DJ Models Announcement 01/05/19

[adb968008]

17 minutes ago, Anglian said:

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.

It’s called “Chinese concession”, it’s rampant in the IT industry, so much that some companies will offer products without certain components in the Chinese market to avoid the theft of IP, and as such do some configurations once exported from China before general sale.

its when those concessions leak from China it becomes an issue...

I once had an assignment in South Africa, that saw me see rip off Cisco equipment in data centres out there.. externally it was the Cisco device it claimed to be... once turned on, it performed a little differently.

[blueeighties]

18 hours ago, James Makin said:

 

Well, that’s exactly my thoughts! 

 

I just had this memory of reading about the retailers funding some of it, either in one of the infamous embargo newsletters or in some throwaway postings on a forum...can’t find it right now though!

 

Quite rightly I’d imagine many individuals cancelling but if there are some selected retailers actually funding some element, then they perhaps may make more objective decisions and potentially save the 92 project even if many original individual crowdfunders have already pulled out.

 

It’s all a bit of a gamble though, ultimately I’m only £60 deposit down but as the gambling advert warnings always say “when the fun stops, stop” 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you really think any retailer in this day and age would sink funds into the DJ circus? These locos will never make it into production, as won't everything else on his to do list.

[Persephone]

22 minutes ago, blueeighties said:

Do you really think any retailer in this day and age would sink funds into the DJ circus? These locos will never make it into production, as won't everything else on his to do list.

 

Indeed and that applies to the manufacturers as well. Jones has made himself toxic within the industry, when he's gone, he's gone. 

[black and decker boy]

My learned friend has reviewed the original statement and offered me his thoughts:

 

 

 

“If he has obtained registered designs then the scope of protection will be based on precisely what is shown in the registration documents.  If the registered designs are valid then a third party will infringe them if they commercially use/exploit designs which are the same or differ only in immaterial respects.  Whether or not the latter designs have been copied from the registered designs is irrelevant.
 

If the designs, which are the subject of the registered designs, have been available in the EU more than 12 months prior to the date on which the applications for registration were applied for then the registered designs will be invalid; similarly if those designs did not create a different overall impression from third party designs which were already available as of the date on which the applications were filed.”

 

so id suggest that Hornby challenge the class 92 & J94 & Shark registration as their products predate his application. Heljan should challenge the cl17 etc. I would imagine their legal advisors have been busy this week.

[Markwj]

If this is correct and he is right I will never buy a dj product no matter what he produces.

[JSpencer]

54 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

My learned friend has reviewed the original statement and offered me his thoughts:

 

 

 

“If he has obtained registered designs then the scope of protection will be based on precisely what is shown in the registration documents.  If the registered designs are valid then a third party will infringe them if they commercially use/exploit designs which are the same or differ only in immaterial respects.  Whether or not the latter designs have been copied from the registered designs is irrelevant.
 

If the designs, which are the subject of the registered designs, have been available in the EU more than 12 months prior to the date on which the applications for registration were applied for then the registered designs will be invalid; similarly if those designs did not create a different overall impression from third party designs which were already available as of the date on which the applications were filed.”

 

so id suggest that Hornby challenge the class 92 & J94 & Shark registration as their products predate his application. Heljan should challenge the cl17 etc. I would imagine their legal advisors have been busy this week.

 

Does dimensions play a role in this? 

I am fairly certain if went and produced a Stark orange juice squeezer only half the size, or twice the size or 10th of the size,  I will still be attacked by Stark's lawyers. On the same grounds the 92 - the shape from which the model is taken from - has been around for over 2 decades, the J94 before Dave was even born. 

[Ouroborus]

It was touched upon before, but having thought about this, I think the reason for the IP work is that he hopes this will give him an income stream, by fair means or foul.

 

That he feels the need to do this might generate a suspicion that income from other avenues is becoming tight.

[jjb1970]

The only way this will be definitively resolved is if it is tested in court. I hope Dave Jones has deep pockets.

[BR Blue]

Can we end the debate about IP in regard to other independently produced CADs.

 

DJM are in dispute about CADs for various DJM models ard are totally at liberty to do so.

 

However DJM cannot claim IP over CADs and subsequent models someone else has independently created. He admits as much in his second announcement despite it still containing factual inaccuracies.

Edited May 4, 2019 by BR Blue

[James Makin]

2 hours ago, blueeighties said:

Do you really think any retailer in this day and age would sink funds into the DJ circus? These locos will never make it into production, as won't everything else on his to do list.

