RMweb Gold 57xx Posted May 2, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 2, 2019 18 minutes ago, Ravenser said: This is a huge threat to all modelling hobbies in Britain No it's not, it's a load of unenforceable hot air. 18 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chris p bacon Posted May 2, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 2, 2019 1 minute ago, Jub45565 said: 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...). Whilst that is part of what he is trying to do, the main thrust of the press release was to identify which manufacturer was designing which product so they could collude and stop duplication. Quote We will all know what everyone (who wishes to protect their designs) is doing, or has plans to do, many years in advance (five at present). This will give further clarity for their customers too, rather than the ‘excitement’ of guessing what’s coming next year? Quote There will no longer be a need to approach a rival with a view to collude in the marketplace, no longer a need for ‘secret squirrel’ cards to the chest. Just get on with it, design, and then IP the design. I still think that in issuing this press release of his companies intention, he has overstepped the boundaries and wandered (unwittingly possibly) into market manipulation. 4 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Popular Post PhilH Posted May 2, 2019 RMweb Gold Popular Post Share Posted May 2, 2019 Sometimes you have to know when to throw away the shovel and stop digging. 2 15 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philiprporter Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 So this is possibly a daft question, but as an APT crowd-funder who has paid the first £250 installment can I legitimately ask for a refund? I'm assuming not given that no terms and conditions were or have subsequently been made available as far as I am aware - and I knew I was taking a financial risk at the time - but it would be good to know if its worth a shot (i.e. whether there is any legal obligation to refund)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jub45565 Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 1 minute ago, chris p bacon said: Whilst that is part of what he is trying to do, the main thrust of the press release was to identify which manufacturer was designing which product so they could collude and stop duplication. I agree from the original announcement, but not from the clarification Quote ...and do no prevent anyone making the same model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
classy52 Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Just for you Dave... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chris p bacon Posted May 2, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 2, 2019 Just now, philiprporter said: So this is possibly a daft question, but as an APT crowd-funder who has paid the first £250 installment can I legitimately ask for a refund? <snip> There was a thread that covered crowdfunding general that Stationmaster started, I'm sure the answer is in there. 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trains4U Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 So the latest clarification simply says what he should have done the first time around. That he has invested in tools to which he no longer has access, and is trying to prevent their use. DJ models will have a hard time preventing a Chinese factory from manufacturing models using his tools. He could, however, justifiably pursue any business importing, selling or marketing those models in the UK (Provided he can prove they are made using his designs) What he cannot do (And the original statement seemed pretty clear in this intent) is prevent another manufacturer from producing any model, in any scale, that he has on his development list, provided that manufacturer has not a) used his CAD designs or b) directly copied physical components of existing models. Quite how this affects tools bought and paid for by commissioning partners is yet to be tested. On that, we will have to wait and see. 3 13 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 57xx Posted May 2, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 2, 2019 28 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said: Not exactly a contradiction. Looks pretty contradictory to me. On one hand he was saying he would eliminate duplication in RTR and had bagsied all the CADs that he had a 3rd party produce for him, now he's just saying it's covering the "external look" of his designs (they' aren't his designs, they are the 1:1 protoypes designs!). 29 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said: What does he mean by "design cues"? That was my thought too. I guess things like holes in the cab sides to recess number plates so they look flush instead of standing proud like the real thing and cons rods with big sloppy oval holes so the geared mech stands a 1 in 3 chance of working. He's welcome to them. 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenser Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 7 minutes ago, GWRtrainman said: He's posted a 'clarification' on his website, which pretty much contradicts the first Announcement! Quite incredible Quite . Having to post a clarification inside 18 hrs of your original statement being released suggests you have dug a big hole for yourself. The statement clearly states that his approach should end duplication of models and prevent other companies investing money in projects for a subject where a design has been registered [by DJM] Quote What does this all mean? 