Honeywell Vs Nest: When the Establishment Sues Silicon Valley

An anonymous reader writes with this quote from an article at TechCrunch: "Honeywell filed a multi-patent infringement lawsuit against Nest Labs and Best Buy yesterday. The suit alleges that Nest Labs is infringing on seven Honeywell patents. Honeywell is not seeking licensing fees. The consumer electronic conglomerate wants Nest Labs to cease using the technology and is actually looking to collect damages caused by the infringement. Damages? Bull****. This is about killing the competition."

Comments

Really?

[HexaByte]

Patent hold get to license the technology or not, based upon their own preferences. You can't FORCE a company to share it's patents.

Re:Really?

[Hognoxious]

I total agree's you.

Re:Really?

[crawling_chaos]

Yes you can, you simply change the law. Patents are not inherent to the organization of the universe, and a compulsory license requirement would be in no way unconstitutional.

Re:Really?

[SJHillman]

Isn't it the dream of every company to kill the competition? And isn't the point of patents controlling your innovations, including limiting your competition from using them? It seems to me they're taking a fairly normal and ethic (as far as businesses are ethical these days) route to the whole thing. It's bad business for everyone if companies believe they can get away with infringing patents and then just pay for licensing if they get caught.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. That's the point of patents.. you have a time limited exclusivity to the invention. Too bad so sad.

Re:Really?

[tgd]

Yes you can, you simply change the law. Patents are not inherent to the organization of the universe, and a compulsory license requirement would be in no way unconstitutional.

$1 billion dollars, per usage.

Compulsory license requirement met.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it the dream of every company to kill the competition?

I think you mean "blow the competition away."

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Deal. Oh, we pay on net-2^20000 terms.

Re:Really?

[mepperpint]

Typically compulsory licensing requirements include that the price must be fair. No reasonably human being (and likely no court) would feel that $1 billion dollars per thermostat is a fair licensing price when Honeywell is selling their thermostats for $50-$100 each. Presumably they'd have to sell their thermostats at $1b+ to claim that the patents were worth $1b per unit and seems likely that Honeywell would find themselves out of business pretty quickly if they demanded $1b+ per thermostat.

Re:Really?

[Overzeetop]

Parts of copyright law already have this - mechanical licensing, for example. It's relatively straight forward and accessible. Oddly, syncronization rights are not compulsory, nor are master rights. They're not always easy, but it's a hell of a lot better than if they didn't exist.

Re:Really?

[perlchild]

No you can't, and that's about one third of all that's wrong with the patent system of all the countries I know of.

Patents exist to REWARD them for sharing their patents, through licensing, and then land their inventions in the public domain.

That they don't even TRY to license them shows their contempt for the very reason they're allowed to have a patent in the first place.

It might be an idea to have an arbitrage type of system, where the patents expire unless the patent-holder signs up new licensees, until he's collecting licenses from everyone using his invention(might still be a small group of people), or else he's found culpable, and his patent gets cancelled.

The people are allowing that monopoly for a reason, 17 years is a very long time for most anything in tech now.

Patents should be shortened, or have to be actively maintained, like copyrights, or vest automatically.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

We got the reference.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

We are anonymous.

Re:Really?

[DavidQ]

a compulsory license requirement would be in no way unconstitutional.

I disagree. A compulsory license would contravene Article I and possibly implicate the First Amendment. It is possible that one may pursue a patent not because they wish to produce a product, but because they wish to prevent others from doing so.

For example, let's say you've patented Method A of processing widgets. Now say you discover Method B, which is less efficient but still viable. You might patent Method B even though you have no interest in using it, just to stop your competitors from moving in an using Method B.

Alternatively, imagine that you hate a particular technology, but you happen to know a lot about it. You could patent a new invention in that technology area just to stop others from using it. In this case, mandating that you license the patent could also be considered an abridgment of your freedom of speech. Of course, it be in the public domain once your patent expires, but for a little while you could make your statement.

References:
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" (emphasis added)
First Amendment, in relevant part:
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Re:Really?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Patent hold get to license the technology or not, based upon their own preferences. You can't FORCE a company to share it's patents.

As it happens, not only can you, a great many of the patent law systems of the world do to some degree or another(it seems to be even more common with copyrights; but also happens with patents). All Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property signatories(1883-Present) possesses the right to create compulsory licenses under certain circumstances.

In the specifically US context, it's worth noting that patents and copyrights are listed as something Congress may create(but is not in any way obligated to) and specifies only that these be of limited duration. They aren't treated at all as though they belong in the 'natural rights' set.

As a matter of fact, I find it rather unlikely that Nest has a chance of getting a compulsory license; but that's just a matter of particular law, not some sort of foundational principle of jurisprudence: the only place you'd really see it articulated would be by somebody who has been inculcated with both historical natural-law justification of property and quite contemporary 'intellectual property' maximalism. Not a forbidden position; but actually quite an atypical one...

Re:Really?

[tilante]

Let me fix that for you:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Allowing someone to patent an invention and then prevent anyone else from using it, while at the same time not using it themselves, does nothing to "promote the progress" of science and useful arts.

As for freedom of speech, your freedom of speech does not include the right to force others not to say something.

Re:Really?

[Dishevel]

So then.
On First Amendment grounds....
Copyright is illegal.

Re:Really?

[Miamicanes]

Of course, there's the qualifier you breezed right over: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...." Although (AFAIK) the Supreme Court has never entertained a challenge based upon the premise that a given law *impedes* progress, it's not inconceivable. The catch is, the Supreme Court can't be forced to hear a case, and it's unlikely to do so unless we someday end up with a retired patent lawyer on the bench.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is whether the patents are valid. Asking questions in English is not a non-obvious innovation. There are centuries of prior art. Buffering power is not a non-obvious innovation. The idea of buffering a resource that is delivered in quantities smaller than are needed for a specific application goes back to the Romans buffering their water supply. A round control is not an original innovation. Round nobs have been used to control machines since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

Our patent system is so screwed. It should be hard to get a patent, not easy. The default should be to reject a patent application unless the applicant demonstrates clearly that this invention is a non-obvious, new innovation.

