DJ Models Announcement 01/05/19

[Mike Harvey]

If this episode leads to the final demise of DJModels, I am sure it will be all the nasty people on RMweb who will be accused of being the cause of it. But I am struggling to find active support anywhere for the business approach in today's announcement. I am reminded of the fateful speech given by Gerald Ratner which sent his business into terminal decline. 

 

 

[jjb1970]

The whole situation is rather sad, I am not sure he realises just how many bridges this will burn. 

[GWRtrainman]

The British IP system does not work as a Policing system or Court making judgements.

It's merely a timestamp.

 

So, Dave has made a claim - it's not been tested or checked in any way.

 

• Someone else may have had the idea earlier, they quite likely not have registered it. They can't loose their IP or have those ideas taken away by a Dave style registration.
• Likewise if someone now produces a model for which Dave has registered CAD - they won't be stopped or find themselves in trouble unless Dave brings a claim and wins in court.
• Lastly someone can challenge these registrations if they so wish and have then cancelled. For instance the original manufacturer of the full sized loco.

 

As a business funded by other people - Crowdfunders or Retailers, I can't see either being happy seeing their funds being diverted from a product into legal action.

Seems a dead end idea and probably an indicator that his business has reached the end too.

[pheaton]

39 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

I do think there is a couple of points  within DJM's statement that needs clarification 

 

Well, if read correctly it could be a complete end to duplication of models, as those who IP them first will literally be in the ‘driving seat’.

This will save model railway companies wasting money on projects, when they find a rival model already IP’d.

 

 

duplicates do nothing to enhance the marketplace, they merely dilute the sales and return to each company and subsequently their ability to re-invest and produce more models.

Some, within the industry, may see this as ‘good healthy competition’, and ‘may the fittest survive’. However by using IP to their advantage they should be able to secure their investment in their model along with growing the future of British model railways in all gauges.

 

It could be seen that this action has effectively stifled competition within the hobby and created a restricted market, a market where the customer is now effectively at the whim of one person. The first manufacturer to take this to law and test it will win as it shows restrictrictions on competition.

 

I think that DJM has been rather unwise in taking this course of action, he might want to try and protect a couple of designs that for whatever reason he feels have been misappropriated but he would have been better off trying to actually negotiate and find a compromise rather than waste time driving over others lawns.

 

As you all probably know, I have spent around £250,000 on tooling that I no longer have the use of, but own and cannot get the further use of.

 

I wonder how this squares with the accounts submitted, as nowhere can this amount or anything near to it be found. No matter how small the company if you had to write this amount off there would be a paperwork trail.

Of course DJM fails to menton it's probably not his money but that of the crowdfunders, and they can now see just what he has been spending his time and their money on for the last 6+ months.

 

A sad day for the hobby.

 

 

 

 

There was no reflection in the accounts... and his most recent accounts don't look too pretty.....and if he spent 250k on a tooling he doesn't have use of any more, why don't the accounts reflect a respective amounts for the class 71.....the various steam locos and wagons????

 

according to the accounts the company has only grown 3% in a year....but we also know has a growing portfolio of models which are not yet near the "crowdfunded" levels required for any physical product...….

 

As a modeller I'm not concerned at anything......he can only as pointed out by others protect his concepts of the original subject....he cannot prevent other concepts being produced….  Chris mentioned the NRM.....the NRM cannot for example prevent me building a replica mk1, the mk1 isn't a brand and if it were a brand I simply could not call it a mk1....flying scotsman is a brand, which the NRM now owns....I can build another A3 but I cannot call it flying scotsman….

 

I must ask......why is he announcing this only now...when he registered them over 6 months ago???

 

anyway... if daves right...this mean I can IP this....and get lots of money from Heljan .

 

keep dreaming...….

 

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by pheaton

[adb968008]

I wonder what Brush Electrical Machines legal team will think after all the class 92 is their design, would they even countenance risk of losing any aspect of their IP under any circumstance ?

i’d imagine they issued a licence to use, but not take ownership of their design in any scale, and would expect them to rigorously defend it.

Edited May 1, 2019 by adb968008

[Oldddudders]

If I commission someone to develop CAD images, does the IP vest with him or me? After all, he was paid by me to do the work, and without my commission, the work would not have been done. I do wonder if this might be part of DJ's problem? Yes, he did the work, but did others feel they owned the result?

 

Were binding contracts on signed documents put in place at the outset, or was a handshake the trigger for work to start? We may never know.

[Anglian]

If there is no other legal agreement in place, in the UK, the IP is owned by the creator, as a default position.

[dcroz]

22 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

the mechanism is pants and he can keep the copyright on all such dreadful mechanisms for all eternity, as far as I am concerned.

