DJ Models Announcement 01/05/19

[jjb1970]

I'm really in two minds about this. When I read "the announcement" I can't help feeling that Dave Jones needs help. The tone of anger and embitterment, desperation and attempt to clutch at straws indicates somebody in a very bad place and who I'd ordinarily feel sympathy for. However, then I look at the appalling tone and comments directed at Chinese factories, accusing people who I consider to be honourable and straight up people doing a terrific job of trying to get him to join some sort of illegal cartel etc and any sympathy I'd normally have evaporates. I made a comment earlier on this thread, but if I look at the comments about ne'er do wells etc in the announcement of the announcement and then at the bilious rant of the announcement itself which throw out accusations and is worded in a rather unpleasant tone it really does beg the question of whether the writer really does have such a complete lack of self awareness that he is ignorant of the irony.

[DY444]

Two things puzzle me about this affair. 

 

Firstly the the process leading up to the announcement.  It seems fairly clear that Mr. Jones believes his IP is being exploited by third parties without his consent and he wanted to take steps to prevent that.  I would expect most people in such a position to take advice from someone familiar with the scope of the protection offered by registering IP and for any public announcement to reflect an understanding of that scope.  The wording of the original announcement and the fact of the subsequent amendment gives me the impression that either no advice was sought, or it was ignored, or it was misunderstood.  

 

Secondly I am struggling with the logic behind making any of this public.  I don't see what Mr. Jones hoped to gain by announcing it.  Presumably he believed it would benefit his business but I can't see what the potential upsides were perceived to have been.  The reaction to it shows the potential downsides very clearly and he appears to have shot himself in the foot.  Even if he feels he exhausted all the other negotiation avenues I still don't see what he hoped to gain.  The timing wasn't exactly very subtle either. 

[Sir TophamHatt]

19 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

Incorrect - https://www.kickstarter.com/fulfillment

You're right.

I always thought it was much more robust than that.

 

Although I'd feel a lot safer pledging via a 3rd party rather than just essentially giving someone money.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, JSpencer said:

 

He did a clarification statement a day later saying he was not blocking others from doing the same.

Do you really think that anybody else would rise to that particular invitation?   I would have thought that by making a public statement of any sort 'others' would in effect be acknowledging the existence and import of the original statement.  And if many people posting on here have a somewhat negative opinion of it then it is perhaps likely that 'others' might have not dissimilar views and won't be wasting their time.

 

1 hour ago, Clearwater said:

If i was a retailer with some cash to invest but perhaps not quite the balance sheet and risk appetite of Kernow, Hattons or Rail to take on a full production run, the idea of say investing a low tens of thousands of pounds in a developer who can do the CADs and factory liaison might be attractive.  But I wouldn’t want a retail margin, I’d want my share of the full equity upside proportionate to my cash investment.  

I quite agree.  But that would surely mean finding 'a developer' who can do the CADs instead of handing the work to a factory in China?  And outside the major UK market 'manufacturers' that would mean either Accurascale or - so I understand - Cavalex.  And apart from a share of the equity I'd also want to see a heck of a lot more financial, and other, information than a set of short form accounts, especially if it happened to be a concern which claimed to have much more invested in tooling that would appear to have been reflected in those accounts.

Edited May 4, 2019 by The Stationmaster
correct typo

[jjb1970]

Given the repeated accusations and tone of some of the comments emanating from DJM it's a wonder the factory doesn't just run off a batch of models and sell them on EBay or Alibaba. Send a message. 

[Ravenser]

1 minute ago, jjb1970 said:

Given the repeated accusations and tone of some of the comments emanating from DJM it's a wonder the factory doesn't just run off a batch of models and sell them on EBay or Alibaba. Send a message. 

 

Apart from serving to validate DJM's claims - a bad idea - it would also cause collateral damage to other parties in the UK (eg Hornby if the model in question was the 71, or retailers). If the factory ever had any intention of working with those parties - or was already doing so - it would be shooting itself in the foot

[woodenhead]

15 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

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'

No one else would use the DJM CAD - it's wrong, #Splashergate.

 

So if someone else did produce a model from the CAD with splashers it would be fairly slam dunk on evidence.  If they remove the splashers it is no longer the same as DJM and would be in definition a better CAD.