Re:Really?

[spire3661]

Compulsory requirements often come with a reasonableness clause.

Re:Really?

[Talderas]

Let me fix that for you:

Oh I like this game.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Re:Really?

[spire3661]

We use the same legal definition of fair that we use in eminent domain cases.

Re:Really?

[Skapare]

The language of a compulsory licensing law would require demonstrating that every licensee is charged a fair and equitable price, which cannot be any higher than the price of their own products minus the material and production costs. And that difference would be distributed among the many patents used in a single product in the proportion the company specifies (for all).

I take it you would vote against such a law and allow big corporations to continue to stifle innovation and drag this country down?

Re:Really?

[Skapare]

Preventing others from doing so is not the basis of patent laws. The basis is to promote innovation for the national good. At one time the law scheme we had did an adequate job of that. But that was before we had all these too big to fail corporations that act as economic bullies. Time to change the law. But the basis, for improving our nation, remains the proper basis for how the laws should change.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent hold get to license the technology or not, based upon their own preferences. You can't FORCE a company to share it's patents.

I see what you did there.

It's a moot point to argue if a company must share it's patents, or worst case it's a red herring which distracts from the core issues.

Patents are an artificial construct, and it seems wrong to FORCE me to recognize and accept your alleged patent.
As a taxpayer and citizen, I resent your implied threat of violence in order to limit my market choices and protect your crony capitalism.

Re:Really?

[Skapare]

Maybe. Copyright does not prevent you from making your own art. Then you have the right to express it, yourself. Copyright law does have some flaw, and is routinely abused by big corporations (which abuse a LOT of laws, routinely). But its fundamental basis is still valid, to protect a specific art. Freedom of speech protects AN expression of an idea. Copyright doesn't apply to the idea.

Re:Really?

[samkass]

Allowing someone to patent an invention and then prevent anyone else from using it, while at the same time not using it themselves, does nothing to "promote the progress" of science and useful arts.

Not necessarily. Without patents, it is conceivable (some might say likely) that a given invention would never get published, but rather be kept as trade secrets in case they are useful later. Given a truly non-obvious invention, there is a benefit to society to see it published and its means of building/operating carefully documented. With the patent system, the idea is that everything is public and in return the company has some protection against competitors using the invention against them even if they themselves don't use it.

The real problem always, to me, boils down to the "obvious to a practitioner of the art" test. If the bar on that were much higher-- let's say such that only 1 out of 10 of today's patents would pass muster-- I think the anti-patent rhetoric would cool to imperceptible levels.

Re:Really?

[Curunir_wolf]

You're obviously a legal genius compared to me, because I'm not even aware that such things exist. I'm sure you'll enlighten us all with numerous examples.

The GP was referring to RAND requirements. (Reasonable and Non Discriminatory, or something like that). Very common for industry standards organizations that accept patented technologies as part of the standard. If they do, they usual require RAND requirements from the patent holder.

Re:Really?

[Americano]

Here, let me try:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Re:Really?

[Bobfrankly1]

Typically compulsory licensing requirements include that the price must be fair.

You're obviously a legal genius compared to me, because I'm not even aware that such things exist. I'm sure you'll enlighten us all with numerous examples.

Your sarcasm is as obvious as your lack of knowledge.
Here is a USA example Search for the term "reasonabl" (last character purposely left off so you can hit the variations of the word).
Here is a WIPO Study. Check out page 9. It seems to apply to the EU.
Next time, do your own homework. =D

Re:Really?

[mosb1000]

For example, if your patent is used in an industry standard, the standards boards require that licensing be available to everyone at a reasonable price. Courts have generally upheld the requirement if patent infringement cases go to trial where a company was simply trying to implement the standard. So yes, it's not a legal requirement that I'm aware of, but it's not unprecedented either.

Re:Really?

[Curunir_wolf]

The SCOTUS has ruled over and over that congress has a lot of leeway in their interpretation of the copyright clause. I'm sure there would be no problem if they decided the exclusive right for patents would only last, say 1 year, and then they could require either a compulsory license or the option of abandoning the patent protection entirely. I mean they've basically said that "limited time" could be "forever minus one day", or that they could continue to retroactively expand copyright term over and over. So based on that precedent, I'm sure any challenge to, say, a patent term of 6 months or even 1 would necessarily fail.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too many patents too easy to get, share no unique knowledge, that serve only to tax the community or simply prevent the distribution of goods or services.

Re:Really?

[jeffmeden]

Typically compulsory licensing requirements include that the price must be fair.

You're obviously a legal genius compared to me, because I'm not even aware that such things exist. I'm sure you'll enlighten us all with numerous examples.

But "fair" is a rather subjective term (when it comes to rents landlords and tenants often have subtly different ideas) so whose definition do we use?

Honeywell would find themselves out of business pretty quickly if they demanded $1b+ per thermostat.

Not if they continue to sell their own for $50.

It would be trivial (although I am not a lawyer so trivial may not mean a lot here) to demonstrate that Honeywell is comfortable "licensing to themselves" for a certain (relatively low) amount, given that these are consumer goods. Certainly it would be well less than the MSRP for any given unit that happens to use said "novel innovation", and it would bring the numbers back down to reality. Similar schemes are used for regulated industries (like DSL service) wherein the vendor cannot charge a reseller more than they feasibly net from the service themselves (so you can't charge $50 per sub to a reseller while you charge $29.95 for the same service direct, including your overhead).

