M.T.H. Responds To DCC Lawsuit Allegations

[simon1966]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dkelly

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

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

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

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TMCCexpert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TMCCexpert


I could of had a baby by now.

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

[Anonymous]

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

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

[JerryZeman]

Dear Mr. Krebiehl;

I've intersperced my comments within your response.

QUOTE: Originally posted by mthrnd

Hello everyone. My name is Dave Krebiehl and I am the VP of R&D for MTH. My name can be found on the DCS patents as well as most others held by MTH. I am the person primarily responsible for overseeing the development of our DCS and ProtoSound 2.0 systems. Please do not misunderstand these statements as arrogance or patting myself on the back, I just want you to know the basis for my perspective. Actually, I can only accept a portion of the credit for DCS. I simply had the privilege to coordinate the ideas and marry them with technology.

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

QUOTE: I have been reading the posts following Andy Edleman’s explanation of MTH’s position, goals, and intentions and frankly, I too now have a headache, as someone else put it. After a break and some Tylenol, I feel compelled to make a statement.

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

QUOTE: I agree with many of you that venom, insults, threats, and the like are counter productive. After all, we are discussing model trains here, right? I will try to adopt a tone of discussion opposed to argument.

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

QUOTE: First of all, MTH developed the DCS system in order to provide our O gauge customers with a command control solution other than TMCC. Even if we were interested in licensing TMCC at the time, you can imagine the terms may not have been favorable.

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

QUOTE: We studied DCC and decided that for the features we wanted, it was not a feasible solution. For example, you cannot stream Christmas music down the rails and through your train via DCC. While this is clearly not a true model railroading feature, it was important to us in order to market starter trains to non-train enthusiasts. We, as a manufacturer, must always strive to expand this great hobby.

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

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

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

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

QUOTE: When we decided to continue to grow our business and enter the HO market, it was an obvious and natural choice to utilize our investment in DCS. Knowing full well that most of those running HO models in command mode (digital control) use DCC, we deliberately included a level of DCC compatibility in the design. Prospective MTH HO customers can enjoy running our models in conventional (DC only), DCC, and DCS modes. We aren’t forcing anyone to operate in any one of these protocols. We are simply offering the customers a choice. They can determine for themselves which is best suited for their interests.

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

QUOTE: As for out patents, most manufacturing companies that develop technology do so for profit. We would be fooli***o invest the resources and not take steps to protect our investment. Protecting our investment doesn’t mean suppressing others that want to develop new and innovative products. There were an awful lot of patents out there before we developed DCS. We listed more than 80 of them as references on our original DCS patent application. These patents did not prevent us from developing the system however, they shaped the way in which we did it.

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

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

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

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

QUOTE: This was not intended to be a threat and should not be perceived as one today. If someone blatantly infringes on technology we feel is proprietary and diminishes the value of our investment, of course we have to consider the best course of action. This doesn’t have to mean litigation.

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

QUOTE: When I set out to write this post, I told myself to be brief, to the point, and not write a book. Apparently, I have failed. I apologize for the long-winded statement however, there is probably even more that needs to be said.

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

QUOTE: As a preemptive measure against those who may criticize me for not replying regularly to subsequent posts, let me just say that we are very busy developing HO DCS. Please do not take my inability to engage with the forum in ongoing discussions as rude or uninterested. I will continue to read your comments and take your viewpoints to heart.

I hope that some of you with concerns can at least see our point of view even if you don't agree with it. Please be patient and try not to jump to conclusions about what we will or will not due. We are forging our way into this new territory with the objective to earn customers, not alienate them.

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

regards,
Jerry Zeman

A System1 / NCE DCC user since 1997

[Anonymous]

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

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

Tom Bellfoy
Toy Train Workshop
Canada

[Anonymous]

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

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

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mthrnd

Hello everyone. My name is Dave Krebiehl and I am the VP of R&D for MTH. My name can be found on the DCS patents as well as most others held by MTH. I am the person primarily responsible for overseeing the development of our DCS and ProtoSound 2.0 systems. Please do not misunderstand these statements as arrogance or patting myself on the back, I just want you to know the basis for my perspective. Actually, I can only accept a portion of the credit for DCS. I simply had the privilege to coordinate the ideas and marry them with technology.

I have been reading the posts following Andy Edleman’s explanation of MTH’s position, goals, and intentions and frankly, I too now have a headache, as someone else put it. After a break and some Tylenol, I feel compelled to make a statement.

I agree with many of you that venom, insults, threats, and the like are counter productive. After all, we are discussing model trains here, right? I will try to adopt a tone of discussion opposed to argument.

