Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A thread has come up on the Yahoo Loksound users group which reports that QSI, manufacturer of toy train noises, is taking litagation out agianst Loksound, manufacturer of model locomotive sounds, for patent infringements. What exactly these "Patent Infringements" are is unclear at the moment. It would appear to be the common US practice sueing people or companies for the sake of sueing and maybe build up the company coffers if you win.

Ohh and no doubt you can see who I favour when it comes to sound.

Ozzie21
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
This is the alleged infringments ESU are supposed to have made . I reckon that they are so open ended that it just about covers everything printed in the model railway press since I started reading and building electronic circuits in Railway Modeller since the late sixties.

Ozzie21

[ Model train sound system manufacturer QS Industries has sued
Electronic Solutions Ulm (ESU) LLC, claiming ESU has infringed on
three patents held by QSI. The three patents in question in the case,
which was filed in civil court in May, are for an electronic control
system for model railroads, a model train locomotive with Doppler
shifting of sound effects and signaling techniques for DC track
powered model railroads.

The lawsuit claims ESU knows of the scope of the patents and has been
infringing on the patents by "its sale, offer for sale and
importation of model steam engines and model diesel locomotives and
components thereof." The suit also says, "such infringement has
caused, and is causing, irreparable injury to QSI."]
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,397 Posts
QSI don't seem to learn. They were recently sued by Mikes Train House for a pretty similar reason. I'm sure if someone technical looked into it they would find there was no similarity as QSI technology is so antiquated, ESU would never use garbage like that.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
9,844 Posts
I would hope that the fact QSI are suing ESU becomes widely known and _that_ fact causes irreparable injury to QSI.

I suppose they will be going after Soundtraxx and LGB next?

David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,918 Posts
Some members on the MR Forum are saying that the QSI/ESU lawsuit is just par for the course from that company. MTH used to use their system but there were problems with the relationship and MTH decided to produce their own system and QSI sued them for patent infringment. MTH counter sued saying that QSI broke their original OEM agreement. BLI which uses QSI needed sound for their new N Scale product line but could not get support from QSI (maybe if they spent less time in the courtroom they could have come up with a suitable product) so they started a new company called PCM and used LokSound. Again QSI headed for the courtroom, this time suing LokSound as if this company in Germany would even bother with infringing on QSI's patents.

It appears that this is all about QSI losing OEM business.
 

·
No Longer Active.
Joined
·
13,319 Posts
QUOTE (Ozzie21 @ 30 Jul 2006, 23:48) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>A thread has come up on the Yahoo Loksound users group which reports that QSI, manufacturer of toy train noises, is taking litagation out agianst Loksound, manufacturer of model locomotive sounds, for patent infringements. What exactly these "Patent Infringements" are is unclear at the moment. It would appear to be the common US practice sueing people or companies for the sake of sueing and maybe build up the company coffers if you win.

Ohh and no doubt you can see who I favour when it comes to sound.

Ozzie21

Could you please post the URL of this group ?

TIA

Brian
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
9,844 Posts
>It appears that this is all about QSI losing OEM business.
It's a tactic I recognise from the electronics market. I guess they must teach it on all those MBA courses. It all comes down to who has the deepest pockets.

David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I think you'er pretty right. After the loss agaist MTH, who wer also succesful against lionelbut that's adifferent story, QSI seems to have lost it's way somewhat. Not that their product was much good anyway and I've owned every steam loco they've had in their catlogue. They seemed to lose the plot after the N&W "A" class in all their sounds apart from the whistles became very generic. Steam locos even locos from the class all sound different but QSI's steam sound was always the same. The other sounds well they were okay but not real good. The chuff rates were a disaster with the chuff nowhere near synchronised with the piston strokes or the postion of the eccentric. I still have three, two C&O T1's and a B&O light mikado. I due course I'll fit these with Tsnumai and toss the QSI stuff in the bin. I really think they should have stuck to making sound modules for Walmart xmas train sets.

Ozzie21

QUOTE (Dennis David @ 1 Aug 2006, 05:34) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Some members on the MR Forum are saying that the QSI/ESU lawsuit is just par for the course from that company. MTH used to use their system but there were problems with the relationship and MTH decided to produce their own system and QSI sued them for patent infringment. MTH counter sued saying that QSI broke their original OEM agreement. BLI which uses QSI needed sound for their new N Scale product line but could not get support from QSI (maybe if they spent less time in the courtroom they could have come up with a suitable product) so they started a new company called PCM and used LokSound. Again QSI headed for the courtroom, this time suing LokSound as if this company in Germany would even bother with infringing on QSI's patents.

It appears that this is all about QSI losing OEM business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
The NRMA standard only applies as to the form of communcation through the rails, how the bytes, bits and packets are assembled and what they contain. And it only covers for the most part the basic CV's through CV29 including the speed curve. All the other CV's are used as the decoder manufacturer wants, bearing in mind the capabilities of the various systems out there and that the packets should conform to the same system.

Ozzie21

QUOTE (bangerblueed @ 3 Aug 2006, 03:44) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Surely if ESu are infringing those patents then so are other manufacturers applying the NMRA standards to chips ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
QUOTE (Ozzie21 @ 31 Jul 2006, 09:58) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>are for an electronic control
system for model railroads, a model train locomotive with Doppler
shifting of sound effects and signaling techniques for DC track
powered model railroads.

Such a wide ranging patent surely means they can sue all DCC manufacturers?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Yes it's pretty much the same method that MTH used in it's counter claim against QSI which also held up Soundtraxx with the delivery of it's new Tsunami. MTH claimed at the time to have inveted the wheel as it corresponds to model trains. Most of it was electronic like a device for converting electrical energy into linear motion, which I took to being an electric motor. It stopped QSI from using BEMF as feature on it's decoders, held up Soundtraxx as they were using it on the Tsunami by issueing cease and desist orders. Not sure if it affected Digitrax. I expected at the time to see some fallout against the European manufacturers such as Lenz, Zimo and Loksound but nothing evetuated. I guess QSI is suffering a little as users of their products move to a new provider. If QSI want to hang on to market then they will have to give their product a serious upgrade to improve it's performance like Soundtraxx did when it shelved the DSD 150 and unveiled the Tsunami.
If anybody else out there reads the US mag Model Railroader have a look at the review of the MTH model of the PRR K4 pacific and tell me if you think you'd upgrade you DC system from 12 volts to 18volts just to run one loco at the detriment of all your others.

Ozzie21

QUOTE (JohnR @ 4 Aug 2006, 08:02) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Such a wide ranging patent surely means they can sue all DCC manufacturers?
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top