MTH Strikes Again

And if MTH wins (doubt it), there's always the old MR articles on CTC-16. I bet if he wins it won't be long before there's an article on CTC-64 or 128. It might be a little bulkier, but with today's electronics I bet Bruce Chubb, John Atkinson, or some other electronics contributor could figure out a way to do it.

Jay CNS&M North Shore Line - "First and fastest"

Keith Gutierrez already has developed CTC-1024. It's called RailCommand. 'works quite well, too.

-fm Perpetrator of the Haggis Decal Project, at

There was some comment on one of the groups I belong to about the train show at Springfield? It stated that the entire time the big discussion going on was people talking about the MTH thing. It also said something like all the MTH booth was doing was "damage control" with little time for them to sell train! Does anyone who was there know what went on.

I submitted an e-mail to MTH regarding this issue and this is the response I received. My original e-mail is at the bottom:

Dear Mr. Karay,

Thank you for your email message expressing your concern about M.T.H. Electric Trains' patents. We certainly appreciate your feedback for without consumer input we would be hard pressed to continue producing a product line you find appealing.

Please accept our apology for any confusion you may have regarding M.T.H.'s patents. We would like to take this opportunity to explain our position regarding the patents we have received for our digital sound system, Proto-Sound 2.0 and its digital command control system, DCS. In addition, we'd like to clarify exactly what actions the firm has taken regarding the protection of these patents to offset any confusion resulting from online posts made by others in the past few weeks.

First and foremost, with the exception of a counter suit against QS Industries (QSI), M.T.H. has not sued any DCC manufacturer for violations against any M.T.H. patents. There are many rumors floating around in cyberspace that M.T.H. is threatening or is suing all DCC manufacturers. That is simply not true.

Secondly, M.T.H. is not claiming any patents on the concept of Back EMF as has been reported recently. Back EMF has been in existence for years and is not applicable to our technology. It was simply referenced as an existing form of speed control in our patents and some folks misread these patents and assumed we are claiming it as our own invention.

Third, M.T.H. did recently send out letters to DCC manufacturers in the model railroading community who are developing or utilizing technology that may violate our U.S. Patents. These letters were meant to advise them of possible conflicts with our patents that cover 2-way communications and speed control in 1 scale mile per hour increments. These are the only issues we have alerted the DCC community about.

Fourth, not one of the DCC firms has yet to respond to our letters or has inquired about the possibilities of a potential licensing arrangement. Frankly, any DCC firm that has informed consumers that M.T.H. has filed suit against them is not revealing all of the facts and one should at least question their motives if they have indeed told you this was the case.

To help inform others, M.T.H. posted its patents online for all to review and would encourage you to do so as well. They can be found at

A review of the patents' language will enlighten those who feel our claims are baseless and indicate the level of prior art we provided to the U.S. Patent Office to substantiate the claims in the first place. Beyond that, M.T.H. encourages each DCC firm (or any individual for that matter) to bring forth evidence now that our claims are in fact invalid. In patent cases, invalidating a U.S. Patent can occur when prior art has been documented to exist. Prior art is deemed to be published works on the technology in question. These can be in the form of published articles or operator's manuals that specifically describe how the technology works. Conversations between individuals, online or at train shows is not considered prior art. Should prior art be found to exist, then our claims will be modified or amended. If, as we believe, no prior art is shown to exist then our patents and our concepts are as unique as we claim.

M.T.H. invested over $3.5 million dollars in the development of our Proto-Sound 2.0 and DCS Digital Command Systems. We developed these products because we felt that the current technology standards at the time (Lionel's Railsounds and TMCC command control in the O Gauge AC marketplace and DCC in the HO DC marketplace) were no longer innovative enough to attract new hobbyists into model railroading. To stand pat and allow any and all competitors to develop or utilize similar products based on the ground breaking developments we created would be an incredible waste of our efforts. If our efforts are as unique as we believe, they should be protected under patent law. If the concepts lack uniqueness, then no protection should be afforded and others can benefit from them by copying our technology. From a business standpoint, we must treat our patents as insurance against our investment, something technology firms have done for years and years.

