will have convinced me that you folks are on to something. I'll gladly publish on this newsgroup the triumphs of your equipment. And if your equipment fails, or can't even find the locomotive on the track circuit, then you can retract your statement about DCC being less robust on this forum, in straight talk, not marketing speak.

What do ya say Andy, up to the challenge? I'll even buy the beer, or a good single malt scotch if you prefer. Contact me at [e-mail] to set up a test. Or, if you prefer actual conversation, contact me at 630-986-0917.

QUOTE: This allows our system to control many more functions than a DCC system is capable of. Think of DCS as a fire hose and DCC as a sink faucet. Much more water or data can flow through the fire hose than the sink faucet thus allowing a Proto-Sound 3.0 locomotive to do many more things.

I'd really like somebody with more knowledge of DCC to comment on your claims here, as I don't have sufficient knowledge of digital communication. Can anybody from the DCC-SIG chime in here?

QUOTE: We toyed with the concept of building into DCS a parallel DCC communication protocol so that users who desire to control DCC engines with DCS could do so. However, because DCC controllers are already available, we've elected for the time being to leave out the dual protocol which means that today DCS cannot control a DCC engine in command mode. Because the two systems are completely different, there is no way that a DCC controller can control a Proto-Sound 3.0 engine's DCS features.

BIG mistake here. So, lets say that you take me up on my offer to run a test, and your DCS system succeeds. Now, if you produce a locomotive that I would actually want to buy (like a Great Northern O-8 mike, or a Northern Pacific W-3 mike), because I'm overwhelmed with the great things your system can accomplish, how in the heck am I going to run my railroad with two completely incompatible control systems? The only way I see that happening is for my layout to have to revert to block control to completely separate DCC and DCS locomotives. And I couldn't even do that on my railroad, because I wired by two blocks as common rail. I couldn't run Dynatrol and conventional together, so I doubt that I could run DCC and DCS together on a common return. I don't even try to run DCC and conventional together with common rail. If I want to test a conventional loco, the DCC is unplugged.

So I surmise that backward compatibality is something that MTH is not even remotely interested in with DCS. I sure hope that there is a lot of new blood out there to take the place of the sales that you won't make to me for DCS. Do you really expect me to retrofit 30 plus locomotives with DCS decoders? If so, ya better make those decoders available for less than $20.00 each, as that is all I pay for DCC decoders currently (without sound).

QUOTE: 4. M.T.H. is not strong arming anyone and we certainly aren't forcing consumers to use our equipment. M.T.H. cannot patent what came before us which means that features found in DCC today are available for any and all to use.

This isn't the issue. 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'.

In your earlier post of February, 2004, you stated the following:

QUOTE: "Secondly, M.T.H. is not claiming any patents on the concept of Back EMF as has been reported recently. Back EMF has been in existence for years and is not applicable to our technology. It was simply referenced as an existing form of speed control in our patents and some folks misread these patents and assumed we are claiming it as our own invention.

Third, M.T.H. did recently send out letters to DCC manufacturers in the model railroading community who are developing or utilizing technology that may violate our U.S. Patents. These letters were meant to advise them of possible conflicts with our patents that cover 2-way communications and speed control in 1 scale mile per hour increments. These are the only issues we have alerted the DCC community about."

I am pleased that you have cleared up for the community at large any misconceptions relative to BEMF. It is a shame that you are continually lamblasted on that point. However, your point #3 is what imflames me about MTH's position. Two way communication is possible, and was being discussed by the DCC-SIG prior to your letter. Patenting scale mile per hour increment control is just plain assinine. I can't fault you for getting the patent, but I'd like to slap the buffoons at the US Patent Office that were so obviously asleep at allowing a patent to be issued for something so general. So, MTH can rejoice that you were able to pull the wool over the eyes of the patent examiner, but to expect that the DCC manufacturers should have to come to you to "license" the use of 2 way communication or 1 SMPH increments is where I draw the line.

If you are really intent on clearing up my objections to MTH's practices in this area, a simple letter to the DCC manufacturers stating "We will not litigate 2 way communication or 1 scale mile per hour control as long as it is done within the confines of what can be developed within the DCC control architecture" would be enough to lay my concerns to rest. For some reason though, I think I'd have better luck meeting Santa Claus than seeing MTH issue such a letter based on statements further in your response.

QUOTE: What we are doing, however, is introducing locomotives that do far more than other engines currently available on the marketplace. If you wi***o utilize the advanced features found in a Proto-Sound 3.0 HO locomotive you must use a DCS controller. The best analogy to this can be found in the many brands of television sets sold today. Each manufacturer's set uses a remote control to access certain features of the TV. While "universal" remote controls can be purchased from an electronics store to turn on those TVs, change channels, etc. they may not activate the picture-in-picture, screen settings, favorite channel settings or any of the other unique features found in a particular TV set model. For those features, you need the manufacturer's specific remote control.

This was exactly what the DCC standards hoped to avoid.

