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

22 minutes ago, timward55 said:

... 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.

 

He hasn't failed to deliver the product. He's just made himself look, I think it is fair to say, a tad foolish, but as far as any announcements from the manufacturer (that I've seen) are concerned the projects are still live.
 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

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. 

 

From what I now understand of "design cues" this is things like Ford or BMW having a certain style of radiator grille that you can look at and say "that is a BMW" etc. How on earth can you put a "design cue" like that on a model of a prototype you are copying if you are claiming it is 100% accurate to the 1:1 version? It can only be things like sunken holes for cab plates, not the "look" of a loco, the latter is not his to claim. I can't see him doing a special DJM design of smokebox door for all steam locos if it is supposed to be an accurate representation of the prototype.

 

I've got no problem with DJ protecting his own work e.g. stopping someone from using CAD he created/owns or tooling he owns (good luck with that with the Chinese though) but think he is going about it in entirely the wrong way.

Edited by 57xx
  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, philiprporter said:

This sounds promising - I paid my APT deposit using PayPal - could you let me know how you went about getting refunded by them?

The Paypal refund was because Dave had to refund everyone who had paid a deposit (less some whose money had been used already in the scanning process) - this was because Paypal do not support crowdfunding on their platform.

 

Does this mean you are one of the few that were not due a refund at that time?

 

You may need to clarify that with Dave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The logical thing to do whilst he has this unfortunate focus due to poor communication, would be to give a viable, positive, update on projects such as his 92/APT, etc. To not do so potentially aggravates those with a vested interest (his crowd funders), as we have seen with some earlier replies.

  • Agree 7

Share this post


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

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

What is a 'design cue'?  According to an internet source (not Wiki) it is defined as 'a designer wishing to give their suite of products a unique but consistent look and feel etc, etc...   I'm not at all sure how you do that with things as diverse as a J94 and Class 71 which look very different from each other o although similar materials might be used in their manufacture.

 

So it could readily be applied to say, packaging and branding, but I don't quite see how it could be applied to models of diverse objects.

 

His 'clarification' does at least get to one very important point - he is trying to protect from reproduction or sale by others the models issued by or in development for the DJM brand.  That to me makes considerable sense, especially if there is any truth in various rumours which have been circulating for some time.  But if a Chinese company decides to enter the UK (or any other) market selling what were DJM branded models just how much comeback would he have against them?  And in any case the market is already awash with - for example - Class 71s so it would surely be a commercial non-starter.

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would presume that DJ has filed a patent as well as the CADs around September 2018. The claims of the patent, if it exists, will show DJM's intent. Fair enough if it's to prevent the Chinese factory from using DJM driven tools to commercialise, but from the initial announcement it sounds much broader protection. It maybe worth looking out for any filed patents with UKPO, I'll take a look. It should be in the public domain when it goes to PCT twelve months after filing.

Many filed patents are rejected due to lack of inventive step by UKPO . I doubt there is anything inventive here, 

prototype vehicle or drawing > laser scanning> CAD/CAM> tooling > model production is prior art, and not patentable. 

Getting the patent accepted is the first hurdle to overcome. We are at least a year from this, (if indeed it has been filed as stated above). Even when it's accepted, it then soon becomes very expensive as it may need worldwide protection, paying fees to each country/region. It of course can be challenged at any point after being in the public domain. That's when the pounds and euros need to be in the bank account.

cold light of personal experience here.

Neil 

  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. I might be in the minority but I am actually quite concerned for DJ – he must be in a pretty bad place right now, and I think his announcements must have reflected some desperation.   I do hope he can sort all this out and consolidate his business into something smaller and more manageable, and something which plays to his strengths. The guy must be very hard working to have turned out the portfolio that he has. I only have experience of his 14xx, but I thought that that was really very good – if only he had realised  at that stage that there were some engineering limitations in his designs and then gone for a much more limited range of highly detailed wagons and the like and built the business up much more slowly ...it just seems to me that he over extended himself....

 

.... and DJ, if you read this, take a couple of days off and get some R & R...!

