I don’t know whether its been noticed, but in the Sept MRR there is a small piece about QSI suing ESU over technical infrigements of their patents for sound decoders.
Now I’m not going to comment as to who is right or wrong in the case because I don’t know or fully understand how these sound decoders work. I wonder however if it has its base in BLI/PCM (one of QSIs first big HO scale customers) swapping suppliers of sound chips?
However, I put forward the argument that it is a worrying development. Legal action will surely slow down progress and is very much against the open architecture of DCC. This is why I was so critical of MTHs approach on entry to the HO market. I’m pretty convienced that it was the MTH lawsuits which helped slow the production of Soundtraxx’s Tsunami to a slow painful 2-year crawl - my opinion of course.
Yeah I saw that, it cant be a good thing for us modelers thats for sure. QSI decoders are very nice and ESU decoders are GREAT! I was planning on buying a few more ESU decoders, maybe I should stock up now in case something unforeseen happens. I dont remember MR being very specific about what the suit was over. Does anyone know what patents QSI is suing over.
Im also curious to see if people’s opinion of QSI starts to go down as happened with MTH.
It’s not good news but then it doesn’t necessarily mean we have to worry much for now. These suits get dragged out over time in court systems so it’s likely that we’ll still be able to purchase ESU and QSI products as normal.
Hopefully like the MTH vs. QSI suit…it may fizzle out or a settlement will be reached. Unlike the MTH suit, it seems that this one isn’t getting as much “heat” or publicity. Hopefully things will work out.
MTH’s suit with who struck at the very heart of DCC? These comments are absurd. The MTH/QSI suit was started by QSI, and it was concerning a completely different technology. It had absolutely nothing to do with DCC in any way shape or form. On a side note, this is what I hope people will start to figure out…
QSI isn’t the happy, loveable, go lucky company all the HO modelers think it is. They are just as ruthless if not more so than MTH ever has been or will be for that matter. They cost MTH hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost profits due to a stoppage of product supply and non-reimbursed warranty issues concerning the PS1 system MTH bought from them. I still love reading posts from people who think MTH was in the wrong in the defense of the PS2 product and IMHO, these people either don’t know the facts, don’t understand the companies playing the game, or both.
Honestly I saw this lawsuit coming a mile away, and my guess is that it’s just the first of many. If not with ESU, with someone else. They already tried to squeeze money from MTH, so let’s just wait and see who else they go after… [}:)]
So after this who still thinks MTH is the bad guy?
Wow, more conspiracy theories… [;)] The majority of the slowdowns concerning the Tsunami were product suppliers discountinuing several needed components which had to be redesigned, and the software and setup relevant to the analog control of the decoder. I have confronted the folks at Soundtraxx on several occasions about this and the answer from them has always been the same: While the MTH patents needed to be reviewed to ensure there were no issues, they presented no significant delays to the product’s release.
If anything, you should be blaming the guys using transformers for the slow release, not MTH!
QSI rocks. I too saw the article in the september issue and dont have a comment one way or the other.
I have been watching some of the Precision Scale Models in HO scale being featured with the ESU sound. Just how is it possible for BLI to sue PCM over two different sound systems? I dont think that BLI/PCM is two seperate companies or is it?
I think the answer lies elsewhere, perhaps at the factory where one makes QSI and the other corner the ESU.
I try not to get too worked up about the lawsuiting, just want to buy quality products with quality sound wherever that comes from (EXCEPT HO MTH sorry.)
Actually they’re not absured Jeff, just maybe I ought to choose my terminology better in future. The MTH patent application in the way it was written (and I was around on this board with my previous screen name at the time, so read all the background papers which were all available on line) was written so generally that it could be read to include many of the concepts central to DCC. I think I can be justified in saying that this struck at the heart of the open source DCC concept developed by Lenz and progressed through the NMRA. As someone else said we can all be thankful that all this appears to have fizzled out …
You are correct in saying that what followed in the QSI v MTH law suit was somewhat different, and was about the two companies playing games.
At the time Soundtraxx were saying that they were about to come to the market with the finished Tsunami’s, I even know someone who had heard a prototype. Suddenly, the MTH patent application comes along, then MTH get sued by QSI, and suddenly Soundtraxx are saying they are looking at their software and the patent applications very closely.
Now you could be right, but it seems like a lot of a coincidence to me … maybe they had to change some components or software? We will never know why really.
The point I was trying to make however is that product developemt slows when the lawyers get involved. Many of the smaller firms can’t afford to get sued, so they’re more cautious. That’s bad for us as modellers.
The fact that BLI does not offer Loksound but chose to start a second company that has the Loksound might tell you something. QSI still supplies all of the sound for BLI and PCM uses the Loksound exclusively.
There was no other reason for starting the second company in the building next door except but to isolate their companies from the two sound companies that are competing for their business.
QSI probably can’t do anything about a new start up, but they would certainly have some kid of a long term contract for furnishing BLI with qualtiy products. BLI would have to break off and start up a new business to use Loksound and then PCM will be taking a great portion of the future business including all of the new N scale sound. This has to be a gold market for PCM and Loksound since it is start up time for sound in N scale… .
I have not read the information about the lawsuit or action.
