Doughless The way I am reading this whole thing: (there seems to be some inconsistencies in BD and Rapido's comments talking about which version of F40PH BD is in question) BD's Canada supplier bought one of Rapido's existing F40PH-2D shells and made some changes to it to cast a reasonably close F40PH-3D shell.....before Rapido modified their F40PH-2D into a F40PH-3D shell (which is still in development). So, technically, BD is bringing a F40PH-3D into the market before Rapido has even built its first unit. Which is different than if Rapido came out with their F40PH-3D shell first, then BD copied that shell as the basis for their F40PH-3D model.
The way I am reading this whole thing: (there seems to be some inconsistencies in BD and Rapido's comments talking about which version of F40PH BD is in question)
BD's Canada supplier bought one of Rapido's existing F40PH-2D shells and made some changes to it to cast a reasonably close F40PH-3D shell.....before Rapido modified their F40PH-2D into a F40PH-3D shell (which is still in development).
So, technically, BD is bringing a F40PH-3D into the market before Rapido has even built its first unit.
Which is different than if Rapido came out with their F40PH-3D shell first, then BD copied that shell as the basis for their F40PH-3D model.
I see no inconsistencies. It would be all good if Big Dawg had used his own design as the basis of the -3D but he used Rapido's.
By your logic I could take a book, rewrite the last chapter and print it and call it an "original". Since the ending is completely different, it's a new work of mine.
Nope, it doesn't work like that.
------
Greg WilliamsCanterbury, NBCanadahttps://www.gregstrainyard.com/
cprfan Doughless The way I am reading this whole thing: (there seems to be some inconsistencies in BD and Rapido's comments talking about which version of F40PH BD is in question) BD's Canada supplier bought one of Rapido's existing F40PH-2D shells and made some changes to it to cast a reasonably close F40PH-3D shell.....before Rapido modified their F40PH-2D into a F40PH-3D shell (which is still in development). So, technically, BD is bringing a F40PH-3D into the market before Rapido has even built its first unit. Which is different than if Rapido came out with their F40PH-3D shell first, then BD copied that shell as the basis for their F40PH-3D model. I see no inconsistencies. It would be all good if Big Dawg had used his own design as the basis of the -3D but he used Rapido's. By your logic I could take a book, rewrite the last chapter and print it and call it an "original". Since the ending is completely different, it's a new work of mine. Nope, it doesn't work like that.
I'm not justifying anything. I'm just asking if BD used Rapidos 2D to make their 3D...or did they use Rapidos 3D to make their 3D.
- Douglas
DoughlessBD's Canada supplier bought one of Rapido's existing F40PH-2D shells and made some changes to it to cast a reasonably close F40PH-3D shell.....before Rapido modified their F40PH-2D into a F40PH-3D shell (which is still in development). So, technically, BD is bringing a F40PH-3D into the market before Rapido has even built its first unit. Which is different than if Rapido came out with their F40PH-3D shell first, then BD copied that shell as the basis for their F40PH-3D model.
I'm fairly certain that if the Dawg had access to the -3D shell, he'd just copy that one, too.
And it's simply not a -3D that he's offering. It's a hacked and weird -2D, complete with whatever Canadian features the mysterious "Canadian" didn't see the need to hack off. Those aren't on the American -3D. The side door isn't even close and was just what they decided to leave be, as changing that was apparently beyond the "moldmaker's" skill level.
He's only calling it a -3D to confuse customers into buying the weird shell he's selling as being the same as the forthcoming Rapido model. It's bogus to insist it's a -3D.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
DoughlessI'm not justifying anything. I'm just asking if BD used Rapidos 2D to make their 3D...or did they use Rapidos 3D to make their 3D.
The -3D is not yet out, so the Dawg hasn't had the chance to fake it into whatever he has in mind for that. He's simply calling that dog's breakfast he's selling a -3D to deceive customers who don't know any better.
mlehman Doughless BD's Canada supplier bought one of Rapido's existing F40PH-2D shells and made some changes to it to cast a reasonably close F40PH-3D shell.....before Rapido modified their F40PH-2D into a F40PH-3D shell (which is still in development). So, technically, BD is bringing a F40PH-3D into the market before Rapido has even built its first unit. Which is different than if Rapido came out with their F40PH-3D shell first, then BD copied that shell as the basis for their F40PH-3D model. And it's simply not a -3D that he's offering. It's a hacked and weird -2D, complete with whatever Canadian features the mysterious "Canadian" didn't see the need to hack off. Those aren't on the American -3D. The side door isn't even close and was just what they decided to leave be, as changing that was apparently beyond the "moldmaker's" skill level. He's only calling it a -3D to confuse customers into buying the weird shell he's selling as being the same as the forthcoming Rapido model. It's bogus to insist it's a -3D.