 

It wasn’t so much speculation that a retailer would, more that I’m sure I recall reading in a post from DJ, either a newsletter or forum post, that one or two retailers actually had put in for the crowdfunding. 

 

I myself remember feeling a little miffed reading it, because if DJ was going to get retailers with real hard cash investments involved, then what was the point of little me going to the effort of taking the risk if some big retailers were coming on board too!

 

But at the end of the day, it’s just a gamble, win some, lose some, and the real great news is the Accurascale 92 is coming, a bargain at double the price! 

[truffy]

1 hour ago, black and decker boy said:

“If he has obtained registered designs then the scope of protection will be based on precisely what is shown in the registration documents.  If the registered designs are valid then a third party will infringe them if they commercially use/exploit designs which are the same or differ only in immaterial respects.  Whether or not the latter designs have been copied from the registered designs is irrelevant.

 

This bothers me, largely because I don't understand the scope. DJM develops a model based on a prototype. Where is the 'design'? And where can a third party infringe it? Hopefully, it doesn't mean that if DJM has a design of a prototype that another party cannot create their own design.

 

23 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

The only way this will be definitively resolved is if it is tested in court. I hope Dave Jones has deep pockets.

 

I hope he doesn't.

[jjb1970]

2 minutes ago, truffy said:

 

I hope he doesn't.

 

I necessarily think Dave Jones will drive this, I think other companies will just press on and the ball will be in his court to either let it go or take it to court. And he will need deep pockets to do that.

 

[Miss Prism]

None of this would ever get near a court. The registered designs are invalid. There aren't even any references in the registrations to details of the so-called 'design cues'.
 

[acko22]

Hi all,

 

I think after 4 days and what has overwhelmingly been a negative response which has certainly raised more questions and concerns than even he expected!

 

I think DJM has put himself into a legal minefield which I honestly don't think he is prepared to deal with. That been said can he recover yes but only by shutting up with the announcements and comments he has made. Added into that actually getting models onto the market to the "higher standards" he proclaimed.

 

Should he fail to do so then I think the writing is on the wall after this episode.

So all in the ball is now firmly in his court and is his final chance to salvage things, either actually produce some results or fold!

[philiprporter]

30 minutes ago, acko22 said:

Hi all,

 

I think after 4 days and what has overwhelmingly been a negative response which has certainly raised more questions and concerns than even he expected!

 

I think DJM has put himself into a legal minefield which I honestly don't think he is prepared to deal with. That been said can he recover yes but only by shutting up with the announcements and comments he has made. Added into that actually getting models onto the market to the "higher standards" he proclaimed.

 

Should he fail to do so then I think the writing is on the wall after this episode.

So all in the ball is now firmly in his court and is his final chance to salvage things, either actually produce some results or fold!

Yes I think this is the only option - focus on getting at least a couple of the models promised out in the shops and to us crowd funders and restore some faith - because the only other option doesn't bear thinking about and as others have already indicated, I suspect there is a good deal of human suffering going on here, self-inflicted or not, which is not a good thing.

 

As an APT crowd funder who accepted the financial risk I was taking, I (and I suspect many others of us) need to really see some concrete and fast progress, a clear timescale for delivery with clear milestones and an end to the bizarre pronouncements, such that we can be reassured that genuine progress is being made - otherwise I very much fear many of us will not be making further payments (and I suspect its already probably too late and that many will now just accept a £250 loss and not pay future instalments, which if the case, means the APT project is dead in the water) - and after the website saga, the PayPal saga, the lack of progress and now this episode, I certainly wouldn't touch another crowd-funded project (or any other project that required any form of advanced payment prior to goods being in the shops) from this manufacturer. 

 

So it really is a case of getting some models out - if its not already too late to salvage the company. 

[lapford34102]

1 hour ago, truffy said:

Hopefully, it doesn't mean that if DJM has a design of a prototype that another party cannot create their own design.

 

Really going round in circles now........! Truffy, it's been pretty clearly explained in a number of previous posts that this is not the case.

 

If the designs, which are the subject of the registered designs, have been available in the EU more than 12 months prior to the date on which the applications for registration were applied for then the registered designs will be invalid;

 

If I've read black and decker boy's post correctly then even some of DJM's registered IP's are automatically invalid.

 

 

This whole business is a right mess and I can't see anyone coming out as unscathed.

 

Stu

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by lapford34102
Clarity

[159220]

On 03/05/2019 at 20:33, newbryford said:

 

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.....

 

 

Ever so sorry, but that is just not correct. I have PM'd you with more context. 

