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

2 minutes ago, Flood said:

[sarcastic/devious mode]

Does this mean that a class 74 will or will not be available in the future????:jester::diablo_mini:

[sarcastic/devious mode off]

As long as Hornby, or any other manufacturer, use their own drawings and CADs then no there isnt anything in this announcement to stop them, so a future 74 is a possibility.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

DJM cannot make a class 74 because it would infringe his own copyright on the class 71 as they are too similar. He would have to sue himself if he did :)

  • Funny 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

I may as well cancel my DJM pre-orders then. it looks like this ship has been well and truly torpedoed below the waterline, by itself and is going down fast.

 

A shame really, I was really hoping that the N scale Class 17 would be finally emerging, instead we get this diatribe of codswallop which looks like it has been composed after a particularly boozy lunch down a dodgy east end pub whilst chatting to a equally dodgy lawyer who got his  qualification in the post from a 'University' in Nigeria...

  • Agree 7
  • Funny 5
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Damo666 said:

If you commission me to design you a house specifically for you, the copyright of that design rests with me and you have the right to build that house. You cannot use my design and build the same house elsewhere, or more of them, without my agreement. Similarly a housing developer can not ask me to design them a house and then build 100s of them around the country. I could sue them for breech of copyright.

 

However, there nothing to say that I cannot sell you the copyright of my design if you want it, so that the copyright now rests with you.

 

Going back the the housing developer analogy. If they were to change the design 'significantly' (legal hot water, define significantly) then the design could be considered unique. I design a house with a gable ended roof, they change the roof to a hip end and add a porch. Internally it's the same, externally it looks completely different. Is this a breech of copyright? (I don't know if that is enough of a change).

 

Not that I subscribe to DJMs stance in today's announcement, but if Accurascale have a more detailed roof and a more detailed bogie, would this be a sufficient change?

 

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

 

That is not really the same thing - IF you designed the house from scratch. (even though it would still probably look like another house somewhere)

 

It would be a better analogy if you copied my house and made a drawing of it and tried to keep IP rights for yourself.

 

Anyone else can make a replica of my house (why not, its lovely ;) ) but what they cannot do is use your drawing to build it from.....

 

DJ's problem arises from the fact "my house" is still here and can be copied by anybody anytime.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I am confused about...I see some people expressing concerns re the Accurascale model 92 and its production in the light of today's nonsense announcement. Surely any perceived rights that DJM thinks it has will only apply from today, not historically?

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
29 minutes ago, PhilH said:

One thing I am confused about...I see some people expressing concerns re the Accurascale model 92 and its production in the light of today's nonsense announcement. Surely any perceived rights that DJM thinks it has will only apply from today, not historically?

Ive got full confidence in Accurascales ability to deliver a class 92.

 

I do not see any situation that today’s announcement would in anyway impede it. Indeed I think it’s probably assisted it.

 

If I were a crowdfunder in one of these models in today’s announcement though I might not be quite as forgiving, I see dark times ahead.

Edited by adb968008
  • Agree 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PhilH said:

One thing I am confused about...I see some people expressing concerns re the Accurascale model 92 and its production in the light of today's nonsense announcement. Surely any perceived rights that DJM thinks it has will only apply from today, not historically?

 

Not a lawyer, etc, etc.

 

The DJM registrations are (mostly) dated 9th September 2018 and thus would be in force at least from that date.

 

Under Dave's apparent interpretation that would mean the Accurascale Class 92 would likely fall foul unless they could prove that they had CAD's prior to that date (they made their public announcement this year).  Don't know where the Revolution Class 92 would fall in Dave's interpretation given that it was started well before 9th September 2018.  It would all depend I guess on whether prior art invalidates what has been registered.

 

Someone also asked about the APT, the announcement by DJM mentions that other items have been submitted and are in the pipeline - a total of 14 items including the OO APT and N scale King.

 

At  the end of the day it all comes down to whether Dave's interpretation is correct or not, and certainly I hope he is wrong.

 

 

 

  • Agree 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I for one am very relieved I didn't go in for the APT, as I'm beginning to wonder if it will ever see the light of day.

 

Also this announcement has helped me make my mind up regarding the Class 92(s) I'm considering buying - Accurascale all the way.

 

There goes the last bit of goodwill DJM had in the hobby...

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, adb968008 said:

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.

 

Very serious question - to whom did Brush and Scotrail issue any licence to use in respect of the 92? 

 

And also - if both Scotrail and DB Schenker own 92s, if Scotrail issues a licence to reproduce a 92 to A , does that prevent DBS issuing one to B??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having only just caught up with this, I think this is the worst development in model railways in my living memory. Having filed patents and served as an expert witness in a patent infringement court case, the only winners in IP disputes are those with the deepest pockets. 

I'm saddened by this announcement and IP filings and hope that it doesn't have further repercussions in the hobby. If that transpires it will cost us all.

