MTH vs. NMRA, QSI, Digitrax, Lenz, TCS, Soundtraxx, etc.

Which part - developing the technology, patenting it, or enforcing their patent?

Patents are property, and if what you report is true, they do own the technology.

I doubt it's that black and white.

I think things might be just slightly gray. Maybe even Harbor Mist gray.

Andy

-----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------

Two sets of initials that will live for infamy in the realms of model railroading, UP and MTH.

Here are the patents registered by MTH according to

#6,619,594 Control, sound, and operating system for model trains (9/9/2002)

#6,604,641 Low-power electrically operated coupler (9/9/2002)

#6,491,263 Power supply unit and rail switching mechanism for model track layouts (7/11/2001)

#6,457,681 Control, sound, and operating system for model trains (12/7/2000)

#6,281,606 Plural output electric train control station (12/16/1998)

#6,019,289 Modular track segment for model railroad track and electrical accessory therefor (1/16/1998)

Please note the recent date of these patents. In fact, MTH's patent that has to do with BEMF (#6,619,594) was filed on 9/9/2002. A quick check of the Lenz.com website shows that Lenz was announcing BEMF decoders in 2001. I quote: "LE010XF Feb. 2, 2001 - Lenz GmbH is pleased to announce the world's smallest NMRA DCC decoder with exceptional performance of Load Compensation or "BACK EMF". Available March 2001"

Now, can someone please explain how Mike Wolf of MTH can claim a patent on BEMF a *year and a half* after Lenz started selling decoders with BEMF???

I admit, what I know of patent law wouldn't fill a thimble. But just from reading a little history about Westinghouse, Edison, and Tesla, et al, one gets the general impression that he who is first, gets the benefit. A "Johnny-come-lately", one would think, would be frowned upon.

BTW, I should have known *you* of all people would support MTH in this... Do you always take the side of business over modelers? First UP, now this... :-(

We, the public, through the gov't, decide what rights to give to businesses, not the other way around.

Sigh...

Paul A. Cutler III

P.S. If anybody wants to give the ol' college try at reading those patents, I wish you luck. The way some of it is written, it appears that MTH's patent #6,457,681 covers all command control systems. In short, it's not an easy read. :-)

Andy, I think those patent forms are written that way just to keep patent lawyers in business! :-D

Semi-seriously, they are kinda vague (the patents, not the lawyers). It will not do this hobby any good, no matter what comes of it. What's next? Is someone going to patent 3.5mm to the foot as a scale for model trains? Or maybe the use of nickle-silver metal for track material? Jeez...

Paul A. Cutler III

Let's try again... Which part do you think is a dumb thing to do by MTH - developing the technology, patenting it, or enforcing their patent?

I have to agree with Mark. If they do own the patent, I certainly support their legal right to protect their property. I would hope that this can all be worked out through appropriate business contracts as you would expect to be the solution.

I'll bet they also tabled "SurroundTraxx", which uses two-way communication.

If it were about the name "back-emf," wouldn't that be a trademark infringement, not a copyright infringement?

What is more important than the actual patent is paper (probably published)showing usage or development. MTH may have filed in '02 but those looking to dispute the patent are looking for things published in the mid

"I am looking for a description of back emf decoders from the mid 90s or earlier that describes these decoders as having a constant speed going up and down the hill."

I haven't talked to anyone looking for this information yet but am guessing exactly what is stated is the information needed to combat the MTH patent!

This is what you have to remember with patents;

Un-patented 'prior invention' win against patents provided it is documented and provable in court. In other words, 'Prior art' wins. A patent is just a legally documented invention ownership claim.

=>If it were about the name "back-emf," wouldn't that be a trademark =>infringement, not a copyright infringement?

"Back-emf"? I learned about that in engineering classes, many decades ago. It has also been discussed in the pages of MR, back in the 60s IIRC. The most MTH can do is patent some particular device that uses back-emf for some specified purpose, but it cannot prevent anyone from using back-emf to do similar things in other devices. The concept and its use has been around since the invention of electric motors.

