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.[:)]
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.
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.
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.
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)
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/
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.
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?
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.