[jjb1970]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

Apart from serving to validate DJM's claims - a bad idea - it would also cause collateral damage to other parties in the UK (eg Hornby if the model in question was the 71, or retailers). If the factory ever had any intention of working with those parties - or was already doing so - it would be shooting itself in the foot

 

Fair point. I don't think the factory will want to risk their relationships with other UK clients. Although that said, after the outburst about commissioners going behind his back and broken handshakes etc I don't think there would be many tears for DJM if the factory did send a message. I think the latest outburst will have burned whatever beams remained in a few bridges. 

 

On validating his claims, I am not so sure as we don't know what the situation is. I t may be that the factory have a legitimate case and are merely trying to recoup some of their losses. We just don't know. Certainly I am not going to judge the factory based on a rather emotive version of events provided by one party to the dispute. 

 

I found the bit about commissioners going behind his back to be bizarre. It may have escaped his notice but it was never his factory and any one of us could legitimately approach them. He should really be asking why his commissioning clients did that. 

 

The factory will be aware of his accusations, it must be infuriating. 

[Covkid]

3 hours ago, stock_2007 said:

I've read through 31 pages of what ever this is and I'm still none the wiser just what the new loco is everyone is talking about?

 

There isn't one. It is Dave telling the world how hard done by he is, how unlucky he is and what everyone has done to his business.

I seriously don't doubt it is really really difficult to run a business as a one-man band  (assuming his wife / girlfriend is not involved), but  dabbling with this IP thing is clearly another distraction from the vitally important work on producing his models.

 

It is unfortunate for him that the Irish lads have appeared on the scene and are demonstrating the ability to compete on announcements and product delivery in a way Dave can only dream, but this is the competition he faces. We don't hear the tales of woe from any other model producers which make Dave''s all the more noticeable when they appear.

[Ravenser]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

 

Fair point. I don't think the factory will want to risk their relationships with other UK clients. Although that said, after the outburst about commissioners going behind his back and broken handshakes etc I don't think there would be many tears for DJM if the factory did send a message. I think the latest outburst will have burned whatever beams remained in a few bridges. 

 

On validating his claims, I am not so sure as we don't know what the situation is. I t may be that the factory have a legitimate case and are merely trying to recoup some of their losses. We just don't know. Certainly I am not going to judge the factory based on a rather emotive version of events provided by one party to the dispute. 

 

I found the bit about commissioners going behind his back to be bizarre. It may have escaped his notice but it was never his factory and any one of us could legitimately approach them. He should really be asking why his commissioning clients did that. 

 

The factory will be aware of his accusations, it must be infuriating. 

 

He said he had spread his work amongst at least 3 factories after the first bust-up , so the DJM Statement targets multiple parties in China.

 

It's reached the point  that it may be relatively difficult for anyone commissioning a model to avoid working with a factory who has/had a relationship with DJM

 

I'm not clear what the partnership between Hattons / DJM was on the 14xx , but if a Chinese manufacturer started knocking out 14xxs on their own account and selling them on Ebay I can't imagine Hattons would feel very happy about it. Likewise Hornby if the DJM 71 was to rise from its vault and compete with their own model. (They might not be thrilled about a reappearance of the DJM J94 either)

 

So potentially knocking out DJM models on their own account could hurt some of the factory's other potential clients. Therefore sensible folk wouldn't do it

 

Recouping money with a run 3-4 years down the line, in a scenario where DJM is no longer there is slightly different.

 

What does seem to be an issue - and a potentially legitimate one - is that Dave Jones seems to suspect a factory might "do the dirty" on him by using CAD he had commissioned and paid for as DJM to produce tooling not for DJM but for an alternative UK party who would then sell the model in Britain as their own project. He seems to be implying that a rival model to his own announced project(s) might be based on piracy of DJM design work, illicitly supplied /reused by a Chinese factory with which he had a dispute. If it is standard practice for the factory to generate the CAD, and if people who have dissolved partnerships with DJM to work directly with Chinese factories are working with factories to which Dave Jones introduced them, you can see how he might have suspicions

 

The claimed "£250K of tooling" he has lost in China might then be - in part - commissioned CAD for tooling for announced DJM crowd-funded projects, which the factory generated and which they won't now let him use. He seems to be very worried about what might happen to that work/investment - hence the comment about his actions about registering CAD designs with the Patent Office protecting his crowd-funders. This would also drive the comments about protecting crowd-funders investments