Doughless BD's Canada supplier bought one of Rapido's existing F40PH-2D shells and made some changes to it to cast a reasonably close F40PH-3D shell.....before Rapido modified their F40PH-2D into a F40PH-3D shell (which is still in development). So, technically, BD is bringing a F40PH-3D into the market before Rapido has even built its first unit. Which is different than if Rapido came out with their F40PH-3D shell first, then BD copied that shell as the basis for their F40PH-3D model.
I'm just trying to keep the facts straight, not putting someone high on a pedestal or low in the toilet by how accurate their model is.
It sounds like you're saying that BD is not reproducing either a Rapido 2D or soon to be released 3D, but a cruder version of both made out of a different material.
I just noticed that the current auction that the Dawg had up for these knock-offs (showing 6 available yesterday when I saw it) now shows that it is "Ended"
Well, that's surely something accurate for a change from the Dawg.
Doughless I'm just trying to keep the facts straight, not putting someone high on a pedestal or low in the toilet by how accurate their model is. It sounds like you're saying that BD is not reproducing either a Rapido 2D or soon to be released 3D, but a cruder version of both made out of a different material.
In addition he or his model master builder ripped off a Shapeways part for that rear appendage on the unit, that the person who did the design for is no longer receiving his money for doing the design on Shapeways.
Rick J
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
DoughlessIt sounds like you're saying that BD is not reproducing either a Rapido 2D or soon to be released 3D, but a cruder version of both made out of a different material.
See my message at 5:54 yesterday (Sunday) on page 4 of this thread. It has links to good pics of Rapido's models for comparison to the now ended ebay auction. I'm not going to give the Dawg any links, so you're on your own in finding it, but you find it you can still see the pics to compare to those in Rapido's well-labeled callout of various specific features of the -2D if you follow the "see original listing" link near the top.
mlehman Doughless I'm not justifying anything. I'm just asking if BD used Rapidos 2D to make their 3D...or did they use Rapidos 3D to make their 3D. The -3D is not yet out, so the Dawg hasn't had the chance to fake it into whatever he has in mind for that. He's simply calling that dog's breakfast he's selling a -3D to deceive customers who don't know any better.
Doughless I'm not justifying anything. I'm just asking if BD used Rapidos 2D to make their 3D...or did they use Rapidos 3D to make their 3D.
Mike. Someone else upstream mentioned that BD makes the only gp30B available, and I assume that by some standards depending upon their tolerance for inaccuracies, could claim that it isn't really a GP30B....or a very good one. So now we're introducing the concept of a company making a misrepresentation based upon modeling standards.
The source of the thread is copying intellectual property and either selling it substantially as is or altering it enough into a different product.
There are many comments in this thread and I'm not sure if the facts have really been made clear before a lot of opinions have been expressed.
DoughlessSo now we're introducing the concept of a company making a misrepresentation based upon modeling standards.
Nope, I'm not. I'm just pointing out the evidence for this.
DoughlessThe source of the thread is copying intellectual property and either selling it substantially as is or altering it enough into a different product.
We would not be having this discussion if the Dawg was simply a rather imaginative fellow who offered parts to suit his whimsy -- provided he created his own intellectual property instead of "borrowing" someone else's.
One more thing. Discussing the details as evidence of the shell's origin and the fact that it would be nonsensical to claim that it's actually a -3D when it's obviously not, that brings up an element that is not about modeling skills, but one that's even more troubling. Infringement of IP is one thing. I know a little about that, like I said I am no expert but can sort out the relevant references.
