M.T.H. Responds To DCC Lawsuit Allegations

[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.

[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]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

Will you?

Mark DeSchane, ***

[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]

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

[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][;)]

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.)

[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]

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

[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]

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

[Anonymous]

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

[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

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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.