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

I think that this is very sad.

 

Looking at the 'registered' 14xx designs

- does the registration just protect the weird combination of green purple and blue that is the 'livery' in the CADs? 

- surely BRB (Residuary) Ltd would have a stronger case to 'own' the appearance of a 14xx, both in terms of external physical design and livery (GWR/BR 'branding) - assuming that it can be owned after all this time?

- the internal design - i.e. mechanism - does not appear to have been protected - so the registration of the artefact as a working model is incomplete. (I would have thought that the internal mechanism is the bit that would have the strongest case for legal protection, as that is genuinely DJM's own work.) 

 

Seems likely to alienate everyone else with an interest in railway modelling - manufacturers, retailers and customers. So unlikely to have the intended consequences.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JSpencer said:

Ok in the RMU, DJ now plays the role Thanos. He has gathered all the Infinity IPs and about to use his finger snap to make duplicates from the competition disappear as the universe does not have enough resources for both.

 

Now we need to figure who is playing Iron Man, Captain America, Black Panther etc (guess Hornby is Thor being the most ancient out there....)....

And Hulk is? 

I really don’t want to see the average Modeller displaying their abs!!!! ;) 

  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

oh dear went on to his Webb site this morning cannot log in in to my account 

so i have use the contact us form to ask to cancel my orders and ask for a refund 

but i don't hold out muck luck in getting my 130 quid back 

so pleased i put in a order for the 92 with revolution as well 

John 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Friendly/supportive 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like one of DJMs targets with this action, is those businesses that commissioned him to arrange design and manufacture of models on their behalf - Hattons, Kernow and Irish Railway Models/Accurascale stand out. I say this as he has registered IP rights to models already designed, tooled and have had a first run - 02, 14xx, as well as one taken back from him when in tooling -D600. I suspect other rolling stock commissions are going to be IP claimed, such as the Gate Stock. I don't know about Hattons, but Kernow always stated that they would own the tooling from these commissions. If so, DJM can't claim the ownership of the tooling, but may be trying to get a fee before a further production can take place. Obviously  I don't know what the contractual arrangements were, but this looks to an outsider as an attempt to get back at those who 'went behind his back to 'his factory' to organise directly. DJM doesn't own a factory, but had knowledge of factories they could contract, as I understood, they also didn't design the models but contracted to Chinese based designers. Therefore potentially DJMs business role was primarily the ability to use designers and manufacturers known to them, however these overseas businesses are independent and available to anyone who could locate them and had the confidence to go it alone. That was always the risk for DJM, and he seems to be swiping out because they took the work in house. 

I've held my views about DJM to myself until now. I supported them via the Class 71 and Class 74, also purchased 02s, Gate Stock from Kernow and 14xx from Hattons. For me the enthusiasm for DJM died during the Class 71 and 74 build up. I am very pleased with the Class 71, but started to question DJMs practices, when other promises made at the start of the project were never fulfilled. The Class 74 process was a total debacle with crowdfunders like me chasing DJM for updates during the long periods when nothing was being reported and in the end nothing happened. I've always suspected that it was only due to Kernow pulling the plug on administering the 74, that a decision was made to cancel. Luckily due to Kernow involvement, I got my money back, but decided not to crowdfund DJM again. This is all so very sad.

 

  • Like 5
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

On a lighter note, this is a great subject for series two of the great model railway challenge...

 

Challenge is to build two identical model railway layouts in a court room and demonstrate to the jury the layouts differences, and why one class of model is different to another running on it.

The teams would need to prove why one grass is greener than another, why a B1 and a Black 5 are different.

Then go deeper to show the merits of the class 52 (Trix, Hornby, Lima, Heljan and Dapol), but also test competing modern rivals like the DJ 71 and Hornby 71.

 

There could be technical evaluations on different mk1 diagrams, and proving an RFO and an original FO  and are different in real form based on interior and running number alone..something not captured in model form.

 

There would be a huge queue of modellers wanting to demonstrate their kits and models and how theirs are different to rtr ones and somewhere in this the judge and jury would start wearing a hat and blowing the whistle.

 

The final decision could be a race to the bench.. head to head the Hornby 14xx vs the DJ vs the Airfix one, using Hornbys Autocoach and Bachmanns, on a gradient, when none make it due to slipping and stalling the case gets thrown out.

