DJ Models Announcement 01/05/19

[Roy Langridge]

9 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

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' 

 

But do we actually know the contractual terms of any agreement between DJ and the commissioning companies? If you look at the Kernow 2H, I understand that Bachmann own the design and tooling etc. and can release their own after a period. Do we know that this wasn't the case with the models commissioned from DJ? If not, I would be careful using phrases such as "helped himself".

 

 I have resisted posting up to this point as, to be honest, I am so confused by it all. I can understand protecting investment (and as the owner of a company I do that), but the press release and clarification is as clear as mud.

 

Roy

Edited May 2, 2019 by Roy Langridge

[mdvle]

44 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

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.

...

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? 

 

It all comes down to what exactly were the terms of the agreement between DJM and the commissioners, specifically who owns the CAD and/or tooling (funding them does not necessarily result in ownership).

 

Then there is the added complication of the factory(ies) in China, and whether they did things correctly from a UK legal perspective when in at least one case the commissioner changed the project and went to the factory directly (and also whether anyone could prove one way or another what the Chinese factory did/didn't do).

 

About the only thing that is clear is that the "clarification" which pretty much refutes everything said less than 24 hours earlier is a good indication that Dave Jones is done as a manufacturer in this hobby as this incident has likely decimated what remained of his customer base and will have created an atmosphere that any 3rd parties (whether retailers or prospective employers) won't deal with either him or his company again.

 

 

 

[John M Upton]

After due consideration I have reluctantly decided to cancel all my preorders for DJM products.  

 

It was only a Shark, two Mermaids and the almost certainly dead in the water Class 17 but still a fairly sizeable chunk of purchases. 

 

It is a real shame as I have one Mermaid already and it is exquisite  but after continuous delays and silence on the next batch and now this Ratneresque suicide note, I am convinced now that none of these items will ever appear. 

 

It may be best if DJM conceded defeat and walked away, allowing others to use his tooling to produce the excellent models he has shown he can produce. 

[Hal Nail]

5 minutes ago, locoholic said:

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

 

I was about to retract my post but your response has amused me! 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Hal Nail

[Ravenser]

14 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

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' 

 

"Helping himself to someone else's IP" is exactly my concern . I'm no lawyer , so can't be certain it won't work , but this is why I am so shocked and alarmed by this. 

 

And  the much more extended IP claims in the original Statement  implied "helping himself to someone else's IP" in respect of prior or independent products from Hornby, Heljan and Accurascale

[Ravenser]

31 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?

 

It seems he may be seeking to establish a claim to potential income from stuff that other people have manufactured - and  which others apparently designed; or to else trying to obstruct them from making/selling their products

Edited May 2, 2019 by Ravenser

[royaloak]

8 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

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.

Nope, completely wrong, all DJM can put an IP on is their own design drawings and CADs, if another manufacturer makes their own drawings and CADs they can make their own models, I dont understand why people are confusing the issues!

[antrobuscp]

I can't help but feel that the law most likely to be applicable to this situation is that relating to "unintended consequences".

[DavidH]

7 minutes ago, royaloak said:

Nope, completely wrong, all DJM can put an IP on is their own design drawings and CADs, if another manufacturer makes their own drawings and CADs they can make their own models, I dont understand why people are confusing the issues!

 

Because Dave seemed to present it as such, and people were discussing his claim. The limitations that you highlight have also been raised many times.

Edited May 2, 2019 by DavidH

[Trains4U]

13 minutes ago, royaloak said:

Nope, completely wrong, all DJM can put an IP on is their own design drawings and CADs, if another manufacturer makes their own drawings and CADs they can make their own models, I dont understand why people are confusing the issues!

 

I think the only person confused is Dave.   His initial announcement made assertions about his perceived IP rights and their constraints on others far in excess of the reality.

The "Clarification" backtracks on pretty much all of that, but his initial proclamations, and the perceived conceit that accompanied them have resulted in huge damage to his credibility.

 

It is no  different to, and no less ridiculous than trying to register IP rights for this...

 

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Trains4U

[imt]

32 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

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.

