DJ Models Announcement 01/05/19

[pheaton]

5 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

 

So where does that leave DJM registering the CAD as his registered design, where the shape was actually designed by NBL?? 

 

Is this legally valid? Could DJ M register CAD generated by someone else of the Triang Caley 123 - and register that as his design  , creating a claim against Hornby Hobbies for infringement of his IP?

 

Can I register "the shape of St.Pauls cathedral" as my IP if I get hold of a CAD rendering of it and trot down to the Patents Office????

He can IP the CAD itself.....if he owns it....it doesent matter if he paid someone to draw it for him....he can IP it...

 

he cant IP the original subject...so if he draws a cad of a Mk1 coach he can IP it to prevent anyone else using that CAD to product a product....he cant stop someone else drawing a CAD and producing a mk1....this is what he should have said in his 1st press release...his reason for doing this is that the chinese will be in possession of the cad and could be approached by 3rd parties in the UK to manufacture product.....by doing so the UK 3rd parties open themselves up to potential legal action.... But this also has the advantage of attaching a value to an essentially worthless bit of 0s and 1s...which means they can for example be used to generate funds such as security against a loan....

 

he can also IP design cues...so for example....the locos he has made which have magnets to hold a smokebox on...he could IP that idea and stop somone producing there own model which uses the same idea.....but he cant IP features of the original subject....

 

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by pheaton

[Bob Reid]

1 minute ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

 

So where does that leave DJM registering the CAD as his registered design, where the shape was actually designed by NBL?? 

 

Is this legally valid? Could DJ M register CAD generated by someone else of the Triang Caley 123 - and register that as his design  , creating a claim against Hornby Hobbies for infringement of his IP?

 

Can I register "the shape of St.Pauls cathedral" as my IP if I get hold of a CAD rendering of it and trot down to the Patents Office????

 

It's not the shape as such he's registering - it's the uniqueness, or "his way" that's been specified in the registration, for those particular models.  Those are generally the cues he's referring to - basically he's registered the things that make the production readily identifiable as uniquely his and anyone else using those exact same ways could be seen to be either making a copy or using tools that he owns without hi permission.  He could create another Caley 123 'his way' and register it but he could not take Hornby's 123 as it's produced and register it as his own.

[AY Mod]

16 minutes ago, Scottish-Exile said:

1. DJM has spent the money it has already received from crowd funders and the Piggy Bank is dry.
2. Models can’t proceed until he gets funds, i.e. customers pay their next instalment
3. A sizeable number of customers have decided they’ve had enough and already have - or will - bail out.

The above will play out in a continuous vicious cycle

 

For those who have walked, what options  for redress?

• Ask for a refund – I refer you to 1 above
• Seek legal action

 

This last option remains real, especially if a small group got together to apply to bring the claim as a Group litigation Order ( a class action). However, that would cost the Claimants money and there is no guarantee of success.

 

In any event, even if they Won a case, I refer you again to point number 1 above. There is no point suing someone who does not have the money to pay your compensation.

 

So what else? The disgruntled crowd funders could petition to have his business wound up and even see him barred from being a company director for up to 15 years.

 

https://www.gov.uk/company-director-disqualification

 

Reading this thread, there is a spectrum upon which the crowd-funders sit:

• Some have already accepted that their investment has gone down the drain and they have no chance of seeing their money - or a model - again
• Others have said they want to stay on-board out of loyalty

As time drags on (3 years and counting), the former will rapidly take over the latter. In the absence of any dramatic input of funds, then I think either DJM will either dissolve his business or, that decision will be taken for him.

 

All of that is emotional supposition, refer to my previous post as to what individual's position actually is.

[Ravenser]

16 minutes ago, pheaton said:

He can IP the CAD itself.....if he owns it....it doesent matter if he paid someone to draw it for him....he can IP it...

