Hi Guys,
I ran across this thread searching the internet for a few things. I'm sorry I don't get a chance to log in or come on here as much as I would like to, but I wanted to log in after seeing this thread and clear up a couple of things:
DMX741 samething as the ESX741.
The DMX/ESX are the old model with the built in switch. I have heard that the built in switch was the #1 reason for failure.
Never heard that one? Was thinking since DMS ppl sued WSI over the DMX that WSI just removed the internal switch so it wouldn't be considered a "copy/clone"?? While I'm not crazy about having a switch hanging off that NS741 LNBF, if that's the only thing I'll have to replace it with at a decent price, then so be it!
FYI, both the DMX741s I have now were purchased used from members here and both work flawlessly.
#1: About the NS741 / NS741U without a built in switch:
There are several reasons why the switch is no longer built in:
- Failure Rate
It's true that most of the failures that we were seeing on the C/Ku LNBFs were the switches. As you all know, the 22KHz & DiSEqC switches can easily go out. Therefore, one of the benefits of eliminating the built in switch for us was to avoid failure of the units and having to replace the entire LNBF under warranty with a brand new one because of a little built in switch. Since we offer a two-year warranty on the units, we can not exclude the switch & specially since many hobbyists like to use these C/Ku LNBFs, and they are played with quite often, at one time or another all of us (even I) have & will say....the heck with it, I will be careful in taking off the coax without switching off the STB, and then...... oooops!!!! You know what happens next. We ask everyone to turn off the STB before removing the coax, and could very well exclude it from warranty, but it's very hard to determine if that's something that a customer actually did or if it's true failure. I would much rather keep a customer happy than have to go based on assumptions in order to try and not cover a LNBF under warranty.
[*]Cost
Even though the cost of adding a little switch circuitry to the LNBF is not that expensive on an individual basis, when multiplied by a large quantity, there is a big difference in production cost.
- Customer Input / Demand / Request
We have received many many requests from customers that they want to use their own switch. So combining the request with the two items above just made sense.
Besides the switch being gone, the entire board and circuitry is very much different in the NS741 & NS741U models. As you can see, almost everyone has reported great reception and great performance.
#2: WSI / DMS Lawsuit:
Before I fully get into it, let me cover this:
Was thinking since DMS ppl sued WSI over the DMX that WSI just removed the internal switch so it wouldn't be considered a "copy/clone"??
This is not true because they have a model without a built in switch as well (Not that I want to advertise their product, but wanted to point that out.).
Now, furthermore, I really don't want to change the topic of this thread. If you guys are interested to know more about this issue, I'll discuss it in more detail in a new thread and with permission from the forum, but this basically covers everything.
I see that many are confused and what many think is the truth and facts, is nothing even close to the truth.
I feel that I have a responsiblity towards all of you, not just as forum members, and me as a former sponsor, but you as customers who have supported and trusted WSI by purchasing our products and me as a reputable equipment supplier. I want to ensure that you know the facts about the products you use and the company you give your money to. So to set the record straight & avoid further "misunderstanding" and/or any confusion about this case/lawsuit, let me tell you a little about it. It's my personal opinion that only parts and pieces of the settlement agreement were released publicly ( intentionally ) in order to create confusion among the community & in the marketplace, which is exactly what has happened in order to tarnish the reputation of my company in the marketplace and in the industry.
I have seen these comments floating around the internet about a lawsuit between WSI and DMS. You guys have seen the same posts that I have. I have not really came out and talked about it publicly because I'm very restricted on time which is the same reason that I have not had a chance to visit here more often, & quite frankly, I did not think that it was that big of a deal. Things like this happen all the time behind the closed doors and behind the scenes in many businesses and different industries & no one ever hears of them.
From what has been released, (not by WS International) and what has been posted on many forums and talked about, it sounds as if DMS sued WSI and that there was a huge judgement against WSI for { "infringing on DMS International trademarks" (Source: fridge) }.
This is absolutely false.