QUOTE: 5. One of the false beliefs about DCC is that other manufacturers are sharing their features with one another for the good of the consumer. This is flat out false.

Now you are starting with the marketing-speak again. It is true that I cannot take my NCE hammerhead hand-held throttles (which look like DCS throttles, only they came out at least eight years earlier) and use them on a Digitrax control system, or vice versa. They utilize different bus architecture. However, once the signals get to the rails, I can take any DCC controlled locomotive, and run it on any Lenz, Digitrax, MRC, NCE, Easy-DCC etc railroad.

Features vary widely between manfacturers. That is what differentiates different manufacturer's systems, and why so many manufacturers can thrive in the DCC market, because they market to different needs. The person that has a 4x8 railroad can purchase an entry level system that only controls 99 locomotives. He doesn't need to spend the money on a high end Digitrax, Lenz, or NCE system. But, he can take his locomotives and run them on any of the other systems if presented with the opportunity.

Yes, DCC manfacturers compete. What they also do is ensure that everybody's locomotives work with everybody elses system. That is a good thing, and DCS doesn't allow that by your own admission.

So lets not paint the DCC manufacturers as the bad guys here just because they dont sit around and toss back a six-pack together. Any rivalry that occurs between manufacturers is transparent to the end user, something that won't be the case once DCS shows up on the scene in HO.

QUOTE: What these manufacturers are doing is following a general set of rules established by the DCC community as the basis for locomotive command control. Each DCC manufacturer then proceeds to add additional features to their DCC controllers to help differentiate their product from those of their competitors. Those manufacturers developed those features to earn them more market share and presumably more profits.

Oh, but there is a big difference here. One of the features that attracted me to NCE was the easy methods to program decoders, and build consists. At the time I made my purchasing decision, NCE was easier to use. NCE didn't patent their screens, or the layout of their hammerhead throttle. Digitrax was free to come up with a better way to do it with their DT400 throttle. NCE and Digitrax didn't send out any legal letters to each other, and the state of the DCC art was elevated for all concerned. Competition, yes. But for lack of a better term, friendly competition, at least when viewed from the perspective of the legal crap that occurs amongst three rail manufacturers.

QUOTE: Sharing all these features with one another makes for a bad return on their investment. At the end of the day, each of these companies need to stay in business. Spending money to develop features that are then shared with competitors is a recipe to shutter your doors not keep them open.

BINGO. Now we understand why the letter was sent out, to maximize the return on investment for MTH. Now, being a believer in the capitalist system, in principle, I don't have a problem with that. But when you constrain the development of the competition with the patenting of general features and concepts, while it is completely legal, it is to this individual repugnant, and not to the betterment of the HO community at large.

QUOTE: By incorporating DCC functions in our Proto-Sound 3.0 equipped locomotives, we ensure that the user can operate our engines with existing DCC equipment. Nothing is different here from what other HO locomotive manufactuers do. Yet, if the consumer desires to access the unique features in our engines, then he can do so with a DCS system. If he or she doesn't wi***o purchase a DCS system, he still gets access to features and functions that are accessible from any DCC controller.

And through your issuance of your letter, with the implied threat of litigation, you have ensured that at the very least, the DCC community will have 'features" such as two way communication, and cruise control set in 1 SMPH intervals delayed, if not denied. And you wonder why some of us are getting so upset?

QUOTE: As a bonus, he will gain access to some features that other manufacturers don't include in their engines. In short, you get more fun out of your Proto-Sound 3.0 engine when you use DCC to control it. You get a lot more fun out of a Proto-Sound 3.0 engine when you use choose DCS.

This is entirely true, especially when you constrain future development of DCC with your patents.

QUOTE: 6. Yes, we do plan on releasing HO diesels. More product announcements will be made in early 2005.

Come clean on the points that I raised, and maybe I'll be a customer if you produce something of interest to me (era, 1952, Great Northern and Northern Pacific)

QUOTE: Big Boy 4005,

Your points are well taken and M.T.H. has obviously placed the fly in the punch in an effort to protect our patents. However, we offered to work with each manufacturer. We offered to license our technology - something we have not done in O. No calls, no letters, not a peep heard from them. We can be blamed for their delays if you wish and prosecuted for protecting our investment but once you've been ripped off by unscrupulous competitors you tend to look at your backside a lot more closely.

As stated above, manufacturers shouldn't have to license 1 SMPH or two way communication, so your offer means nothing unless it is a no-cost license. Anything above that, and all I am paying for in future DCC products with licensing agreements with MTH is the stupidity of the US Patent Office in issuing patents for things they had no business patenting.

Best regards,
Jerry J. Zeman, Jr.

[darth9x9]

Hey Jerry,

Let me be the first to thank for such a detailed an informative post!!! I can't wait to see what MTH posts as a reply. I also anxiously await the result of your offer to test their system on your layout.