Is it the right thing to do? Who knows. Would it be better than the current patent bullshit that stifles more innovation than it fosters? Probably.

Re:Really?

[sqldr]

You're obviously a legal genius compared to me, because I'm not even aware that such things exist.

We've had them in europe for years.

Re:Really?

[JaredOfEuropa]

On the other hand, what should Nest's strategy have been if they knew about these patents before they started? Give up and admit that no one is allowed to make round thermostats or leech power from other devices? Blow all of your seed capital on legal fees? Approach Honeywell, knowing full well that they are more likely to kill your idea than to license their crappy tech? And if you do any of the above, you will severely weaken your case if you decide to challenge these patents later on.

The problem isn't that we have patents. The problem is that crap patents like these get granted: obvious non-intellectual "property", or "we were here first" stuff that took no effort and should not be acknowledged as an invention in itself. Besides, the idea of patents is to foster the spread of ideas and to reward inventors for their efforts. In this case there are no "ideas worth spreading" since anyone can and would have come up with any of them, nor do I believe that any sizable effort was expended in coming up with these ideas. Honeywell is acting in their own interest and within the law, but I still say they are scumbags for doing this. However in the end it is the law that needs changing.

Re:Really?

[sexconker]

Let me fix that for you:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Allowing someone to patent an invention and then prevent anyone else from using it, while at the same time not using it themselves, does nothing to "promote the progress" of science and useful arts.

As for freedom of speech, your freedom of speech does not include the right to force others not to say something.

First you'd have to define progress.
I'd love to have a patent on lead-free solder, gasoline with corn in it, and wind farms just so I could prevent them from being used. They're worse than the alternatives and stopping them from being used is indeed progress.

Maybe someone wants to patent a new gun design and prevent people from using it. Maybe because it's not safe, maybe because it's too good at killing people, whatever. You don't get to decide what progress is, and neither does the patent office. The patent holder gets to decide if progress is best attained by the design/invention/doohickey being used or not.

Re:Really?

[sexconker]

So then.
On First Amendment grounds....
Copyright is illegal.

Yes it is. The jailing portion, anyway.
The paying $$BIG MONEY$$ penalties portion is valid, though.

Re:Really?

[Anarke_Incarnate]

And in what ragged and damaged interpretation of the Constitution would that be? Which power granted to the government does it fall under? You do realize the Constitution is a listing of the rights of the government and not the rights granted by it, don't you?

Re:Really?

[Dare nMc]

Also you left out the first paragraph of Aricle 8,
The Congress shall have Power To
IE it is part of the powers granted to the Congress, it was not a requirement of congress to do anything. hence the term given is the "Enumerated_powers"
Similar is true of the 1st amendment, it tells us that the US government, and by the 10th amendment the states, are not allowed to infringe on the right of speech, or pass laws that do. They are not required to protect the free speech of citizens, except from that of government bodies. IE, if I don't care for what you have to say, I can walk away, or kick you off my personal property, the government is not required to protect your free speech on private property from private citizens.

Re:Really?

[crawling_chaos]

The power to grant copyrights and trademarks, and therefore to establish the conditions pertaining to them, is right there in the damn document.

Re:Really?

[Genda]

The entire point of patents was to promote invention and empower human economy. Honeywell killed off its remote thermostat product line long ago and has no intention of producing any more... they just want to make sure nobody else can enter that business either. That is expressly AGAINST the entire point of patents and their current use as a bludgeon to hold the world at large hostage has rendered them not only nonproductive but profoundly harmful to human enterprise.

The use of patents to cut up human IP into little fiefdoms, and turn corporations into despotic warlords, holders of IP to control and dominate society has become detrimental to human advancement, social well being and and the future of new businesses. We need to change IP laws to protect inventors, but prevent corporations from using IP as a means to destroy fair competition, promote monopolies and as such place the public in the stranglehold of sole proprietorship. It is a natural process as we move towards an information society to have IP become the currency of trade. It is therefore detrimental to society to put artificial boundaries on the free market of ideas and IP. We need to change the way that IP is managed, such that inventors are rewarded... specific people who hold patents on created works and are fairly remunerated for their inventions by both their companies and society at large. As such we also need to limit or eliminate the right of corporations to own patents, because they are compelled to use them as tools to dominate the market.

All of this is the mischief that descends from corporations having human rights without human limitations. It is also high time to define corporations properly as human enterprises, giving them the appropriate rights and freedoms to operate and thrive and remove the privileges that have proven so detrimental to society, human existence and life on the planet in general. We are at a historic nexus and our future demands that we stop and look at what contributes to our future and what threatens it. We carry tremendous baggage from the past, some of it wisdom, some if it atrocity. We need to consciously choose a future and invent who and what we are going to be. To do less, is take our hands off the wheel and simply hope that things will turn out. Good luck with things just turning out.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily. Without patents, it is conceivable (some might say likely) that a given invention would never get published, but rather be kept as trade secrets in case they are useful later.

If an invention is kept as a trade secret, then anybody else can come up with the same invention and legally have the right to use it, and even patent it. So your argument doesn't hold at all, sorry.

With the patent system, the idea is that everything is public and in return the company has some protection against competitors using the invention against them even if they themselves don't use it.

As far as I know, the patent system was designed so that inventors could license their technologies to third parties safely. The monopoly aspect is just a sad by-product of the system. As mentioned above, a fair licensing scheme should be compulsory for all patents.

Re:Really?

[Gideon Wells]

Didn't this happen once? I heard of a libertarian legend that the US gov. once forcibly pooled all the patents required to create airplanes.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given a truly non-obvious invention

Just a little room for litigation here?

Re:Really?

