Jump to content

RJennings

DJ Models Announcement 01/05/19

AY Mod

Please keep posts on topic. Rubbish will be removed.

Message added by AY Mod

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

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.

 

 

You have omitted to mention the number of rivets. Mind you, from my experience of courtrooms, the lighting might not be good enough to count them.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, phil gollin said:

.

 

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 ?

 

.

On 30th April 2019 the accounts were filed for the period to July 2018.

 

Link here:-

 

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08601496/filing-history

 

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

 

In fairness the rant/announcement was delivered on time.  If you live in a different time zone that changes nothing.  https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/emoticons/default_wink3.gif

Though perhaps your comment was  in jest. 

 

Yes, definitely in jest.

 

I do feel very sorry for those who have probably lost money as a result of all this. I feel for those who may potentially have customers lose confidence in them through no fault of their own, when all they are trying to do is produce a model themselves through a crowdfunding scheme.

 

I'll still be following progress of the project I expressed an interest in. I wish all the best to that manufacturer and others like him who have been up front and in contact. I certainly have not seen anything from him directly that would indicate concern. But I can't help feeling that the actions of DJM over the past few days have hurt those others specifically, and the hobby as a whole.

 

It's a sad day.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

So hang on a minute.  A customer goes to him and pays him to liaise with a Chinese factory on their behalf.  

(Snip)

 

Your further points not withstanding, this sentence is the crux of the matter. It will depend on how tight the original commission/agent manufacturing contract was specified. Judging from the quality of communications from one side of the participants, my feeling is they may not be as ‘watertight’ as they should have been. 

 

The point regarding research and input to a project project raises an interesting thought too. Most of the projects DJ has been involved in of late as employee/agent/manufacturer have made significant use of this forum and its members for input. If as SM mentions, an individual can see a change/input to a product, as a direct reaction to data they provided, who then owns the IP for the ‘research’? If there’s no contract regarding research data providers, can forum members then claim payment for services provided to models ‘designed’ and registered as a DJM owned IP?

Edited by PMP
  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, 57xx said:

 

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.

 

As with most manufacturers, DJM started with a lot of goodwill. Many were enthusiastic and orders were placed, initially through dealers (I myself placed an order for a class 17) or via crowd funding when he embarked on this. The goodwill has evaporated over the last few years, replaced with a degree of cynicism which increases with every announcement. Crowd funding has resulted in models being delivered, so it does work in many cases, but it requires a degree of faith in the manufacturer to work.

 

I still maintain that Dave can make success of things if he sticks to the creative side, the conceiving, designing etc. He knows the hobby, and his plans show he has a good idea of the sort of models people want. But he cannot seem to get a grip of the business side of things...organisation, negotiation and communication. Team up with someone who is an expert in these things, and it could work well.

 

I fear, however, DJM as a brand may be indelibly tarnished and a rebrand, refocus and some expert assistance may be the only way forward.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people have mentioned boycotting his products... What if Hatton's, Kernow and any other model shop that stocks his stuff just drops him over all this???

People have pointed out certain issues with this guy from day one and its always been stifled or shouted down by those backing him in one way or another... After this latest "announcement" I cant see why anyone would stick up for him. Its the "poor old me" routine over and over again but now less people seem to care!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bill_schmidt1 said:

Some people have mentioned boycotting his products... What if Hatton's, Kernow and any other model shop that stocks his stuff just drops him over all this???

People have pointed out certain issues with this guy from day one and its always been stifled or shouted down by those backing him in one way or another... After this latest "announcement" I cant see why anyone would stick up for him. Its the "poor old me" routine over and over again but now less people seem to care! 

 

I was among those who, whilst not stifling or shouting down his denigrators, was suggesting that he be given chance to "put his money where his mouth is".

However, I am now among that fraternity who is no longer prepared to support any of his projects (a.k.a pipe dreams) until I see tangible evidence that he is willing AND ABLE to deliver on said projects.

 

  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must seriously be missing something here? 