Finally, M.T.H. would encourage consumers to stop and consider that there may be a better way to operate and enjoy model trains than what exists today. Such was the goal when our technology was developed. Yet M.T.H. realizes that many model railroading hobbyists may not even be aware of just what types of developments we have created that are worthy of the U.S. Patents we have received. Our experience has been that once a consumer understands just how innovative and exciting this new technology is, then its importance as a tool to expand the hobby becomes much clearer. A complimentary promotional DVD on M.T.H. technology can be obtained by contacting M.T.H. via email at snipped-for-privacy@mth-railking.com.

Sincerely,

Andy Edleman Vice President - Market>There's a rumor going around that MTH will sue anyone for patent

That's who else I was trying to think of ! See? If MTH wins, it's already been done.

Jay CNS&M North Shore Line - "First and fastest"

Every year about this time you see the MTH Pile-on. Read the article in Model Retailer. Puts the topic in a whole different light. MTH was awarded some patents, yes. They are not threatening DCC, no.

Firstly, I'm neutral in the MTH controversy: I don't use their stuff, I am not a patent attorney, and I cannot speak to the quality of the patented technology.

But...

MTH is actually in the business using the technology they successfully patented. They are not one of these patent collectors trying to patent rain water and trying to charge us for drinking it. If their patent holds up under litigation, then, darn it, they invented it and have a right to use that technology and to charge others for copying it. If they tried to patent something which already existed, then the patent will be overturned and (as usual), only the lawyers get money.

If I spend my time and resources (MTH says several million USD in their case) to develop an invention, the patent system just says that you don't get to spend $0 and just copy mine. I get to recoup my investment and RISK (it might have come to naught). Without a patent and copyright system, only those dedicated to the art will invent anything, and it better be cheap to do, since those folks will have no money.

Ed.

in article snipped-for-privacy@mb-m05.aol.com, Corelane at snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote on 2/10/04 11:52 AM:

I have a general question and if I could remember the email address I would pose it to MTH directly.

MTH is circulating email that says; "MTH is only claiming that a violation occurs if another company claims speed control in 1 scale mile per hour increments"

So my question is this, if that phrase was removed from the advertising (without any other action) would all the problems be gone. I doubt very much if any decoder right now could be that accurate as the generic software is installed in many different engines and engines types (wheel sizes will be different. My Digitrax throttle has 127 clicks because it has a encoder controlling speed but many other throttles/systems use pots/pushbuttons. Also my throttle doesn't do 127, it does 100 on the readout so sometimes when you turn the knob and hear the click (if activated) the number will not change (but the real engine speed will even if you can't see it, it's a digital thing). So to me that's just advertising. Also there are many accurate SMPH speedometers out there, I even designed one 25 years ago with TTL. xxx xxxx has a much more modern one with an LCD display. Mine used photo cells (slow) but his uses IR LEDs. These are not commercial products but are very accurate for SMPH of any engine (mine works to the 0.1spmh). If the MTH email is not just propaganda issued by MTH then I would suspect this whole idea could be over with a rewrite.

Could someone give me the email address that was on this email from MTH.

A lot of misuderstanding here and elsewhere on the internet (what? that never happens! **grin**)

Read the article in Model Retailer. Sure, it's partly puffery, but a more truthful than what's being posted here.

MTH is not suing everybody in the HO world nor are they threatening to do so.

That could be done a number of ways. A fan, a pulse to the smoke unit...

Sorry, Peter Thorne beat them to that at least, and it was probably old hat when he wrote it up in his books. _How_ they do it might be the key.

I must admit, I hadn't heard of that before.

Jay CNS&M North Shore Line - "First and fastest"

I'd love to. Got a link or a copy?

Jay CNS&M North Shore Line - "First and fastest"

Very second-hand data, but this has been done and works very well - fantastically realistic. I understand the creator is a Japanese modeller currently resident in the UK:

The smoke unit is a horizontal tube in the boiler, about 1/2 - 3/4inch dia (to fit in the boiler, basicaly). The front end is blocked except for a small-bore tube to the chimney; directly under that tube is a wad of glassfibre wrapped in a heating coil. In the back end of the tube is a fan driven by a motor - home-made fan, very small motor.

For 'normal' operation, both fan and coil run full-time; the wad of glassfibre can soak up the 'smoke fluid' (don't know what was used) as a reservoir and the fan blows it out in a powerful blast instead of feable wisps. The 'improved' version has the fan motor operating on a pulsed supply; the heating coil still boils off as much 'smoke', but it stays in the main tube until the fan blows it out - in puffs.