  • Like 4
  • Agree 4
  • Friendly/supportive 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

What is a 'design cue'?  According to an internet source (not Wiki) it is defined as 'a designer wishing to give their suite of products a unique but consistent look and feel etc, etc...   I'm not at all sure how you do that with things as diverse as a J94 and Class 71 which look very different from each other o although similar materials might be used in their manufacture.

 

So it could readily be applied to say, packaging and branding, but I don't quite see how it could be applied to models of diverse objects.

 

 

 

 

I'm no expert but I reckon I could tell a Bachmann-designed steam loco from a Hornby one, and vice versa, even if there wasn't a manufacturer's name on it, due to certain established ways of doing things, such as keeper plates, pick-ups, wheel profile, shiny bits and so on. I don't know whether any of those things would constitute design cues from a legal standpoint, though, and I'd imagine such matters would be hideously difficult to police.

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m no expert either, but I’m sure people in his camp would prefer a chuff chuff to play with over a balloon of hot air.

  • Like 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 90rob said:

Oh dear. I might be in the minority but I am actually quite concerned for DJ – he must be in a pretty bad place right now, and I think his announcements must have reflected some desperation.   I do hope he can sort all this out and consolidate his business into something smaller and more manageable, and something which plays to his strengths. The guy must be very hard working to have turned out the portfolio that he has. I only have experience of his 14xx, but I thought that that was really very good – if only he had realised  at that stage that there were some engineering limitations in his designs and then gone for a much more limited range of highly detailed wagons and the like and built the business up much more slowly ...it just seems to me that he over extended himself....

 

.... and DJ, if you read this, take a couple of days off and get some R & R...!

He avoided rolling stock at the beginning as the cost of development was similar to a locomotive but required larger numbers to get the return.

 

As PMP stated, what he needs to do now is get some good press out about the three items in development and start some positive vibes - bunker mentality needs to cease.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

What is a 'design cue'?  According to an internet source (not Wiki) it is defined as 'a designer wishing to give their suite of products a unique but consistent look and feel etc, etc...   I'm not at all sure how you do that with things as diverse as a J94 and Class 71 which look very different from each other o although similar materials might be used in their manufacture.

 

So it could readily be applied to say, packaging and branding, but I don't quite see how it could be applied to models of diverse objects.

 

His 'clarification' does at least get to one very important point - he is trying to protect from reproduction or sale by others the models issued by or in development for the DJM brand.  That to me makes considerable sense, especially if there is any truth in various rumours which have been circulating for some time.  But if a Chinese company decides to enter the UK (or any other) market selling what were DJM branded models just how much comeback would he have against them?  And in any case the market is already awash with - for example - Class 71s so it would surely be a commercial non-starter.

 

 

The Class 71 is a niche product. There is a Hornby Class 71 out there which many seem to think preferable. There have been several production runs. People might not realise it in Shenzhen, but "sell a run of 71s using Dave's tooling" seems like a very poor commercial proposition

 

The Class 14xx is much more of a bread-and-butter model, albeit one that's been criticised. But it's been advertised as a "Hattons/DJM" product - presumably Hattons have made financial investment as the commissioner , and presumably they have some ownership rights in the tooling. If any Chinese factory did a production run of their own of the 14xx and tried to sell it in the UK through anyone other than Hattons , surely that party would face legal action from Hattons? With Hattons own models now being sold through several other large retailers as well the chances of anyone in the UK  getting away with this seem slim. DJM's registered design merely erects another hurdle - presumably the CAD will show how the tooling fits together (what's slides etc) , which may be the "design cues". We don't know the terms and state of the Hattons /DJM relationship in this project , but at this point Hattons must have much deeper pockets than DJM

 

The J94 is more at risk , and registering the design would allow DJ Models to go after anyone who tried to sell in the UK models produced from this tooling by a Chinese factory on its own account.