 

Mike, registering "designs" is regulated by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1968. The act of registration does NOT confer "government" or legal (or whatever way you want to put it) approval. IF he feels another has infringed that design it will be upon to him to enforce his rights - if he can.  The grounds for doing so are quite clear.  A design registered only in England and Wales does not confer any rights in China (or Europe, or the USA etc.). The registration may iself be challenged and expunged.  IF (and I don't think anybody knows except the parties) he has registered a design executed by another to which he does not hold the rights then he has (potentially) opened himself to all kinds of repercussions.

 

I don't think that all this "what if"ing is particularly helpful to anybody.  What he has done is largely harmless to the industry, and only cost a few quid anyway.  It is his intemperate "press release" that has caused quite unnecessary alarm and distress and which many may never forgive him for.

[imt]

16 minutes ago, antrobuscp said:

I can't help but feel that the law most likely to be applicable to this situation is that relating to "unintended consequences".

 

Oh so true!  Apparently declaring war on the rest of the industry, and upset many of his potential customers, was never going to be a wise move.

 

Please can we soon give up and let him slink away to lick his self-inflicted wounds?

[LBRJ]

If makes one wonder if the "wrong bits" in many of his CAD drawings are not done on purpose (rather like map makers add in false streets) to catch out anyone who does misuse his drawings? 

[royaloak]

3 hours 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 try, but as some of the money was used for the 3D scanning and CADs (including mine as I didnt get a refund) I would doubt there is any money to refund, then there is the time it would all take, probably much easier, not better just easier, to write it off as a bad experience and move on. Okay principles say to do the right thing and go to Court etc but the monetary gain wouldnt come close to paying for the time taken to get to Court etc.

 

Edit-

Was our 'contract' for the APT with DJM or Durham trains of Stanley?

Edited May 2, 2019 by royaloak

[Edwardian]

5 minutes ago, LBRJ said:

If makes one wonder if the "wrong bits" in many of his CAD drawings are not done on purpose (rather like map makers add in false streets) to catch out anyone who does misuse his drawings? 

 

Hilarious. So, if anyone ever makes another 14XX/4800/5800 model and misses off the ashpan, we'll know it's a rip-off. 

[royaloak]

2 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. 

Lucky you, I didnt get a refund as my money had apparently been spent.

[57xx]

3 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Hilarious. So, if anyone ever makes another 14XX/4800/5800 model and misses off the ashpan, we'll know it's a rip-off. 

 

I was thinking of the superfluous holes in the front of the cab and the smoothly blended dome/boiler interface, but yeah, principle is the same.

 

At a previous job in publishing all the mailing lists had a few company colleagues inserted so if someone stole the list and used it for mail shots, they'd soon find out.

[ruggedpeak]

On the plus side it is more interesting than Brexit and Huwawey. And almost as bonkers!

[imt]

8 minutes ago, royaloak 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)?

 

8 minutes ago, royaloak said:

You can try, but as some of the money was used for the 3D scanning and CADs (including mine as I didnt get a refund) I would doubt there is any money to refund, then there is the time it would all take, probably much easier, not better just easier, to write it off as a bad experience and move on. Okay principles say to do the right thing and go to Court etc but the monetary gain wouldnt come close to paying for the time taken to get to Court etc.

 

I really think that this is the whole nub of the matter.  Somebody who was known to be a good "producer" of models (I'm not sure whether that was design of product or knowing how and having contacts) was trusted by a lot of people to do something for them all.  It may have been over enthusiasm, or naivete but much was expected.  This was going to change the way new models were produced.

 

I haven't seen any documentation for all this "crowd funding" (and I'm retired and don't want to) but it all sounds horribly woolly to me.  If there is no legal agreement of what was to be done by whom and when, you can of course toddle up to the courts (if you can get a slot) and the dear old judge or arbitrator will construct a contract from what can be inferred by recorded or reported speech (properly substantiated of course!).  This is NOT a recommended course of action.

 

Now it may well be that the realisation that so many people have been let down, misled or harsher words if you prefer, is having an awful effect on DJ personally.  Now I can understand the desire to "get one's own back" but even if it makes everybody feel better, the ultimate fall out in how DJ is affected may not be what (in our more sober and less vengeful moments) we would like to see happen.

[Talltim]

2 hours ago, 57xx said:

 

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.