 

The Class 92 seems to be a particular flash point . I'm not an N gauge modeller, so hadn't flagged RevolutioN's project , but the initial press-release  https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/115580-revolution-trains-proposes-class-92-in-n/#comments says:

 

Quote

This project has been in development for some time and we have secured the cooperation of Brush Traction, who have already supplied us with complete drawings and other assistance. [my emphasis]

 

I'm no lawyer or IP specialist, but as a layman I would regard that as amounting to Brush Traction licencing their IP in "the shape of a class 92 locomotive" to RevolutioN for the purposes of making an N gauge model, presumably on a non-exclusive basis.

 

I find the idea that DJM could then claim ownership of  "the shape of a class 92 at British N scale" over the heads of Brush Traction whose design work and manufacture it originally was, based on a CAD render (possibly not even made by DJM), startling, outrageous and alarming

 

You may professionally be much more aware of the legalities of manufacturers' design IP and licencing in heavy mechanical engineering than I am. "Knock-off" spare parts are not a novel issue.

 

But the claims being made in the Statement raise all sorts of issues - when does design IP lapse into the public domain?, if/when do you require licencing by the owners of the design IP to model stuff?, and critically , can you take ownership of IP which has fallen into the public domain by registering a claim to it as yours at the Intellectual Property Office? (ie if Brush Traction's IP in "shape of a class 92" has expired (or NBL's in the case of D600s) , can a 3rd party make a legal filing that in some way claims part of it for himself?)

 

UP have claimed IP in livery designs for long-defunct US railroads, and have demanded people pay hefty licence fees to copy them on models....  There was a problem with licencing of defunct transfers /liveries by DB Schenker a few years back which included rights to Mainline/Loadhaul - brands that disappeared over 20 years ago. "What, will the line stretch out to the Crack of Doom?" [ London booksellers still thought they owned the "copy" of Macbeth into the Regency period]

 

But in all this horrible mess DJ Models does seem to be taking aggressive public and legal moves against British/Irish parties trying to develop and market rival models. RevolutioN and Accurascale seem to be targets - Accurascale have said on here that they've developed their own CAD in Europe. 

 

But I can't interpret the registering of a D600 design as anything other than an attempted claim against Kernow, and presumably the same applies to Hattons over the 14xx . DJM seems to be seeking leverage over the models in some kind of dispute about his rights in the various business partnerships involved

 

Who on earth the APT-P registration is aimed at I can't see. Durham Trains of Stanley?? Hornby Hobbies in case they find the tooling for their old model?? Or some future party who might announce an APT -P project and be slipped the CAD Dave Jones commissioned by a disgruntled Chinese factory???

 

What is clear to me is that DJM has tried to strike at a large number of different people in the model railway manufacturing industry through this. And what ever our feelings about his own situation, I don't like those attacks at all. 

 

The nearest label for this episode I can find seems to be the concept of patent trolling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll  I know in the US people have filed patents claiming - eg the concept of an email - as their IP and tried to demand royalties per email from Google , and so forth.

 

I was left wondering if DJM was trying to refinance its business through a series of legal claims against Kernow, Hattons, Accurascale, RevolutioN, Hornby Hobbies et al. Which would not be in the interest of the hobby.

 

I am extremely glad to see a lot of informed opinion on here that it would not only be outrageous and intolerable but it is in practice total nonsense of no effect

Edited May 4, 2019 by Ravenser
Add note on DBS re transfers

[Covkid]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

 

Fair point. I don't think the factory will want to risk their relationships with other UK clients. Although that said, after the outburst about commissioners going behind his back and broken handshakes etc I don't think there would be many tears for DJM if the factory did send a message. I think the latest outburst will have burned whatever beams remained in a few bridges. 

 

On validating his claims, I am not so sure as we don't know what the situation is. I t may be that the factory have a legitimate case and are merely trying to recoup some of their losses. We just don't know. Certainly I am not going to judge the factory based on a rather emotive version of events provided by one party to the dispute. 

 

I found the bit about commissioners going behind his back to be bizarre. It may have escaped his notice but it was never his factory and any one of us could legitimately approach them. He should really be asking why his commissioning clients did that. 

 

The factory will be aware of his accusations, it must be infuriating. 

 

Totally agree.