 

But I still don't quite understand what DJM is protecting by registering the designs for the 1361, O2 and D6xx . Surely the tooling for those must be owned/funded by Kernow not DJM?  And Kernow have not lost access to the tooling - witness the arrival of the first batch of D6xx in the last few weeks.   Is it being implied that a Chinese factory intends to rerun the 1361 and O2 in the near future and retail them in the UK through someone other than Kernow ? If so surely it would be Kernow who would act against the UK seller 

 

I'm unfamiliar with the N gauge Cl 17 situation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote a more detailed response to this ridiculous situation, but have decided not to post. I am concerned about the hassle it could cause from the point of view of someone who thinks that the threat of litigation should prevent freedom of choice. To summarize, however, I'm thinking that similar to Coopercraft, here we have someone who is interested in model railways, but has little manufacturing business knowledge. Design work is comparatively trivial, it is a mental exercise, that's all. The logistics of manufacture, distribution and sales is the difficult part for a tiny business - hence the criticism on rmweb of some one man bands. The successful businesses know this, others never learn. And, it goes without saying, always keep your word - e,g, don't make promises you can't keep, or take money without fulfilling the order - it's far easier for your reputation to go from good to bad, than to make it go from bad to good.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 90rob said:

Oh dear. I might be in the minority but I am actually quite concerned for DJ – he must be in a pretty bad place right now,

 

I agree with you.  Not only does he need to take a rest (if he can) he also desperately needs some calm, clear advice on a whole range of issues from business management, through PR and the true effect of registering a design (which I can assure him is definitely NOT what he thinks it is - and I am qualified to know). It is so very sad to see what started with such promise and so much goodwill descend into this dangerous farce - dangerous to his health and wellbeing and that of his business.  I do hope he recovers his equanimity and his business.

  • Like 5
  • Agree 8
  • Friendly/supportive 4

Share this post


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

The best thing the DJ could do in these particular circumstances is to:

 

A. Shut up.

B. Spend some time looking at why Revolution Trains have a good reputation within the hobby and work out what he needs to do differently to match their approach.

c. Beaver away quietly and purposefully to bring one of his projects to completion.

 

I completely agree. I had no hesitation in parting with a few hundred quid to some complete strangers, and then waiting a couple of years for the Pendolino to arrive and had complete confidence in Ben and Mike, who I now class as friends. One thing that puzzles me though is that if they can deliver well thought out and produced models alongside their proper jobs, how come it's been such a task for someone that does it as their main business? I'm still scratching my head! 

Edited by scoobyra
  • Like 6
  • Agree 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit late to clarify things.. Should of engaged the brain before putting out a daft announcement of an announcement and then following through with an even worse announcement. I would of even won some money if I'd taken a friend up on the bet of DJ coming out today and back peddling on the original announcement. This isn't the first time he tried it but hopefully its the last.

  • Like 5
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

 

But I still don't quite understand what DJM is protecting by registering the designs for the 1361, O2 and D6xx . Surely the tooling for those must be owned/funded by Kernow not DJM?  And Kernow have not lost access to the tooling - witness the arrival of the first batch of D6xx in the last few weeks.   Is it being implied that a Chinese factory intends to rerun the 1361 and O2 in the near future and retail them in the UK through someone other than Kernow ? If so surely it would be Kernow who would act against the UK seller 

 

 

I realise somebody posted on here to that effect but is there any hard evidence that he has 'registered' any 'designs' for anything other than DJM branded items?  If there is then perhaps somebody would be kind enough to provide a link to the original source please?

 

And while we have heard about 'design cues' what exactly is 'a design'?  If it is CAD then as far as I know all the CADs for anything produced by. or commissioned through, DJM were produced in China and in the case of work done for commissioners were paid for by the commissioners although I am obviously happy to be corrected if that was not the case for any specific models and the CADs were either produced elsewhere or are not what an IP is being registered for.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, 90rob said:

... and DJ, if you read this, take a couple of days off and get some R & R...!

 

Dont drive to Dundee barefoot gorging on toblerone and buy the rights to K9 the robotic dog on casters off DR Who! 

  • Funny 8

Share this post


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

I realise somebody posted on here to that effect but is there any hard evidence that he has 'registered' any 'designs' for anything other than DJM branded items?  If there is then perhaps somebody would be kind enough to provide a link to the original source please?

 

And while we have heard about 'design cues' what exactly is 'a design'?  If it is CAD then as far as I know all the CADs for anything produced by. or commissioned through, DJM were produced in China and in the case of work done for commissioners were paid for by the commissioners although I am obviously happy to be corrected if that was not the case for any specific models and the CADs were either produced elsewhere or are not what an IP is being registered for.