 

he cant IP the original subject...so if he draws a cad of a Mk1 coach he can IP it to prevent anyone else using that CAD to product a product....he cant stop someone else drawing a CAD and producing a mk1....this is what he should have said in his 1st press release...his reason for doing this is that the chinese will be in possession of the cad and could be approached by 3rd parties in the UK to manufacture product.....by doing so the UK 3rd parties open themselves up to potential legal action.... But this also has the advantage of attaching a value to an essentially worthless bit of 0s and 1s...which means they can for example be used to generate funds such as security against a loan....

 

[My added emphasis

 

 

So where does that leave continued sales in the UK of the RTR OO 1361, O2 and D600 commissioned by Kernow and the 14xx commissioned by Hattons ?

 

And what else might be subject to claim of design rights/IP by DJ M ???

[pheaton]

simple answer....they can either

 

sell the current stock and.....then ask djmodels to manufacuture new stock.....to they can continue to sell.... on the drawings he owns....if they have proof of ownership of the CADs then they can cut dave out....the IP essentially is unenforceable.

 

commission a new model of the same subject themselves using the ground up ..new cad new toolings.

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by pheaton

[raymw]

A bit of confusion here. Are we talking about Dave Jones the person, or his limited liability company? If payments have been made to the company, for design work, and the design has occurred, then I guess that part of the 'contract' has been completed, If there is not  enough payments for the next stage, then I expect the whole project stops, and if no work has been done on the second stage, then the payments for that stage only should be refunded. It depends on what the contract stated. If the company has part-spent money on the second stage, expecting the project to continue, and does not have the funds to refund, then the company can fold up, presumably limited to the liability mentioned when incorporated. Recently, Jlrt, or whatever it was called, stopped trading. I think some folk lost monies, even though 'the owner' was respected. A common problem with one man bands, is that they, and their customers are unable to separate the the company and its owner as two separate entities, until problems occur. No matter who you deal with, as a customer there is always a risk if you part with money before getting the goods, but not for the seller.

 

The concept of crowdfunding is to pass the financial risks onto the customer, everyone knows that, but we forget that, when we want the carrot.

[AY Mod]

35 minutes ago, Bob Reid said:

I don't think Dave has tried to say otherwise.

 

Understood; just trying to give a bit of clarity to some points (where it is pertinent to comment) in the overall fog.

[Sir TophamHatt]

Currently reading through the thread but one thing that has struck me up to page 16 is thus:

 

Communication from DJM has been very poor.

There's mis-leading all over the statement.  Some have come away thinking he owns the rights to certain locos, others think it's just the CAD work.  Either way, it's poorly written.

 

That simple fact alone is enough to turn me off.

 

My ellocution isn't great but if I was running a company, I'd be asking others how it reads before posting.

Edited May 3, 2019 by AY Mod
Excess line spaces removed.

[Bob Reid]

If you look at other design registrations you see better examples of the kind of thing it covers. Someone on the thread indicated with a image a plain old fashioned Mug.   I can't register just a plain old mug.  Everyone makes a plain mug generally the same way.  If however I design mine to be made up uniquely in five parts where they are generally made in two and registering that, illustated by the CAD drawing, it becomes one visual cue to recognise anyone else using my moulds or just plain copying.  To get redress though, having identified whose responsible for producing them, I'd need to take them to court and show that they are exactly the same as mine.    

[Bob Reid]

I meant to add, If DJ took someone to court over it, he'd not only need to prove they were produced by copying or using his "appropriated" moulds but also what had made them unique to him in the first place.  A clever defence would run rings round that I've no doubt.

[Miss Prism]

It seems that DJ has not done any actual drawings, nor it would seem has he paid any party to do drawings that DJ could then claim to own as his own property. It seems he does not own any actual tooling. All he has done is to act as a paid design consultant, a go-between a commissioning party and a manufacturing party. Assuming he has been paid for such design consultation, he can have no claim on the drawings, the tooling, or their intellectual content.

 

The only significant part of this debate concerns the nebulous area of 'design cues', and my feeling is that he is on very weak ground in trying to ringfence 'his way' of designing things.

 

For example, if I stipulated: "The upper part of the chimney has a spigot on the underside that fits into a hole in the top of the lower part of the chimney", would you feel constrained not to be able to do the same, or take it merely as a statement of sensible and recommended engineering practice? In other words, what exactly is there that is 'special' or 'unique' about DJM-assisted designs? Probably nothing, in my view.
 

[AY Mod]

Just now, Miss Prism said:

It seems he does not own any actual tooling.

 

That's not actually a verifiable statement, one way or the other. Well it is, but not from the outside.

[adb968008]

I don’t think individuals have much options. Some may have more success than others, but it’s a scramble for the scraps.

 

What could worry me, is absence of action could see this roll on indefinitely...

 

if some Crowd funders drop but others continue to pay, I would imagine a defence of not being paid by customers is acceptable for not delivering and awaiting sufficient funds to proceed, and meanwhile that business continues to incur costs to operate and consume those funds awaiting sufficient funds...

 

The breach of contract would be the funders not paying for work as per the terms. Indeed those paying are incuring loss jointly with DJ to those who do not pay and therefore are potentially exposed to a claim, good luck with that.

 

The timing of this announcement amuses me, it was not long before next payments are expected to be requested, whether by accident or by design.

 

As Andys post says, in between sign up and delivery, the customers at risk... and it’s not as if they weren’t warned... there was streams of posts urging caution and pointing out risk, many of us were vilified as dissenters for doing so, and even DJ himself published it....

On 27/11/2017 at 17:14, DJM Dave said:

Hi everyone,

just started this thread to keep specific chat between the gauges separate.
I'll add details later for the OO version, but it mirrors the N gauge ones exactly apart from the price of course.

Meanwhile you can order using this link..... http://durhamtrainsofstanley.co.uk/my_store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=371

 

Please note this is a DJM crowdfunding project and DJM will be invoicing, designing, and finally supplying the finished model and is therefore totally responsible for your investment.

Also: Please Note: Any 'pure' crowdfunding venture is an investment with no guarantee of return, and your invested capital (deposit payments) are at risk. Please consider carefully whether you wish to partake in this venture before ordering.

cheers
Dave

 

I don’t even see DJ as being the biggest crowdfunded model railway risk right now, despite all this. To me the whole crowdfunded model railway model is just risk risk risk.

 

A safer way to crowdfunding would be 100% up front, with risk of an adjustment close to delivery. That way everyone is locked in, funds are there and there’s no excuses for non-performance in the middle or at the factory, shenanigans like this have little impact.

 

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by adb968008

[Miss Prism]

2 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

That's not actually a verifiable statement, one way or the other. Well it is, but not from the outside.

 

Fair comment. Perhaps I should have said "I am not aware he owns any.... "

 

 

[pheaton]

6 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

It seems that DJ has not done any actual drawings, nor it would seem has he paid any party to do drawings that DJ could then claim to own as his own property. It seems he does not own any actual tooling. All he has done is to act as a paid design consultant, a go-between a commissioning party and a manufacturing party. Assuming he has been paid for such design consultation, he can have no claim on the drawings, the tooling, or their intellectual content.

 

The only significant part of this debate concerns the nebulous area of 'design cues', and my feeling is that he is on very weak ground in trying to ringfence 'his way' of designing things.

 

For example, if I stipulated: "The upper part of the chimney has a spigot on the underside that fits into a hole in the top of the lower part of the chimney", would you feel constrained not to be able to do the same, or take it merely as a statement of sensible and recommended engineering practice? In other words, what exactly is there that is 'special' or 'unique' about DJM-assisted designs? Probably nothing, in my view.
 

for his models he would have had to have paid the factory to draw the cad if he didnt do it himself.....and also for alterations....unless he could show it differed from his specification....this is where you can speculate the money went from the first instalments of each models....he then owns the  IP for these models....as per his registration. 

 

in the case of the comissioned models i can only speculate he was an intermediary between the comissioner and the factory...if for example fred bloggs handed him 30k and said get us a CAD for 14xx the cads belong to fred bloggs...and his IP is worthless.

Edited May 3, 2019 by pheaton

[PaulCheffus]

 

Hi

 

One thing that has puzzled me regarding the APT refunds is this.

 

When the Paypal refunds were made due to the issue with Paypal's terms why wasn't the money already spent deducted from everyone's refund rather than just not refunding certain people?

 

I've always wanted an N gauge 92 and was deciding whether to purchase a CJM model when the DJM one was announced. I then ordered one just before the Revolution announcement of the same model. I cancelled the DJM one as soon as the Revolution one was announced as they were doing the livery I really wanted, I was going to repaint the DJM one initially. I got a full refund but this was prior to any work being undertaken by DJM.

 

I also wanted an APT and expressed an interest initially but the events that followed made me decide not to bother with anything further from DJM.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

Edited May 3, 2019 by PaulCheffus
spelling

[polybear]

In my view what DJM have done regarding IP does absolutely nothing to stop (1) A Chinese manufacturer from using the moulds to make products, and (2) selling those products.  Ebay is full of products sold by, and delivered from China.  If the huge companies* can't stop this from happening, then I doubt DJM has much chance.

 

* I buy replacement Electric Toothbrush heads from Ebay (delivered from China), for a fraction of the price of a Braun example. Can I tell the difference? One has a Braun label & pretty box, the other doesn't. There's no attempt to make me think the one I'm buying is a genuine Braun; however the appearance (excl. label & box), performance and manufacture of the non-branded example makes me think they're coming from the same factory.  Price difference? Huge

[Ravenser]

11 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

That's not actually a verifiable statement, one way or the other. Well it is, but not from the outside.

 

 

I have no opinion whether DJM owns the tooling for the Class 71, J94, or 14xx

 

I don't believe tooling exists for the 92

 

However Kernow have stated they own the tooling for the D600 . Can DJM establish any legal claim over production from those tools for Kernow based on his design registration? 

 

I recall that Hornby bought Lima's tooling. I'm not sure if they bought IP rights in the design of those tools , as a seperate item. But Hornby produce from those tools

[chris p bacon]

2 minutes ago, PaulCheffus said:

 

Hi

 

One thing that has puzzled me regarding the APT refunds is this.

 

When the Paypal refunds were made due to the issue with Paypal's terms why wasn't the money already spent deducted from everyone's refund rather that just not refunding certain people?

IIRC the reason given was that Paypal would not give partial refunds, so only some full refunds were given.

 

That actually made no sense to me at the time as if Paypal has an issue with his account they would have insisted all were refunded not some.  It should be noted that Paypal don't have an issue with Crowdfunding but it has to be carried out to their rules.

 

I've always suggested that it wasn't 'crowdfunding' but unsecured lending from multiple creditors. 

[pheaton]

Lima's IP rights will have transferred with the brand name.. which Hornby purchased.

 

 

[AY Mod]

3 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

Can DJM establish any legal claim over production from those tools for Kernow based on his design registration? 

 

Ownership of tooling and design protection are two distinctly different elements; the use of the former is not necessarily dependent upon the latter once the tooling, a physical entity, exists.

[NinOz]

Where are the dislike and disagree options?

They would be getting a good work out from me for some of these posts.

Only having like and agree options seems to give a sense of only agreement with some rather poor taste and pointless posts.

 

CFJ

[rob D2]

Crikey , what a mess.

accurascale better increase the first production run of 92s

[PhilH]

2 minutes ago, NinOz said:

Where are the dislike and disagree options?

They would be getting a good work out from me for some of these posts.

Only having like and agree options seems to give a sense of only agreement with some rather poor taste and pointless posts.

 

CFJ

Why not put your thoughts into a post?

[Allegheny1600]

1 hour ago, bill_schmidt1 said:

Maybe its time for DJModels to drop the " Setting higher standards" tag.. 

Good one!!!

In my opinion, he should never have used such a tagline, to misquote the 1970s "nice body, shame about the mechanism"!

 

Excuse my bluntness but this chap should never have tried to run a business. He has clearly alienated a heck of a lot of his customers not to mention most other personnel/business he has dealt with. He's risked his own house (apparently) and yet seems to have had a continuing lack of awareness of how to do business.

The whole sorry saga is quite remarkable.