I can see there being various ways you can have personal design cues for how the model is designed for manufacture, e.g the way the body is split into seperate components, but not for the way the assembled components look as a whole.

 

Edit Barry Ten said it much better than me

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Talltim

[GWRtrainman]

10 minutes ago, imt said:

 

I Now it may well be that the realisation that so many people have been let down, misled or harsher words if you prefer, is having an awful effect on DJ personally.  Now I can understand the desire to "get one's own back" but even if it makes everybody feel better, the ultimate fall out in how DJ is affected may not be what (in our more sober and less vengeful moments) we would like to see happen.

 

Afraid many would disagree with you. Dave is not the only person or the one having the worst day today.

 

The REAL people who are suffering are those who paid big deposits for products that have not arrived (and may or may not arrive in future).

Plus those people who commissioned products from DJModels and have spent a sleepless night until he reversed his position wondering if the investment  had been wasted through Dave registering CAD of a product they had subsequently developed (with or without) him.

 

He's not the victim here,

[Talltim]

41 minutes ago, LBRJ said:

If makes one wonder if the "wrong bits" in many of his CAD drawings are not done on purpose (rather like map makers add in false streets) to catch out anyone who does misuse his drawings? 

I did a course with an ex-CAD draughtsman a while ago. He told me that in his previous job they hated their boss so they used to put xxx its a xxxx in tiny writing at full magnification in all the designs they produced. Presumably it was ignored by whatever manaufacturing process the were using.

[d9002]

Speaking personally, I DO feel somewhat let down by the DJ saga....although in my case (unlike some, it seems) I did not lose out financially as all those who funded the Class 17 project were re-imbursed.

Certainly I have no desire whatsoever to "get back at him" in any way and I concur with the sentiment expressed that the ultimate possible consequences must be avoided at all costs.

Were the "clarification" to be clarified with an assurance that the models WILL be produced and that the intent of the original announcement was not to try and throw a hand grenade into the model railway market, then I for one would feel better. I could even cope with some of the plans being shelved so that his attentions could be concentrated on one or two projects in each scale, rather than the "scattergun" approach that seems to be the case at the moment.

I am certain that, should a proper model locomotive make it to the shelves from this manufacturer then credibility would be restored

[jjb1970]

The Chinese factory stuff still makes me cross. He keeps throwing that particular mud. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, this was a factory he elevated to the status of some sort of super factory when he was making all sorts of grandiose claims about the wondrous things he’d be producing. This is a factory that has worked with other commissioners and model companies and would appear to still be pretty well regarded. Also as others have pointed out, for a one man band to apparently lose £250,000 of assets should show up in his accounts somewhere, we’re not talking about a multi-national energy company or Apple where £250,000 would be a rounding error. Other companies still appear to be happy to work with the factory.

 

I’m happy to accept that there has been a breakdown in the relationship between DJM and the factory, but why it broke down is something we just don’t know. I see three possibilities:

 

• The factory behaved in a way which justifies the mud DJ has thrown;
• The factory acted correctly and is being unfairly maligned; or
• Both parties were at fault.

 

How do we know that the factory has not got a valid claim to the moulds they hold? It’s not impossible that the factory is the aggrieved party and that they are just trying to recover losses. There is no evidence to support that, but there is just as much evidence for it as there is for the DJM version of events meaning that we have no idea what truly happened. Are there dodgy companies in China? Yes, but guess what, there are cowboy company’s in every country. I really found it all, and the apparent propensity of some to have swallowed a partisan version of events based on an assumption that those little chaps from the East must be bad eggs to be rather objectionable.

[imt]

10 minutes ago, GWRtrainman said:

The REAL people who are suffering are those who paid big deposits for products that have not arrived (and may or may not arrive in future).

 

I do quite understand that.  Unfortunately nobody seems to know what the situation is with all this pre-ordered stuff, and until there is some kind of formal announcement this may all be wasted angst.

 

Maybe somebody ought to be writing to DJ politely to ask for details of progress, expected milestones and finish dates such that those who are in danger of "losing" money know whether they have or not.

 

At the moment all this diatribe is doing is upsetting people who may have no cause to be upset.  I agree DJ started it - and I would have hoped that he would by now have done something about stopping the speculation.