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

Have I got this straight?

 

For example, I'd quite fancy a certain 4-wheel Diesel shunter in a certain gauge.

 

Let's say a specific toy train provider subsequently announces this type, creates the cad, then IP registers the design.

 

Would that then prevent any other toy train provider from supplying said model, with the only difference being a lack of bonkers duplicated drive train, and featuring a motor that wouldn't run kicking & screaming from my preferred design of controller?

 

Well done DJ, you've just alienated someone else!

Link to post
Share on other sites

A good few years ago I discussed with an established model manufacturer the possibility of commissioning a version of one of their models in a different, more popular scale. A couple of months in, DJ Models announced they were going to do the same model. As that suddenly increased the financial risk considerably, I pulled the plug on my project, even though "my" manufacturer reckoned that DJ was not credible.

 

How I now wish I had taken the gamble and pushed ahead with the project!

 

PS. No, it wasn't a Fell diesel.

  • Like 5
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

@Mike Storey Think you hit the nail on head.

 

With Kernow and Hattons there was fodder for years to come that would have worked very well alongside Crowdfunding and trust from them would probably converted into support for those schemes (which I think happened with the 71). 

 

He needs a partner, someone to be the face of the business side of the business but it may be too far gone now for Dave to allow that or perhaps for someone to want to invest with him in the climate he is now making for himself.

 

Agreed. The trust has been lost (and we have no certain explanation of real cause, only opinion from either side). Dave appears to be saying that he has been shafted many times over, inferring (or implying - I have never correctly understood the difference) that his designs were used, inappropriately if not illegally, by others who believed they could bring their desired product to market faster and cheaper. In a few cases, that turned out to be to be true, but on others, more recently, it has not. 

 

Whatever the cause, this announcement by Dave has clearly not enamoured the sympathy he hoped. In that respect, It has failed. But whether there are others out there who can do what he did, way back, is now moot. Clearly there are peeps who can both design superior products (plenty) and also those who can do that and get them produced in a reasonable timescale and a reasonable price (few). 

 

Dave led the way (with others), but has been overtaken in a fast-moving world. He should recognise that (perhaps he has, with this declaration to recover his rights to what he believe he is owed). But he does not deserve the vitriol expressed on here - so many of us supported what he was trying to do, but now castigate him for it not having worked the way we would have liked.  I cannot think of any other matter that has attracted this level of cant? Oh, maybe I can .....

Edited by Mike Storey
  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It seems that DJM has fallen into the category of business that are very good at complaining about how hard is and that all their problems are someone else's fault. They seem to think that some crackpot idea will save them without having fully thought out how it would work in practice or how they are going to fund it, maybe thinking that state will foot the bill. Unfortunately when it comes to infringement of civil law the individual has to enforce it and run the risk of having to pay for the privileged. Instead of whining about how unfair things are maybe their time would have been better spent actually getting the promised products to market, the likes of Accurascale seem to be able to produce a steady steam to quality products without any fuss. I accept that problems do occur but the best course is to roll up your sleeves and get on and fix the actual problem at hand instead of relying on some harebrained scheme to save you. It's all very sad and as others have said it looks like we are witnessing the death throes of DJM.

  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, letterspider said:

I'm sorry,  I thought the director of one is in control of the other.  Sorry if I am wrong

 

They are two separate companies, even with some shared management. This was made very clear some time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, letterspider said:

May be a saving grace if you are crowdfunding

This announcement had come before the request for second deposit

 

Yes that is probably true. I for one will no longer be willing to part with any more of my hard earned money in any of dj models crowd funding ventures. I have written of the £90 for the three class 92 I had on order. I will put my money Accurascales way instead, as at least there model will make it to market this century. 

 

Craig 

Edited by Craig85
Typo
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Agreed. The trust has been lost (and we have no certain explanation of real cause, only opinion from either side). Dave appears to be saying that he has been shafted many times over, inferring (or implying - I have never correctly understood the difference) that his designs were used, inappropriately if not illegally, by others who believed they could bring their desired product to market faster and cheaper. In a few cases, that turned out to be to be true, but on others, more recently, it has not. 