[rmstar]

Patent hold get to license the technology or not, based upon their own preferences. You can't FORCE a company to share it's patents.

Why does this incoherent drivel get modded up to +5 insightful? Has the modding system been infiltrated again?

Re:Really?

[CrimsonAvenger]

You do realize the Constitution is a listing of the rights of the government and not the rights granted by it, don't you?

Umm, no.

The Constitution is a listing of the POWERS of the federal government. Rights are something only people have.

Re:Really?

[AK Marc]

You're obviously a legal genius compared to me, because I'm not even aware that such things exist.

Go hang out with a cover band. You'll find out how compulsory licensing works.

Incidentally, that's why allofMP3 was explicitly legal in all countries and was never shut down until threatened with non-legal violence (companies from the US bribed authorities to shut it down "whatever it takes" mob style preferred, and the people running the site got the message).

Not if they continue to sell their own for $50

The issue is that compulsory licensing being "fair" would mean that they could not demand more than the price of the unit as licensing (which isn't compulsory, nor how it works in reality, though is the idea of how it was supposed to work). But the music industry is trying to get rid of compulsory licensing because it leads to things like allofMP3 being explicitly legal, or filesharing in Canada being legal because of licensing fees on CDs, and cover bands making money off compulsory fees.

Re:Really?

[AK Marc]

you people are something. you want to legislatively game shit to the point of forcing someone to let you use their technology against their own wishes?

That's the point of copyright/patent. They legislatively game shit to force others to not use their technology. There are some "loopholes" in the scheme, as Fair Use, and time limits apply. compulsory licenses have existed in music since the first act encompassing music. Many (most?) countries have compulsory licenses for technology inserted into standards by the patent holder as well. It's all 100% voluntary on the part of the person creating. They can keep it a secret and make money that way, or they can release it and gain protections and some burdens.

Re:Really?

[AK Marc]

Next time, stick to the facts.

So you did what you say you hate, and somehow still claim the higher moral ground? What a complete idiot. He at least had some substance before the rhetorical question that apparently offended your Loonitarian sensibilities.

Re:Really?

[almitydave]

What a great game!

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Re:Really?

[AK Marc]

In this case, mandating that you license the patent could also be considered an abridgment of your freedom of speech

Allowing others to speak of what you did abridges your freedom of speech in what way? What could you do before that you can't do after? There is no required action on your part, no compulsion to speak or not speak. It's a condition of protection. Compulsory copyright licenses have been around longer than you've been alive, and no legal expert ever successfully challenged them. If it was so clear, why have they stood for so long?

References: US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" (emphasis added)

Too bad you don't understand the Constitution. You left out the "The Congress shall have power To;" part. There would be nothing wrong with Congress abolishing all IP laws and passing a law stating that individual states may not pass any laws protecting IP, as that is explicitly a federal power and they do not have that power. The "exclusivity" is not a requirement of the law, but a description of what Congress may do, if they so wish.

Re:Really?

[DavidQ]

My point was that a grant is not "exclusive" if you are required to share it.

The patent system grants a limited monopoly in exchange for complete and enabling disclosure of an invention. It is this disclosure that promotes the useful arts, not the use of the underlying invention. In other words, patent policy does not care whether an inventor actually does anything with his patent. By the time the patent issues, the inventor has already paid his side of the quid-pro-quo.

The theory upon which this trade-off is justified is that if we don't give inventors an incentive to create and disclose their inventions, they will not do so. The limited monopoly purports to serve as this incentive under our current system. Other types of incentives have been suggested, such as prizes, research grants, subsidies, or tax deductions for R&D, but each comes fraught with its own suite of complications.

(Also, I mentioned the First Amendment argument because it comes up in law school discussions on this topic, not because I think it makes sense to me.)

Re:Really?

[Americano]

Your concern for him is touching, but misplaced. I didn't "claim the higher moral ground."

What I did was point out that he'd be better off sticking to the facts, rather than engaging in ridiculous demagoguery. His first paragraph was factual, and well reasoned. His closing paragraph was a glaring example of pointless purple prose, and only served to detract from his overall argument by making him sound like a partisan hack.

In fact, your response is exactly an example of what I was getting at: my still-valid point that he should have just argued the facts gets overlooked because throwing in colorful and partisan language causes people to ignore the facts and focus on the empty rhetoric.

Re:Really?

[hey!]

And we probably should have some provision for mandatory licensing, if we're going to grant patents like this one:

A thermostat having a thermostat housing and a rotatable selector disposed on the thermostat housing. The rotatable selector adapted to have a range of rotatable positions, where a desired parameter value is identified by the position of the rotatable selector along the range of rotatable positions. The rotatable selector rotates about a rotation axis. A non-rotating member or element, which may at least partially overlap the rotatable selector, may be fixed relative to the thermostat housing via one or more support member(s). The one or more support member(s) may be laterally displaced relative to the rotation axis of the rotatable selector. The non-rotatable member or element may include, for example, a display, a button, an indicator light, a noise making device, a logo, a temperature indicator, and/or any other suitable device or component, as desired.

[US Patent 7159789].

So what is the invention here? A rotating selector that "rotates about a rotation axis?" What else would it rotate about? A rotating selector that can be used to set a desired parameter by rotatable position? How else would a rotating selector be used? A thermostat where the the temperature setting input is "disposed on" the housing?

What they're describing here isn't a mechanism, it's a *design*.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If an invention is kept as a trade secret, then anybody else can come up with the same invention and legally have the right to use it, and even patent it. So your argument doesn't hold at all, sorry."

All you have to do is show you came up with it first and the other person's patent is voided and they wasted a ton of money.