While I agree with you to some extent, and I’m glad you corrected your terminology, I have said this many times and will say it again. The patents have been issued and you can’t blame MTH for anything concerning them. If you feel (and you aren’t alone in this) that the MTH patents were awared unjustly, then get mad at the patent office. Here are the facts as I understand them:
There are three distinct patents that were awarded to MTH, and all three deal with model railroading control. Two of these have nothing to do with DCC and are very specific to DCS. Although much of the terminology is the same (remember we’re talking toy trains here and there are only so many words you can use to describe the concepts within the hobby), there is little in these patents that associate what MTH was asking for with the current control methods of DCC. The third patent deals with speed control in 1 SMPH increments. While this is a little broad, I can’t for the life of me believe this single issue is slowing the development of DCC products. I’ve also given to the fact that at some point a DCC manufacturer may have wanted to use this, but based on the broad range of aftermarket installations and different types of locomotives, doing this accurately from one installation to another using BEMF
Interesting to say the least. Perhaps the patent office itself needs to be reviewed. Are patents being granted in such a way that patent suits are needed to pin down what exactly is being protected by a patent? In today highly technical world where a series of 1s and 0s can be the key to a new and novel idea, is the patent office staffed appropriately to ensure that the question of what a patent covers is black and white and not gray? Having sat in on a discussion between two experts concerning the coding of a data base program (for a suit I was involved in years ago) and then comparing that to the coding of another one I can say that this stuff is way complicated - or can be. Maybe the patent office needs to tighten up the documentation needed to get a patent so it can be more clear about what is covered.
Of course, I’m just thinking out loud and nothing to back up my thought that the base of this problem could be in the patent process itself.
Jim, some of us who have taken the time to contact Soundtraxx do know why. As I’ve already explained this, you either don’t believe me or them. Either way, I hate to see people spreading rumors based on unfounded information.
You are absolutely correct here, and I couldn’t agree more. If you venture over to the OGR forums ever, you will notice that I’m involved in several discussions about the O scale command systems and how everyone would be better off using a common protocol like DCC. Apparently Lionel didn’t hear me (or anyone else for that matter), because after years of development and great cost, they just announced TMCCII . My views are not limited to one side or the other, but as a dealer I’m often careful when choosing sides and I absolutely don’t like manufacturer bashing when the person doing the bashing doesn’t understand the in’s and out’s of the situation. So no hard feelings Jim, you are of course entitled to your opinions, and an online forum such as this is a perfect place to express them.
You have hit the nail on the head with this post. If you look back when MTH started developing the PS2 and DCS system, you will find the situation was very similar. Here’s the chain of events as I remember them:
1- QSI built the PS1 system for MTH in an OEM agreement.
2- Looking for a command control based solution other than Lionels TMCC system (which QSI built product around at the time), MTH decided to build there own system as they believed QSI could not or would not.
3- Once the discovered MTH was building their own system, QSI threw a tizzy and stopped sales and warranty support of PS1 boards to MTH puting them in a terrible positiion.
4- Because of the lack of PS1 products, MTH scrambled and came up with Locosound (anyone remember this?) as a stop gap until the PS2/DCS system was built. This cost MTH a bundle and delayed products for more than a year in some cases.
5- Once the PS2 system was available to the public, QSI took one apart and filed suit based on patent infringments.
6- MTH filed a countersuit based on lost profits and a broken OEM dealer agreement.
As an MTH dealer during this time, I can assure you this not only hurt MTH, it also hurt the hobby shops as many lost orders for products that didn’t ship on time. This was all caused by QSI and had they honored their agreement with MTH, none of it would have happened as the gap betw
There was an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer several months ago (I think that’s where I read it), dealing with this issue. Basically, it said that the Patent Office is woefully understaffed, and is basically rubber stamping patents without doing a through review for previous work. The highly technical nature of many electronic and software patents, exacerbates this problem.
Yay, another clearcut case for the inadequacy of the patent system. According to the MR story, this is over the use of DC control devices. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don;t believe you can use the Quantum Engineer to control a Loksound decoder on DC, nor can you use the ESu DCMaster to control a QSI loco on DC - in other words, they DO NOT use the same protocols. So who copied who, if they are NOT the same?
It has been brought up on the QSI yahoo group - they (QSI) went throught he effort to produce these new chip versions, and while they do have user-updatable firmware, they do NOT have user-uploadedable sounds. ESU and Digitrax do. Tsunamis don’t have user uploadable sounds either - in both case I think this is a HUGE mistake in product design. I’d love to try a Tsunami - about the only steamer I’d get would be another PCM T-1, unless someone comes out with an affordable Reading articulated or N-1. However - none of the Tsunami decoders ave the Reading freight whistle sound. ANd i beleive the one that has the Reading passenger whistle is the Light, not the Medium which would probably be more appropriate for a G-class Pacific. Bottom line, I can;t get what I want in a Tsunami - or QSI - so my chocies would be Loksound or Digitrax. This conversation on user-uploadable sounds has been going on for several weeks now - wonder if this has anything to do with the lawsuit? Modern corporate mantra these days seems to be, if you can’t innovate - litigate! Be it Netscape or QSI - seems to be a common occurance.
A question here – Is not LOC sound a German company and QSI an American company? And since when does an American patent apply to a foreign company? BOB H - Clarion, PA