 

IP can be used to protect anything designed, or manufactured by DJM, however; this would simply be a replica of the real thing, to which it would be impossible to own the IP for. I guess it stops people from taking the design / drawing work and using it for their own good, but then surely any sensible person would create their own designs / drawings to insure accuracy! As far as I'm aware, the only way this would be possible is to approach, lets use a class 68 for this purpose, Vossloh / Stadler and ask for exclusive rights to produce the model under licence, which I believe a well known manufacturer started to do with a Hitachi train.

 

Due diligence isn't rocket science and one should always look in to the bigger picture when starting up, and running a business, regardless of they business type, otherwise you leave yourself wide open to failure...........  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Graham_Muz said:

As someone who has worked in the IPR arena I can confirm that a very good IP Attorney has obviously been used in this instance..... 

 

 

...  He/She certainly saw DJ coming.. 

 

I've read the DJM communication through four times now, and I keep expecting to see a disclaimer at the end saying "No Legal Professionals were harmed during the making of this statement"

  • Funny 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, PMP said:

Your further points not withstanding, this sentence is the crux of the matter. It will depend on how tight the original commission/agent manufacturing contract was specified. Judging from the quality of communications from one side of the participants, my feeling is they may not be as ‘watertight’ as they should have been. 

 

The point regarding research and input to a project project raises an interesting thought too. Most of the projects DJ has been involved in of late as employee/agent/manufacturer have made significant use of this forum and its members for input. If as SM mentions, an individual can see a change/input to a product, as a direct reaction to data they provided, who then owns the IP for the ‘research’? If there’s no contract regarding research data providers, can forum members then claim payment for services provided to models ‘designed’ and registered as a DJM owned IP?

There is no copyright (IP if you want to call it that) on information. (CJL)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, bill_schmidt1 said:

Some people have mentioned boycotting his products... What if Hatton's, Kernow and any other model shop that stocks his stuff just drops him over all this???

People have pointed out certain issues with this guy from day one and its always been stifled or shouted down by those backing him in one way or another... After this latest "announcement" I cant see why anyone would stick up for him. Its the "poor old me" routine over and over again but now less people seem to care!

 

Her could always sell his stuff directly via website. That is the business model various Aussie companies like Austrains and Aucision use.

 

For me the most alarming feature of this is DJ Models claiming intellectual property rights over models produced for Kernow and Hattons (1361, 02, D6xxx; 14xx) ,  claiming IP rights over models produced by other companies from independently generated CAD and research from prototype (71, 92)  and claiming IP for subjects where RTR models were made long ago by other companies and parties other than DJM own the tooling and still use them.

 

What other parts of Hornby's back catalogue will DJM try to register as his IP? If he registers CAD of a Dean Single and Caley 123 , can he claim that "the shape of the model" is now his property and further production by Hornby Hobbies of the Triang models infringes his IP????? Will he attempt to block Kernow from selling models of the D6xx or indeed Hornby's class 71 model ??

 

This is a huge threat to all modelling hobbies in Britain

 

The implied threat in the Statement is that if anyone is producing a model locomotive without registering it as a design,  then DJ Models  or anyone else can step in, and by registering CAD of that locomotive  as their own design seize control of the subject, blocking the existing manufacturer from continuing to produce their existing product as an infringement of the newly-registered design.

 

There does seem to be a suggestion that if other manufacturers fail to register their own models as registered designs, then someone else can step in and claim  legal rights over the model by registering their own CAD of it. That seems to be DJM's approach to the 92 - "the loco is now mine not Hornby's:   because they did not register the design as theirs - and now I have!"

 

If DJ Models did not himself generate the CAD he has registered (as has been suggested) never mind design the real thing , I'm struggling to see how he can legitimately claim IP in it, and sue others for making models from CAD they generated themselves 

 

 

Edited by Ravenser
Clarify phrasing
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pteremy said:

 

(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.) 

