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

There seems to be considerable doubt that they were first to develop the technology, considerable outrage that they had the utter chutzpah to patent it, and considerable hope that the fail utterly in enforcing such a bogus claim, but, hey, the patent office dweebs gave Bezar* a patent on "one click", so anything is possible.

It's also the name of a town in Washington State. I'd love to know whether the coffee or the town had the name first.

-- Jim Sherman xROADKILL snipped-for-privacy@zYAHOOa.COM < remove lower case letters, then use what's left AS lower case

The hurrider I goes the behinder I gets; which makes sense because the older I gets the more behind I gets. And I is gettin an old behind!

Of course it's questionable whether their infusion of over roasted (burnt) reject sweepings from the coffee trader's floor can be called coffee.

Don

-- snipped-for-privacy@prodigy.net

snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com moderator: snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com co-moderator: snipped-for-privacy@Yahoogroups.com

Nothing new under the sun. The Great Western Railway from its inception had a contract with a bloke running refreshment rooms on Swindon station that all trains would stop for the passengers to "partake of refreshment". It didn't really matter in the 1830s but 50 years later was a major nuisance so they bought out of the contract for an exoritant fee.

Brunel himself described it as "the worst coffee, or rather the worst roasted corn I have ever tasted".

As well as a character on "BattleStar Galactica"... who was undoubtedly named for the one in Moby Dick.

=>In article , Jim Sherman => wrote: =>

=>>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:16:17 -0500 (EST), "Wolf Kirchmeir" =>> wrote: =>>

=>>> 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 restaurant =>>It's also the name of a town in Washington State. I'd love to know =>>whether the coffee or the town had the name first. =>

=>As well as a character on "BattleStar Galactica"... who was undoubtedly =>named for the one in Moby Dick.

OK then, was Starbuck's named for the town, for Melville's character, or the Battlestar Galactica character?

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

Gee. I've always thought it was named for the lead character "Starbuck" in N. Richard Nash's Play "The Rainmaker". It was later made into a movie, starring Burt Lancaster and Katherine Hepburn.

Bruce West Main Street Heritage Models Bruce West Main Street Heritage Models

Toss "wospam" to e-mail

=>>"Wolf Kirchmeir" asked: =>

=>

=>>OK then, was Starbuck's named for the town, for Melville's character, or the =>>Battlestar Galactica character? =>>

=>

=>Gee. I've always thought it was named for the lead character "Starbuck" in N. =>Richard Nash's Play "The Rainmaker". It was later made into a movie, starring =>Burt Lancaster and Katherine Hepburn.

But he was named for Melvillle's character, wasn't he?

"It's all rarther confusing, really", as Neddy Seagoon was wont to say.

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

Starbuck was not an uncommon surname in the nineteenth century - perhaps that is the origin of the "coffee" house name.

As an example, the proprietor of the Starbuck Car and Waggon Company was George Starbuck. This company, located in Birkenhead, England built over 800 horse-drawn tramcars in the period 1875 to 1885, and later (under new management) built many steam tram trailer cars and electric tramcars.

I would say, NOT developing the technology, patenting it, and then enforcing their patent. Or so a number of lay folks are alleging. But, we won't know the results until the courts get through with it.

I have a friend who tried this 4-5 years ago. Applied for a patent on something that folks knew was out there for nearly 15yrs prior. In fact, another of my friends was one of the originators, though he wasn't a mass producer of it; that went to somebody else who was a former business associate.

I remember the discussion over it then was just as hot as this one has become. I don't think that patent went through, at least I haven't found any references to it (but I haven't had a chance to do a detailed search). And the company web page doesn't cite a patent. But then again, at that time, it was an application, and the industry had plenty of time to submit arguments against. Here, it's a done deal already, and the objections will have to be after the fact.

Which is why Stan Ames was looking for documentation predating the MTH stuff.

Kennedy

That's why we call it Charbuck's!

=>Starbuck was not an uncommon surname in the nineteenth century - =>perhaps that is the origin of the "coffee" house name. =>

=>As an example, the proprietor of the Starbuck Car and Waggon Company =>was George Starbuck. This company, located in Birkenhead, England =>built over 800 horse-drawn tramcars in the period 1875 to 1885, and =>later (under new management) built many steam tram trailer cars and =>electric tramcars.

Thanks!

The things one learns when one lets one's fingers dance idly over the keyboard. :-)

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

I looked. The town pre-dates Battlestar Galactica, incorporated in

1906. There was a "dagget" (dog) in the series. That is a town in CA. Not that we'll ever know, but my money's on the town.

-- Jim Sherman xROADKILL snipped-for-privacy@zYAHOOa.COM < remove lower case letters, then use what's left AS lower case

The hurrider I goes the behinder I gets; which makes sense because the older I gets the more behind I gets. And I is gettin an old behind!

According to Paul Cutler's comments, there are six patents patents registered by MTH -- all between 1/16/1998 and 9/9/2002.

What is the patent are you referring to that is nearly a decade old?

Seems to me this reeks of "someone has their dates wrong."

I don't think that is the case at all.

No doubt a lot of people are reading FAR too much into this report. If the report is true (some parts of the original message are in question, but I haven't seen much to make me think MTH's reply wasn't factual), then yes -- MTH has patent rights.

But do they own the rights to anything that resembles back-EMF technology? No, and I don't think they are trying to claim that.

Patents are pretty specific items and MTH would have as much difficulty saying "we own all methods of back-EMF control" as the Wright Brothers would have of claiming "we own all methods of flying through the air." They can't patent the result -- but they certainly can patent their method of accomplishing it. And MTH is within their rights to send letters to various DCC manufacturers and the NMRA informing them of patents they hold in that area.