But I know relatively less about consumer deception or, as some would call it, fraud. Got my opinion on that, mostly that the Dawg is as good at fooling himself as the public about what's needed in terms of accurate descriptions of a product. Maybe hs really is that sloppy because he just doesn't know any better? But once you start involving the consumer, then the government gets more interested than they are in a commerical complaint over IP, which is almost always a civil matter and of no interest to the police. If I were the Dawg, I'd double check when one of my bright ideas overlaps with someone's actual product delivery dates. Might be best to hold off, even if you insist all this copying is AOK and totally above board ( ), so that no one could accuse you of trying to take adavanatge of the consumer through misrepresentation. That would be the safest path given the Dawg is certainly wandering in a mine field of bad assumptions right now.
mlehman Doughless So now we're introducing the concept of a company making a misrepresentation based upon modeling standards. Nope, I'm not. I'm just pointing out the evidence for this. Doughless The source of the thread is copying intellectual property and either selling it substantially as is or altering it enough into a different product. We would not be having this discussion if the Dawg was simply a rather imaginative fellow who offered parts to suit his whimsy -- provided he created his own intellectual property instead of "borrowing" someone else's.
Doughless So now we're introducing the concept of a company making a misrepresentation based upon modeling standards.
Doughless The source of the thread is copying intellectual property and either selling it substantially as is or altering it enough into a different product.
Based upon what I'm reading, a lot of the people who would buy the Rapido product would not buy the BD product because of crudeness. It sounds like Rapido and BD are serving two different markets, which creates more commerce than if Rapido had the only 3-ishD.
I'm assuming that if that 15% rule is generally accurate, the US Courts encourage a certain amount of copying to take place (at a level many are uncomfortable with) because they want a variety of products coming to market.
Otherwise, people who would settle for a crudish representation of a 3D would have to come to Rapido and pay $350 for a bunch of accuracy they didn't want...(a situation I'm sure Rapido would like) or not buy any 3D at all, which would be a shame because overall commerce would not be maximized if the "lower" customer would stay away from the market.
Doughless I'm assuming that if that 15% rule is generally accurate, the US Courts encourage a certain amount of copying to take place (at a level many are uncomfortable with) because they want a variety of products coming to market.
Yeah, there's very little that can actually be done about this. Assuming he did in fact copy the Rapido mold, he has altered it to the point where its value is questionable, and he's not even selling it as the same model. Add to this the model it represents is already a custom job by VIA rail, and you have a whole bunch of parties that could want a chunk of this dude's money.
Realistically, I have to agree that the work this guy does is probably not something a Rapido buyer would be interested in. I think the value in the Rapido model is that it's a high-quality, ready-to-run model with a lot of detail.
Julian
Modeling Pre-WP merger UP (1974-81)
DoughlessSo, technically, BD is bringing a F40PH-3D into the market before Rapido has even built its first unit. Which is different than if Rapido came out with their F40PH-3D shell first, then BD copied that shell as the basis for their F40PH-3D model.
If he used the 2D shell to make his master for the 3D, he's still just as guilty. Both shells are the IP of Rapido.
Steve S
mlehman I just noticed that the current auction that the Dawg had up for these knock-offs (showing 6 available yesterday when I saw it) now shows that it is "Ended" "This listing was ended by the seller because there was an error in the listing." Well, that's surely something accurate for a change from the Dawg.
No longer listed on his web site either.
Paul
DoughlessI'm assuming that if that 15% rule is generally accurate
It's not.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Steven S Doughless So, technically, BD is bringing a F40PH-3D into the market before Rapido has even built its first unit. Which is different than if Rapido came out with their F40PH-3D shell first, then BD copied that shell as the basis for their F40PH-3D model. If he used the 2D shell to make his master for the 3D, he's still just as guilty. Both shells are the IP of Rapido. Steve S
Doughless So, technically, BD is bringing a F40PH-3D into the market before Rapido has even built its first unit. Which is different than if Rapido came out with their F40PH-3D shell first, then BD copied that shell as the basis for their F40PH-3D model.
I really don't know the law and I'm just thinking out loud, but how did LL "clone" the Athearn truck?
If they didn't make a direct casting from each part, did they take precise measurements of each part? What's the difference?
And that stuff has to be more exact than a shell because the parts actually move. The LL truck is an exact copy of Athearn's IP, no matter how LL copied it.
The six axle truck is a kato clone. Does it have something to do with the fact that LL was one of the first to produce parts in China?
Nobody seemed to have a problem buying LL locos in the 90's.