 

Edited by adb968008
  • Like 3
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
  • Funny 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do feel for Dave Jones.  He went into all of this voluntarily and with his own money and the best of intentions.  I suspect he's got to the point where he sees all of this "feedback" on much of the Internet 'fora' as part of the cause of where he finds himself today, and thinks that his present course of action will go some way to resolving the other "issues".  He could be proven right, none of us at the moment really know how this will pan out.   I very much doubt he'll have sufficient funds nor the ability to fight any legal cases he has to take out in defence of his IP.  It is a shame that its all come to this and I do wish him well but perhaps he should consider stepping back from this approach and trying to work better with those he no doubt sees as the enemy. As Mike Storey previously stated better than I, the loss of DJM as a manufacturer would make the industry the poorer for it.  It's never too late.  Get some half decent advice from within the trade and move on Dave.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
8 hours ago, Scottish-Exile said:

Having read 'the announcement', I can only assume it is an April Fools joke, and being typically DJM, has arrived 1 month late.

 

 

 

 

 

Post of the week.  :)

  • Like 8
  • Agree 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, njee20 said:

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!

 

Didn't that Energizer bunny end up inreasing the sales for Duracell instead?

Can see similarities here....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

If Dave's interpertion is correct, and it was so easy to get "in the driving seat" then surely all the big players would have quietly done this long ago. 

Edited by Colin_McLeod
Reduced long post quote to just the relevant bit.
  • Like 1
  • Agree 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bob Reid said:

I really do feel for Dave Jones.  He went into all of this voluntarily and with his own money and the best of intentions.  I suspect he's got to the point where he sees all of this "feedback" on much of the Internet 'fora' as part of the cause of where he finds himself today, and thinks that his present course of action will go some way to resolving the other "issues".  

Ironic to go into it eyes open competing with previous products like the 14xx then announce this course of action though, he says in he video posted he can’t stop people doing the same model so why now try it? 

It’s going to cost to fight any action and that just hurts everyone as the costs get spread to the consumer. The grasp of IP is very questionable as it relies on a group of other legal certainties like copyright, design right, patents, trademarks etc so he needs those to claim IP and I can’t see how he has it except on his own CAD. The only other thing would be his contracts and then you deal with that through a solicitor initially, and if necessary taking it to court, not by issuing statements like this.

The lack of back up context with the multiple assertions he makes is also odd if he’s so confident in his legal position. It’s skirting some very serious legal grounds with what’s said in that statement. 

  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear he has certainly shot himself in the foot regarding his latest [if you can call 2016 latest] crowdfunding enterprises, regarding the class 92 ,nearly 3 years and no positive signs of a model being made,.Fortunately this announcement has probably saved the crowdfunders  losing more money, as there supposedly was to be a higher second instalment imminent, [well in DJM 's  timing]

The announcement has in the end probably or more likely been to Accurascales benefit.

  • Agree 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, brittannia said:

It would appear he has certainly shot himself in the foot regarding his latest [if you can call 2016 latest] crowdfunding enterprises, regarding the class 92 ,nearly 3 years and no positive signs of a model being made,.Fortunately this announcement has probably saved the crowdfunders  losing more money, as there supposedly was to be a higher second instalment imminent, [well in DJM 's  timing]

The announcement has in the end probably or more likely been to Accurascales benefit.

 

Have a look at the Accurascale thread - there's no probably about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's just a publicity stunt based on an 'any news is good news' philosophy. Could be  laughing his head off at how easily people are duped, and/or manipulated, or amazed how seriously some people take toy trains.

  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, nzgresleyfan said:

Actually, although I have had no previous experience with this company I'm miffed already. Despite promising his announcement on the 1st, it was the 2nd here before we saw it. Bad form.

 

 

In fairness the rant/announcement was delivered on time.  If you live in a different time zone that changes nothing.  ;)

Though perhaps your comment was  in jest. 

 

I was supportive of Dave in the past but now I am stunned with yesterday's press release.  I need not repeat the previous comments on this thread, but what was he thinking?   The worst bit is that he thinks it is very exciting.

 

From supporting I am now asking myself questions:

 

Will I ever get my APT-P?   

Should I pay future instalments?

Should I ask for a refund?

Should I write off my first instalment?

Should I sit tight for a while to see what happens? and for how long?

 

I expect others are asking the same questions.

Edited by Colin_McLeod
typos
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Friendly/supportive 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Pteremy said:

I think that this is very sad.

 

Looking at the 'registered' 14xx designs

- does the registration just protect the weird combination of green purple and blue that is the 'livery' in the CADs? 

- surely BRB (Residuary) Ltd would have a stronger case to 'own' the appearance of a 14xx, both in terms of external physical design and livery (GWR/BR 'branding) - assuming that it can be owned after all this time?