Step1) Come up with some new idea
Step2) Don't patent it as not to give your competition any idea on how you do things

If someone does something similar, patent it, show you came up with it first, then sue them
or
If they attempt to patent it first, you also apply for a patent and show you came up with it first and sue them

This strategy only really applies if your idea is truly unique, because if most of your ideas are obvious to others in the profession, re-active patenting can be too expensive for legal fees. Pro-active patenting is best for obvious ideas.

If your idea is truly unique, then you can keep it as a trade secret and hope no one else comes up with it. If they do, sue them, but now your trade secret is no longer secret. So be optimistic about other not coming up with the same idea and re-actively patent your stuff. If no one comes up with it, then don't patent it ever, so no one ever learns what you've learned.

Intel/AMD/nVidia all have trade secrets that they don't patent.

Our current system lets you have your cake and eat it to. It doesn't discourage trade secrets, it only encourages pro-active patenting of evolutionary changes that are obvious to others in the profession if given the same circumstances.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Patent hold get to license the technology or not, based upon their own preferences. You can't FORCE a company to share it's patents.

The summary is misleading, which sort of goes without saying around here.

You don't seek (or not seek) licensing fees in court filings. You seek to enforce the validity of your patent(s), and then you're in a position to negotiate licensing.

Honeywell probably had discussions with Nest about their patents and they weren't able to come to an agreement, or Nest decided they could fight the patents. I seriously doubt this is the first Nest has heard from Honeywell on this topic.

Re:Really?

[tgd]

The language of a compulsory licensing law would require demonstrating that every licensee is charged a fair and equitable price, which cannot be any higher than the price of their own products minus the material and production costs. And that difference would be distributed among the many patents used in a single product in the proportion the company specifies (for all).

I take it you would vote against such a law and allow big corporations to continue to stifle innovation and drag this country down?

If you actually believe that IP protections are dragging this country down, all you are doing is demonstrating to those who have bothered to educate themselves on history how uneducated you are on it.

So yes, I absolutely would vote for it. I know what happens in economies that don't offer protection to corporations for their investments.

Re:Really?

[Seraphim1982]

So what is the invention here?

Maybe if you want to know what the invention is you should look at the part of the patent where they tell you what the invention is, rather then reading the abstract?

Re:Really?

[hey!]

I have read the patent. It's not long. The only claims that have any possible relevance to the Nest device are pretty much described verbatim in the abstract. Other than that, the claims are commonplace stuff like using gears or belts to drive a potentiometer shaft which encodes the dial's position. That's older than the hills. The patent is padded out somewhat with all the different things you could stick on the stationary part (indicator lights, buzzers, bi-metal thermometers, company logos), but none of that is essential. There's a moving part and a stationary part, and the stationary part may or may not have stuff on it.

What is described in the patent is a user interface in which a digital thermostat mimics the operation of an analog thermostat. In the device as described, the position of a rotating dial on the outside of the chassis set some value. Judging from the pictures the Nest UI doesn't work that way. It is more like a jog-dial in which the direction of motion controls moves the value up and down; the absolute rotation is irrelevant.

The only way to stretch this patent to cover the Nest device would be to grant Honeywell exclusive rights to any UI in which a rotation part encloses a stationary one, regardless of the mechanism or mode of operation. In other words, Honeywell is claiming a patent on a visual design.

Re:Really?

[AK Marc]

He argued facts, and put in extra. You put in no facts. You are worse than him by your own standards, and work hard to defend your idiocy.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Your move.

Re:Really?

[Unixnoteunuchs]

That's the abstract. You need to look at the claims, because they define the metes and bounds of the invention. That said, this sure looks non-novel to me. Claim 1 reads on the thermostat my mom and dad had in the 60s.

Re:Really?

[idontgno]

I dunno.

Here are fact. What Honeywell's doing is legal. Their patents are valid.

Notice: I said nothing about "should". This is about facts: "the thing which was done" according the its Latin origin.

The facts can change as actors in these events act. For instance, a court could decide that the patents are crap, as I believe they should. Or that the patents should be compulsorily licensed to Nest. Or all patents should be abolished.

But we're not talking about "should" or "there oughta be a law", or "that ain't right". We're talking about facts, right?

Let's make the point of not confusing what we wish and what actually is. At best, it's confusing. At worst, it's rhetorically dishonest, a cheap form of begging the question: presuming your proposition (what you wish would happen) is actually already the premise (how things actually are) and then arguing from that fallacious point.

And if we are discussing "what should be", you can bring in related facts to support the argument, such as "this patent should have been prevented by this specific prior art" or "there's specific legal precedent for enforcing licensing in this similar case."

That's be great. That'd be the stuff Slashdot is really for. (Unless you're in the "Slashdot is for trolling" school of thought. In which case, carry on.)

Re:Really?

[AK Marc]

And if we are discussing "what should be", you can bring in related facts to support the argument, such as "this patent should have been prevented by this specific prior art" or "there's specific legal precedent for enforcing licensing in this similar case."

Except, in many such cases, the facts end up where the infringer gets the patent nullified, so speaking to those specific set of common facts isn't as off topic as you assert.

For "voice activated control" I offer up 10,000 years of amimal husbandry as prior art. But apparently, a mere 10,000 years of one of the most popular industries/passtimes is irrelevant. For leaching power from another system for operations, I submit 2000+ years of windmills and water wheels. For "buffering" of actions, I would submit the Roman Aquaducts, which would buffer water until needed. That one is less than 2000 years, so probably not enough to meet the strict prior-art rules of the US Patent office. I didn't see a single "feature" patented that didn't have 1000+ years of prior art laying around. But that's never stopped the patent office. The oldest writing ever found (at least the last time I looked up the oldest writing) was essentially from the back-end database of a one-click shopping site, thousands of years old, but one-click was around for years and not invalidated on prior art because "on a computer" or "in a thermostat" invalidates all other prior art.