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’. [my added emphasis] This will save model railway companies wasting money on projects, when they find a rival model already IP’d. Obviously there would be nothing wrong with anyone producing a rival ‘Mk6 Flange Express XR1’ model, but there would be problems with producing one which would, if you were trying to be as accurate as possible, infringe on others’ IP and the percentage it has to be different by the allowed amount specified by HMG, for it not to encroach on a registered IP of the ‘Mk6 Flange Express XR1’. Now, various companies may not like the idea of having to IP their models, but..... Given the list of designs registered this can only have been meant for the 92 and 71 (and therefore presumably targeted at Accurascale and Hornby Hobbies) . Someone posted a photograph of a "rapid prototype" of the Hornby 71 on 20/2/15 - DJ Models did not register his design until September 2018 It also implied that companies who failed to file their models as registered designs would be at risk [of what was not spelled out] The clarification now says Quote My IP’s cover the external look of all my designs, not the internals, and do no [sic] prevent anyone making the same model. It does, however, as far as i understand it, prevent cloning and using my design cues. [Emphasis added by me] The clarification seems to be shifting the emphasis to protecting DJ Models position in respect of models produced from the CAD registered by DJM . I have no problem with him protecting himself from a Chinese factory using the tooling for the DJM 71 and selling the production in the UK via some other party. But I am more than a little unclear what he thinks he's doing registering the 02, D6xx , 1361 and 14xx as his IP (other than creating some sort of claim against Kernow and Hattons over those projects. ) And I would have real problems with the idea of DJM registering CAD for a class 29 as his IP and trying to block production by Dapol or Hornby of their own models I don't quite see why he's registered the design of his J94 . If it is not to block anyone else attempting a model J94 (his has already got to market - so why is this worse than DJM targetting the Hornby model?) or to block continued production of the old model by Hornby Hobbies , what is he trying to prevent? A Chinese factory producing J94s from DJM tooling for sale in the UK through someone other than DJM seems a bit startling - though the Mainline/Replica /Bachmann clash of 30 years ago may be relevant 2 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meatloaf Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 13 minutes ago, philiprporter said: So this is possibly a daft question, but as an APT crowd-funder who has paid the first £250 installment can I legitimately ask for a refund? I'm assuming not given that no terms and conditions were or have subsequently been made available as far as I am aware - and I knew I was taking a financial risk at the time - but it would be good to know if its worth a shot (i.e. whether there is any legal obligation to refund)? You can ask, and if you paid on credit card you could ask your card provider to refund you 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWRtrainman Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 5 minutes ago, Trains4U said: So the latest clarification simply says what he should have done the first time around. That he has invested in tools to which he no longer has access, and is trying to prevent their use. DJ models will have a hard time preventing a Chinese factory from manufacturing models using his tools. He could, however, justifiably pursue any business importing, selling or marketing those models in the UK (Provided he can prove they are made using his designs) What he cannot do (And the original statement seemed pretty clear in this intent) is prevent another manufacturer from producing any model, in any scale, that he has on his development list, provided that manufacturer has not a) used his CAD designs or b) directly copied physical components of existing models. Quite how this affects tools bought and paid for by commissioning partners is yet to be tested. On that, we will have to wait and see. I think it's damage limitation, but still means all models he has produced CAD for: His clarification was: "My IP’s cover the external look of all my designs" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Stannard Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 (edited) 5 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. I have one of his much maligned Hattons commisioned 58xx and I can't say a bad thing about it, it's a beautiful little locomotive with a superb level of detailing that outdoes the antiquated piece still peddled by Hornby, the fact that I got a straight DC version is probably why I haven't had any issues with it compared to those fitted with cheap and nasty chips. Time wise the announcement was when it was expected given your clock is 11 hours ahead of UK time it's not surprising you got to see it the "day after". Edited May 2, 2019 by AY Mod wording 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold toboldlygo Posted May 2, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 2, 2019 I don't whether to laugh or cry over this announcement (and clarification). It's just a sure fire way of shooting yourself in the foot by losing customers (and large amounts of money). 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
