DJ Models Announcement 01/05/19

[159220]

2 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Also the class 22 in OO, possibly the 121/122—some work had been done on these (I think) when he left. 

 

1 hour ago, newbryford said:

Amongst others that have already been mentioned, the Class 73.

 

He did start the process at Dapol for the 68 and he had remarked, whilst he secured the "model rights" for the Class 68 from DRS, he omitted the Class 88...…..

 

I didn't really want to post on here, but, I do not want to see superb models being smeared in fall of DJM. 

 

Dapol's 121/122, 68 and 73 have all been project managed from CAD, EP to delivery by the Dapol team. Perhaps announced when Dave Jones was still at Dapol, but he has had nothing to do with the design and delivery.  

[PMP]

8 minutes ago, Richard E said:

Despite the possible legal implications of withholding a 'stage payment' on a model I suspect the impact of this will be some folk saying/feeling that they will take the loss of their initial payment and reacting to an invoice with the reply 'sue me'

Unless there is a specific clause in the T&C’s that says a purchaser must pay ‘on demand’ remittances to cover the balance of any models ordered, a purchaser could walk away without penalty. 

[Winter123]

1 hour ago, newbryford said:

 

Amongst others that have already been mentioned, the Class 73 - which IMO has the worst design of pickup ever inflicted upon the British railway market...………...

The MRA side tippers with less than ideal inter-vehicle couplings that either come apart or cause derailments.

 

At least the JNA and IOA wagons aren't too bad.

 

He did start the process at Dapol for the 68 and he had remarked, whilst he secured the "model rights" for the Class 68 from DRS, he omitted the Class 88...…..

 

Cheers,

Mick

Thanks

Yes, incredible own goal with the 88.

 

I'm also thinking Silver Bullets and Telescopic Steel Coil wagons plus the Kernow commissioned China Clay wagons with the worst decals I have ever seen (post Dapol)

 

But how much did he lead on these or was he one part of a design team. I'm trying to understand at what point he felt he could do a better job than Dapol?

[woodenhead]

46 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

 

I had forgotten about that farce.  125 branding on hauled coaches, wrong numbers, inconsistent roof colours, etc.

 

Took me over a year mix and matching to get a set of matching roofs on my HST set!

I never managed to get a matching set, sold it in the end.

[dogbox321]

Well although its interesting, and I havent read all 30 pages.

 

I can quite understand Daves frustration of working on projects and others announcing the same and/or gazumping him by cutting him out.  Would not like to speculate, on whether its the answer to problems he has encountered in the past,  or just adds more questions.

 

I cannot quite understand how you can get IP rights on something that you are effectively "copying" that is 76 times bigger (in the case of OO).  Likewise, to make changes, well you cannot to the actual shape, but surely,any entity that has the owners permission can take measurements from an item of railway stock, and produce their own CAD's, tooling etc.  As long as the dimensions are not borrowed from a competitors model, then I wonder how IP can be used in this case.  Likewise regarding differences, there must be lots of ways if needed - i.e. different materials (eg Accurascale's tungsten chassis) , using clips or screws to join components etc.  Likewise look at it from the micro level, and, in theory no manufacturer could even use the same coupling, never mind wheels, which then adds problems too, what happens if a supplier in China has to make a different axle for each manufacturer, due to IP - price goes up! It depends how far manufacturers wanted to take it, and how IP law would be applied.  I could understand IP  with something like a novel feature, such as Live Steam, but otherwise.....

 

Regards,

 

C.

 

 

 

  

 

 

[Barry Ten]

Some of this is getting a bit too personal for my tastes.

[Bob Reid]

They think it's all over?

 

 

It is now....

 

[The Stationmaster]

9 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

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 ???

I think it leaves them exactly where they already are.  Kernow will continue to sell models produced at their expense to their specification and no doubt Hattons will do the same.

 

The 1361 is irrelevant in my view as the 'design' registered by DJM is not a complete or accurate representation of any production version of the loco - every version manufactured is different in some way or another from, and is more complete than, the  IP'd CAD.  The D6XX has already been explained by AY Mod- the CAD was produced by the factory at Kernow's expense (as I understand were all the CADs of models issued by Kernow) so it would in any case be debatable if anybody could IP a CAD that had been produced by somebody else - especially if they didn't even pay for the work!).

