Jump to content
 

DJ Models Announcement 01/05/19


RJennings
 Share

Message added by AY Mod

Please keep posts on topic. Rubbish will be removed.

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Hroth said:

Mind you if the (N)RM can get away with licencing "Flying Scotsman", "Mallard" etc, then there's no hope for the world!

 

The NRM (to be more precise, the Science Museum Group) hasn't registered the design of Flying Scotsman or Mallard, or anything else. What they have done is register those words and phrases as trade marks. That is something they are entitled to do, but they've only registered the marks in certain categories (and in certain forms) in order to give them exclusive rights to market what are probably best described as "souvenirs" - the sort of stuff you would buy in their gift shop when you visit the museum.

 

https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00002057869

 

https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00002580563

Although one of the classes does cover scale models, the existence of prior art in that particular sub-category would make that particular aspect difficult to enforce if there was to be a dispute over it. But I suspect that a dispute is unlikely anyway, as there are strong benefits to both the manufacturers and the SMG to collaborate in the production of any new model of those locos. More pertinently, the trade mark has absolutely no effect at all on any products based on any other A1 or A4 - it only applies to the actual named loco.

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
16 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

 

The NRM (to be more precise, the Science Museum Group) hasn't registered the design of Flying Scotsman or Mallard, or anything else. What they have done is register those words and phrases as trade marks. That is something they are entitled to do, but they've only registered the marks in certain categories (and in certain forms) in order to give them exclusive rights to market what are probably best described as "souvenirs" - the sort of stuff you would buy in their gift shop when you visit the museum.

 

https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00002057869

 

https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00002580563

Although one of the classes does cover scale models, the existence of prior art in that particular sub-category would make that particular aspect difficult to enforce if there was to be a dispute over it. But I suspect that a dispute is unlikely anyway, as there are strong benefits to both the manufacturers and the SMG to collaborate in the production of any new model of those locos. More pertinently, the trade mark has absolutely no effect at all on any products based on any other A1 or A4 - it only applies to the actual named loco.

https://www.sirnigelgresley.org.uk/trademark.shtml

 

SNGLT have registered the nameplates for 60007 as trademarks, to prevent them being used for commercial gain. Understandable as a charity to try and maximise your income. 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Yes, Cap'n, but I think you're fine; it's not as if you announced you were going to do all those things. 

 

More to the point, he hasn’t collected crowd funding!

  • Like 5
  • Agree 2
  • Funny 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Sorry, quoting you out of context but:

 

1112408477_CBExposed.jpg.c86343e6b0b6268cf463450f025aea6e.jpg

 

The shock wave is still running around the railway world, following the service of a writ in Swindon yesterday, taken out by DJ Models against the Great Western Railway, alleging intellectual property infringement. Several members of the Swindon Drawing Office are named in the writ, including Mr C.B. Collett, the Great Western's Chief Mechanical Engineer.  

 

The claim is understood to relate to Mr Collett's new 'King Class' locomotive, which DJ Models alleges is its own design. Your correspondent has gained sight of the writ, which claims that "the DJ Models's King Class design contains a number of distinctive DJ Models's design cues that the Great Western has copied, such as wheels and a boiler". 

 

Damages of £200,000,000 are claimed against the defendants for the alleged infringement, which industry experts estimate is over two hundred million times the value of DJ Models's business.

 

Charles_Benjamin_Collett.jpg.12ba54d55d8131443ebadf5a22b82498.jpg

C B Collett: Confused

 

When asked to comment upon this development, Mr Collett said he was confused, "it's not even really my design; it's really George Jackson Churchward's, I just made it bigger".

 

In response, D J Models threatened to make its King much, much smaller.  

 

 

 

This is without doubt the funniest post I have ever seen on RMWeb, bravo! 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JSpencer said:

 

Class 92 - N

 

I find it bizarre that this is even still a thing - RevolutioN just closed their order book on their one, have tooling and will deliver by the autumn. Surely there will be no demand for a non-existent DJM one thereafter.

 

Cheers,
Alan

Edited by Dr Al
  • Agree 3
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 2019 will be remembered as the year we may have hit peak "Model Railways"

 

Umpteen suppliers all slogging it out. Retailers becoming manufacturers, new entrants appearing. Great if you're a customer (unless you've been tucked up by crowdfunding); not so great if you are a manufacturer.

 

The press release was bizarre, no question about that, but I suspect it probably is a reflection of how challenging the market has become. Hornby's financial woes over the years have been well reported; and I hope they can turn it around for the sake of the hobby. So if even the big boys struggle, it is no surprise DJM appears to be in not great shape. Unless you have a solid business plan and focus on some core models it will become a runaway beast.