I hope that some of you with concerns can at least see our point of view even if you don't agree with it. Please be patient and try not to jump to conclusions about what we will or will not due. We are forging our way into this new territory with the objective to earn customers, not alienate them.

Best regards,

Dave

DAve

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

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

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

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

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

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

[robengland]

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

[AntonioFP45]

That is interesting.

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

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

Cheers!

[simon1966]

Antonio,

Funny thing, I am in W. VA on business this week and dropped into a train store this afternoon that I noticed as I was driving along. The store was almost exclusively O scale. I started chatting with the owner about MTH. He had a bit of Rail King, but is liquidating it and not getting anything else from MTH. I was kind of puzzled about this as I had the impression that O scalers were fairly accepting of MTH. He knew nothing of the unrest in HO and had made this decision based on his past experience doing business with the company.

[Anonymous]

Here is another perceptiom MTH has to overcome in the HO community.

My friend Dan Welch of Chicago Illinois had this to say about MTH.

"M.T. Who? M.T.H? Oh Those guys that make three rail junk."

THen later in our conversation he stated

"They are making what? A Pennsy K4? Well First off Its Pennsy, Then we need another K4 in HO like we need antoher F-Unit.""

Just some tidbits to think about.

James

[AntonioFP45]

In the end guys (and ladys) it's what is done with the wallet or pocketbook that will have an effect.

Interesting encounter. I visited an LHS after Hurrican Jeanne, thankfully, didn't hit us with full force. A conversation started between the owner and a small group of customers. One of the customers asked the owner if he was going to stock HO MTH items (as he had Railking items in the past).

Honestly, he broke out laughing! His response: "Oh, No way!" One of the customers asked about potential sales. His comment basically was that:

#1. The customers interested in MTH-Railking items were far and few in between. He stated that almost always it's: collectors, newbies, or a parent getting a child a present..

#2. He absolutely disliked the "hard slam" actions taken by MTH! He equated it with UP and made some "colorful metaphors" which I won't repeat. So bascially he's not planning stocking the MTH line. He did state that what he's been doing is pointing the inquiring Railking customers to another LHS that does sells MTH products. Now this was actually coming from an LHS owner!

I found it a litlle surprising as he is in business to also make a profit, but yet the group of customers chimed in with comments similar to that of the shop's owner as well as many of the comments here.

The reason I point this out as many times before: Public perception of strong arm tactics. The perceived reality of the negative outcomes of the "lawsuit's" effects on Command Control's advancement to the industry.

Peace, out!

[simon1966]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Rod M.

QUOTE: Originally posted by simon1966

OK, so an MTH DCS HO locomotive will run on a DCC equipped layout. Will a DCC equipped locomotive run on a DCS layout? I have far more money tied up in DCC locomotives than I do in DCC hardware. If these locomotives can not run on DCS, there is no chance of switching to DCS.

You, read the majority here posting, just don't get it. They are not asking any HO modeler to switch Command systems. If you run DCC and like one of their engines, it will run on your layout just like any other manufactures locomotive. If you don't run any sort of command, they will operate that way as well. A new comer to model railroading comes along, much like myself almost 2 years ago to O gauge, and they now have a choice.


Rod March

Rod, I didn't miss any points, I simply want to know if DCS can run a DCC equipped locomotive? Regardless of if they can, or not, then you are correct a new person into the market has an additional choice, but if they choose DCS not much of a selection! A DCS user would be limited to running only MTH locomotives, which would rather restrict ones ability to pick an era and a location for a layout. As for asking HO scalers to switch to DCS, if they are not marketing to DCC users, why bother to point out in such detail all the things you don't get with DCC when using a DCS locomotive? DCC users switch mamufacturers all the time. If I get fed up with Digitrax (unlikely as I love it!), then I can purchase Lenz, NCE etc. and all my Locomotives will run. I simply want to know if DCS is even a viable option.

[Anonymous]

If MTH does not try to somehow legally restrain the manufacture of DCC equipment as it is now manufactured, there is no issue, Period. If MTH comes up with better products, they deserve to protect the technology they developed. Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether those products are DCC compatible or not, MTH has the right to market them. (MTH has stated that PS3.0 WILL be DCC Compatible with reduced features) GOOD!!! The ONLY legitimate question is: Will DCC be protected? If so, look for better HO trains.

[Anonymous]

What did he say? Did some one invent something new? If I buy MTH will my engine run better? How much better?

so tired....., can't typ....

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by simon1966

OK, so an MTH DCS HO locomotive will run on a DCC equipped layout. Will a DCC equipped locomotive run on a DCS layout? I have far more money tied up in DCC locomotives than I do in DCC hardware. If these locomotives can not run on DCS, there is no chance of switching to DCS.