[Anonymous]

Bill Conner: if you would have read all the posts to this subject here and on the classic toy trains form I told in detail that I was a qsi dealer and it is no secret. I no longer am a qsi dealer as they stopped making 3 rail stuff when they lost their contract with mth.
What is the big deal with having been a dealer. Sure, I am biased towards QSI but then I know things you do not know about the loss of the MTH contract,.
Your comments are the type of thing that happens on the OGR board. Try and intimidate someone so you can shut them up. Remember when I told the o gauge board there was a lawsuit coming from QSI. You guys made a mockery of me. Guess what, andy just made it public on the beginning of this post.
Don;t you feel a little stupid after a 70 plus year old man had to write a autobiography about his illness he has had for years and just was asking to have his right to post without the intimidation factor.
Anyone who ever faulted this man should have his head examined including the webmaster.
If you do not know what I am talking about it is worth your while to read it.
Shame on you Bill, but you certainly have the right to your opinion just as I do.
Lets keep the intimidation factor to the other board. They specialize in that.
dave roxin

[rrinker]

Excellent post, Jerry. To the point and full of information, not opinion. I too am anxiously awaiting the response this one gets.

As for the garden hose/fire hose analogy, there are a couple of ways MTH could increase the data flow. One is by increasing the data rate, the frequency of the control signal. If the frequency is doubled, you can theoretically transmit twice as much data in the same time. Another option would be to utilize some form of frequency shift multiplexing, as is done with high speed modems - the phone system is not capable of transmitting a data rate high enough to encode 56kbps in a purely 1 and 0 waveform, instead the carrier frequency is much lower and that carrier contains multiple streams of data at the same time which get reassembled in the receiving modem. Either one would work, or a combination of both, and there's probably an easy way to make the decoder detect which signal it is seeing and operate accordingly. Increasing the base frequency though will increase sensitivity to noise.
As for this 'feature' (I put it in quotes because it's certainly not something a serious operator is interested in. Toy train operators, sure) of sendign sounds to the locomotive, ie having your train play Christmas carols, I can not see it being possible over an open conductor medium like model train track of using a frwequency high enough to support multiple instanceso f this feature, UNLESS it is a broadcast type thing (ie, ALL sound locomotives play "Jingle Bells" rather than this K4 playing "Deck the Halls" and that GG1 playing "Jingle Bells"). I don;t claim to know everything, but I AM an electrical engineer with some idea of how all this stuff works.
In DEFENSE of MTH - "better DCC" certainly is possible, there are plenty of things in the NMRA DCC spec that are needlessly complicated because of the original desire to remain compatible with the earliest Lenz designs. Shoehorning in more 'modern' features like 28/128 speed steps and additional functions beyond mere headlight control has resulted in some packet layouts that are quite kludgy. A redesign from the ground up would not be compatible with existing DCC but WOULD look a lot nicer to the engineers and programmers. And probably free up code space in the decoders for additional features.
And now MY question to MTH. You have written in this thread the Back EMF is not under contention, ONLY the use of Back-EMF to offer 1smph speed increments. Therefore if QSI for example used Back-EMF but did not offer the ability to control at exactly 1smph increments, am I to assume that MTH would have no issue with this?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker

And now MY question to MTH. You have written in this thread the Back EMF is not under contention, ONLY the use of Back-EMF to offer 1smph speed increments. Therefore if QSI for example used Back-EMF but did not offer the ability to control at exactly 1smph increments, am I to assume that MTH would have no issue with this?

Does this mean that if (BIG IF) I developed a DCC system that used back EMF to control speed in say, 2 mph increments, that MTH wouldn't litigate[?]
I mean after all, it would be different than Mikes, wouldn't it??[}:)]

[Big_Boy_4005]

Rrinker, I think one of us missed something. I thought Andy was saying that DCS has the higher capacity data flow as part of it's design. Maybe what they are doing is storing the sounds in their box, and transmitting them along with action commands, then playing them over the onboard speaker. This would account for how you can download new sounds into the system.

Keep in mind DCS is designed for the noisey AC track environment. So is Lionel's TMCC. How many bits of data are being used for DCC these days? Lionel uses 16.

[darth9x9]

Hey KBFCSME,

I would say go for it! I truly doubt any of us could tell the difference between 1mph and 2mph increments with the naked eye.

BC

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by darth9x9

Hey KBFCSME,

I would say go for it! I truly doubt any of could tell the difference between 1mph and 2mph increments with the naked eye.

BC

Actually, to be prototypical, don't we just need 8 notches?[;)]

[darth9x9]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

QUOTE: Originally posted by darth9x9

Hey KBFCSME,

I would say go for it! I truly doubt any of could tell the difference between 1mph and 2mph increments with the naked eye.

BC

Actually, to be prototypical, don't we just need 8 notches?[;)]

QUICK ELLIOT, TO THE PATENT OFFICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BC

[Anonymous]

BC
My post is above yours, I'm claiming "prior art!" [swg][(-D][:-,][swg][(-D][:-,]

[darth9x9]

KBFCSME,

Not if I beat you to the patent office first! MTH has taught me well. [}:)]

BC