The "fact" you are looking for is th US would be much much better off if all copyright and patents were abolished. The current system is much worse than none at all (that's not to say that some system couldn't be significantly better, but that, at this time, nothing is better than what we have).

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kidding right? Search for "patent first to file" on this very site.. And even without that, what you're trying to talk about so awkwardly is called "prior art" and prior art only applies to published inventions. Trade secrets aren't published... Back to patent class with you LOL.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is expressly AGAINST the entire point of patents and their current use as a bludgeon to hold the world at large hostage has rendered them not only nonproductive but profoundly harmful to human enterprise.

Not really. The entire point of patents is to get the inventor to disclose the invention rather than hold the details as a trade secret. Prior to the development of the idea of patents inventors would do everything possible to prevent others from determining how their invention work. This state of affairs was much more harmful than granting a temporary monopoly because a trade secret has no expiration date.

Legally a patent is a contract between the inventor and the government. For disclosing the details of an invention the government grants a monopoly to the inventor which gives the inventor the right to prevent others from using the invention.

Re:Really?

[Anarke_Incarnate]

Grant them, yes, but not set terms to force someone to do what you describe.

Re:Really?

[mattack2]

Go hang out with a cover band. You'll find out how compulsory licensing works.

You are conflating patents and copyrights, which are completely different. This is a common confusion, however.

Also, of course this is implied by the term 'cover band', but the author of a song gets to determine who first records a song. (After that, the compulsory licensing is in effect.)

Re:Really?

[russotto]

Wait seriously, that's a current claim? Honeywell's own plain old round thermostat, introduced in 1953, anticipates it.

Re:Really?

[AK Marc]

You are conflating patents and copyrights, which are completely different.

No, I'm not. They are both authorized by the same clause in the Constitution, and so they have the same legal standing, constitutionally speaking. I know the difference. One is explicitly authorized now. There's no reason the other couldn't be. Compulsory licensing is also in effect today for patents as well. Since you are so quick to lay false complaints against others, I'll not waste my time doing the homework for someone who doesn't know that patents and copyright are the same, constitutionally speaking (even if implemented differently, obviously).

Re:Really?

[Drishmung]

Besides, the idea of patents is to foster the spread of ideas and to reward inventors for their efforts.

Not quite. The idea of patents (and copyright) is just to foster the spread of ideas. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" in the language of the U.S. Constitution. 'by rewarding inventors' is the implementation detail. The first principle however is the wish to promote the progress of science and useful arts. That is the reason---the only reason---that clause exists.

To put it another way: the clause does not say "In order to reward artists and inventors, a new artificial property right is created..."

Re:Really?

[mattack2]

There's no reason the other couldn't be.

I never said what could or couldn't be. I said what is now. This entire discussion is about patents, and you made a tangential comparison to copyrights (mentioning cover bands), which has no relevance in a discussion about what the law says NOW about patents.

If you had said something like "Ask a cover band about compulsory licensing for copyrights. Such a system could be used for patents if the law was changed, too.", then it would be a useful and insightful comparison.

Re:Really?

[AK Marc]

I never said what could or couldn't be. I said what is now.

Right now, at this moment, there is compulsory licensing for patents.

If you had said something like "Ask a cover band about compulsory licensing for copyrights. Such a system could be used for patents if the law was changed, too.", then it would be a useful and insightful comparison.

If you are too stupid to think for yourself, I can't make you think. However, you have demonstrated that you knew exactly what I meant, and pretended to be stupid to prove a point. Not only are you stupid, you are essentially lying to look more stupid than you really are. Compulsory licensing exists today for IP. Regardless of whether it's copyright or patents, the same practices used today for one could be applied to the other. Well, that and I've mentioned that there is compulsory licensing in effect today on patents. You've implied there isn't, which indicates that you are either lying for effect again or arguing from a stance of willful ignorance. Either way, there's no incentive to listen to you. The closest you've come to saying anything interesting is to repeat what I did say in a manner you like better, without adding anything.

Re:Really?

[Larryish]

That is a very well written statement.

Do you mind your post being used as letters to state and federal congress critters?

Or used as paper flyers to be handed out at the local college?

If you give permission, I would like to do both of these things.

this doesn't seem like a classic troll move

[Anonymous Coward]

This looks like a case where a company successfully innovated in the marketplace, and then took out patents to help secure their position.

The position adopted by the author of TFA was not subtle and, in my view, does not help the discussion.

Re:this doesn't seem like a classic troll move

[Anonymous Coward]

The article summary, however, is a classic troll move.

Re:this doesn't seem like a classic troll move

[MagikSlinger]

This looks like a case where a company successfully innovated in the marketplace, and then took out patents to help secure their position.

The position adopted by the author of TFA was not subtle and, in my view, does not help the discussion.

Yes, that's the impression I got too. Although Honeywell's behavior suggests they want Nest out of the market entirely. For starters, they didn't serve papers to Nest -- Nest found out via the press release from Honeywell. Also, Honeywell wants Nest to simply cease & desist. I wish these kinds of lawsuits never happen -- a legitimate claim being used to obliterate a true innovator. If I was Honeywell, I would have used Coase's theorem to negotiate with Nest, pointing out that Honeywell was in the right, but they should work together to find a mutually beneficial outcome.

Re:this doesn't seem like a classic troll move

[eclectro]

case where a company successfully innovated in the marketplace

Since when is voice control a *novel concept* anymore? Voice control has been around before Honeywell filed the thermostat patent. Equivalent to the patent dross of companies somehow connecting their product to the internet.

Re:this doesn't seem like a classic troll move

[lorenlal]

But that would involve cooperation and allow for a competitor. They have a lovely cash cow, and they're doing what they can to make sure nobody gets a slice.