Hi guys,
Here's some info about Canadian locomotive designations as I can see the nomenclature is tripping some people up.
VIA Rail Canada received the real F40PH-2D locomotives between 1986 and 1989. This looks similar to an Amtrak F40PH but has numerous significant differences. Rapido brought out a model of the VIA F40PH-2D in January 2015.
Rapido's Amtrak F40PH has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. It's a completely different project that only shares a handful of parts with the VIA F40PH-2D. Our model of the Amtrak F40PH is shipping to stores now.
Starting in 2010 the real VIA F40PH-2D locomotives were rebuilt. A lot of Canadian railfans have started calling the rebuilt units the F40PH-3. As that's a made-up railfan term, we at Rapido refer to this class of locomotive as a rebuilt F40PH-2D, which is a bit more accurate.
Big Dawg or his agents acquired a Rapido F40PH-2D model. They grafted a few details onto it and sanded down a few others to make an approximation of a rebuilt F40PH-2D. They then used this model as a master. They made resin copies of this model. And they have been selling the resin copies. The basis of their model is our shell. Not a scan of our shell. Not a measured-and-recreated version of our shell. But our actual, physical shell that we manufactured in our factory and delivered earlier this year.
These are not "debatable" statements. These are facts.
If you think there is nothing wrong with taking our model, changing it a bit, and then reselling castings of it, then the discussion is moot. There is nothing anyone on this list can say that will make you understand our point of view. We'll just have to agree to differ.
-Jason
Jason Shron - President - Rapido Trains Inc. - RapidoTrains.comMy HO scale Kingston Sub layout: Facebook.com/KingstonSub
After reading all five pages of this issue I keep thinking of one of the most famous incidents of intellectual property theft of all time. The "borrowing" of Dr Robert Kerns intermittant windshield circuit by the Ford Motor Co in the sixties. It took Dr Kerns years and basically almost his whole personal life to prove he was in fact the inventor therefore titled to immense royalties.
This case is exactly the same except BD did not even have permission to borrow the shell and the stakes are a little smaller. Still the unethical behavior of BD is disgusting.
Keep up the good work Jason. I have decided after this I will buy the new Amtrak F40 PH although I already have a Kato I added sound to.
SB
blabrideKeep up the good work Jason. I have decided after this I will buy the new Amtrak F40 PH although I already have a Kato I added sound to. SB
If it is of any help, the version of F40PH Rapido is doing in Amtrak is the phase I version. IIRC KATO did the phase III body - which was good for the higher number series Amtrak diesels. If I an afford one, I'll get one or Rapido's myself, although I've spent my Dec budget already on a couple of Athearns new SD40R's.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
That's what I realized after studying the Rapido's. I'm thinking I can do a late seventies early eighties Lone Star with some walther's Amfleets in a Phase II scheme. Somewhere I have a picture of a set up like this running down the middle of Mopac in Austin. It might have been the Inter American need to look. I am thinking the InterAmerican.
http://www.railpixs.com/amt2/AMT253_TempleTx_Jan78.jpg
This has been an exceptionally interesting thread although I think every possible viewpoint has been expressed.
My hunch is that we are now in an era with unprecedented ability to copy (and distribute those copies) physical objects -- much like the last few decades have seen a new and incredible ability to copy sounds (music), photos, entire books and movies. It is going to get more common and the copies are going to get better and better.
Some of the comments posted above mention that the Big Dawg versions look rough and inferior, perhaps in part because of BD's perceived need to maintain this 85%/15% ratio of copy vs. original. Or perhaps because of limitations of the technology available to him. Well it is easy to resist buying rough or inferior stuff. Surely there are those with access to the technology to make perfect copies.
The interesting MORAL dilemma comes when the copies are perfect and are really cheap and have wide distribution. Will we reward the original creators by loyally supporting them, or will we follow our pocketbooks and go with cheap?
Dave Nelson
Dave,
Until the costs of Shapeways come down with increased usage and or a better material, scanning and 3d printing a copy of the existing shell will probably cost more than buying the entire unit from the manufacturer.
We are seeing a lot of problems though, even with these shells from where ever they are made, we still need a frame, motor and trucks. Now with the current only make what is ordered plus a few extra units for parts the parts are now drying up what with the death of the blue box locomotives and the attendent cheap supply of parts that Athearn used to maintain.