 

No reason why it (DJM) can't be turned around with some careful management (and probably sack the IP adviser and replace them with a PR expert... :P )

 

"Always under promise and over deliver... leave them wanting more"

 

And Crowdfunding... bit of advice, only invest in things with track records or have a working prototype; otherwise you're just buying a CAD drawing.

It costs pence to knock up a CAD drawing and 3D print a prototype, so in the grand scheme of things that should be the minimum requirement! No matter how much you want that never before made model you've been dreaming of. I've made the mistake before. I've "invested" in about 30 crowdfunding projects, around 5 have been disasters and they were in the first 10 I invested in.

 

I was really pleased to see crowdfunding used in the industry; there have been some notable successes, but the reputation is probably tarnished by the failure to materialise on some notable projects.

 

I really do hope this sorry tale comes to a happy conclusion for all parties.

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, woodenhead said:

If Dave hadn't done what he did this thread wouldn't exist and people would not now be asking for refunds.

 

It's as simple as that, you cannot shift some of the blame towards  the 'community' for being up in arms over the debacle that was last week's announcement.

 

Precisely.  The whole debacle can be summed-up in one phrase:  "He's had a classic 'Gerald Ratner Moment' and shot the bottom out of his own business".

 

'Nuff said.  Probably time for us all to stop picking at the scab now, at least until he comes back from the Land of Nod or Ruritania or wherever he's apparently bunked-off to for a few days for whatever reason.  Clearly there will be no new information or explanation until then ... if then.  "Move along now, nothing to see here ...!"

Edited by Willie Whizz
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, martyn11post said:

It costs pence to knock up a CAD drawing and 3D print a prototype

 

I'll bow to your greater experience with CAD, but could the cost of CAD increase with little things like data acquisition and 'getting it right'?

 

And, from what I'm understanding of this thread, that's where DJM's IP comes into it...not modelling the prototype, but the data and eye to detail that allow a worthwhile CAD, and subsequent tooling, to be produced.

 

I guess that's the difference between a 'pence CAD' and a 'thousands of pounds CAD'.

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

C B Collett: Confused

 

When asked to comment upon this development, Mr Collett said he was confused, "it's not even really my design; it's really George Jackson Churchward's, I just made it bigger".

 

In response, D J Models threatened to make its King much, much smaller.  

 

 

And in an earlier life, Dave devised a Manor to be much much bigger. . . so its 'power' was fit for a King.  Then people revolted and it cost a King's ransom to get the Manor back to its rightful space before any beheading.

https://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6723

Edited by brianCAD
added information
  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, truffy said:

 

I'll bow to your greater experience with CAD, but could the cost of CAD increase with little things like data acquisition and 'getting it right'?

 

And, from what I'm understanding of this thread, that's where DJM's IP comes into it...not modelling the prototype, but the data and eye to detail that allow a worthwhile CAD, and subsequent tooling, to be produced.

 

I guess that's the difference between a 'pence CAD' and a 'thousands of pounds CAD'.

 

Sorry will clarify "pence" is a turn of phrase; not an accounting standard practice. The point is CAD drawings are the cheaper part of the production process versus tool making.

You can spend whatever you like to get every rivet in place from 3D scanning to good old engineering drawings.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, truffy said:

 

I'll bow to your greater experience with CAD, but could the cost of CAD increase with little things like data acquisition and 'getting it right'?

 

And, from what I'm understanding of this thread, that's where DJM's IP comes into it...not modelling the prototype, but the data and eye to detail that allow a worthwhile CAD, and subsequent tooling, to be produced.

 

I guess that's the difference between a 'pence CAD' and a 'thousands of pounds CAD'.

 

The object being modelled, was already there, and fully copyrighted by the designer company, so not IP for the modeller.  The data from pictures, plans and other sources, are not produced by the modeller, so not IP.  His CAD is IP - BUT - if commissioned and paid for by another, is the property of those who paid for his work.  Other persons CAD produced independently {not copied} from the same sources, not IP.

 

CAD is costed by time on the program, and research, likewise dependant on time, so yes good CAD does cost.  There is little comment on either research or CAD costs, in the thread.  Where this thread indicates issues is not with either of these factors, but with how the results of research and CAD costs have been applied in terms of action and results.  Perhaps summed up with the observation - "thousands of pounds invested, but for what return?"

 

Shouting at the world frequently results in resistance from those being shouted at and other observers.  It remains to be seen if the comments by DJM are considered to be worthy of support from their customers...

 

Regards

 

Julian

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, jcredfer said:

The object being modelled, was already there, and fully copyrighted by the designer company, so not IP for the modeller.

 

That is abundantly clear, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. 

 

56 minutes ago, jcredfer said:

The data from pictures, plans and other sources, are not produced by the modeller, so not IP.