  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

From reading this thread, as well as the announcement, I am left with the impression that the IP is only for the CADs that have been produced for his products. After all how could he claim IP on a specific class if that class has already been produced? (Class 92, APT, etc.)

 

Also, as has been pointed out elsewhere, how could he say that no one else can, for example, produce a class 92 in any scale when Brush was the actual builder and surely any IP for the class could possibly reside with them?

 

I think that there are numerous posters in this thread that are eager to condemn Mr Jones as they already have a negative opinion of him from previous issues, and while I don't think that is right they are entitled to their opinions.

 

Just my two cents, but of course I could be totally wrong.

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

  • RMweb Gold

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

  • Like 1
  • Agree 17
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't argue with the majority view here but FWIW, in my professional R&D career we were always reminded by our IP personnel that the wider you cast your net, the harder it would be to defend rigorously (patents or designs).

 

I've no problem with DJM wanting to protect its genuine IP.

However, it seems DJM has thrown a net out very wide hoping to catch a lot of fish, whereas a more focused objective would have been better on two counts:

 

1) Less (maybe no) credibility damage

2) more likelihood of success and then staying around in business to enjoy it

 

I can imagine the bigger players just carrying on business as usual, defying DJM to sue them, prove infringement while surviving the process. I know who I'd back in that contest.

 

Colin

 

 

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

When DJM first started announcing his plans (particularly for N Gauge) I was extremely grateful and personally told him so at TINGS some years ago.

But, so far as N gauge is concerned, none of the first announced plans have ever reached fruition ....and it now seems that the first N gauge loco to emerge from the tunnel will be a "mobile kettle" (sorry, steam fans !). Even THAT is assuming that a further derailment does not occur before delivery ......

Yesterday's announcement, IMHO, casts serious doubt on the ability of DJM to ever produce anything other than specious promises.

I DO hope that I am wrong in that assumption and will be more than happy to pay for a DJM product in N Gauge - but ONLY when I have the ability to examine it for myself first.

I would imagine that the vast majority will have the same opinion now.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

SPEECHLESS.gif.0594cbfcb8aeb4bff3659ebb68c4dd68.gif

 

FACEPALM.gif.b0bcb72888e84822be740691ff78d443.gif

 

When DJM first announced his venture I was excited as I thought he was doing a fairly good job when at Dapol. However when nothing happened to any of his inititally announced projects I grew concerned, when he announced the Class 92 I was supportive and placed an order in faith. However at that point in time during a discussion on a modelling group online I was informed by 17 different people along with proof of how DJ had cheated them of a fair bit of money and either delivered faulty products or didn't deliver at all. By then I had paid the down payment for a Class 92 and requested a cancellation and a refund for whatever I paid for. Obviously I didn't get that and still waiting on that refund today. It equates to around $53 but like others I've decided to write it off.

 

Since then DJ has never been a nice person to talk to, unless you complimented his work in which case he was polite. But whenever an error was pointed out, I've always found him quick to denfend his work and not take criticism well. I believe in letting your work speak for itself, this kind of character and attitutde we find in RevolutioN, Accurascale, Hornby, Dapol, Bachmann and so on....but not an ounce of it in DJM,

 

We're all to used to DJ's now infamous immaturity, his constant excuses, his constant failure to deliver anything on time. How much more are people going to take of it?

 

I'm so glad I was warned in advance, I'm so glad I took those warnings seriously. I've never showed an ounce of support towards DJM since he failed to deliver on his Class 92. I feel bad for those who've lost far more money than I.  I've never hidden my thoughts on the brand and I've been fairly vocal about it, today I am not part of that minority group anymore. Couldn't care less now.


He's only doing damage to himself. To those who still support him...GOOD LUCK!

  • Like 5
  • Agree 3
  • Friendly/supportive 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be an interesting question to ask for those who have invested in crowdfunding how their money is separated from his legal fund under the agreed terms of crowdfunding? The basis of crowdfunding would surely be development of the model not funding legal wrangles over IP?

Is the crowdfunding through a kickstarter type scheme or direct with no third party involvement, I would suggest those who have invested check their terms and conditions and ask suitable questions. 

Anyway IP as I understand it is a generic heading for a whole group of other things like patents and copyright, IP itself is fairly intangible. I suspect once you break it down to that you would need to prove infringement of :-

Copyright, do you own the ‘original design’?.

Patent - does the design contain unique and original ideas / features, surely not as it’s a miniature replica?

Etc

 

You can serve up Solicitors letters and threats of legal action but until you get them summonsed to court you  can’t actually do anything and then you have to provide proof that a jury would see it as reasonable and there’s a lot of evidence that the concept of model trains isn’t in any way original. 