 

Whatever the cause, this announcement by Dave has clearly not enamoured the sympathy he hoped. In that respect, It has failed. But whether there are others out there who can did what he did, way back, is now moot. Clearly there are peeps who can both design superior products (plenty) and also those who can do that and get them produced in a reasonable timescale and a reasonable price (few). 

 

Dave led the way (with others), but has been overtaken in a fast-moving world. He should recognise that (perhaps he has, with this declaration to recover his rights to what he believe he is owed). But he does not deserve the vitriol expressed on here - so many of us supported what he was trying to do, but now castigate him for it not having worked the way we would have liked.  I cannot think of any other matter that has attracted this level of cant? Oh, maybe I can .....

Dave's problem has been his need to share information or allude to knowledge, he seems to also give them impression that people are out to get him.

 

Hattons/Bachmann have a dispute, neither party are saying anything preferring to keep it professional.

Kernow moved manufacturers on a few commissions - again no big announcement, no tales just got on with it.

 

With Dave there is always drama and never is it good drama.

 

I look back 12 months and think, if the website had been ready, the Paypal risk identified/fixed and the APT deposits not having to be refunded and then paid again perhaps we would now be seeing a different Dave.

  • Agree 7
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

He has done CADs that are allegedly the subject of dispute between DJM and a factory in China. It has also been alleged that there are attempts to sell these CADs to pay for monies owed. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this I can see the motivation for trying to protect the CADs as Intellectual Property as they are indeed IP.

However, as previous posters have stated, this does nothing to stop a 3rd party creating new CADs from scratch and doing their own model. If DJM thinks it does then this really calls into question his intelligence and competency. This is nothing short of delusional.

 

Models have been made for many years, not just of railway items but of cars, planes -  you name it. As mentioned in this thread, it is the original design that is unique not the model. The only thing that could be protected is if some component used a new approach, e.g. a motor used a new and innovative mechanism. Such a mechanism could be patented. However thinking that anyone who patents the design of any class of loco or anything else (including some for which the IP of the original 1:1 design is still in existence)  can prevent others from creating their own design is madness. This just opens up DJM to further derision. Its bad enough that others who had previous dealings with him seemed to have no trouble producing models on their own in shorter timescales and to higher standards. This mainly seems to be because the producers wanted their models in the market in the same decade that they ordered them. DJM has produced limited output of models since the companies creation but a high output of excuses . To add this ridiculous statement this evening is just another diversion and a rod for his own back.

 

Reality check Dave. If it was possible to prevent others from making a model of something you were producing a model of then someone would have done it before.

 

I had wished DJM would succeed and offer more choice to modelers but my confidence had long since gone well before today. Today's announcement will only hasten the demise.

 

My sympathy here is for those who have lost money investing in DJM schemes.

 

Edited by BR Blue
  • Agree 14
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

From the "anouncement"

 

Quote

For DJModels it means security for DJM and my customers’/clients’ models for a minimum of five years, when I shall then renew them all for a further five years.

 

So I took a look when the N gauge DJM 63XX was announced - July 2014. So in 2-3 months, that's 5 years and still absolutely nothing, so you'd think he would be coming up for a renewal if he had registered his IP... but... no CADS.

 

10 minutes ago, Synch said:

Competition is competition, and if Dave actually held off announcing items until they were further along in the design and production stage then the belief that he takes forever to make anything might just suddenly disappear, one can't exactly blame others for shooting themselves in the own foot.

 

He would have to hold off  announcing anything until final CADs were done before he could "register" them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
42 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

This is extraordinary

 

This press release is probably the most extraordinary and worst communication in the hobby since 1976 when the Model Railway Study Group sent Cyril Freezer a solicitor's letter saying he couldn't publish Heckmondwyke or use the word Protofour in print because they owned the IP to P4 and only those who complied with their terms would be licenced to use them, and only  in accordance with their stipulations... [I redraft in contemporary language, but that seems to have been the stance the MRSG took towards Railway Modeller and the North London Group in 1976]

 

It's worse than has already been suggested, because if it is interpreted as Dave Jones appears to be suggesting in his pdf, then if Clive scratchbuilds a model of a Class 17 in any scale he would also be infringing Dave Jones' IP and could be sued by him...… Produce a kit of a 1361 or an O2 in any scale and you could also be vulnerable to attack

 

This is "Bags Me" on the grand scale , and if the suggestion that DJ Models now "owns" the J94 as a subject despite Hornby's prior models is a correct interpretation of the arguments being made in this pdf, I have some difficulty understanding it as anything other than some kind of "patent trolling". I really hope that is not what's meant, and if it is, that it doesn't have a leg to stand on in Britain. I know the US has some very peculiar and defective laws but fortunately not much British outline is sold there...