- the internal design - i.e. mechanism - does not appear to have been protected - so the registration of the artefact as a working model is incomplete. (I would have thought that the internal mechanism is the bit that would have the strongest case for legal protection, as that is genuinely DJM's own work.) 

 

Seems likely to alienate everyone else with an interest in railway modelling - manufacturers, retailers and customers. So unlikely to have the intended consequences.

 

The design work will have been performed by GWR works staff under CB Collett. Any IP rights they had will have been assigned to their employer , the GWR. Several 19th century railways got very aggressive towards employees who patented their own railway-industry inventions and claimed the IP - not necessarily with success. Assigning the IP of anything you  design as part of your employment to your employer has been normal for a long time.

 

That design IP would have passed from the GWR to BR. BR was owned by the state, ie "the country". I presume the drawings are owned by the NRM , who acquired BR archives . As a branch of the Science Museum , the NRM is also owned by the state ie " the country" 

 

Ks designed a 14xx kit in 1958, when the design IP must have been with BR. Airfix designed a RTR model in 1980? The tooling then passed to Hornby and it is still in their range. DJM /Hattons then announced a 14xx , which has been produced. The mechanism is reportedly not great.

 

How can DJM now  own "the shape of a 14xx in 4mm" - but not Hornby or Hattons -  nor BR, the NRM, the owners of preserved 14xxs? How can DJM prevent Hornby producing and selling 14xx from their existing tooling ? Surely any contract between Hattons and DJM must prevent him "taking his bat home" and blocking them from further production runs from the tooling Hattons paid for?

 

This points up another aspect of this that leaves a bad taste. One reason I never seem to have been interested in anything DJM have announced is that most of it has been something that had already been produced by someone else - generally Hornby. Class 92, 14xx, J94, APT-P, 117/121, King, 86, 87, 59 .... Its a long list.   To be honest it has felt a bit like Dave Jones has been working his way through Hornby's back catalogue - "Yes, I'll take that, and that one. I can take out that one. That's another piece I can pick off the carcase..."

 

How on earth, given this,  can DJ claim to "own" these subjects and claim that anyone who makes accurate models of them infringes his IP???  Is he intending to sue Hornby for breach of his IP for knocking out another run of their old 92??  I presume DJM have registered the APT-P design to block Hornby producing another run of their 1981 model if SK finds the tooling at the back of the warehouse after all... I can't see what other competitive threat might exist.

 

I fear that the chances people of recovering funds committed to DJM projects may be on a par with the prospects of recovering monies people  paid to Coopercraft

 

 

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

1 hour ago, Londoner said:

Perhaps it's just a publicity stunt based on an 'any news is good news' philosophy. Could be  laughing his head off at how easily people are duped, and/or manipulated, or amazed how seriously some people take toy trains.

 

I don't think anyone in their right mind would consider perpetrating something like this as 'a stunt.'  It's caused ripples on this forum alone that will have significant repercussions for funders' confidence, and would have had implications for those considering commissioning new models, were it not patently obvious that IPR doesn't work as some might think.

 

As for taking 'toy trains' seriously, it's provided the OP with a living (of sorts) for many years, so I doubt there'll be much laughter up his end this morning.  A sad day.

Edited by 'CHARD
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 minutes ago, Londoner said:

Perhaps it's just a publicity stunt based on an 'any news is good news' philosophy. Could be  laughing his head off at how easily people are duped, and/or manipulated, or amazed how seriously some people take toy trains.

 

If only that were the case...

 

If I was a crowdfunder for various projects (except the King which has a retailer behind part of it and has supposedly gone to tooling) I would be rather worried that the harm he has done to his brand (with what a lot will see as an attempt to grab product and stifle competition),  will mean that too many will have lost confidence in him and will write off their deposits and not fund further.  

But it could also mean for DJM that a significant number of funders pursue him for return of their deposits putting himself on the receiving end of the legal system that he seems keen to embrace.

 

 

  • Agree 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

While crowd funding has been around for several hundred years it was not until the late 1990's that it took off successfully.  I recall back in the mid-1980's that a local Australian manufacturer, Powerline, announced a "crowd funded" scheme to manufacture a NSWGR class 36 steam locomotive.  At the time the release of such a model would have set the local scene on fire,  however, the crowd funding approach was met with scepticism and the venture did not even reach the minimum number of interested parties.  I believe a $50.00 refundable deposit showed interest in the project.  People then and to this day are sceptical of manufacturers who do not have a proven track record.  Crowd funding relieves the manufacturer of financial burden should the project fail.

