M.T.H. Responds To DCC Lawsuit Allegations

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by buckthorrne

QUOTE: When it comes to MTH, sometimes there are things that people on OGR want to say, but for whatever reason can't, so they come here to CTT. This topic has nothing to do with O gauge, it's about HO and DCC and DCS. But because MTH is involved, a lot of those guys are curious.

Nothing to do with O?
No, I have to disagee on that one.[:)]
The days of the distant cousin hobbies are not quite as pronounced as they once were. With Atlas doing what they do, Lionels attempt?, MTH's entry into HO, and many other smaller companies cross-scale/gauge offerings, their corporate happenings are interesting to many.
As a Hi-Railer, I have really appreciated reading these threads, which really broadened my understanding of other scales which can't totally be a bad thing , can it?
Incidentally I have also enjoyed reading a long thread here and not having it disappear forever from underneath me as I refreshed it to read more posts. Sadly, this has been the case on some other venues.

Jim

You got me Jim, maybe nothing wasn't the right word. It is nice to see my fellow O gaugers step up and be good neighbors on this issue. Maybe it would have been better for me to have said we are only indirectly involved. HO isn't our scale of choice, but we care about their troubles enough to speak out. MTH has been on our radar for a long time, but most of the HO guys have never heard of them until this.

Back in February when this really got going, there were a number of people who were so upset, that they just started bashing MTH. I think I was the first one to step up and say that MTH makes some very nice products, and I posted this photo.



After that, the focus turned to the patent and it's fallout.

We have come so far on this topic. It started out with Andy TELLING everyone MTH's position, and now we are at a point where MTH is actually LISTENING. I didn't do this, everyone did, especially Jerry Zeman. He threw down the gauntlet, and to his credit, Andy has picked it up.[^][8D]

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know why Rich Melvin is so protective of MTH?
Does he have a vested interest in them. Yes it is true, as I was a member over there for a couple of years and then just plain had it.
You can bash lionel, atlas, 3rd rail, k-line all you want and no problem, but say one thing bad against mth and you are in deep do do.
It really should have its name change to "The Gospel of Mike Wolf Fourm" as that is basically what it is.
Before Rich Melvin took over it was a 1st class place where you had freedom, but no more. Figure it out, I can;t , don't care to and just got my cancelled subscription refund in the mail saturday. No big loss as all it has in it is more ads. Classic toy trains has the good stuff like the article on track by all the players in O gauge.
By the way did any of you get a questionaire in your email from kalmbach.
Very good idea. Find out just what people want. dave.

[3railguy]

I see more MTH ads in OGR magazine than I do Lionel. I believe Jim Barret had some interest in MTH when he worked at Davis Electronics. Apparently he was involved in sound recordings for PS-1 boards.

[ben10ben]

"You can bash lionel, atlas, 3rd rail, k-line all you want and no problem, but say one thing bad against mth and you are in deep do do."

I've said plenty of bad things about MTH in the past, and never had them deleted. I've also read plenty of negative comments about MTH over there, and a search could probably turn them up.

Read the DCS forum. It's a whole page of problems with and negative comments about MTH.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ben10ben

"You can bash lionel, atlas, 3rd rail, k-line all you want and no problem, but say one thing bad against mth and you are in deep do do."

I've said plenty of bad things about MTH in the past, and never had them deleted. I've also read plenty of negative comments about MTH over there, and a search could probably turn them up.

Read the DCS forum. It's a whole page of problems with and negative comments about MTH.

Well well, I see the top OGR apologist has made an appearance here tonight. How come you didn't bring Mr. MTH with you?[:0]

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't miss OGR if they went broke and folded.

[robengland]

Hi JerryZeman

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

[Big_Boy_4005]

OK guys, let's not turn this into the "why I don't like OGR show".[swg]

I think it's safe to say that there are a lot of people who share those feelings. There's no point reliving all the unpleasantness from this past spring when Rich thought he was going to have to charge for the forum. In all fairness to Rich, he does what he feels he has to do controlling the content of HIS forum.

Just think about the relative size of Kalmbach and OGR, and what MTH advertising means to both companies. This is probably the only forum on the web large enough and strong enough to host this discussion. We should all be thanking Kalmbach for the opportunity to discuss this.