This announcement by Dave is purely a rant about how hard done by he is, and how people he has done business with are doing one across him. "His" factories in China are not his. They are businesses he has worked with, and I can only surmise that as other commissioners of models seem to have been considerably more successful, then perhaps Dave is the problem rather than the factories he thinks are "his".

 

I am not a businessman but if I were, my business model would be to build a base of satisfied and contented customers who would wish to maintain relationships. I can only speculate where Kernow and Hattons would be in the same situation.

[JSpencer]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Do you really think that anybody else would rise to that particular invitation?   I would have thought that by making a public statement of any sort 'others' would in effect be acknowledging the existence and import of the original statement.  And if many people posting on here have a somewhat negative opinion of it then it is perhaps likely that 'others' might have not dissimilar views and won't be wasting their time.

 

I quite agree.  But that would surely mean finding 'a developer' who can do the CADs instead of handing the work to a factory in China?  And outside the major UK market 'manufacturers' that would mean either Accurascale or - so I understand - Cavalex.  And apart from a share of the equity I'd also want to see a heck of a lot more financial, and other, information than a set of short form accounts, especially if it happened to be a concern which claimed to have much more invested in tooling that would appear to have been reflected in those accounts.

 

I would be seriously amazed if any magazine, manufacturer or retailer would seriously take note beyond seeing if there was any damage vis-a-vis them. In the end the damage is upon himself.

if it had been "the IPs are online to protect ourselves but equally offer a service whereby other manufacturers can buy my CADs to short circuit development and duplicating effort", it might have been news worthy. 

Whether anyone would take it up however depends on the value they see in it. 

 

I agree the damage is done. I said earlier the only thing people want to see from DJM are tangible models. If he wants to avoid duplication then get them out quick. Having a product to hand gets happy customers and avoids duplication. Keep promises (too often we saw tooling was a hop skip and a jump away but years later not much happened). Focus on your strengths, hand over to someone else your weaknesses. Learn from feedback. 

 

Accounts finance side, agree nothing makes sense to me and I work in finance.  I would have to see the fine details before I invested, but that last rule would apply just about anywhere.

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by JSpencer

[Winter123]

3 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

 Keep promises (too often we saw tooling was a hop skip and a jump away but years later not much happened). Focus on your strengths, hand over to someone else your weaknesses. Learn from feedback. 

 

Precisely. Which is exactly what all 'Dapol' posts on various platforms were like prior to the parting of the waves of their self proclaimed mouthpiece.

[chris p bacon]

40 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

What does seem to be an issue - and a potentially legitimate one - is that Dave Jones seems to suspect a factory might "do the dirty" on him by using CAD he had commissioned and paid for as DJM to produce tooling not for DJM but for an alternative UK party who would then sell the model in Britain as their own project. He seems to be implying that a rival model to his own announced project(s) might be based on piracy of DJM design work, illicitly supplied /reused by a Chinese factory with which he had a dispute. 

 

The claimed "£250K of tooling" he has lost in China might then be - in part - commissioned CAD for tooling for announced DJM crowd-funded projects, which the factory generated and which they won't now let him use. He seems to be very worried about what might happen to that work/investment - hence the comment about his actions about registering CAD designs with the Patent Office protecting his crowd-funders. This would also drive the comments about protecting crowd-funders investments

 

At the heart of all disputes such as this are Money, and a badly written contract.  DJM may claim that a CAD belongs to them, but if the CAD is generated by the factory and there is a dispute then the factory are going to claim the CAD as theirs until the dispute is settled.

 

There might be a point in IP law as to how you can claim 3rd party CAD as yours when there is a dispute of the ownership of the work, with the possible non payment  for that work.

 

In business it is always best to settle disputes, but looking at the various press releases with their claims and petulant statements I would figure that DJM may have burnt their bridges with the factory and ever being able to work with them. Maybe in the case of the class 17 (as an example)  another party could step in to try and make something of it. The factory get a production run and DJM get some sort of payment .  As it stands DJM get sweet FA but no doubt the factory has continued working for others (without issue) 

[MRDBLUE17]

Hi All,

 

32 pages of an announcement which doesn’t demonstrate any progress or intent to get on with models. Many people have invested money at this stage and is this actually listed in the accounts as income and the £250k spent on tooling/ Cad etc. I’ve not looked but it should all be there.