87023Velocity Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 After reading the amended announcement, I am wondering if Dave needs to look at employing a 1:1 scale Publicity Officer, maybe he could crowdfund one. 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 I have since read the "clarification". It is rather a "retraction" than a clarification of much the original statement, which, in my assessment, had significantly over-stated the position in terms of both the degree of protection achieved and the consequential limitations placed upon others. In other words, nothing DJM can have done will prevent other manufacturers from producing a model of the same subject in the same scale. It will not prevent duplication of prototypes, therefore. The idea that "there would be problems with producing [a model of something for which there was a protected DJM design] ... if you were trying to be as accurate as possible" is utter nonsense. The "clarification" confirms this. So why spend all that money on expensive IP and make such a song and dance about it? Well, no publicity is bad publicity, and today we've all been reminded of DJM's existence. Balanced against that is the potentially negative effect of such a sweeping claim to have restricted what others can manufacture, followed by something of a swift climb-down. In more practical terms, DJM may well have had genuine concerns about others using its CAD (though presumably someone would have to have got hold of it in order to use or copy it). Further, certain methodology or "design cues" might, in theory, be capable of protection if distinctive enough, though I suspect here DJM opens itself up to challenge. As the saying goes, however, there is more than one way to skin a given cat, so, presumably one does not need to copy DJM's "design cues" in order to design a model railway locomotive, as several other manufacturers seem to have successfully done over the years. So, as it turns out, there is no substance in this trailed announcement whatsoever. 5 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timward55 Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Gosh! I am so glad that Paypal made him refund APT deposits. I kept my refund and what a good decision that turned out to be. Having looked at his accounts and seen this bizarre announcement I am so sorry for those with money tied up in 'crowd-funded' projects. 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timward55 Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 34 minutes ago, philiprporter said: So this is possibly a daft question, but as an APT crowd-funder who has paid the first £250 installment can I legitimately ask for a refund? I'm assuming not given that no terms and conditions were or have subsequently been made available as far as I am aware - and I knew I was taking a financial risk at the time - but it would be good to know if its worth a shot (i.e. whether there is any legal obligation to refund)? If I recall correctly, the informed view on one of the discussions here was that consumer regulations applied to this type of transaction. The point was made by someone on the forum that labelling something as 'crowd-funded' did not override consumer protection. I am no lawyer but my understanding is that there is some redress if you have paid a deposit and the producer fails to deliver the product or service. Not sure what or when but that might be worth investigating further. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 7013 Posted May 2, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 2, 2019 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 40 minutes ago, philiprporter said: ...as an APT crowd-funder who has paid the first £250 installment can I legitimately ask for a refund? I'm assuming not, given that no terms and conditions were or have subsequently been made available as far as I am aware - and I knew I was taking a financial risk at the time - but it would be good to know if its worth a shot (i.e. whether there is any legal obligation to refund)? 26 minutes ago, meatloaf said: You can ask, and if you paid on credit card you could ask your card provider to refund you Indeed. The indication from the law review article was that normal UK consumer protection applies. The worst that can happen is to be told 'no refund possible'. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Garry D100 Posted May 2, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 2, 2019 Oh what a mess this is. I cant see anything positive coming from this for anyone. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 1 minute ago, Garry D100 said: Oh what a mess this is. I cant see anything positive coming from this for anyone. Au contraire, I am picturing a very happy lawyer somewhere. 4 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Just now, Edwardian said: Au contraire, I am picturing a very happy lawyer somewhere. One who gave no help to Dave in how to present this matter to the public and those whom the IP protection targeted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Legend Posted May 2, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 2, 2019 1 hour ago, meatloaf said: Or in other words hes got up this morning to see hes had a flood of cancellations Hes obviously still reading the forum I imagine that’s the case. His note yesterday certainly went a lot further about preventing duplication etc . He has now realised the adverse reaction this has caused and is backtracking ( I think, it’s not very clear!) . But it’s just another sign of bad judgement . He published some quite clear views and is now “clarifying” them. Really would you give this guy money? Sorry Dave , but you’ve blown it with yesterday’s statement . I really hope you (and others) don’t suffer financial loss , but I think it’s time to go find another sector to work in and start afresh. 2 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philiprporter Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 3 hours ago, timward55 said: Gosh! I am so glad that Paypal made him refund APT deposits. I kept my refund and what a good decision that turned out to be. Having looked at his accounts and seen this bizarre announcement I am so sorry for those with money tied up in 'crowd-funded' projects. This sounds promising - I paid my APT deposit using PayPal - could you let me know how you went about getting refunded by them? 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts