MTH to Offer Sound Decoders


Ron Blumer <rblumer@...>
 

List:

FYI: The latest Model Railroader has a announcement that MTH is
entering the Sound Decoder business with a dual mode decoder in HO
that supports both DC, DCC, and DCS.

Ron Blumer
Novi, Michigan


Jon Miller <atsf@...>
 

I can't find anything mentioned about this decoder on their site.
Without any additional information I think it's a Red Herring to try and do
something (without going to court) as Lionel has completely ignored their
patent claims!
Lead time for MR is about 3 months so you would suspect something should
be on their site or at least somewhere.

Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS


bobspf
 

What is DCS?

Bob Zoeller


Jeff Warner <jeff@...>
 

DCS is MTH's version of command control.  It is NOT compatible with DCC and follows NO NMRA guidelines.

Jeff

Bob Zoeller wrote:

What is DCS?

Bob Zoeller


Ron Blumer <rblumer@...>
 

Jon:

It wouldn't surprise me if MTH made the "Press Release" up to keep
some folks "on the fence" before going with someone elses sound
decoder.

Could this mean that the Tsunami is close to being released?

They may also be reacting to the posts here asking for just sound
decoders from QSI, and thought the market could support another
supplier.

Given how long it sometimes takes to bring something new to the
market, I'm sure we'll have lots of time to review their offering,
and decide if we want to support a company that has done more damage
than good to DCC.

Thanks,

Ron Blumer
Novi, Michigan


Banjotrain
 

--- In QSIndustries@yahoogroups.com, "Ron Blumer" <rblumer@a...>
wrote:
Jon:

It wouldn't surprise me if MTH made the "Press Release" up to keep
some folks "on the fence" before going with someone elses sound
decoder.
snip


I'm sure we'll have lots of time to review their offering,
and decide if we want to support a company that has done more
damage
than good to DCC.

Thanks,

Ron Blumer
Novi, Michigan
What an unjustified comment!
MTH have done nothing to damage DCC. The have had the foresight to
patent DCC functionality and have put in the effort to do it. Any of
the manufacturers could have done this had they put in the effort.
Now, some people are making heresay comment and blaming MTH for
certain manufacturers' product shortcomings and premature
announcements.

Let's be fair.

Erik


Jeff Warner <jeff@...>
 

Erik wrote:

[snip]

MTH have done nothing to damage DCC.

[snip]

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

I couldn't disagree more with this statement. What makes DCC a
great standard (especially when compared to MTH's DCS and Lionel's
command system -- sorry, I can't think of the exact name at the
moment) is that it works with any manufacturer's equipment. I can
take my Atlas or Kato locomotive with a Lenz motor decoder and a
Soundtraxx sound decoder and run it on my Digitrax system, then take
it to my friend's house and run it on his NCE system and everything
works... You can't do this with the proprietary systems in O scale
made by MTH and Lionel... Allowing any company (nothing against MTH
personally) to start patenting the concepts used is a huge blow to
DCC.

Furthermore, there are already many patents on DCC. Many were
donated to the NMRA to ensure they will be available to all
manufacturers. Most of the rest are held by Lenz who has made it
public knowledge they will never enforce them. This policy of
making DCC an open system and sharing information between
manufacturers via the NMRA is what makes DCC a great system...

The final issue is whether MTH "invented" the concepts they are
patenting or not... It has been widely speculated (and will be
proven or not proven eventually in the court system, not on this
forum) that there is "prior art" on several of the issues (such as
use of back-emf to synchronize a chuff). Basically, this means that
MTH may have "borrowed" the concept from someone else without
properly giving them credit.

Therefore, I don't see how it doesn't hurt the DCC community if MTH
is allowed to keep these patents...

At least that's my 2 cents worth.

Jeff Warner


William Hoye <bill@...>
 

Erik
I think you need to be fair. If they invented or discovered the idea people wouldn't have a problem with them. There will and should be a severe backlash by consumers to there actions.
Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: bennettedm [mailto:bennettedm@...]
Sent: Friday, 7 May 2004 3:05 PM
To: QSIndustries@...
Subject: [QSIndustries] Re: MTH to Offer Sound Decoders

--- In QSIndustries@..., "Ron Blumer"
wrote:
> Jon:
>
> It wouldn't surprise me if MTH made the "Press Release" up to keep
> some folks "on the fence" before going with someone elses sound
> decoder.
>
snip


I'm sure we'll have lots of time to review their offering,
> and decide if we want to support a company that has done more
damage
> than good to DCC.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ron Blumer
> Novi, Michigan

What an unjustified comment!
MTH have done nothing to damage DCC. The have had the foresight to
patent DCC functionality and have put in the effort to do it. Any of
the manufacturers could have done this had they put in the effort.
Now, some people are making heresay comment and blaming MTH for
certain manufacturers' product shortcomings and premature
announcements.