 

Registering IP’s would protect his Cad/design work but anyone else can do there own and produce whatever models they like plus if anything did come to court or attempt to the digital footprints of rants/accusations with the dozens of brands and names mentioned innocently even within this topic would make the position very difficult to defend and would cost into tens of thousands. In fact if those brands were even slightly bothered by this I suspect they would already be in a stronger position to take action. I wouldn’t expect this to be the case and I already see that two firms are already getting extra orders for what will be a superb model in 2 scales as an example of the damage this announcement has caused. 

 

 

The original part to protect his own work was fine in principle especially if contracted to commission etc and a sensible business approach. But announcing it the way it was done and the thinking that it would stop anyone from doing a duplicated model, leading to some sort of Cad monopoly is just too far and I will be surprised at any mag even printing this latest news release. With the next day amendment as well.

 

Mark

[GWRtrainman]

13 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

 

From a business perspective, I wouldn't want to increase my holding in a venture that has a competitor with a proven track record already further ahead. 

 

If DJM thought he'd been given a hard time so far then it's going to get even harder now.  He could seek his own funding to finish one of the ongoing projects, but I remember him posting that he wasn't even looking to make a profit from the APT. It was a ridiculous statement to make and at the time I thought it was made to make him look more like an altruistic modeller rather than a business (profit being a dirty word to some).

 

One way forward for DJM could be to partner up with someone who is trusted and more skilled in negotiation and business, and who could unravel whatever has happened with the 'lost' tooling.  This might throw DJM a lifeline, so long as he doesn't continue to write the press releases himself. 

 

That's an interesting thought - Profit.

 

Even if an individual acting as Managing Director of a company decided to design, tool and manufacture an APT and make no profit.

They still need to earn a living - this is Dave's pronounced full time job.

 

How much would an MD of a firm earn - maybe £40k a year? Dave's be at this for 6 years. That's a figure getting on for the £250k he mentions as having lost in tooling. Maybe we need to consider that the crowdfunding money will have been increasingly eroded. The delay's don't avoid the running costs of a business occurring (salaries in this case). The longer the models are delayed the less cash is left to actually make them.
As Dave quoted in a reply to someone - all the money is spent.

 

 

[Ravenser]

33 minutes ago, Winter123 said:

Precisely. Which is exactly what all 'Dapol' posts on various platforms were like prior to the parting of the waves of their self proclaimed mouthpiece.

 

 I think you may have meant  "parting of the ways"

 

I have not heard that either Dapol or DJM have parted the Red Sea (or the S China Sea for that matter).  Athough it is arguable that DJM has offered to lead many people into the Promised Land and it certainly feels like certain projects have been wandering in the wilderness for nearly 40 years

[ChrisG]

Having worked in Intellectual Property all of my working life, I am pretty sure that Mr. Jones has misunderstood  what it is he has managed to protect. Whilst he can protect his own CADS and production tools, so that no-one else can use them or copy them,  there is (as at least one other correspondent has said) nothing he can do to prevent someone creating their own set of CADs from the same prototype and own set of tools from their own CADs. He certainly cannot protect himself against duplicate models. 

 

If what he was saying is true, it would, for example prevent me from creating my own CADs to make a laser-cut Isle of Wight Road Van because I am tired of waiting for the one he was commissioned to make by Kernow Models yonks ago. 

 

 

 

Chris

[7013]

32 pages in and there does not seem any logic to this announcement. If it was aimed at the public for a sympathy vote he has miscalculated on a grand scale. If it is to beat his chest at those he feels have stolen his IP, that has garnered zero response, so in effect has failed. Dave Jones is not a bad person, just someone who is clearly frustrated about what he sees as others ganging up on him. Had he a steady throughput of decent models then people would be more sympathetic to his vitriolic announcement. Clearly he has not got a history of regular quality locos etc and people are rightly suspicious of the timing of this announcement and one wonders where it will end although in disaster one suspects. I hope Dave Jones gets a break because it takes a brave person to go it alone like he did, some of his claims were a bit far fetched but he was aiming high and had a good track record with models and pr when at Dapol. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

39 minutes ago, GWRtrainman said:

 

That's an interesting thought - Profit.

 

Even if an individual acting as Managing Director of a company decided to design, tool and manufacture an APT and make no profit.

They still need to earn a living - this is Dave's pronounced full time job.