Issues aside, I do not think Big Dawg is using any advanced techniques to produce his shells. Plain old build up a physical master, cast a mold, and then case the product with resin - much the same as many of the other small volume specialty kit makers like Westerfield, Sunshine, and F&C.
The ability to use a 3D scanner and directly send to a 3D printer most definitely is going to open up issues that weren't even thought of in science fiction when many of these laws were written.
Like I said, a real shame what's going on, because I really wanted to like the guy, even if none fo the products are things I would buy (too new for me). Because - Pug. However, regardless of taste in pets, stealing is stealing. And if the dog really is 50 pounds like he says on his web site, that's borderline animal abuse (probably over-loving with treats, actually) since Pugs should not be more than 25 pounds or so. They have enough issues without being overweight on top of it.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
When Mike Wolf sued Lionel for stealing intelectual property, four people were convicted — some serving jail time — and Lionel had to pay somewhere in the area of $40 million in fines and restitution!
Here is an excerpt from an Inc. Magazine article:
Samhongsa's former designer was convicted of trade-secret theft, as was the head of Korea Brass, who was found by a South Korean appellate court to have paid for the stolen designs and used them in the manufacture of trains it sold to Lionel. (A total of four people were convicted. The harshest sentence was a jail term of several months.) The link to Lionel was a U.S.-based Korea Brass sales agent named Yoo Chan Yang, who happened to be in South Korea the day of a February 2000 raid of Korea Brass' office and whose computer Korean agents seized. Yang's hard drive contained e-mail correspondence with a high-level Lionel employee that pointed to Lionel as a knowing recipient of the stolen designs and some of MTH's production schedules as well.
While Lionel and Wellspring have mostly declined to comment on the trial, juror Edward Rutkowski, a 51-year-old tooling layout inspector and the only member of the jury with relevant technical manufacturing expertise, explained one of the determining factors. "What was pretty damning," he says, "we brought into the jury room two trains [an MTH and a Lionel]. I flipped them over and the way the screw holes and everything lined up there was no doubt in my estimation that it was a copied design. You could have literally screwed the parts for one train to the other."
Read the full article here:
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050201/mth.html
VERY similar circumstances,
Ed
Just have a quick question for everybody. How is what BD is doing (not condoning the behavior) any different then someone buying a pack of DPM building modules, windows, a vehicle kit, stonework mold and then casting your own parts using Micro-Mark products?
Not defending BD,but I would like to know how Jason knows possitivly that BD's F-40 uses his shell.
{snip}
csmincemoyerDPM building modules, windows, a vehicle kit, stonework mold and then casting your own parts using Micro-Mark products?
I understand that Chooch was having that exact problem and they were unwittingly facilitating the act. The culprit would buy one Chooch retaining wall then use the Chooch vacuum plastic package to pour additional copies. Chooch has since placed a slip of paper in the package to inhibit this practice.
Point is, you are still stealing proprietary property by making duplicates of another parties' creative output.
csmincemoyer Just have a quick question for everybody. How is what BD is doing (not condoning the behavior) any different then someone buying a pack of DPM building modules, windows, a vehicle kit, stonework mold and then casting your own parts using Micro-Mark products?
Nothing wrong with casting the parts for yourself, just you can't sell them to anyone else, that is violating the original owners copywrite.
he's filling a need that would go otherwise unfulfilled because of whatever reason I'm of the opinion that "wrong" is kind of subjective here.
I'm of the opinion that "wrong" is kind of subjective here.
Ok, I'll wax philosophical just for a second to make a point - drug dealers fill a need too. Illegal is illegal (not to mention unethical and immoral). I grew up in a by-gone era when there used to be more widely held concepts as ethics and right and wrong, and people didn't want to support something like this. Now the motto is "the ends justify the means" no matter if it's illegal or unethical.
I know the laws are probably more straightforward on this sort of thing but I do agree that the latter definitely goes against the spirit of the hobby.
From what I'm reading, it is a matter of merit which could be pursued in the courts, but unfortunately enforcing the law, and going after these kinds of operations is sadly not always feasible in dollars an cents. When that fails, there are still things in the internet age where people can use social media and similar avenues. Sometimes that can be effective, at least while the spot light is glaring.
I don't see any reason to "nip this thread in the bud," but do keep it on topic, please.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com