Let's be fair.

Erik








__________ NOD32 1.752 (20040506) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.nod32.com


Peter Ely <cprail1@...>
 

All patents required for a manufacturer to meet the DCC standards are held by the NMRA. It is a condition of being a standard and, as a counterexample,  the reason Digitrax's Transponding could not be considered for a standard despite the NMRA's wishing to be able to do so.
 
 
 
 
...Peter
 
Deputy Chair, NMRA DCC Working Group.
 
 
 
 

-----Original Message-----

Furthermore, there are already many patents on DCC.  Many were
donated to the NMRA to ensure they will be available to all
manufacturers.  Most of the rest are held by Lenz who has made it
public knowledge they will never enforce them.  This policy of
making DCC an open system and sharing information between
manufacturers via the NMRA is what makes DCC a great system...


Kennedy How
 

Erik wrote:

What an unjustified comment!
MTH have done nothing to damage DCC. The have had the foresight to patent DCC functionality and have put in the effort to do it. Any of the manufacturers could have done this had they put in the effort.
Now, some people are making heresay comment and blaming MTH for certain manufacturers' product shortcomings and premature announcements.
Let's be fair.
I've seen something like this happen a few years back. An acquaintance of mine tried to patent something that *appears* to have had prior art stamped all over it. The industry, small as it is, banded together to fight the patent application, and I remember hearing a lot of negative things about my acquaintance and his company. It was a negative impression of him daring to take on a venerated and long-time member of the industry.

I lost track of what happened; I don't think he got the patent. But, a lot of the same issues we're talking about here happened back then.

The difference now is that MTH has the patent. The harangueing now centers mainly on whether the patent should have been issued in the first place. If there is prior art involved, maybe the patent shouldn't have been issued. But, it's there now, and the fight is to determine whether it should be revoked or not. In the meantime, the patent is still in effect, and it does put a damper on products from other companies which may or may not infringe on the patent; products that may have been manufactured prior to the patent being issued, but are subject to it in any event.

Kennedy


Jon Miller <atsf@...>
 

If there is prior art involved, maybe the patent shouldn't have been
issued<

You need to understand how modern patents are issued. The government
just issues them without any research at all. The government apparently
feels if there is any conflict _go to court_.
This presents real problems when a larger company (that can afford
lawyers) and small companies (or people) who might hold _prior art_. The
larger company (in this case MTH) uses threats of lawsuit (MTH just sent
notices that they held the patent but even without a threat of suit it's the
same thing) to stop small companies from producing a product.
Lionel has basically _thrown the gauntlet_ to MTH but MTH has done
nothing (Lionel in this case is bigger than MTH). It _appears_ MTH's next
step has been to say "we are going to build a decoder for this market that's
yelling". I doubt they have even started designing. I suspect it's a way
to stay away from a court battle with Lionel.

Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS


hunter48820
 

Hi All,
There was a thread on the Atlas forum regarding MTH getting
into HO scale locomotives. I haven't been keeping up with
this list on a daily basis and maybe someone has already
brought it up.

Best,

Andy Keeney
Dewitt, MI

http://community.webshots.com/user/hunter48820


barry_draper <barry_draper@...>
 

--- In QSIndustries@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Miller" <atsf@i...> wrote:
If there is prior art involved, maybe the patent shouldn't have been
issued<

You need to understand how modern patents are issued. The
government
just issues them without any research at all. The government apparently
feels if there is any conflict _go to court_.
This presents real problems when a larger company (that can afford
lawyers) and small companies (or people) who might hold _prior art_.
That is precisely why it is so important for model railroaders to
actively boycott MTH! They are trying to dominate the DCC decoder
market even beyond what is compition to them. At persent they make
nothing for HO scale, and I doubt they have plans to market a
ready-to-run SP Backwards Mallet with sound (Cab Forward to you
Easterners). But in spite of the fact the BLI offers no competetion,
MTH is preventing BLI customers from enjoying back EMF. Please don't
buy anything from MTH!

Barry Draper