 

I do have sympathy for current crowd funded projects as when demands for further deposits fall due any who opt out will leave those remaining subject to the total project failing as the burden will fall on fewer participants.  If I was a participant in a crowd funded project that had resulted in an IP registered CAD then how is it that the developer has the full legal rights to the design?  Surely those who fund the project are "share holders" in the enterprise and should retain part ownership of the product. 

 

This is very, very dangerous territory and just as easily Dave might find himself in court instead.

 

For the sake of clarity and in order not to risk upsetting forum rules - I am pointing out that the following is just my opinion based on experience...

 

If he holds the IP for the CAD designs I cannot see how he can have also the right to aim to make a profit from manufacture, without first delivering on his promise to the crowdfunders. They were asked to fund production and delivery of a model, not IP of the designs. Considering how the industry has so much duplication, I don't think DJM is going to be able to convince a judge that an IP is even a necessary part of that process, so he cannot argue it was necessary to use crowdfunders' money to pay for registration, if that is what he has done; likewise for legal costs.

 

In Law I would think it is very clear that he has a contract with all of his crowdfunders to deliver that model, albeit payment in stages. No timescale was specified and if any deadlines were mentioned, he has himself broken them and made many excuses why - so that has set a precedent for the way that he is expecting the business to be conducted and that works both ways.

 

At time of taking pre-orders I don't recall Dave saying that you would lose your first deposit if you did not pay your second or third by a specific deadline. I think since then he has only said that the order book would close on the number of models that would be produced and that is the reason for deadlines.

 

So I don't think he can now reasonably set a deadline on second deposits. 

 

Therefore as long as the project progresses to tooling, then a Judge is going to say the DJM had a reasonable expectation to see the project to fruition and would still be obliged to go back to his crowdfunders and fulfil his contractual obligations to them, unless they specifically say they are happy to write off their investment.

If he now progresses to tooling and it can be shown that he does not intend to honour those orders, I would be inclined to think that a Judge is going to look at that as fraud with respect to the first deposits and then the same situation would apply to the third and final deposit.

 

This would likely apply to any future production derived from these CADs

 

To sum up my opinion - which is based upon many episodes of watching Judge Rinder - Dave might claim those CADs as his intellectual property but the crowdfunders have claim on whatever Class 92 DJ models he produces.

 

Now the possible outcomes of the events of the last few days?

 

DJ Models declares itself bankrupt - which is very bad news for crowdfunders

DJ Models sells the right to produce the Class 92 from his designs to someone else - possible but he may find himself in court as it is possible he still has an obligation that those models go to crowdfunders; and those claims can be dealt with pretty quickly and easily in small claims courts by the individuals but at great expense of time and trouble for himself.

DJ Models will sit upon the Class 92 and do nothing with it until he can fund it himself AND he can see the models will sell - likely to happen if he wants to see this project through to the bitter end

Something else might happen

 

Having put in an order for several different liveries, my biggest fear now is if pre order page of this model by on the Hattons website should disappear and I am sure many crowdfunders will be asking them directly whether they should cancel their pre orders in light of recent developments.

 

I hope that Dave sticks to his word, as that will at least maintain his credibility which is 95% of what the best business - good luck mate

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had high hopes, when I got back seriously into British N gauge for a Class17 Clayton, joyfully I saw that DJM were going to make one. I also hankered after a J72, even more joy, both Dapol and Graham Farish were going to make one. There were many more announcements/delays/cancellations and general hum-buggery but by the time I realised that model announcements were fantasy for a considerable percentage of the time, I had scrapped my German N layout and was well into my UK layout. 

 

Lesson learned.

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Brinkly said:

.

 

.....   As for the £250,000 the company accounts should show this and as others have said, it doesn't appear to.    ........

 

.

.

 

I have not looked at the latest accounts filing, HOWEVER, normally a company has 18 months to file their accounts and hence they MAY be stating the case before the problems in China.

 

Public listed Companies (I doubt if relevant) have to produce more up to date statements.

 

Can anyone confirm what the reporting date of DJM's account is ?

 

.

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

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, Scottish-Exile said:

"A fool and his money are easily parted". I do not expect any sympathy and with a bit more due-diligence would have steered clear. However, being new to the hobby I got caught up in the hype that I could get something new/unique and it was an 'order now or you will forever lose out' scenario with published deadlines in place.

 

Don't worry, 6 years ago, a LOT of people got swept up by the hype wave and really believed that amazingly accurate models would be produced, spares would be available for all products etc etc. As a few products trickled in, people soon started seeing the reality.

  • Agree 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

×
×
  • Create New...