 

Looking at the list of things registered I can't help wondering if it is a co-incidence it's appeared on the day of a news-worthy opening.

You rang

100_5128a.jpg.7350a6e68860c72f68e80befe1c801e5.jpg

I bet he hasn't registered the Rolls Royce engined version (the middle one). All three pre date the Heljan model and the Judith Edge kit, but sadly not the MTK kit. They are as crude as the MTK kit. Thinking about it had Colin IP all the stuff he made then nearly every modern image model would never had been made or his family would be very rich in royalties.

 

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

All we wanted him to do was bring great models to the market to buy.

 

i am somewhat stunned by this announcement and pitty him for the bad sense of direction this is all taking.

 

Those early in thread who said "Mayday' probably from the French term m'aider or help me were  right after all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
14 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Dave led the way (with others), but has been overtaken in a fast-moving world. He should recognise that (perhaps he has, with this declaration to recover his rights to what he believe he is owed). But he does not deserve the vitriol expressed on here - so many of us supported what he was trying to do, but now castigate him for it not having worked the way we would have liked.  I cannot think of any other matter that has attracted this level of cant? Oh, maybe I can .....

 

You are not kidding Mike, he was overtaken by circumstances before the first model had been produced and almost immediately began knocking other planned projects on the head, whilst at times it's been a bit over the top, just who should shoulder the blame for what's occurred but Dave.  It is a real pity, as he came along with good references, but it is no one's fault but his own and he grossly overestimated his ability as a one man band and underestimated his risks or how to mitigate them in the open market.  Other players have not had the same problems that have merited this kind of response.

 

Bob.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 6
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I do think there is a couple of points  within DJM's statement that needs clarification 

 

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’.

This will save model railway companies wasting money on projects, when they find a rival model already IP’d.

 

 

duplicates do nothing to enhance the marketplace, they merely dilute the sales and return to each company and subsequently their ability to re-invest and produce more models.

Some, within the industry, may see this as ‘good healthy competition’, and ‘may the fittest survive’. However by using IP to their advantage they should be able to secure their investment in their model along with growing the future of British model railways in all gauges.

 

It could be seen that this action has effectively stifled competition within the hobby and created a restricted market, a market where the customer is now effectively at the whim of one person. The first manufacturer to take this to law and test it will win as it shows restrictrictions on competition.

 

I think that DJM has been rather unwise in taking this course of action, he might want to try and protect a couple of designs that for whatever reason he feels have been misappropriated but he would have been better off trying to actually negotiate and find a compromise rather than waste time driving over others lawns.

 

As you all probably know, I have spent around £250,000 on tooling that I no longer have the use of, but own and cannot get the further use of.

 

I wonder how this squares with the accounts submitted, as nowhere can this amount or anything near to it be found. No matter how small the company if you had to write this amount off there would be a paperwork trail.

Of course DJM fails to menton it's probably not his money but that of the crowdfunders, and they can now see just what he has been spending his time and their money on for the last 6+ months.

 

A sad day for the hobby.

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 13
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I note that design number 6043482 is in class 21 Games, toys, tents and sports goods................wow I never thought of a NBL Warship as a tent, perhaps had BR realised they could have parked them up a locations like Dawlish Warren and made more money from them being a camping item than a locomotive. :secret:

  • Funny 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Captain Kernow said:

Well, that's a relief then, if it means that someone else can go on to produce a better 14XX than the DJM one.

 

Not that the body was bad, far from it, but the mechanism is pants and he can keep the copyright on all such dreadful mechanisms for all eternity, as far as I am concerned.

 

 

He did say in his pdf that any rival manufacturer would have to come up with a substantially better design to escape his IP

 

If he has simply registered the right to all model 14xxs with a dodgy mech, then the field is open to anyone who can make one that runs well.

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...