WS International as Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against DMS International as Defendant on 12/7/2010 at 2:30PM in the United States District Court, Central District of California. Case#: 2:10-cv-09374-GHK -SS.
. This lawsuit was filed by WS International against DMS International for DMS infringing on the trademark of WS International by using the model# SG6000 on a very similar looking motor that they started selling in January of 2009, after WSI had already introduced the SG6000 model# for its motor in the market around July of 2008 and started to receive extremely high and positive reviews from customers and from forum members alike.
Ten days after the lawsuit was filed, DMS filed for an injunction against WSI to stop using the model numbers that begin with the letters D, M, & X stating that the combination of those letters used together sounds similar to the name DMS and that it's confusing customers into thinking that they are purchasing a DMS International LNBF instead of WS International LNBFs. Even though DMS is a company name & DMX was part of a model number.
DMX was NOT and currently is NOT a trademark of DMS International, therefore while using that prefix, WS International was not infringing on any company's trademark.
WS International lawsuit against DMS for infringing on WS International trademark >
http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/...si-international-llc-v-tlh-inc-et-al/summary/
DMS International Injunction complaint against WS International >
http://www.cobbsuperiorcourtclerk.org/scripts/courtscv.dll/CivilDetail?caseno=10112261
I had been in the process of testing new LNBFs to introduce a new line of LNBFs with new model numbers starting with ESX anyway since it had been several years since we had last introduced a new LNBF to the market. In January of 2011, we reached and signed a settlement agreement for the lawsuits. I went ahead and stopped using DMX which I was going to anyway since my new ESX LNBFs had already reached my warehouse so it was not a problem for me drop the old model numbers. I introduced the new line within weeks, if not days after we signed the agreement. If anyone is in the import & distribution business, you know that from the time you start production (not even considering the time for development, tests, & modifications) until the time the product arrives in your warehouse for release and distribution, it takes a MINIMUM of 6-8 weeks specially if you are producing overseas. Therefore, you can see that the new model numbers and new LNBFs were in the pipelines for some time before this agreement was even reached.
So there. You have it. Doesn't it amaze you how things get twisted around so much?
An incredibly class-less, not so credible and not so professional "discussion forum" (& I say that because you can see it from the language that is used on the forum & the graphics used do not make it a very classy place) out there continues to say WSI makes knock off or clones LNBFs, etc.... I think you guys know who I'm talking about as I'm sure you've seen it. I have raised this question before, and a long time ago, it was also discussed on a couple of threads on this forum (
here): Isn't the point of knocking off or cloning a product to take advantage of the brand name and the actual model number that is already popular? Then how can WSI LNBFs be a clone, copy, or knock-off when each has its own WSI model number, with my own brand name, and my company logo on every box & every product which is different than anyone elses LNB or LNBF that has their own unique model number, brand name, and company logo? I guess some people just cannot think for themselves and believe every bogus "marketing" propeganda they are fed and run with it. You tell them the sky is yellow and they'll start announcing it all over the place without using what little they have for a brain not realizing that their credibility, knowledge, education, & reputation is in question. Because after all, not all people "fall" for everything they are told. I guess some people like being played. If this was the case, then Coke can sit there and say Pepsi is a knock-off of Coke. Or Toyota can say that the Honda Accord is a "copy", "knock-off", or clone of the Camry. The first time the word knock-off started to be used in our industry was when all the hacking came out years ago and people were selling receivers. Do you remember?
I'm going to stop here. I think everyone here understands my point. I believe that it's always better to tell the truth, be honest, and deal with the negative outcome, if any, than to mislead. Because sooner or later somewhere along the way, somehow the truth will come out and everyone will loose trust in you. Your reputation is something that no one and no amount of money can buy.
Anyway, I just wanted to fill you guys in on the truth so you know. I don't need to tell you guys this, you already know it. You are a member of an extremely superb, reputable, credible discussion forum with educated members who know and discuss a wide variety of products and topics. Be proud of it and enjoy it. This is where you belong.
G-d bless every single one of you guys and G-d bless this forum. Thank you for reading what I had to say.