 

Reposting link here  https://www.registered-design.service.gov.uk/find/mibc2je9/92393612/designsbyowner

 

This shows the 1361, the O2 and the D600 Warship, as well as the 14xx. Since neither the O2 nor the 1361 are currently available from anyone I don't understand this. Registering the D600 design implies some kind of claim of IP in the Kernow D600 models which have just gone on sale, since I don't know of any others. Class 17 has also been registered - but is not scale specific 

 

Whether this has any implications for Heljan's O gauge class 17 or their 1361 model isn't entirely clear

 

But the timing of the DJM statement - within a couple of weeks of Kernow's D6xx arriving, on the day Kernow's Guildford store opened , and within a day or tool of Accurascale's 92 going for tooling in China - may be significant. He could have made this statement at any time in the last 7 months, but he chose yesterday

 

He has also stated his intention to register the N gauge King and OO APT-P and 12 other unspecified designs

Edited by Ravenser
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, 90rob said:

Oh dear. I might be in the minority but I am actually quite concerned for DJ – he must be in a pretty bad place right now, and I think his announcements must have reflected some desperation.   I do hope he can sort all this out and consolidate his business into something smaller and more manageable, and something which plays to his strengths. The guy must be very hard working to have turned out the portfolio that he has. I only have experience of his 14xx, but I thought that that was really very good – if only he had realised  at that stage that there were some engineering limitations in his designs and then gone for a much more limited range of highly detailed wagons and the like and built the business up much more slowly ...it just seems to me that he over extended himself....

 

.... and DJ, if you read this, take a couple of days off and get some R & R...!

 

Thats a good point actually . We shouldn’t forget there’s a human being at the other end of this vitriol, who has invested his own money in this ( appreciating others have crowdfunded too) .   Before posting  maybe we should just think  in case it drives someone off the edge.

 

I've contributed to this thread, disbelieving and then angry (possible lack of competition) but it’s time to move on .   

  • Like 1
  • Agree 8
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he’s lost the potential for income from some stuff he’s designed and/or had people copy his designs and has tried to do something about it.

 

Can someone summarise the 21 pages of waffle in case I’ve missed something relevant?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

He hasn't failed to deliver the product. He's just made himself look, I think it is fair to say, a tad foolish, but as far as any announcements from the manufacturer (that I've seen) are concerned the projects are still live.
 

 

Thanks for your comments. I was very careful to make a general point, not about a particular supplier. I was responding to a question about getting a deposit refunded and making the point that the considered view is that consumer protection applies in this situation.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

Reposting link here  https://www.registered-design.service.gov.uk/find/mibc2je9/92393612/designsbyowner

 

He has also stated the intention to register the N gauge King and OO APT-P

Thanks.  So it appears that he has helped himself to somebody else's IP which they paid for and for which they provided the original information with the CADs drawn by a factory in China at their expense using the information they had supplied.   Let him not forget that the D6XX was modelled from a large scale model commissioned by, I'm pretty sure,  Kernow which was sent to China for the CADs to be developed from it.  And the 1361 registration is of only one particular (and incomplete) version which is different from all the versions which were actually produced so it is really an irrelevance.   

 

Hardly 'an initiative to prevent duplication' :huh:

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s good he’s clarified it, and “it” is both reasonable and justified under the circumstances.

 

Unfortunately yesterdays announcement was not, and was by my thoughts incorrect. The delivery of which was even worse.

 

its very hard to put manure back into the horse once it’s come out.

 

I’m not sure I see an easy way back from that.

 

it is unfortunate that on the very same day of one of the UK hobbies highs, we’ve also seen it’s biggest low.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hal Nail said:

So he’s lost the potential for income from some stuff he’s designed and/or had people copy his designs and has tried to do something about it.

 

Can someone summarise the 21 pages of waffle in case I’ve missed something relevant?

To summarise; someone with delusions of grandeur and competence has issued statements which confirm he's actually a bit of a pillock.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 9
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 6

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.