 

RE. class 88. I would not be too sure to believe anything Dave Jones has posted about his previous employer. I think it would be prudent to only discuss DJM here and not other manufactures who do not need to be tarnished with this. 

Edited May 4, 2019 by 159220

[Ravenser]

Black and Decker Boy quoted his learned friend :

Quote

If the designs, which are the subject of the registered designs, have been available in the EU more than 12 months prior to the date on which the applications for registration were applied for then the registered designs will be invalid; similarly if those designs did not create a different overall impression from third party designs which were already available as of the date on which the applications were file

 

The Registered Designs Act as amended (link posted by someone else earlier) Sect 1 states that a design can be registered if it has not been made available to the public at the date of application for the Registered Design - subject to the exception of a disclosure made by the designer up to 12 months prior. (This comes to the  same thing)

 

DJM's registered designs were applied for on 9th Sept 2018

 

- The DJM J94 in OO was available to members of the public at the start of August 2016 (over 2 years before the registered design application)

- The DJM Class 71 was available to the public in May 2017 (well over 12 months before the registered design application)

- The DJM/Kernow O2 was available to members of the public in November 2015 (nearly 3 years before the registered design application)

- The DJM/Hattons 14xx was available  to members of the public in January 2017 ( 1 year 8 months before the registered design application)

- The DJM/Kernow 1361 was available  to members of the public in January 2018 (8 months before the registered design application - #splashergate)

 

The applications for the first 4 would appear to me therefore to be invalid

 

The N gauge Mermaid was available at Warley at the end of November 2017. The design has not been registered - and we are now well past 12 months after release

 

After delivering 4 models between November 2015 and May 2017 , DJM appears to have gone quiet , with the Mermaid and 1361 either side of New Year 2018, and nothing in 16 months since [and to be blunt, no sign of imminent release of anything - the door /door transit Shenzhen to door UK is approximately 48 days , give or take holidays, schedule omissions and where the pickup date falls relative to that week's sailing. Nothing is currently on the water.]

 

Brush Traction delivered the Class 92 from 1992; the Hornby and Lima models were first produced in the 20th century and I think the CJM model may have been as well

 

The "author of the design" of the 1361 tanks was the Swindon drawing office of the GWR under GJ Churchward, and for the D600s North British Locomotive Company of Glasgow - the locos were delivered to BR from December 1957.

 

I look forward to Dave Jones explaining the individual character of a SHARK and an OYSTER when reproduced at 1:148 scale in court . Hornby have had a Shark in their range for years and the Cambrian kit has been available for many years

Edited May 4, 2019 by Ravenser
Approximate door/door transit from Shenzhen area

[DavidH]

17 hours 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.

 

You are the first person here, or at least that I've read, to raise the issue of Dave's salary. But the APT was not-for-profit ...

[Downendian]

12 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

My learned friend has reviewed the original statement and offered me his thoughts:

 

 

 

“If he has obtained registered designs then the scope of protection will be based on precisely what is shown in the registration documents.  If the registered designs are valid then a third party will infringe them if they commercially use/exploit designs which are the same or differ only in immaterial respects.  Whether or not the latter designs have been copied from the registered designs is irrelevant.
 

If the designs, which are the subject of the registered designs, have been available in the EU more than 12 months prior to the date on which the applications for registration were applied for then the registered designs will be invalid; similarly if those designs did not create a different overall impression from third party designs which were already available as of the date on which the applications were filed.”

 

 

The DJM CADs for the Kernow D600 appeared in November 2014

so invalid if B&D boys IP friend is correct.

neil 

[Markwj]

While the APT was not for profit that does not mean Dave didn't factor in a percentage to cover his 'salary' while making the model. Just how much he valued his time and what that figure was/ is we will never know.

[jjb1970]

I can't help thinking about Baldrick sitting on his elbow when I look at the the announcement. 

 

I really hope for his sake there is some sort of logic to it all somewhere and a plan that goes beyond trying to grab land by pumping out CADs with the intention of holding other manufacturers to ransom. After repeated allegations about Chinese factories and about illegal anti-competitive practices aimed at another supplier he is now throwing mud at a couple of the principal retailers in the country. And alienating a lot of potential customers by his bizarre attempt to use IP laws to kill off competition. Hands up who wants to be limited to models of a given prototype only being available from whichever manufacturer grabbed a bit of land by rushing a CAD out that they may or may not develop into a physical model? And if they did I suspect they would want it to be from a supplier with a better track record than DJM and which is capable of designing a good mechanism. He is becoming a very lonely figure and may regret having ended up such. 