 

 

As with the J94, I can’t see any CAD of the mechanism for the 14XX in the images on the IPO website ...

 

https://www.registered-design.service.gov.uk/find/6043484

Edited May 1, 2019 by dcroz

[melmoth]

Just now, dcroz said:

 

As with the J94, I can’t see any CAD of the mechanism for the 14XX in the images on the IPO website ...

 

That might be because, as the DJM epistle states:

 

"This IP covers the external design and look, plus design cues on both sides, ends (including alternate ends), top and bottom, and where there are alternate styles and sides, this is also included in the designs." (my emphasis)

[7013]

Dibber 25 sums it up perfectly, Dave has done himself no favours at all. If nobody buys his models then his IP is worth diddly squat. Dave has done a lot of good things for our hobby in the past, and it would have been great to support Dave in his DJModels initiative, I did buy a Cl 71 which is a super model despite it being a slow runner. However his newer projects have been fraught with uncertainty, and because Dave’s cash flow situation appears precarious and not having models to sell does not earn any capital I believe DJM could be nearing the end. Crowdfunding works to a certain extent, but as we have seen his class 92 project is as good as dead in the water now the rival has beaten him to tooling. Time will tell if Dave can bring models to the market (the N gauge King seems to be his last big hope) and create cash flow. Mean while I suspect that the big companies are reading his statement with a smile on their faces.

Edited May 2, 2019 by 7013

[Clearwater]

3 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

My reading, by registering the CAD work for a model in a given scale DJM believes that any other companies attempting to create a model of the same prototype in that scale will infringe on the registered CAD, thus he can prevent anyone from competing with him.

 

 

 

I’m not an expert on either IP or competition law but I don’t buy that the proposition holds.  It’s by its very nature anti competitive what he proposes and you can’t IP something unless it has a unique feature.  I wonder who is providing his legal advice and I hope he hasn’t paid too much for it.

[dibber25]

2 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

If I commission someone to develop CAD images, does the IP vest with him or me? After all, he was paid by me to do the work, and without my commission, the work would not have been done. I do wonder if this might be part of DJ's problem? Yes, he did the work, but did others feel they owned the result?

 

Were binding contracts on signed documents put in place at the outset, or was a handshake the trigger for work to start? We may never know.

In your theoretical situation, They are surely HIS intellectual property but YOU own them. For instance, I own lots of photographs of trains but I did not take those photos so they are not my intellectual property. I own them and use them under an agreed arrangement but they remain the intellectual property of the photographer. (CJL)

[Davexoc]

As there are often so many detail differences between members of the same class/lot number, I can't see how it will stand up in court, let alone stop duplication of models.

 

Sour grapes and spilt milk come to mind.....

[PaulRhB]

You can only protect your design, you can claim IP but the idea of scale replicas isn’t new and you can’t copyright something designed by someone else unless you take over the companies. 

It will cost unnecessary money and grief for a pointless fight. When the likes of B&Q, Honda have failed in the Chinese courts to protect their designs there’s not much hope of fighting the Chinese end. 

It’s been tried before and I’m sure there will be plenty of people willing to supply photos of models proving there’s nothing original about the idea. LGB failed to stop direct rip offs of their models even when trading standards got involved here. 

Just a lot of ill feeling and blame.

Edited May 1, 2019 by PaulRhB

[Allegheny1600]

Wow, just wow!

I am reminded of when MTH Models in the USA tried to sue the NMRA over some digital protocols that MTH claimed were "theirs" (which they lost!). This created a lot of bad feeling that has endured for over twenty years now, I for one, would never buy anything from them!

I think people some twenty years in the future may well say something like "remember that bloke from Liverpool who tried to run a model railway business"? "what was 'is name"? ("Derek? Doug? I forget!").

 

I have never seen someone shoot themselves in the foot so spectacularly. 

[PaulRhB]

Mind you MTH took on UP when they put exorbitant license fees on their livery as IP and then UP backed down due to the negative publicity. They got a lot of credit for that. 

[philiprporter]

Well as an APT crowd-funder (and with some confidence in a positive crowd-fund outcome, having invested money in Revolution Trains and received some amazing models in return) I have to confess that this is utterly bizarre and just adds to my feelings of unease about whether I will see any return at all on my initial payment. Despite the inherent risks of crowd funding that have been well-discussed at length, I had faith, perhaps foolishly, of the APT becoming a reality and was prepared to take the financial risk, but I suspect it may never happen now, simply because this announcement is going to have further annoyed so many people who, like me, were perhaps nervous and a little miffed about the lack of progress (not just on the APT) and hanging on in the hope that all may be well - I very much doubt this now. I hope I'm proven wrong as I would love to see the APT become a reality, but the way this business model is panning out just doesn't seem to be working and this announcement just adds further to a growing sense of disillusionment with the company. Great shame for those who were prepared to support the various projects and a great shame for the hobby in general. 