[Anonymous]

I went over the OGR forum just to look. One of the first strings I found was entitled DCS, DCC, TMCC or DC. When you read it, I would say the huge majority of respondents praise DCC, with TMCC second and a few praising DCS. While one post on OGR does not make a trend, it is interesting to me that the when asked it sure seemed to me like a majority of resonders to that string were going DCC

http://ogaugerr.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=63160042&f=3181048701&m=3091074801&p=1

By the way, I do thank whomever for keeping this thread alive although I don't see why it's such a big deal, this seems like the most information and 'action getting' string I've ever seen. I do give MTH credit for listening and responding. I'm still not ready to buy anything from them yet. Too much litigation in the country, not enough love :-)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by roxin2002

Does anyone know why Rich Melvin is so protective of MTH?
Does he have a vested interest in them. Yes it is true, as I was a member over there for a couple of years and then just plain had it.
You can bash lionel, atlas, 3rd rail, k-line all you want and no problem, but say one thing bad against mth and you are in deep do do.
It really should have its name change to "The Gospel of Mike Wolf Fourm" as that is basically what it is.
Before Rich Melvin took over it was a 1st class place where you had freedom, but no more. Figure it out, I can;t , don't care to and just got my cancelled subscription refund in the mail saturday. No big loss as all it has in it is more ads. Classic toy trains has the good stuff like the article on track by all the players in O gauge.
By the way did any of you get a questionaire in your email from kalmbach.
Very good idea. Find out just what people want. dave.

I agree 100%!!!!
OGR+RM=[censored]

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by plane_crazy

I went over the OGR forum just to look. One of the first strings I found was entitled DCS, DCC, TMCC or DC. When you read it, I would say the huge majority of respondents praise DCC, with TMCC second and a few praising DCS. While one post on OGR does not make a trend, it is interesting to me that the when asked it sure seemed to me like a majority of resonders to that string were going DCC

http://ogaugerr.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=63160042&f=3181048701&m=3091074801&p=1

By the way, I do thank whomever for keeping this thread alive although I don't see why it's such a big deal, this seems like the most information and 'action getting' string I've ever seen. I do give MTH credit for listening and responding. I'm still not ready to buy anything from them yet. Too much litigation in the country, not enough love :-)

That is an interesting topic, thanks for the link, I missed that one. Keep in mind that OGR deals with both 2 and 3 rail O.

The part I found most interesting is that Atlas actually sells 2 rail TMCC versions. That seems very strange to me. I have considered running my 3 rail layout on on DC, but I have always understood that the bell and whistle are triggered by a simple DC bias applied to the rails. Thus, running on DC would leave one or the other on all the time. What a racket!

As far as the life of this topic goes, I would expect Andy to check in this morning. After that it may slip to the back burner until the test at Jerry Zeman's house is completed. Then a whole new round of discussion will pop up.[:)]

[Anonymous]

Folks, I understand your concern about any patents slowing down development. Patent processes are frustrating, and it sounds like we're now getting a taste of what happens all the time in biotech R&D patent battles.

But I am also have many friends who, like MTH, have had bad experiences with Far Eastern businesses fleecing them of intellectual property. The business culture there is different, and I commend MTH for defending themselves.

As far as slowing development with other manufacturers is concerned, MTH may wi***o do more than "write a letter" to them expressing willingness to talk. They should go visit each of them, get to know them, and propose realistic terms for sharing their technology. Resolving the gridlock will require hard work building trust, not just elegantly written letters. If MTH isn't doing their share to bail out the airlines traveling to see the manufacturers, they're also not doing enough to resolve the gridlock.

Good luck to all of us.

[JerryZeman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by robengland

Hi JerryZeman

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

Hi Rob;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which of us is right? Time will tell.

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

regards,
Jerry Zeman

[jfugate]

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

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

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

At least that's how I understand things.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

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

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

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

At least that's how I understand things.

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

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by roxin2002

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

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

[3railguy]

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

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

[Big_Boy_4005]

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

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

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

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

[cjcrescent]

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

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cjcrescent

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

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

[robengland]

Hi JerryZeman

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

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

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

cheers
Rob

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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

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

[Big_Boy_4005]

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

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

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

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

[robengland]

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

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

[Anonymous]

Big Boy,

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

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

[Anonymous]

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

[rrinker]

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

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

--Randy

[Anonymous]

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

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

Mark