GM is ending HO/N licenses for scale vehicles

[Leon Silverman]

I wonder if the real reason is that GM failed to achieve a five-star crash rating of their models against HO and N scale locomotives and faces sanctions from the NHSTB?

[davekelly]

Gray Loess
Interesting quote. Yup ole Bill did say that. Of course the line was uttered by a person contemplating how to take over a country - but I digress.

Of course we should probably look at those "outrageous" awards given to some plaintiffs. Yes at times it appears that we've become a lawsuit happy society - but why is that? If there weren't "outrageous" awards would anyone want to sue? Why are there "outrageous" awards? Yes, we all like to say "it's the lawyers with their trickery." But doesn't the defense have lawyers too? Or is it that GM and other "deep pocket" defendants don't have the financial ability or good sense to hire good attorneys? Or could it be something else? Most of the "outrageous" awards are jury awards given by jurors. In that case should we say "kill the jurors?" After all - everyone here gladly answers the jury summons they get right? Or, because it is a common joke that juries are made up of folks "not smart enough to get out of it" perhaps we should say "kill those that avoid jury duty?"

If this licensing thing is true - why is GM scared? I have not been able to think of a single way a plaintiff could argue that their is a causal relationship between GM's licensing of a model to a kid choking on a car. Allowing the car to look like a Corvette rather than a generic "car" would make it no more likely that a kid would try to eat the thing. Could it be that GM is frightened that if such a case were to come up - a jury wouldn't be able to see the silliness of it? Perhaps the quote should be "let's kill all the uneducated or stupid people?"

If we have become a suit happy society, there is only one place to place the blame. On the society itself.

To show that I try to be balanced:

Q: What is the difference between a catfish and an attorney?
A: One's a bottom dwelling scum sucker - the other a fish.

Dave (I do so enjoy lawyer jokes)

[Anonymous]

Are we blaming the wrong people??
Consider, who puts corporations into the position where they feel the need to protect themselves.
Are Corporations out of control or is it our legal system that gives millions of dollars to a customer that burned his mouth on hot coffee.Millions!!!!!
If you want to point a finger of blame for idiotic thinking, lets make certain we point it in the proper direction.
Will the mentality ever change if we do nothing but stand aside and let the rampant attorneys knowingly bilk huge amounts of money out of corporations for silly crap.
What ever happened to common sense?
It got ridden over by greed.Its the big attorneys who put that gleam into the eye of a guy who burned his tongue.The one that says "Son we are going to make you rich"
Precedents are set which basically becomes law without ever having to go through capital hill.
Judges are not supposed to make law but they do it day in and day out.
Find someone else to blame, dont blame the corporation that is intelligent enough to see the writing on the wall.5000 lobbyists in washington will not affect that 1 judge who allows a ruling due to a precedent that was set 20 years ago.A precedent that in fact is not law!!

[davekelly]

Tileguy,

I agree, the rampant attorneys are bilking the corporations out of millions. You'd think the corporations would be smart enough to hire some of these folks themselves. Newsflash - corporations have attorneys too.

The person didn't burn her mouth - she lost 3/4 of her privates. The cap was never placed on the coffee and in juror interviews afterwards the jury was really turned off by the McD's exec who stated that although they got hundreds of complaints that the coffee was too hot they weren't going to change a thing because it was a good profit maker. They were also turned off by the exec's "i have more important places to be" attitude. Also - bottom line - it was a jury award. Of course I guess it was awarded because the plaintiff had one of those lawyers that can twist things around and mislead everyone (of course only the jury got misled - everyone else in the country saw right through it - good lawyering on the plaintiff's attorney's part to get the only 12 people in the nation that could get so misled). Also, of course, McDonalds didn't have the smarts to hire a good attorney.

We shouldn't forget that many courts have set precedent that you can't sue McD's for being overweight from eating too many Big Macs.

[Attaboy]

Consider the possibility that GM is taking this action to cause just the kind of outrage seen on this thread so they can raise their licensing fees.

[Adelie]

That thought has crossed my mind, attaboy. Since they don't seem to know how to turn a buck making 1:1 scale cars, maybe they figure they can do better by getting a fee on the 1:87 or 1:160 offerings.

[davekelly]

Attaboy,

Hmmmmmmm. Interesting. "We are so afraid of the liability that we aren't going to give out any licences. Of course if we raise the fee a bit then we can get additional insurance to protect ourselves and perhaps could license again."

Hmmmmm. Makes one think doesn't it?

[IRONROOSTER]

The solution is to stop modeling in HO and move up to S scale. [:D]

OTH we could declare models of real things to be fair use, sort of like mentioning Chevy or Ford in a story, or including it in a painting. Then the whole licensing / liability issue goes away.


Enjoy
Paul

[AntonioFP45]

Attaboy,

You bring up an interesting angle. GM, unfortunately, has played corporate games with the public in the past.

I have to admit that if it comes to that, I'll pay the little extra for the vehicles I want. I would buy only a limited quantity since, as mentioned, there are plenty of Ford and Chrysler vehicles available in 1/87 scale.

As for the bus, if it doesn't work out an option that Busch could try would be the Flxible "New Look" series buses, which competed against GM's fishbowls and have an almost identical body styling. These too were used all over the U.S, though the Fishbowl was on top of the food chain for two decades as far as city transit coach sales.

[orsonroy]

You guys realize that you're getting all worked up over nothing, right?

Woodland Scenics just came out with an entire line of automobiles, and they look suspiciously like GM products (some Fords, too). Since they've not mentioned ANY manufacturer or auto style, they don't have to follow licensing. The cars are "generic", but look suspiciously like real vehicles...

[bsteel4065]

I think we should find someone who can actually EAT a full size Chevy. Then we collectively sue GM. Ha!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Isn't it surreal that our society has reached an amoeboid level of coping with elementary fundamentals that day-to-day living demands? As Tileguy so aptly explained, our society has come to rely almost entirely upon a judicial system bent on political autonomy while settng "political" dogmas. In American democracy, you simply cannot have both. As you can see, this circumvents all "checks and balances" for the Judicial branch while the Administrative and Executive branches must adhere to them. If you are old enough to remember the addage: "Hasn't enough sense to come in out of the rain," then you are "old enough" to recognize the agonies of a once self-reliant and accountable society "slip down the slippery slope" into total domination by a handful of "think tank" adjudicators so insulated from life's realities as to be rationally embryonic. Those too young to remember that along with individual freedom comes "individual" responsibilities, probably welcome the ever tightening control the courts have over the choices they no longer need to make for themselves. Today, we are already at the point of citizens casting all of their responsibilities to someone, ANYONE else. Sure, this makes for a simple life. It also makes for a "simple" person who will never be required to stand , let alone run, in his comfortable "simple" world. I'm ready to do some railroading, how about you?

[bcawthon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by orsonroy

You guys realize that you're getting all worked up over nothing, right?

Woodland Scenics just came out with an entire line of automobiles, and they look suspiciously like GM products (some Fords, too). Since they've not mentioned ANY manufacturer or auto style, they don't have to follow licensing. The cars are "generic", but look suspiciously like real vehicles...

Actually, that's not quite true. GM not only protects its trademarks, but its designs and trade dress, which covers styling. The litmus test is if the model looks sufficiently like a GM car to be either identified as one or mistaken for one. Obviously, the Woodland Scenics automobiles look enough like GM or Ford vehicles for us to identify them as such, so there are grounds for future legal problems for Woodland Scenics.

As to the comments about lawsuits and such, consider this: Some years back, GM conducted an internal cost-benefit study of the Chevrolet Malibu and actually determined it would be cheaper to pay the wrongful death and injury lawsuits than move a poorly located gas tank. We’re not talking lots cheaper; the difference was less than $10 per car, if I recall correctly. Getting whacked with a $4.9 billion punitive damages judgment kind of messed up their math, but that was after GM allowed a number of people, including some children, to be burned to death.

You tell me: What's fair punishment for a company that would allow children to die in one of the most horribly agonizing ways possible - to save ten bucks?

I'm not saying that GM hasn't been hit with more than its share of silly lawsuits or that personal injury attorneys are angels, but if we want to see real reform in the American tort system, the easiest method is to adopt 50% rule (who was most responsible) and add the British system: loser pays all costs. Adopting caps is a political sop to corporations and insurance companies who want to avoid penalties that match the severity of their own malfeasance. (BTW: I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV).

As to raising its license fees, if GM wants to play games and angle for higher fees; well, there are some nice folks just down the street who make a bunch of mighty fine cars and trucks and are very interested in working with modelmakers.

[davekelly]

bc,
Excellent points. Compensatory damages - big defendants might be able to absorb and work into cost of business analysis. Thus the idea of punitives - punish wrong doers into correcting their ways. I've always wondered, however, should the plaintiff get the punitives? There was one state that debated the idea of punitives going into a fund to help out those that were injured by non-insured motorists, but I'm not sure what happened to that.

[Bikerdad]

QUOTE: As to the comments about lawsuits and such, consider this: Some years back, GM conducted an internal cost-benefit study of the Chevrolet Malibu and actually determined it would be cheaper to pay the wrongful death and injury lawsuits than move a poorly located gas tank. We’re not talking lots cheaper; the difference was less than $10 per car, if I recall correctly. Getting whacked with a $4.9 billion punitive damages judgment kind of messed up their math, but that was after GM allowed a number of people, including some children, to be burned to death.

First, the cost was going to be more than $10 per car, that was the difference in production cost, it does not account for the economic impact on the production line, nor does it take into account their existing exposure on cars already on the road by the time the problem came to light. Finally, the Malibu was, and still is, a car where low cost is a significant factor in the purchasing decision, and GM wasn't making money on their small cars at the time. So, when faced with losing another $5-10 million dollars on the car, what do ya do?

Second, and more importantly, the gas tank location is only a problem when someone else hits the car. THAT is beyond GMs control. The same logic that fault GM for this decision can also find Ford responsible for this year's Metra crash in SoCal. Hey, Ford should have designed their Explorer so that it bounces off the front of cab cars on commuter trains so that the train won't derail. They didn't, instead they allowed [banghead][banghead] people to die.

Back to the thread topic:
I think it would be a fine idea to dun GM with letters of disgruntlement. Make sure you indicate which of GM's new cars that would theoretically fit the bill for your next car is off the list.

[bcawthon]

Sorry, Bikerdad, there was never a need to recall, simply a need to redesign. The Ivey memo was written in 1973, the cars involved in the fuel-tank-related injuries and deaths were model year 1978 and later A-Bodies, which had been reduced in size and weight to reduce costs and improve fuel economy (and if you want to debate that, I will be happy to refer you to the findings of the National Academy of Science's original findings in the CAFE report which said more weight was stripped out of cars in this period to reduce cost than to improve fuel economy).

In 1978, GM had 50% of the American light vehicle market and sold more cars than trucks (GM was the last of the Big Three to shift to making a majority its sales from light trucks). If I recall correctly, while earnings were pressured because of the gasoline crises and poor economic conditions, GM was still profitable from operations.

The jury award came in large part because the plaintiff's attorneys were able to show the jury that GM knew of the problem, yet failed to fix it, having assigned an arbitrary value to human life (in spite of Ivey's warning about the dangers of doing this in his memo) and used that to justify not changing the position of the fuel tank, even though the new A-Body design removed 11 inches of space that had protected the fuel tank in the previous model.

The plaintiff's attorneys were also able to show that GM had gone to great lengths, including risking jail time for its own attorneys, to cover up the memo and deny any knowledge of the risks of the new A-Body's fuel tank design.

I hope to have more information by the end of next week.

[cacole]

Another case of a corporate self-inflicted gunshot wound.