 

In other words the whole thing IP thing when it comes to commissioned models is a total farce (as I happen to somewhere have a CAD of a  1361 variant as finally produced maybe I could IP it?).  There is also the potentially relevant situation of who actually owns the CAD and if it happens to be the factory which produced it in the first place a whole new barrel of worms is opened - so we'd best not go there. 

 

Net result as far as commissioned models is concerned is 'no change and nothing to see here'

[chris p bacon]

I noted the new header

 

Quote

Please keep posts on topic. Rubbish will be removed.

 

 That doesn't bode well for my layout thread..

 

Edit to add I just realised I've done exactly what the header said not to do...whoops.

Edited May 3, 2019 by chris p bacon

[Claude_Dreyfus]

17 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

Some of this is getting a bit too personal for my tastes.

 

Agree. Dave has made a misjudgement, and judging by some other threads has already paid a price for his announcement. There has been justified criticism, but some quite personal and not completely necessary, however in a number of posts there are pointers to how he can rectify the situation, with sensible and experienced advice. Really we should leave it to him to rectify the situation, what is fine us done, but I cannot see what can be gained by barracking him further. I would hope that we are mostly agreed that we want him to deliver his products consistently and without drama.

[Clearwater]

1 hour ago, PMP said:

Unless there is a specific clause in the T&C’s that says a purchaser must pay ‘on demand’ remittances to cover the balance of any models ordered, a purchaser could walk away without penalty. 

Even if it was a contractual obligation, the purchaser would need to be sued.  Even an application to the small claims court would cost a fair chunk of any proceeds (agreed less if on the apt).  I’m not sure you’d bother above a bit of moral pressure.

[Rob F]

15 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

Some of this is getting a bit too personal for my tastes.

I was never a particular fan of DJ and found some of the praise lavished on him when he started his venture bordered on the sycophantic, however, it does seem that people are revelling a little too much in his misfortune.

 

I feel for the crowd funders and the loss they may suffer but there is a human element here. I suspect we have an individual here who is under a great deal of stress with great concerns over his and his family’s future. I know his current position is largely self inflicted and some would say he is reaping what he sowed.

 

Maybe.

 

I just hope someone is looking out for him and giving him the emotional support he almost certainly needs.

[newbryford]

1 hour ago, 159220 said:

 

 

 

Dapol's 121/122, 68 and 73 have all been project managed from CAD, EP to delivery by the Dapol team. Perhaps announced when Dave Jones was still at Dapol, but he has had nothing to do with the design and delivery.  

 

Not quite. I appreciate that the 121 and 68 were after Dave's tenure at Dapol but:

DapolDave was posting CADs of the 73 in November 2012.....

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by newbryford

[Clearwater]

1 hour ago, Richard E said:

Despite the possible legal implications of withholding a 'stage payment' on a model I suspect the impact of this will be some folk saying/feeling that they will take the loss of their initial payment and reacting to an invoice with the reply 'sue me'

 

And you can already see the looming ‘train wreck’, pardon the pun, of suing people who don’t pay up.  Inevitably, a person who has died will be pursued leading to more adverse publicity.  

[Willie Whizz]

On 01/05/2019 at 20:52, woodenhead said:

Dave's problem has been his need to share information or allude to knowledge, he seems to also give them impression that people are out to get him.

 

 

As the saying goes:  "Just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean 'they' aren't out to get you!"

[Clive Mortimore]

Is my memory correct, when Dave Jones started his own business he started a wish list on this forum. Apart from taking the P out of my suggestion of some overhead EMUs he seemed to announce he was going to make everything that was on the list. Then had to cancel most as he found other manufactures had similar wish/to do list.  Things seemed to have gone from bad to worse as time has progressed. In some ways I feel sorry for him as he was trying to bring something new to the market but on the other had I cannot feel sorry for someone who appears to me not the best businessman and then blames others for what has gone wrong.

 

I hope those who have invested in his schemes see a return, either the model or their money back. 

[Willie Whizz]

On 02/05/2019 at 05:13, Oldddudders said:

More than one contributor here has noted that they have passed three figure sums to DJM in good faith, and now see little chance of their model ever appearing. I regard that as very sad for them, but fear that if widespread, there will be some very ugly goings-on among such victims seeking to recover monies. Irrespective of the outcome of the astonishing rant we have read, DJ may find he is being pursued through the courts by such people - and who can blame them?