Your point is well made, but the sad fact is that while many of us have admired the bodyshell, and invested accordingly, the mechanism design, and imperfect resulting performance, has been widely regarded as a disappointment. When members talk of buying and building kit chassis to go under a DJM bodyshell, the news is far from good. Motor puissance has also been called into question, the Cl 71 famously running too slowly for many people’s liking. 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's posted a 'clarification' on his website, which pretty much contradicts the first Announcement!

 

Quite incredible

  • Agree 8
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, melmoth said:

 

I've read the DJM communication through four times now, and I keep expecting to see a disclaimer at the end saying "No Legal Professionals were harmed during the making of this statement"

 

That's dedicated of you. I found once was quite difficult.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still as clear as mud, IMHO.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GWRtrainman said:

He's posted a 'clarification' on his website, which pretty much contradicts the first Announcement!

 

Quite incredible

 

Not exactly a contradiction. But nor does it clarify anything very much.

 

What does he mean by "design cues"? Surely that comes from the original locomotive's design. There are only so many ways of reproducing that effectively - and none of them particularly original to DJ that I can see.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, pheaton said:

It's crowdunding in the definition only its not been done via bona-fide crowdfunding platform, myself and several others pointed this out at the time and we were basically called troublemakers, even when we pointed out his faulty advice like with consumer refunds.... If you haved paid dave money you are an unsecured creditor nothing else im afraid. 

 

I was under the impression that the usual crowdfunding platforms required you to have a working prototype before you can ask for funds (there have been some cases, a drone springs to mind, where the legal profession became involved and it was claimed that the working prototype was not quite as 'working' as was suggested). This won't sit well with the current railway modelling approach of asking for funds on the back of a photograph of the real thing and a list of proposed liveries.

 

Having a working prototype of a model loco basically requires  them to have got a lot further down the development route. In effect it's no different from Hornby announcing a new model  in January complete with a 3D printed mockup, and people placing pre-orders. 

 

Edited by pete_mcfarlane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sceptical that this IP campaign offers the complete protection DJM claims. Some may view it as both an intellectual challenge and a means to a lucrative income to prove DJM's assertions incorrect, and the outcome may be to cause DJM to spend all its time and resources in legal disputes. However, I shouldn't think it would be too difficult to make an accurate model of a given subject without infringing the IP of any of DJM's designs.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Pannier Tank said:

A "clarification" has been issued: https://djmodels.co.uk/clarification

 

Or in other words hes got up this morning to see hes had a flood of cancellations

 

Hes obviously still reading the forum

  • Agree 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, njee20 said:

What do you mean? That’s what crowdfunding is... manufacturer says “I need funds to produce this, want one?”. People pay, essentially on faith, item is delivered in some indeterminate period. Everyone’s happy.

Sorry, I wouldn't call that crowdfunding method "normal".

If something goes wrong, the ownus is on the person giving their money away to try and get it back then, which can be quite difficult.

If I support a crowdfunding venture on something a bit more established, like Kickstarter, then they add their own layer of protection and it's them I go to for my money if something goes wrong.

So this really is just paying someone money in the hope they'll come true of their word... with no real timeline of events or any regulations from the producer side of the agreement.

 

Thanks for clearing up!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

What does he mean by "design cues"? Surely that comes from the original locomotive's design. There are only so many ways of reproducing that effectively - and none of them particularly original to DJ that I can see.

 Making them incredibly difficult to maintain? Whilst not unique to his marque, his designs in my experience are a league ahead of others in difficulty getting them apart. I don’t recall having to break components on other manufacturers items just to access the motor.

Edited by PMP
  • Like 1
  • Agree 7
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the clarification is pretty clear personally - it is not intending to turn the world on its head, but aimed directly at the N gauge class 17 tooling/ownership/production issue (of which, admittedly, I have only read a small amount about as it is a prototype of no personal interest in a scale of no personal interest...).

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the crowd funders have paid for the design of a back peddling bike.

 

I bet even Gerald Ratner would read these communiques and say....WTF

  • Agree 9
  • Funny 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.