United Parcel Service has refused to allow their logo to be put onto model trucks for several years, now. Has that stopped toy manufacturers from producing UPS look-alike vehicle models? No. I have quite a few UPS look-alike HO scale trailers and vans -- some with no logo at all; others with things such as "USP" or "PUS" or "SUP" as the abbreviation under the UPS shield.

I think the toy and model makers will continue to produce GM look-alikes without worrying about licensing. GM will be the ultimate losers.

Warning labels are not going to work. Most models already have a warning that they are intended for "Ages 8 and Up" on them. The problem is that most parents pay no attention to those labels when they buy toys for their children. Go to any Wal-mart and watch parents with their children in the toy isles -- they buy whatever their children want, and don't even look at the labels.

[davekelly]

Where can I find someone that will buy me whatever I want without looking at the labels (especially the price label)?

[bikerraypa]

QUOTE: Originally posted by orsonroy

You guys realize that you're getting all worked up over nothing, right?

Woodland Scenics just came out with an entire line of automobiles, and they look suspiciously like GM products (some Fords, too). Since they've not mentioned ANY manufacturer or auto style, they don't have to follow licensing. The cars are "generic", but look suspiciously like real vehicles...

This is kinda what I was thinking. Just because my convertible has whitewalls, a chromed-up grill and gigantic tailfins doesn't mean it HAS to be a 1959 Eldo. Just don't put a 1:87 or 1:160 bowtie on the grill, and you're ok.

Plus, I'm sure GM knows which side of their bread is buttered. You'll note that they said "smaller than 1:64." Fine, they'll lose a couple bucks from the HO and N models that are actually licensed. But, you notice they aren't ending licensing for 1:64 or 1:24 cars, which happen to be the most popular size in NASCAR die-cast collecting. If they stop licensing THOSE sizes, it would severely hardscrew the toymakers, who make megabucks from any piece of crap that they stamp the NASCAR logo on. Ending HO and N won't even blip on anybody's economic radar.

As for me....I think my layout could use a Packard or two. [:D]


Ray out

[bcawthon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cacole

Another case of a corporate self-inflicted gunshot wound.

United Parcel Service has refused to allow their logo to be put onto model trucks for several years, now. Has that stopped toy manufacturers from producing UPS look-alike vehicle models? No. I have quite a few UPS look-alike HO scale trailers and vans -- some with no logo at all; others with things such as "USP" or "PUS" or "SUP" as the abbreviation under the UPS shield.

I think the toy and model makers will continue to produce GM look-alikes without worrying about licensing. GM will be the ultimate losers.

Warning labels are not going to work. Most models already have a warning that they are intended for "Ages 8 and Up" on them. The problem is that most parents pay no attention to those labels when they buy toys for their children. Go to any Wal-mart and watch parents with their children in the toy isles -- they buy whatever their children want, and don't even look at the labels.

Bunch of answers here:

First, UPS will license the use of their logo. They will also license a 1:87 scale model of their parcel delivery car (as they call the brown trucks). How do I know? I talked to Jim Lynch, head of UPS' licensing program and asked him those very questions.

Now it may well be that UPS' license fees are very high. Some licensors, like Ferrari, ask for upfront fees and advance royalties of over $100,000. That's a hunk of money. I do not know how much the UPS license would be, because I did not have a project for them to estimate.

Second, GM can go after the manufacturer of a replica that sufficently resembles a GM product as not to be mistaken for a Ford or Chrysler product, even if it does not have any GM trademarks on it. As I said in an earlier post, GM has protected their trademarks, designs and "trade dress." Will GM go after Woodland Scenics? Hey, I'm not going to tell them. [:p]

Third, next time you're at Wally-Mart, Target or Toys 'R Us, check the aisles. How many 1:87 scale models do you find? Not very many. I know, I looked. So where does one find these dangerous products? At the model railroad or hobby shop. Generally, toy and hobby distribution channels are different. Busch Automodelle's sole U.S. distributor is Wm. K. Walthers, Inc., which didn't do a whole lot of selling into toy stores or mass-merchandisers. The primary company that works both sides of the fence is Boley, which has a wide variety of products aside from their diecast trucks (in fact, their Dept. 1-87 models take up one very small space in the Boley showroom at the Toy Center in New York).