[mikesndbs]

I am deeply saddened by all of this, very sad to see so little support for someone being overtaken by circumstances and anger.

Very sad indeed that the great potential of better models, developed with the modeling community are now receding into the darkness.

The class 71 was a wonderful ride to be part of.

The class 74 a bitter disapointment.

 

And from reading the above I think I understand that there are missing refunds which is not acceptable.

 

But the sheer willingness to kick someone in the nuts once they are clearly down, surprises me greatly.

[melmoth]

17 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

If I commission someone to develop CAD images, does the IP vest with him or me? After all, he was paid by me to do the work, and without my commission, the work would not have been done. I do wonder if this might be part of DJ's problem? Yes, he did the work, but did others feel they owned the result?

 

 

I wonder if it might actually be the other way round? I seem to remember various DJM newsletters talking about correcting CADs that had been produced elsewhere. 

[jjb1970]

I think that all the design work and CAD work is done for DJM by the Chinese factories with DJ project managing and reviewing the work done in China. 

[Clearwater]

3 hours ago, PhilH said:

I suspect that DJM models will lose a good deal of any of the remaining goodwill it had prior to this announcement, indeed judging by comments on this and other forums there are certainly those who just simply don't trust him any more.

What happens if his company folds up? Does he still retain the IP to these models which would mean that nobody would be able to produce them? 

 

Like others who comment here, my day job fairly often requires me to read / enter into consultancy contracts.  My organisation is very careful around how we negotiate IP clauses in contracts and we would always want any design/IP to vest in us, not a contractor.  If I was a model shop commissioning a model and effectively paying a fee for the design services, I would want that IP transferred to me.  If I did not own the IP, I’d expect to see something making clear who owned the IP when I brought the model.  By registering these designs, I wonder if DJ is either seeking to get some additional money out of the commissioners to wave what he sees as his IP rights or whether he’s seeking to stop the tooling being used to produce second runs of those items, particularly if its with a factory he has subsequently fallen out with.

[87023Velocity]

There are lots of companies large and small which take IPR very seriously and for good reason, it protects their products but also any allegation of ripping off designs from competitors, they are protecting their designs. I cannot see how this can work for him with a scaled down model train unless he has designed something Revolutionary within the model. Anyhow the order book for the N gauge 92 has closed so looking forward to receiving mine from Ben and Mike.

[Pre Grouping fan]

4 minutes ago, melmoth said:

 

I wonder if it might actually be the other way round? I seem to remember various DJM newsletters talking about correcting CADs that had been produced elsewhere. 

Dont think Dave did any of his own CAD's I think they were all done in china by the factory and then passed to him to inspect/create a report on tweaks etc. Accurascale for e.g. do all their cad in house and send it to china once complete.

[caradoc]

Until tonight I had some sympathy for Dave Jones and his travails. Not any more.

 

(And not a question of kicking someone in the nuts but utter disbelief that they seriously think they can prevent anyone producing another model of a prototype once they have staked a claim to it).

 

[Trains4U]

16 minutes ago, mikesndbs said:

I am deeply saddened by all of this, very sad to see so little support for someone being overtaken by circumstances and anger.

Very sad indeed that the great potential of better models, developed with the modeling community are now receding into the darkness.

The class 71 was a wonderful ride to be part of.

The class 74 a bitter disapointment.

 

And from reading the above I think I understand that there are missing refunds which is not acceptable.

 

But the sheer willingness to kick someone in the nuts once they are clearly down, surprises me greatly.

 

I wouldn't describe it as kicking someone in the nuts.

 

The announcement has been borne of resentment from past events.   It is an undisguised and blatant attempt to protect himself from any competition, or to profit from the efforts of competitors who have the means or wherewithall to actually tool a model for which he has an outwardly similar CAD design.     CADs are cheap, within a year he could have hundreds, Tooling is not cheap - why should DJ Models gain from the efforts and investment of others, simply because he has registered a picture.

 

This is being rightly derided as  dangerous and uncompetitive.   It is the action being attacked.  not the man. 

 

you can only play the "Hard done by modeller turned manufacturer" for so long.    This is business, not a clubroom.  The only way to win is to either be better than the others, or have more money than the others.   Goodwill only goes so far, and you can only make threats like this if you have the means to carry them out,   Court action is not cheap and unless Dave is sitting on a six figure war-chest, this will not pan out as he expects.

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Trains4U