 

It would make the Coopercraft situation look like a playground spat over marbles ...

[GWR-fan]

As an example of apparent copyright infringement,  many years ago a Chinese manufacturer released a range of largescale (1/22.5) railway carriages,  goods wagons and a steam loco and an ICE train.  The items were marketed under numerous brandnames, depending on whom paid to have the items manufactured.  In essence the items were basically pantographed copies of an original German maker's models,  even down to tooling marks and how the item was assembled.  The tooling used was not as crisp as the German made items but still more than acceptable and at a fraction of the cost of the quality German brand.  There was talk of legal action but as far as I am aware little if anything was done to stop production.  The items marketed were sold at less than a quarter and sometimes 10% of the cost of the better made German models.  In the case of the locomotives the Chinese made models were battery operated and radio controlled and not track power pickup as on the more expensive German made models.

 

A large coach was released that even copied the seating arrangement of the German model but apparently forgot to copy the toilet cubicle so there was a gap in the seats.  While cheap copies they were relatively well made although quality control and assembly issues were a problem they did sell well,  particularly in the British market.  I purchased over fifty of the coaches and by the time I had rebuilt the models cannibalising missing parts from other cars I had effectively lost about five cars.  One car was received with what I am convinced was a smear of faeces on the side of the coach body.

 

I am referencing to this apparent copyright infringement because even though the German manufacturer was a leader in the market it seems no official action was taken to stop the copies being made although there was threats of legal action.   What hope then a cash strapped much smaller British company pursuing a Chinese manufacturer who apparently breaches copyright.  No doubt Dave has issued this warning as possibly a threat to the well known commissioners and others to "not go behind his back" but in reality it is up to Dave to prove any infringement plus show proof of ownership of the design and legal action is expensive with no guarantee of success. 

[adb968008]

I just thought i’d Resurrect this piece of history...

Rapido’s F40 was allegedly copied by BigDawg originals..

 

Various US forums suggest the activity continues with different company names producing nefarious shells derived from other manufacturers.

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by adb968008

[Leicester Thumper]

Shots fired by Revolution, they have reopened their order books on the N gauge class 92 they are doing to allow more people to order the 92 following the recent news. although they didn't say the exact reason why, but we all know why... 

[Persephone]

2 hours ago, John M Upton said:

 

I had forgotten about that farce.  125 branding on hauled coaches, wrong numbers, inconsistent roof colours, etc. 

 

An expensive mistake. Very expensive by all accounts. 

[d9002]

6 minutes ago, Leicester Thumper said:

Shots fired by Revolution, they have reopened their order books on the N gauge class 92 they are doing to allow more people to order the 92 following the recent news. although they didn't say the exact reason why, but we all know why... 

I can't say that I blame them unduly .....although a 92 is not on my list anyway as I don't have any desire to model string over my layout.

Some may disagree but I would say it is good business sense ....and it gives the customer what they want

[Leicester Thumper]

2 minutes ago, d9002 said:

I can't say that I blame them unduly .....although a 92 is not on my list anyway as I don't have any desire to model string over my layout.

Some may disagree but I would say it is good business sense ....and it gives the customer what they want

 

 

I'm totally with you, I'm the same, I don't want a 92, but good business call by Revolution, but at the same time it helps out those who've lost out on the DJM farce. 

OK, so they haven't got their money back yet (if ever, we shall see), but with some people just cutting their losses anyway, it's a good call cause people get the model they want. and TBH revolution and rapido do have a good track record.

[GWR-fan]

Perhaps a little off topic but related to legal action on copyright.  Some years ago MTH (Mikes Train House) sued another major U.S. manufacturer, Lionel, for copyright infringement.  It was a long protracted legal battle but the end result was that MTH secured ownership of Lionel.   Perhaps the British are not as litigious as our American friends,  but maybe we will see. 

[JSpencer]

I think we may be over reacting to his announcement. Yes this is an internal affaire and we have zero need to know about this stuff but in summary his announcement was:

section 1: the trials and tribulations he encountered running his firm (from his perspective)

section 2: the action he took to try and ensure no one else can sell his products

section 3: his thoughts on what all this IP stuff COULD mean. And the word could appearing near the start of the section.

 

A sort Eureka moment, except it wasn't that had everyone, myself included, saying " what the hell is he on about?"