It would be one thing if Honeywell was actually planning on improving their thermostats, but they aren't. And they don't want anyone else to improve them either. It's not quite the same as patent trolling (in the NTP sense), but more like AT&T with modems.

Re:this doesn't seem like a classic troll move

[AK Marc]

They "innovated" round knobs, thousands of years after the first round knobs were known. The innovated leaching power from one system to drive another thousands of years after windmills and water wheels were invented. Nothing on their list is newer than 1000 years old. But it's "new" because someone put "in a thermostat" on the end. That's what makes it a classic patent troll. Taking one-click shopping (again, done for thousands of years, the back-end database of such being the oldest known writing ever discovered) and adding "on a computer" on the end and getting a patent (and successfully defending that patent for years, they'd have been better of trademarking it and not patenting it).

Re:this doesn't seem like a classic troll move

[AK Marc]

Worse than that, people assume "of a machine" when you talk voice control. Actual voice control is documented back thousands of years. Training dogs to respond to voice controls, military voice controls of machines (through a set of humans to relay the messages) and such. People have used voice control since language was invented. "Dear, where's dinner" predates us all, and is a form of voice control. But add "in a thermostat" or "on a computer" and people suddenly go stupid and think that the base concept is novel and unique.

Re:this doesn't seem like a classic troll move

[kiwimate]

Yep, agree with both you and the grandparent poster.

I started wondering what was going on when I reached this gem in the summary:

Damages? Bull****. This is about killing the competition

Someone seems angry, unreasonably so. And as for that article:

Out of the six or so Honeywell models I tried, all were cheaply made and featured piss-poor UIs. I literally punched my wall after becoming so frustrated with one of the Prestige models.

Wow, someone else with anger management issues. He PUNCHED THE WALL because he was frustrated with a thermostat. Someone needs a kitten, except he'd probably throttle it in a blind rage.

the thing is

[larry bagina]

if you treat the nest as a computer -- which it is -- one that happens to be hooked up to your HVAC, most of the patents involved are not patent worthy.

Re:the thing is

[Trepidity]

They are indeed extremely lame-looking patents, even by the usual standards of patent lameness. Several of them are an attempt to patent early-20th-century button/knob technology, and several others are an attempt to patent standard 1930s-50s control theory. Oh, except with the phrase "used in a thermostat" or "in an HVAC system" added, which makes it totally novel.

One of the patents is for this earthshattering invention: a system that can change from an initial temperature to a second temperature, while indicating on a display an ETA for reaching the target temperature.

Another one is for this: a display with a circular housing over it, where rotating the housing, by means of a potentiometer to which it is attached, changes an HVAC system parameter.

And yet another one is this: a display that asks a user questions in natural language, displays a menu of possible responses (such as "yes" and "no") among which the user may select, and then adjusts an HVAC system's configuration as a result of the user's response.

Re:the thing is

[gl4ss]

have they sued car manufacturers, or do they have different patents that have "in a car" plastered on them.

Re:the thing is

[kidgenius]

From a "lameness" standpoint think about it this way. If all of these ideas were so "lame" then why did Nest decide to incorporate all of these features. And if they are so obvious, why wasn't it done previously?

Re:the thing is

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Don't you remember that everything one can do with a computer is magically novel and patent worthy each time you change the context even slightly?

It was patent-worthy when "on a mainframe" was appended(though much of that has expired by now, so it isn't a matter of significant practical concern)
It was again patent-worthy when done on a PC.
You'd better fucking believe that doing it "on the internet" made it patent-worthy all over again and then some.
On a 'smartphone'. Oh you know it, and twice as shiny...

Re:the thing is

[Quantus347]

Such is the case all technology. Cell phone carriers can still charge per message for a truncated text message, when the same device and infrastructure and contract allows you to send hundreds and thousands of times the data in email systems and streaming at a fraction of the cost.

Re:the thing is

[sjames]

Personally, I liked the one about 'diverting' power from the home's electrical system to power the thermostat. You mean like every electrical appliance in existence?

Re:the thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple. They incorporated these ideas because they were obvious choices during design. They have all been done previously, except they are so obvious, nobody ever thought to publish the fact.

If you tie your shoes with a string made out of a new kind of material is that a patent worthy endeavour that you will publish, or is that an obvious thing to do that you think no-one else would care about?

Re:the thing is

[jbengt]

You are confusing the "lameness" of the patent with the "lameness" of the feature.

Re:the thing is

[Miamicanes]

Actually, that one's not quite as ridiculous as it sounds, assuming the technology isn't much different from home thermostats. AFAIK, home thermostats in an old home with only a furnace might have as few as two wires: one that's approximately 24Vac, and one that gets connected to it whenever the furnace should turn on. A newer home with an air conditioner might have two or more additional contacts for the a/c compressor & blower, and possibly 24vac of its own. I believe that most use battery power for the digital logic, but use the 24vac to energize the relay coils. I believe most home digital thermostats were historically battery-powered because the logic doesn't draw much power, and because it prevented the programming from getting lost whenever the power were shut off at the breaker.

Fast forward to 2012. For literally a few cents, you can buy an 8-bit microcontroller with real eeprom and flash, and a linear power supply to convert 24vac into 5vdc is far from being rocket science. Instead of relying upon continuous power to keep the settings alive, you can just write them to flash, and read them back when power gets restored. I believe this is more or less the nature of their patent.

Assuming I'm mostly right, this is a pretty lame patent. Unfortunately, it probably does meet the technical standards for being granted. I can only assume that Honeywell grabbed it because the market for home thermostats has traditionally been so small, few other companies have even bothered with it (I mean, let's be honest... how often do most people REALLY replace their thermostats?), so nobody else even thought about filing a patent for it first.