Nor can MTH the trade-mark the phrase - it's been around in engineering texts for a long time. As has its synonym "reverse emf." It _can_ trademark a particular logo-version of "back-emf", and any references _to that logo_ would have to be marked (TM). What's more, only in the context of trading similar devices or goods would the trademark be enforceable. But any mfr who uses back-emf in it existing devices, and advertised the fact in the past, would not infringe on MTH's trademark. IOW, MTH has a weak enforcement case, if it has one at all. (Footnote)

There is a problem in the US Patent Office, BTW: too many of the patent examiners are too poorly trained to recognise when a patent uses a well-known and well-established phenomenon, and/or duplicates an existing device (often in the public domain.) Also, interpretation of US patent law has shifted to permit patenting very minor changes in existing devices, changes that in earlier interpretations were deemed to be included in the original patent, and hence would become public domain when the patent expired.

Footnote: a) Consider Lotus, who make an office suite that runs on Widnows and other operating systems. It happens to be the name of a flower. Any use of "lotus" or "Lotus" in any context outside office suite software is in fact permissible - Lotus can enforce the trademark _only_ in the context of selling software. b) Consider Starbucks, which initiated a trademark infringement case against the Haida in BC, who opened coffee shop named War Bucks. The Haida's argument was that "bucks" in this context meant "warriors," and was an old-established use of the word -- so Starbucks, take off, eh? Starbucks knew it couldn't win this one. Existing, ordinary _words_ cannot be trademarked. Only _logos_ using ordinary words can be trademarked. (That's why railroads devised logos

- all of them use ordinary words in their names!) The Haida's coffee shop sign apparently didn't look like Starbucks' well-known logo. BTW, "Starbuck" itself is a public domain word. Herman Melville used it (invented it?) to name the first mate on the ill-fated Pequod, Capt Ahab's ship in "Moby Dick." So Starbuck's can't object to anyone using the name for anything other than coffee shops and restaurants.

HTH

Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor)

I faintly remember, as part of our final project, the instructor taught us or had us do the following; write up a quick description of the project and along with schematics put them in a letter, have fellow students sign the description w/dates and mail them to ourselves. When school was finished and went to work for DOD project companies you signed away any inventions with the employment papers so totally forgot the mail to yourself letter. I always thought this had something to do with copyright but those laws have changed. It might also have had to do with copyrights! It's all hazy as school was a long time ago!

The British company ECM were producing back EMF controllers in the

These weren't DCC but used with regular DC.

It is a technique that has been around a long time.

How is its use on a DCC module any different from its use in DC?

All that has happened is that a commonly used circuit is now on the module.

What exactly does MTH's patent claim?

Chris

Yeah, sorry about the snippy part of that post. I really shouldn't post after midnight... :-)

Anyways, my point: What I think is "dumb" is MTH trying to stifle development and usage of other control systems that are only simular in nature to their own. This hobby doesn't need manufacturers to sue each other out of business. That's "dumb". Now, if somebody out there reversed engineered their technology and simply put a different sticker on it, that's one thing. But to say that some how they invented Back-EMF for motor control is totally absurd. It's a decades old concept.

Paul A. Cutler III

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 08:10:47 -0800, "Jon Miller" shared this with the world:

Provable in court. Using the services of expensive lawyers that the manufacturers in this hobby can ill afford.

Who do you suppose will ultimately end up footing the bill for all of the lawyers that the manufacturers would have to hire to prove "prior art" in a court? That's right, you and me, the buying public (through higher priced on the hobby shop shelf).

This sounds a little like what SCO is trying to do to Linux. Trying to use the legal system to generate a profit.

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:06:49 GMT, "Pac Man" shared this with the world:

For a bit of history on the aforementioned "previous legal wranglings"

My question is: why now?

Why did they wait nearly a decade before the suddenly decided to enforce their patent?

Seems to me this reeks of "let's wait until it's extremely popular, then we'll make the big bucks on settlements."

-Gerry Leone