 

The clarification /retraction is still quite clear about what he believes his registered designs allow him to do. The fact that his ideas are full of holes is irrelevant if he is determined to walk down this particular road. Many legal disputes are driven by a self righteous anger which ignores impartial and rational analysis. And he is probably genuinely oblivious as to why this has been so badly received and will be expecting lots of people to jump into his crowd funded ventures. 

 

I don't think he will have a leg to stand on but I suspect he will press on and it will all get very messy. 

Edited May 5, 2019 by jjb1970

[DavidH]

54 minutes ago, Markwj said:

While the APT was not for profit that does not mean Dave didn't factor in a percentage to cover his 'salary' while making the model. Just how much he valued his time and what that figure was/ is we will never know.

 

I took this posting at face value but couldn't work out how he was going to afford to work on the model:
 

Quote

 

DJM Dave, July 30, 2018 (

As for me making any money on the project, yup, its nil! what it is, is a kudos thing, one to set a standard, a bar, a line in the sand that says....'there, thats what i can do, now just let me get on and do my work instead of analising it down to the nth degree'

i will however, have a tooling that i can use as a company asset in write downs for 3 years from tooling payment.

 

So why wont the APT make profit i hear you say? well thats tooling and product against returns. As you all know the APT did make it across the line, and did until recent posts here, continue to receive orders for the full price version pushing the project into an area that could be profitable for both myself and DToS

 

 

But actually, the second paragraph suggests it might be profitable, depending on orders.

[The Stationmaster]

9 hours ago, philiprporter said:

Yes I think this is the only option - focus on getting at least a couple of the models promised out in the shops and to us crowd funders and restore some faith - because the only other option doesn't bear thinking about and as others have already indicated, I suspect there is a good deal of human suffering going on here, self-inflicted or not, which is not a good thing.

 

As an APT crowd funder who accepted the financial risk I was taking, I (and I suspect many others of us) need to really see some concrete and fast progress, a clear timescale for delivery with clear milestones and an end to the bizarre pronouncements, such that we can be reassured that genuine progress is being made - otherwise I very much fear many of us will not be making further payments (and I suspect its already probably too late and that many will now just accept a £250 loss and not pay future instalments, which if the case, means the APT project is dead in the water) - and after the website saga, the PayPal saga, the lack of progress and now this episode, I certainly wouldn't touch another crowd-funded project (or any other project that required any form of advanced payment prior to goods being in the shops) from this manufacturer. 

 

So it really is a case of getting some models out - if its not already too late to salvage the company. 

But in order to get models out he would need capital and the fact that almost all of them currently in the pipeline (in some cases a quite long pipeline) are crowdfunded suggests that he does not have that capital.  Or if he does have the capital he is not prepared to use it to back his own projects (more likely, I presume, that he doesn't have the capital hence seeking crowdfunding).

 

If these recent, somewhat strange in my view, events have shaken the confidence of his customers to the extent that they have concerns about providing him with capital then he is going to be in the invidious situation where he might not be able to proceed despite having initial work advanced or finalised, unless he can find some capital from elsewhere.  The next stage beyond CADs is tooling and that's where the big money starts to be spent.   So perhaps, because it has some commercial backing, his best chance now is to go really hard for the N gauge 'King' (which is reportedly about to start tooling) and make sure it is a good job simply in order to rebuild any reputation he might have.  Assuming he gets the finance for that (back to the crowdfunders?) and does a good job he might get somewhere.

 

As ever it is always better to under promise and over achieve if you wish to build reputation and develop a sound business; perhaps there is a message somewhere in that statement?

 

[Claude_Dreyfus]

1 hour ago, Markwj said:

While the APT was not for profit that does not mean Dave didn't factor in a percentage to cover his 'salary' while making the model. Just how much he valued his time and what that figure was/ is we will never know.

Broadly speaking, 'not for profit' means any profits made are put straight back into the business/charity, as opposed to being withdrawn as profits for the owners/shareholders. Not for profits do pay salaries (and have to pay any taxes on these salaries, NI for example), so whilst not knowing the detailed ins and outs, there is no reason why a salary cannot be drawn. If he has gone down the full limited company route, there is a set recommended annual salary that can be drawn for salary.

 

I suspect the phrase was more aimed at the purpose of the APT not be a vehicle for making a profit, which may put people off (people seem to hate the idea of making a profit from this hobby), as opposed being a pure not-for-profit...which involves a different tax set up.