You, read the majority here posting, just don't get it. They are not asking any HO modeler to switch Command systems. If you run DCC and like one of their engines, it will run on your layout just like any other manufactures locomotive. If you don't run any sort of command, they will operate that way as well. A new comer to model railroading comes along, much like myself almost 2 years ago to O gauge, and they now have a choice.

February 2003 was my first purchase of any thing train related since my child hood TYCO stuff. I wanted something bigger, I wanted O gauge. I had no idea there were other manufactures out their other than Lionel. I did my homework, and being a person who thoroughly enjoys technology, I decided on DCS. Since, I have acquired TMCC as well.

To each their own though.

I would like to thank Dave Krebiehl and Andy Edleman for commenting on this particular subject. Every manufacturer should be so professional and have this type of qaulity personal.

Rod March

[simon1966]

OK, so an MTH DCS HO locomotive will run on a DCC equipped layout. Will a DCC equipped locomotive run on a DCS layout? I have far more money tied up in DCC locomotives than I do in DCC hardware. If these locomotives can not run on DCS, there is no chance of switching to DCS.

[andrechapelon]

You fellers over t' MTH either need to quit dependin' so much on yore arsenal o' legal talent(?) and maybe hire or rent someone steeped in the lore of public relations. There's a lotta folks out there who don't like you and are mighty riled up by yore actions. I don't happen to be one of 'em, but I gotta admit I'm sure enjoyin' your predicament. Then again, free entertainment is almost as good as free beer.

Take a piece of friendly (and FREE) advice and hire someone with a modicum of people skills to speak for MTH.

On second thought, don't listen to me. I ain't done chucklin' yet.

Andre

[Anonymous]

How much says the R & D guy wasn't involved in all the stuff that created this whole issue?

[Anonymous]

The issue boils down to whether MTH will try to patent technology embodied in the DCC standards. (I believe that these are embodied in the current revisions of NMRA RP-9 and NMRA S-9 but there may be other documents I am not aware of.) If there is no threat to the DCC standards, then the HO community should welcome MTH with open arms because MTH has a track record of producing unique products anfd in at least one case opening up a whole new market segment (O-gauge 3-rail subway modeling)

[dharmon]

Thank you Dave (mthrnd). That was clear, spin-free and non-headache creating.

[Anonymous]

Antonio,

You are certainly right about the Walthers catalog. Got mine Friday (just in time for the weekend!) and I think my fiance is still trying to figure out how I can spend hours flipping pages looking at pictures of doodads (she also questions the time spent on this forum). Of course, what does she know? She spends hours wasting her time looking through those silly bridal magazines and some wedding planner bulletin board. She probably has cooties also.

[rrinker]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dkelly

Hmmmmm. The technical guy did a much better job of explaining MTH's position than the marketing guy (perhaps they need to change jobs). I thought the marketing guy's original post was a lot of mumbo jumbo double talk. While I am still uncomfortable about MTH's actions, I now have something to think about.

Very true. But then, us engineers just like to design and built neat things, those business and marketing majors always try to ruin our fun [:D][:D][:D][;)]

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sandy Jorgenson

According to the two hobby shops I patronize, they both tell me that N scale is outselling HO. So maybe HO isn't growing as some of us may think. Maybe we need the new blood and innovation that MTH will bring to HO!

Sandy,

Did you ask them where they got there "stats" from? Remember that in overall product sales, there are "quarterly periods" where sales of certain items jump suddenly and then eventually drop to normal or below normal levels. This is part of the economic cycle. There are several ways to corroborate the facts including checking with official government statistics, contacting the various manufacturers, etc. Best thing to do is check the sales for the "Previous Year", which would give a more realistic picture.

N Scale has grown tremendously and has gained a lot of respect, especially among the under 30 crowd. However HO still ranks at the top as far as steady sales. The HO and N markets are constantly introducing new innovations and products. MTH will be bringing new products to the HO market, and will just be one of many companies doing so.

QUOTE: Maybe we need the new blood?

Good Goobly! It seems like we've been getting plenty of it in just the past 5 years! Personally I sometimes feel a little overwhelmed when looking through a Walther's catalog. Just in purchasing cars, equipment, details, or upgrade kits whereas it used to take a few minutes, HO modelers can spend hours researching which product line offers what for the price. And don't forget that most of the DCC manufacturers that offer HO products also offer N products![;)]

Don't take my comments negatively at all, Sandy. By all means MTH should go on ahead but as I stated a few posts back: MTH's DCS may be a decent product that offers a "few"extras" compared to DCC, but with the very wide variety of choices already available in the HO market it is doubtful that MTH is going to blow the market away and arrive on the HO scene with a lot of fanfare, bells and whistles. (Beta vs. VHS) Several companies have already beaten them to the punch a couple of years earlier and additionally have strived to maintain a "Positve" public relationship as well as work with enhancing the NMRA standards.

