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

You're right, Mark, I'll concede that. I was way off with my dates.

However, Digitrax was using Back EMF to control trains in 2000. So if MTH held the Back EMF patent in, say, 1998, why did they wait until 2003 to enforce it, when Digitrax (and others) had been widely using it and publicising it since then? Why not enforce the patent as soon as it's infringed?

-Gerry Leone

I think there are a lot of misconceptions being tossed about in this discussion. Here's a very thorough reply from the Vice President of Marketing at M.T.H. on the subject:

Key points:

"M.T.H. has not secured patents on back EMF and is not threatening those that utilize back EMF technology."

"M.T.H. recently sent letters out to DCC manufacturers in the model railroading community who are developing or utilizing technology that may violate our U.S. Patents. M.T.H. has not filed suit against any of those companies at this point, but instead has advised them of possible conflicts with our patents that cover 2-way communications."

Why are they doing this now? Perhaps it's a case of "enough is enough." They may see new products on the horizon that use concepts that they own, and feel that it is much more prudent to warn companies before the products are marketed, rather than after they are being sold.

If you are interested in this subject, I'd really recommend reading that message. The V.P. does a good job of explaining M.T.H.'s position.

Probably should expand on MTH claim to two way communication which they claim they own. However Digitrax uses two way communication and also has a patent for it. So here we see a perfect example of how the Patent Office is broken, how could they give patents to two companies for the same things (as apparently MTH is claiming)! See patent 6,220,552.

No, and the facts are clear on that.

Anyone with a library card or a web browser can see that their "flying machine" patent was aimed to protect their specific method of flying

-- by warping the wings to control flight. There was no attempt to claim to own all methods of flying through the air.

Patents (whether by MTH or the Wright Brothers) cover very specific inventions and ideas -- you can't just patent a general concept.

inventions and ideas -- you can't just patent a general concept.<

The patent is available to read, #6,457,681;

From another group------- "Actually, MTH's speed control portion of their patent starts on page 35 and goes through the top of page 39. Interesting claims for their system. --sic-- but MTH lays out their specs pretty clearly. I do find it interesting how MTH throws in phrases that indicate that their current design is not all encompassing for their claim of their patent. In other words, they lay claim to any design that has the same capability."

The idea that they "lay claim" to any design that has the same capability is the same as trying to patent a "general concept".

I printed out the MTH patent and will note a couple of the statements refereed in my previously email.

1)It is contemplated, however, that other modulation methods could also be used, as described above.

2)It should be understood that the embodiment shown in FIG 2 is merely exemplary, and any remote control functions/designs may be used.

3)sic--although it should be understood that other transceiver configurations could be use. Further, an IR receiver could be used if the remote control 16 is transmitting IR signals, or any other wireless transceiver may also be acceptable depending on the wire-less communication scheme implemented by the manufacture.

As I said before this language is general and tends to say "we own everything that resembles this"! This language is throughout out the document! On the IR one if they had added TV to the patent you would think they own TV remotes also.

I beg to differ.

From

That same year, the U.S. Court has decided in favor of the Wright Brothers in a patent suit against Glenn Curtiss. The issue concerned lateral control of aircraft, for which the Wrights maintained they held patents.

Although Curtiss's invention, ailerons (French for "little wing"), was far different from the Wrights' wing-warping mechanism, the Court determined that use of lateral controls by others was "unauthorized" by patent law.

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

From

The Flyer embodied solutions to a massive set of problems that the Wrights ingeniously solved. Perhaps their cleverest achievement was figuring out how to maneuver the craft, through a method of wing-warping not unlike riding a sled down a snowy hill. The pilot, on his belly, twisted nearly the entire airframe in the direction the plane was to turn. It was awkward, but it worked.

Aiming to improve maneuverability, Alexander Graham Bell suggested to another aviation pioneer, Glenn Curtiss, that he investigate ailerons. These evolved into the familiar flaps on the rear of wings and tailpieces that move, while the rest of the wing remains fixed. In 1908, Curtiss?s June Bug used ailerons to fly about 3,000 feet.

The Wrights interpreted their patent as covering the entire craft and believed that Curtiss had infringed on it. They became tenacious defenders of what they saw as their rights to their invention, and made Curtiss one of many defendants. By the time the decision was handed down, Wilbur was dead and Orville had sold his share of the business. When the Wright firm won again on appeal in 1915, it was clear that potential competitors needed to tread carefully in their designs or face the Wright Co. in court, where success was unlikely.

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

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Where on earth did you see that?