Fourth, the warning labels do work as intended. They tell the consumer whether or not the product is suitable for a given age group and they limit the manufacturer and retailer's liability in case of a mishap. They serve notice that the manufacturer has complied with the government standards pertaining to toy labeling. This means the manufacturer is not liable for the consumer's failure to read the label and exercise proper care, something over which the manufacturer has no control. Is this an absolute shield against nuisance suits? No, but it reduces the likelihood of successful litigation to the point it is an unattractive case to take on contingency, which is how most of these frivolous cases are handled.

[davekelly]

Good points. However, I don't think many attorneys would take on a frivolous case on contingency - at least out where I am. Frivolous cases very often get dismissed early on and at the latest at the end of discovery. In those cases the attorney will make nothing. Sure way to go into bankruptcy. Of course I have had people contact me wanting to sue their neighbors for accidently destroying their dog house or some other such thing. Contingency? 1/3 the cost of a dog house (unless it is the one owned by Jim Bakker) is not the way to make a living. No way. Hourly rate. That usually gets them to decide not to pursue the matter.

[AntonioFP45]

Bill, Dave,

What about this scenario?

Wouldn't it still be possible for Chinese manufacturers to continue producing GM knockoffs and receive nothing more than warnings and wrist slappings?

I'm no legal expert, but I've read where copyrights have been repeatedly violated and ignored by the Chinese in several cases.

[ort007]

Is GM limiting only automobile models and no other vechicle? Please tell me this dosen't include EMD products recently owned by GM. Surely, they are not planning to put the kabosh on HO and N locomotives!!

Ort007

[jeffshultz]

Isn't EMD now owned by... or about to be owned by... Greenbrier?

[ort007]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeffshultz

Isn't EMD now owned by... or about to be owned by... Greenbrier?

Yes, I believe that is true. But I wondered if GM could claim those products were still identified as theirs. Probably couldn't happen, I hope.

[Roger38]

GM stock is in the tank, and if they are counting on the Hummer and the Chev surbabans to bail them out, they might as well throw in the towel. $ 2.00 + for gas??? The Buick LeSabre and the Pontiac Bonnie are cars that get about 30 MPH, and will sell, but GM is planning on dropping them from the line. They need to get there act together and do anything that will bring in $$$. Parents are the big problem with the swollowing issue. They should know better than to bring somthing that small into the house...I have 5 grand kids, and model in HO. My stuff was off limits until they were old enough to know how to handle things properly. Common sense is not known with many people.

[bcawthon]

EMD is now owned by Greenbriar. The sale closed last month. The locomotives are now beyond the reach of GM, although Greenbriar is another question. But we can hope...

The Chinese can produce all the ripoffs they can get away with and the Germans can produce models of any GM vehicle more than 30 years old (if not previously licensed). That doesn't do us much good, as those models could not be legally sold in the U.S.

[Anonymous]

Next, they'll stop licensing models LARGER than 1/64 - because those do more damage when your kid throws them at his/her sibling. :(

You can't win.

Rob

[AntonioFP45]

Bill Cawthon,

RE: The GMC Fisbowl buses that Busch is producing. That body style came out in 1959 and lasted till the mid 1970s. So if Germany has the "30 year rule" as you stated then should not the Busch Model Company be able to produce that coach as well as other GM buses, cars and trucks from 1974 on back?

[Anonymous]

I think GM can not get a big profit of their lic rights. GM should feel proud that mrr's using GM vehicles in their layouts. One solution is to have warnings that these models are small and maybe a choking hazard to small children. Bootlegged cars from other countries, etc, then if possible GM try to stop this if can.
I still believe in that not enough profit for their licencing rights.