Imagine if someone went protecting the IP on Big Ben or models of trees!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So all David has to do is register designs of prototypes/models and then sit back and wait for other manufacturers to buy the registered designs from him or severely compromise any model they wish to release that David has already registered.   I can understand copyright and registering an original product,  but David is copying prototypes that have been around for years, even decades.    Given his recent delays in releases with all manner of excuses I would say business as usual.   When he does a CAD does he pay a royalty fee to copy the prototype design?  All sounds like an embittered one man band manufacturer with an axe to grind, possibly holding the industry to ransom.  This could be the end of his crowdfunding projects,  particularly many not produced to date.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Downendian said:

[...] the only winners in IP disputes are those with the deepest pockets. 

 

 

If Dave has deep pockets it would be quite nice for them to be used producing the Shark brakevan, class 17, etc. (especially that class 74 in 00) rather than legal battles that can only split the hobby. The former would benefit the hobby rather more than the latter.

I do hope he hasn't listened to a no-win-no-fee IP copyright lawyer who's promised him all his woes can be sorted this way.

 

3 hours ago, Downendian said:

I'm saddened by this announcement and IP filings and hope that it doesn't have further repercussions in the hobby. If that transpires it will cost us all.

 

Unlikely given the general interpretation of what he's actually protected against what he stated he's protected.

 

But if the worse does happen, we all now know who to frown disapprovingly at.

Edited by DavidH
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My CAD for a pair of denim jeans, in various sizes, will be lodged tonight. I have included many innovative options on my CAD including front pockets, rear pockets, options for zips or buttons and even, wait for it, worn patches and ripped knees.

 

once registered, i will be a millionaire Rodney.......

  • Like 1
  • Funny 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this announcement as being fully consistent with earlier behaviours, such as throwing out allegations about Chinese factories, accusing Revolution of illegal anti-competitive practices (oh the irony, we wouldn't want to try and stifle competition would we....), anybody making a model he wanted to do copying him etc. I have made no secret of the fact that I don't like crowd funding and don't get involved but that has nothing to do with my opinion of those companies using that funding model and I actually have the highest respect for Revolution. However, I decided quite a while ago I'd never buy anything from DJM because I found there was something deeply, deeply unpleasant about his rants about Chinese factories.

 

  • Like 6
  • Agree 7
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

TRUE STORY!

Few months before DJM announced their plans to produce a Class 92 in N scale and OO scale, I actually emailed the chap and suggested doing it. Based on the list of features he gave the Class 59, I told him a Class 92 to that standard would've been great as by then I had given up on asking Hornby etc. He loved the idea and was quick to work on it.

[SARCASM MODE ON]

Can I IP my idea and sue him? Actually why am I asking, he doesn't seem to understand IP and thinks it works his way, so I can also do the same. I just make up the rules as I go along.

 

[SARCASM MODE OFF]

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

16 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

I see this announcement as being fully consistent with earlier behaviours, such as throwing out allegations about Chinese factories, accusing Revolution of illegal anti-competitive practices (oh the irony, we wouldn't want to try and stifle competition would we....), anybody making a model he wanted to do copying him etc. I have made no secret of the fact that I don't like crowd funding and don't get involved but that has nothing to do with my opinion of those companies using that funding model and I actually have the highest respect for Revolution. However, I decided quite a while ago I'd never buy anything from DJM because I found there was something deeply, deeply unpleasant about his rants about Chinese factories.

 


IIRC, when he did make the issue about RevolutioN public, he said that they asked him if he could do the OO gauge one and they'd concentrate on the N gauge one. It may or may not be wrong according to XYZ Law, but it could've been looked at as a simple collaboration. Which is what I actually think it was to be. Since I don't trust his word I don't think he's telling the truth about it. It's cooked up a little and aimed at putting RevolutioN down.

 

And even if...a big "IF" DJM's claims about RevolutioN are true. Then as you pointed out the level of IRONY is just epic!!! Just look at how far RevolutioN have come and how many things they've delivered so far. Even if you exclude deliveries we're seeing EP samples consistently, we're seeing progress. Dapol have also moving ahead leaps and bounds without DJ.

And regarding the factories in China, when other manufacturers had issues with factories in China with regards to delays, DJ would sneak in and make claims that those were false and he's working with extremely good factories in China. And moreover whenever he made an announcement from Day 1, he's always boasted about the factories that he's used and how great and efficient they are and how the manufacture model trains for 123 years and for XYZ manufacturers. The moment he falls out with the factories there's a rant online about it. What a little whingy poo.

Edited by MGR Hooper!
  • Like 4
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

Can you re-register someone else's IP after their own registration of it has expired??

Random anecdote time... in the UK we have the Duracell bunny, advertising batteries. In the US Duracell let the IP lapse, so their competitor jumped on it - thinking it to be a good advertising tool. Hence they have the Engergizer bunny, which is identical. So yes, in the US certainly, and I believe you can in the UK too. Not that I think it stands up here!

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

  • AY Mod locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...