The guy I was talking to had fitted this device into a 4mm scale narrow-gauge model!

From what I have seen on other forums and heard at the LHS, MTH is the bad boy of the hobby, overbearing and very greedy. I was told they are sueing Lionel and they have been around for over a hundred years. Now, I suppose MTH beat them to the punch too. Thanks Marty Hall

"From what I have seen on other forums and heard at the LHS"

Nothing like a little beauty shop gossip to get the facts straight;)

Rod

Some of the stuff you hear will curl your hair. Or make it stand on end.

MTH gets DCC patent; files suit against Broadway Ltd.

MTH Electric Trains recently sent letters to companies that make Digital Command Control systems, advising them of control features for which MTH recently received a patent. Contrary to rumors reported on various Internet chat groups and other sources, MTH and the DCC manufacturers say the mailings were neither cease-and-desist letters nor threats of lawsuits.

"We've notified [the DCC manufacturers] of what we have received patents on, to call out their understanding that we have a two-way communication protocol established and patented in our DCS system," said Andy Edleman, MTH vice president of marketing. "We know that a two-way system is being developed for DCC, and we don't want other manufacturers to step on that particular patent."

Manufacturers receiving letters from MTH included Digitrax, Lenz, North Coast, SoundTraxx and others. Most companies declined to comment about the letter, but all report that their current product lines are available as before. "We are continuing to sell our products as we have all along," said Debbie Ames of Lenz Agency of North America.

Zana Ireland of Digitrax said that her company is "reading the patents and taking it under advisement."

"We believe that what we've uncovered in our research in terms of prior art [earlier patents that would precede the MTH patent] excludes anything that's out there, and that we have a legitimate patent that can be defended," Edleman said. "We've invited the DCC community to contact us if they have any issues with that."

If another company can show prior art, MTH gladly will recognize it, Edleman said. "If a company has prior art, we can always amend our patents and move on. We would much rather that happen now than two years from now, as it will save a lot of money and time."

An ongoing lawsuit filed by MTH against Broadway Limited and QSI (which makes decoders and electronics for Broadway locomotives) fueled speculation that the recent letters to DCC manufacturers were a prelude to coming legal action, but Edleman said that wasn't the case. The lawsuit is unrelated to the letters.

"QSI filed suit against us a year and a half ago, and this is regarding that issue," Edleman said. "They are asserting that we're infringing upon their sound control patents, and we're alleging that they're infringing on an element within our patent." Broadway Limited did not respond to phone calls or e-mails regarding the lawsuit.

If I'm reading between the lines correctly, this was the computer code fight I was alluding to. I was told by my source ("basement" DCC retailer acquaintance) that QSI was the contractor for MTH. So the fight is over the code that QSI developed for MTH. QSI has been using stuff developed for MTH, according to his interpretation of the lawsuit. His source? I dunno.

Jay CNS&M North Shore Line - "First and fastest"

The "how" could be a critical issue. I read the MTH patent filings and found them long on generality and very short on specifics.

Generally for an electronics patent you have to show uniqueness of technology. I can't remember the exact phrase, but you can't patent something that is obvious and ordinary to someone familiar with the technology.

For example, some folks ask me if I've patented my FX boards, which uses a PIC to do various effects using LEDs. The answer is no, because it uses absolutely no unique or "new" technology, device, or programming. One of the first experiments you do with them is to blink an LED. It would be like trying to patent the "Hello, World" program used universally to teach the first program techniques in computer Basic. Anybody can do it.

At first glance, the drawings attached to the MTH patent application show a typical DCC scheme. All it does is label the components with a different name. I didn't read it in detail (I'm sure MRC, Lenz, and Digitrax have) but the "how" of their implementation is a key element.

Mike Tennent "IronPenguin"

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Corelane) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m25.aol.com:

True!

All overheard in a shop that shall remain nameless:

"Fleischmann is the biggest manufacturer of N scale equipment in the world."

"Piccolo track is the best N-scale sectional track available"

"European N scale brands are competetively priced compared to equipment elsewhere in the world."

"Quality ? Can't beat Fleischmann."

At that last remark I couldn't hold out any longer and decided to set the owner straight on a few facts ... imagine the look on his face .....

Oh well ...