 

If the modeller takes his/her own measurements from the prototype (as shown on Hornby's Engine Shed), especially if that work adds to finesse of the model, then could that contribute to IP? Someone else could take similar measurements from the same prototype and not infringe IP, but using the original modeller's measurements (either directly or indirectly) might.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From the DJ models website

 

Hi everyone, I'm not back in the 'office' until the 17th of May, so any news will probably come at or slightly after that date. However rest assured i am trying to get answers, results and an update together for you on the various current projects. Dave

 

Here's hoping we don't hear about any more delays from DJM due to problems with the CNY, CNC, SLT, PCB, GBP or the IRS

 

TTFN

 

  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
34 minutes ago, letterspider said:

From the DJ models website

 

Hi everyone, I'm not back in the 'office' until the 17th of May, so any news will probably come at or slightly after that date. However rest assured i am trying to get answers, results and an update together for you on the various current projects. Dave

 

Here's hoping we don't hear about any more delays from DJM due to problems with the CNY, CNC, SLT, PCB, GBP or the IRS

 

TTFN

 

 

More  excuses reasons for delays:

 

Main Public Holidays in China

New Year's Day. Date: January 1st. ...

The Spring Festival (Chinese New Year) Date: 1st day in 1st lunar month. ...

The Qingming Festival. ...

Labor Day (May Day) ...

The Dragon Boat Festival. ...

The Mid-Autumn Festival. ...

National Day (Golden Week) ...

Summer School Holidays (early July to late August)

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

- worked out how to take the body off a Hattons/DJM 14XX.

Yeah, right!  Pure exaggeration and fantasy.:o

Would at least take an 80 pager even for a speed reader.

  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, letterspider said:

From the DJ models website

 

Hi everyone, I'm not back in the 'office' until the 17th of May, so any news will probably come at or slightly after that date. However rest assured i am trying to get answers, results and an update together for you on the various current projects. Dave

 

Here's hoping we don't hear about any more delays from DJM due to problems with the CNY, CNC, SLT, PCB, GBP or the IRS

 

TTFN

 

How much do you have invested with DJM to be "concerned" over delays?

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, jcredfer said:

 His CAD is IP - BUT - if commissioned and paid for by another, is the property of those who paid for his work

 Ah so as a crowdfunder of the 92 I must be a part-owner of the CAD and part-own the IP of it then?  So any payouts that DJM gets on IP claims should be shared with all co-owners...?  There won't be any payouts… but there may be costs... maybe I need to rethink this one!

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
13 hours ago, newbryford said:

 

More  excuses reasons for delays:

 

Main Public Holidays in China

New Year's Day. Date: January 1st. ...

The Spring Festival (Chinese New Year) Date: 1st day in 1st lunar month. ...

The Qingming Festival. ...

Labor Day (May Day) ...

The Dragon Boat Festival. ...

The Mid-Autumn Festival. ...

National Day (Golden Week) ...

Summer School Holidays (early July to late August)

 

 

Dont forget its the customers fault too..

 

the customer  was blamed for the Yellow J94 and then there was the mysterious case of the APT hackers who flooded the system with gazillions of fake orders.

Edited by adb968008
Correcting 92 to APT
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Dont forget its the customers fault too..

 

the customer  was blamed for the Yellow J94 and then there was the mysterious case of the class 92 hackers who flooded the system with gazillions of fake orders.

 

May In please know what was the issue with the yellow J94? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Dont forget its the customers fault too..

 

the customer  was blamed for the Yellow J94 and then there was the mysterious case of the class 92 hackers who flooded the system with gazillions of fake orders.

 

May In please know what was the issue with the yellow J94? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MGR Hooper! said:

 

May In please know what was the issue with the yellow J94? 

 

As I understand it, There were a lot of expressions of interest for the RMweb special yellow J94, but very few actually ever paid up and in the end Kernow (maybe Hattons as well) took the rest.

 

The fake orders case was early in the APT OO gauge project. There was apparently 50 (maybe more) expressions of interest from various peoples e-mail addresses whom in the end were said to have said that they never expressed an interest in the item.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, JSpencer said:

 

As I understand it, There were a lot of expressions of interest for the RMweb special yellow J94, but very few actually ever paid up and in the end Kernow (maybe Hattons as well) took the rest.

 

The fake orders case was early in the APT OO gauge project. There was apparently 50 (maybe more) expressions of interest from various peoples e-mail addresses whom in the end were said to have said that they never expressed an interest in the item.

 

Yet another reason to be wary of crowdfunding, then.  There seems to be a growing number of issues arising with this way of doing things.  In principle it is fine, but prone to being undermined by human failings.

 

When gambling, wisdom dictates that you should never bet more that you are prepared to lose.  The same applies to up-front payments in crowdfunding projects, though some clearly carry more risk than others.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...