Cheers!

[Anonymous]

Hmmmmm. The technical guy did a much better job of explaining MTH's position than the marketing guy (perhaps they need to change jobs). I thought the marketing guy's original post was a lot of mumbo jumbo double talk. While I am still uncomfortable about MTH's actions, I now have something to think about.

[Anonymous]

Hello everyone. My name is Dave Krebiehl and I am the VP of R&D for MTH. My name can be found on the DCS patents as well as most others held by MTH. I am the person primarily responsible for overseeing the development of our DCS and ProtoSound 2.0 systems. Please do not misunderstand these statements as arrogance or patting myself on the back, I just want you to know the basis for my perspective. Actually, I can only accept a portion of the credit for DCS. I simply had the privilege to coordinate the ideas and marry them with technology.

I have been reading the posts following Andy Edleman’s explanation of MTH’s position, goals, and intentions and frankly, I too now have a headache, as someone else put it. After a break and some Tylenol, I feel compelled to make a statement.

I agree with many of you that venom, insults, threats, and the like are counter productive. After all, we are discussing model trains here, right? I will try to adopt a tone of discussion opposed to argument.

First of all, MTH developed the DCS system in order to provide our O gauge customers with a command control solution other than TMCC. Even if we were interested in licensing TMCC at the time, you can imagine the terms may not have been favorable. We studied DCC and decided that for the features we wanted, it was not a feasible solution. For example, you cannot stream Christmas music down the rails and through your train via DCC. While this is clearly not a true model railroading feature, it was important to us in order to market starter trains to non-train enthusiasts. We, as a manufacturer, must always strive to expand this great hobby.

After spending years and millions of dollars developing DCS, MTH decided to utilize the system in other scales as we expand. First, we offered DCS in No. 1 gauge models in January of this year. Most customers enjoy even the simplest automatic features offered by DCS in conventional mode. We define conventional mode as AC or DC only operation. That is, no digital signals.

When we decided to continue to grow our business and enter the HO market, it was an obvious and natural choice to utilize our investment in DCS. Knowing full well that most of those running HO models in command mode (digital control) use DCC, we deliberately included a level of DCC compatibility in the design. Prospective MTH HO customers can enjoy running our models in conventional (DC only), DCC, and DCS modes. We aren’t forcing anyone to operate in any one of these protocols. We are simply offering the customers a choice. They can determine for themselves which is best suited for their interests.

As for out patents, most manufacturing companies that develop technology do so for profit. We would be fooli***o invest the resources and not take steps to protect our investment. Protecting our investment doesn’t mean suppressing others that want to develop new and innovative products. There were an awful lot of patents out there before we developed DCS. We listed more than 80 of them as references on our original DCS patent application. These patents did not prevent us from developing the system however, they shaped the way in which we did it.

Our notifying various manufacturers that out patents exist is standard legal protocol and was done at the insistence of our patent attorneys. This was not intended to be a threat and should not be perceived as one today. If someone blatantly infringes on technology we feel is proprietary and diminishes the value of our investment, of course we have to consider the best course of action. This doesn’t have to mean litigation.

When I set out to write this post, I told myself to be brief, to the point, and not write a book. Apparently, I have failed. I apologize for the long-winded statement however, there is probably even more that needs to be said.

As a preemptive measure against those who may criticize me for not replying regularly to subsequent posts, let me just say that we are very busy developing HO DCS. Please do not take my inability to engage with the forum in ongoing discussions as rude or uninterested. I will continue to read your comments and take your viewpoints to heart.

I hope that some of you with concerns can at least see our point of view even if you don't agree with it. Please be patient and try not to jump to conclusions about what we will or will not due. We are forging our way into this new territory with the objective to earn customers, not alienate them.

Best regards,

Dave

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by deschane

Bangert1, with all the hub-bub, how could you possibly think of anything other than a BLI K-4? Like we're all talking here, vote with your billfold!

Mark DeSchane

I certainly will look at both of them for detail and sound quality before I buy. The BLI engines I have so far are very good for the money and BLI replaced the chip on my PRR J1's and the Santa Fe northern, so I have a lot of respect for their customer service department.

I received an email response from BLI today concerning the SF E6 that is on its way. To quote BLI, Yes it will have plated sides to represent stainless steel. They really are trying to do things right.