 

How much would an MD of a firm earn - maybe £40k a year? Dave's be at this for 6 years. That's a figure getting on for the £250k he mentions as having lost in tooling. Maybe we need to consider that the crowdfunding money will have been increasingly eroded. The delay's don't avoid the running costs of a business occurring (salaries in this case). The longer the models are delayed the less cash is left to actually make them.
As Dave quoted in a reply to someone - all the money is spent.

 

 

 

Profit is quite an abstract concept. Accountancy is really a branch of statistics. You can, within reason, use it to give whatever result you want.

[grahame]

1 hour ago, Winter123 said:

Precisely. Which is exactly what all 'Dapol' posts on various platforms were like prior to the parting of the waves of their self proclaimed mouthpiece.

 

IIRC Dave was very much George Smith's (the then Dapol MD) man. When George left (retired) I seem to recall that Dave was still at Dapol but then parted ways soon after. I don't know if there were any issues with him and the new Dapol management but Dapol seem to have progressed reasonably well since Dave's departure while Dave's venture (DJM) hasn't exactly blossomed. Not sure that there is any connection but it is a shame. Railway modelling enthusiasts seem to be the losers.

 

His announcement give the impression of continual picking of a festering sore while the over 30 pages on this thread also demonstrate a similar behaviour. I'm now disappointed I've joined in. Perhaps it's time to let the scab form.

 

G

 

[adb968008]

You can be right and you can be a Dead Right,

 

think Rover... there’s never been a better time to buy a DJ Model and it may become unique.

 

if the manufacturer ends up cornered, the skip could beckon for those toolings and then all DJ owns a nice list of registered designs to put on his CV but no expensive metalwork to use them.

 

similarly if the 92/APT funders decide not to bother..

whats left ?

 

I’m also not sure if this is relevant..

 

Quote

If the design was registered on or after 9 December 2001 you may apply to invalidate it.

A design may be invalidated because:

 

it was not new or lacked individual character when compared with an earlier design at the time it was applied for

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/objecting-to-other-peoples-designs

And the specifics.. (as defined in Section 11ZA of the Registered Designs Act 1949 as amended defers to section 1b) for the definitions of grounds to object..

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/88/section/1B

It’s quite easy reading for a legal doc.

 

 

I just see pain, most of it unnecessary.

Edited May 4, 2019 by adb968008

[Matt C]

22 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

You don't have to read it, I do. I'll start removing some more pointless posts such as that at some point.

32 pages and still going strong, you lost the will to live yet Andy ? 

 

Cheers

 

Matt

[Tricky-CRS]

As Grahame put it the astute will back DJM when he chose to duplicate my mermaid, how's that worked out, got all liveries wanted?. Dave has been more than happy to go after others ideas but seems to think his are special and should be protected. I suspect he did cl.71 because he heard Hornby were working on it, so he could play hard done by later if his failed. Cl.92 was revenge attack against RevolutioN for taking Pendolino away, he had wanted to do it at Dapol, may even have been announced. Mermaid to stop Dapol getting the work, Shark a dig at NGS for not giving him work or enough support.

 

Ownership of CAD \ CAM will be with the factory or design house. In my day job I survey buildings etc we maintain ownership of CAD drawings, and have resold them when someone new wants them. We usually try to get permission from originally client as a courtesy.

 

I have a shark on order paid for with Kernow very tempted to cancel, but this latest comedy moment has not quite done it. That said I would not give DJM money directly but do back RevolutioN and Kickstarter, so do like Crowdfunding. 

 

 Dave has always been a showman, loves being center stage making announcements, but struggles with delivery. 

[Anglian]

26 minutes ago, Tricky-CRS said:

Ownership of CAD \ CAM will be with the factory or design house.

 

That depends on if there is a contract in place. If there is none then you are right as far as the UK is concerned, the IP by default, belongs to the creator. However, the creator may agree that the IP belongs to the client, once the creator(s) have been paid. In my professional career I have been in both positions. When I worked with a large agency they always legally gave the client the IP on settlement. Now I work independently I always retain the IP. 

One of my clients has their products manufactured in China. The factory there holds all the tooling for injection moulding and I have been told they have copied the product for sale in China. I suggested to my client that there was nothing they could do to stop this happening but to seek legal advice to confirm this. My understanding is that there are different IP laws in China.