Will this affect manufacturers? No, if they are using their own method of back-EMF control. Yes, if they are using the method that MTH owns without a license agreement.

Paul, do you really think they are claiming to have invented back-EMF? I don't see it that way.

The original message by R.Geiter that you quoted claims that MTH "own the patent to back-emf control," - but let's face it, that original message is filled with holes and misconceptions which calls the whole message into question ("cease and desist orders?" "copyright infringement?" "1990 (the date of MTH's patent)?").

Come on, they guy is shooting from the hip.

The reply by Geren Mortensen seems a bit more level-headed, and he says that "only certain, specific aspects of DCC operation are in question at this time. ... ...and the other pertains to Back EMF motor control." I certainly don't see his comment as a claim that MTH invented back-EMF control, and he notes (rightly so) that the patent issue is very narrow in scope.

And I remember reading somewhere that at one station in the

1800s the staff were seen pouring the leftover dregs back into the urn ready for the next arrival.

Ashley.

This from another list;

I read the MTH Patent this morning and the NMRA DCC RP's this afternoon. I am not a lawyer but I have some practical experience in IP rights etc. And after the past few days I decided I would add my unqualified analysis to the pool (or is it a swamp). I am also sending this to the three lists where I have seen discussion on this topic. So apologies for duplicate posts.

It appears that MTH have somewhat taken advantage of an environment that was developing through invention outside of the world of patents. Their patent is quite fair but it has a lot to do with stuff that was being hypothesized in the model railway press in the mid-1980's in regard to the future of train control. Some of the stuff the patent discusses is built in to what MTH sell into their O gauge market but I would suggest there remains a degree of science fiction in the patent as well - even if it is near to reality.

So what have they patented?

It seems on my reading that they have patented the following in general enough terms to prevent anyone else from ever doing it without infringing upon the patent within the USA: - bi directional communication between control interface and decoders. - the concept of an accessory decoder for control or animation of stationary layout items. - the use of back EMF to control: - train speed under load or no-load (on a grade going up hill or down) - to control the loudness of steam chuff - to synchronize a smoke generator (more smoke under load etc) - user downloadable sounds to a decoder - remotely controlling a coupler to open and close - a method of creating a Doppler effect on a locomotive sound system - full duplex wireless and infra-red remote control of digital command systems - definition of a broad spectrum packet system to transmit between command station and locomotive. - doing all of the above over an AC track environment (such as Lionel) - capability of the digital control system to support legacy train operation - programming a sequence of commands to automate layout operation of a digital system. - and....connecting a computer to manage a digital control system via an RS232 interface!

So what is not covered by the patent?

What is termed "existing art" predates the patent, is covered by other patents held variously by other people (including some of the same people that got this patent) and the likes of Marklin, Lenz, Mark G (of CTC-16 and EasyDCC fame) and others.

The patent is only good in the USA (it does not claim any international jurisdiction).

DCC technology up to 1996 or 2000 (time of the patent) seems to qualify as "existing art".

Uncoupling the way that the Tony's train exchange does it is not within the scope of the patent.

High frequency decoders (good for high end motors) should also be okay.

Believe it or not synchronized diesel sounds based on feedback were not mentioned from what I recalled. It only referred to its us with steam chuff sounds!

If any of the items claimed where available from a US manufacturer or authorized importer prior to the date the MTH patent was filed, then they will cause that part of the patent to be invalidated. But the way the patent is so broadly crafted other aspects should still stand. For example MTH's uncoupling design is quite explicit and in a few years should even be possible in HO scale. And the concept of transmitting external sound to the locomotive as part of the data packet would also stand up to scrutiny.

Who is impacted by the patent?

Any DCC manufacturer or brand available in the USA offering a full duplex remote wireless throttle! NCE guys take note here. EasyDCC is a one-way signal so differs from the wireless technology defined in the patent.

Anyone's plans for bi-directional communications over DCC. The patent is so broad in it's definition it may cover everything that Digitrax, Lenz and the NMRA have been contemplating.

Soundtraxx's Tsunami and Surroundtraxx both seem to do things that the MTH patent seems to claim.

Connecting a computer to your DCC system via an RS232 interface for the purpose of controlling the layout is also claimed, although I am sure this would fail to stand if tested. However connecting your computing device (could even be a PDA) to a non-RS232 serial interface or into the DCC throttle bus is not covered by the patent. And if you are connecting to program the decoder as many of us do that too seems to be outside the scope of the patent.

The claim in regard to Accessory Decoders is a bit surprising because Marklin and Zero One had accessory decoders and predate the patent. So I believe this claim is faulty as well.

If you had any thought of synchronized smoke for your steam locomotives - get read to pay a royalty to MTH.

My conclusion:::: These guys drafted something wide ranging based upon what we all saw as being in the near future! They are attempting to capitalize on the good intentions of others and to profit significantly from a generational change in our hobby. More so they have attempted to claim some IP right to the implementation of these technologies in other hobbies such as Model Aircraft and Model Cars.

MTH has invested some effort in manufacturing products that reflect functions as defined in the patent. That helps protect their claims to some extent. Their action against QSI is also trying to protect their investment and the rights that Uncle Sam bequeathed them with the granting of the patent.

So what might we do about it? Soundtraxx's, Digitrax and QSI could move to Canada. And we can all start ordering by mail order for personal use..... AND/OR Pray that a Model Railroading lawyer with patent skills is getting his teeth into this Pro Bono or for a modest fee. I am sure there must be one or two out there.

This is just another example of where the rules we create as a society to protect ourselves, are being used against us. Or that is the way it appears to me.

It goes down with people who are trying to patent DNA proteins and international electronic financial transactions. It is as dramatic and nefarious as the UP's "Grand Mobilier" of the 1860's!