Re:the thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

You appear unable to comprehend what you are reading/hearing correctly, a cognitive deficit I'm convinced is at the root of Conservatism. Nobody suggested that the features were lame. What is lame is the patents. The ideas and concepts are completely obvious and have centuries of prior art. Placing a phrase about thermostats into a sentence with these concepts does not make a new, non-obvious invention.

Re:the thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

How often do you replace thermostats? You're looking at the wrong end. Almost Every New house needs at LEAST one. Almost Every New building needs at LEAST one, maybe dozens. Even in this housing nightmare, 103,000 new homes were added. At probably $50 per house, thats $5m! Can't have anybody eating into that small amount of money!

Re:the thing is

[powerlord]

Personally, I liked the one about 'diverting' power from the home's electrical system to power the thermostat. You mean like every electrical appliance in existence?

As long as they aren't up to diverting power from "Life Support" things can't be too critical yet.

Re:the thing is

[sjames]

It's an extremely lame patent. Stealing a bit of power from a control circuit isn't new at all. Many panel lights are powered that way for example.

Re:the thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

If that patent actually says potentiometer, then the nest guys don't have much to worry about on that particular patent since they use AFAIK the guts of an optical mouse to measure rotation.

Re:the thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an evolution. It took work. What you propose is that Honeywell do the work to create the evolution and then Foxconn rip it off and sell it. There are lots of problems with the patent system, but giving all the cards to the knock-off companies is not the answer. To solve the problem rationally, you're goign to have to come up with a legally supportable definition of patent troll. Pull that off and you've got something. I think a decent approach to submarine patents is to invalidate them if more than one competitor gets a product to market for so many months before you say something.

Re:the thing is

[AK Marc]

They included them because they were obvious. They weren't done before because they weren't easy. When some TI controller chip makes a new feature cheap and easy, everyone wants that feature. The first to implement that feature then claims it was new and interesting, despite the 10,000 people that had the idea at the same time or before they did. Building on the shoulders of giants usually leads to multiple spontaneous generation of new tech. It's been documented many times. Taking something obvious that has been done before and adding "in a thermostat" or "on a computer" doesn't make it un-obvious or novel.

Re:the thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The wiring in my house is there to increase my cancer & electrocution risk. It is not there to power these new-fangled gadgets!

Re:the thing is

[sjames]

It took (a small amount of) work to take the garbage out yesterday too, where's my 20 year monopoly?

Honeywell was NOT the first to steal power from a control circuit, so if a patent is deserved at all (for a merely clever idea) then it shouldn't be theirs and it should be long expired by now.

Get a Nest

[Myopic]

I have a Nest and it is awesome. Don't buy it because it will save you money (it may reduce your montly cost a little, but it'll take a while to make up for the cost of the device), rather buy it because it is a fun toy. It's very well implemented, looks nice, the software is great, and you can do cool stuff like connect to it from your pod.

Fuck Honeywell. If their patents have been violated, then where are their Nest-like products? I smell another patent troll.

Re:Get a Nest

[Quantus347]

In the industrial sector, which is their primary business and one where they have been leading innovation in for decades. They have these types of products, but they are geared toward serious use and not being a "fun toy" and so are priced above the average consumer level.

The fact is Honeywell has been making computer controlled systems like this for decades. Just because some little knockoff came along years later and packaged up a cheap version for consumers does not mean they have the right to infringe on legitimate proprietary designs. Which if you read the article include, specific control methods, the internal mechanism used as the actual thermostat, as well as some of the circuitry design used for power management.

Re:Get a Nest

[Anonymous Coward]

It's $249 and sold out already.

Re:Get a Nest

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm assuming that the Nest and some Institutional/industrial networked HVAC controller made by Honeywell(probably one where 'web based' still means "serves a java applet that requires a JVM five years old to run, after authentication in plaintext with a password of no more than six characters, for an extra license fee we'll turn on the SNMPv1 interface..." both implement some concepts that would be familiar to anybody who has perused a control theory textbook and/or some things that programmers building network applications have forgotten that they remember...

I'm guessing that this isn't exactly a 'look and feel' lawsuit(though the iconic round, bimetallic spring, mercury tilt switch design was Honeywell, that's sort of their last brush with being on the leading edge of intuitive thermostat interfaces...)

Re:Get a Nest

[tbannist]

I don't know. It seems like a number of the Patents fall into the category of "Blindly obvious" and "overly broad". I mean really? They have a patent on using sentences on a screen on a thermostat?

It looks like Nest's real crime is making a inexpensive competitor to Honeywell's expensive proprietary technology. To someone who knows very little about the situation, it looks like Honeywell has been bilking it's higher end customers and using patents to generate monopoly rents. How come Honeywell doesn't have a product like the Nest thermostat? Most thermostats I've seen have really terrible interfaces.

Re:Get a Nest

[kidgenius]

It looks like Nest's real crime is making a inexpensive competitor to Honeywell's expensive proprietary technology

Nest $249
Honeywell Prestige $218

So who is more inexpensive?

Re:Get a Nest

[Myopic]

Wow dude. You got an unfair troll mod for that.

Re:Get a Nest

[Myopic]

You just compared a learning thermostat to a programmable thermostat. That leads me to this question:

Nest $249
Oranges $1.29/pound

So who is more expensive?

Re:Get a Nest

[jbengt]

In the industrial sector, which is their primary business and one where they have been leading innovation in for decades.

Honeywell is one of the best-known brand names in the controls industry, mostly due to their past dominance. In the last couple of decades they have not been what you could call leading or innovating. (IMHO, anyway)

Re:Get a Nest

[tragedy]

I have a round thermostat on my wall. It's been there since the 1970's or earlier as far as I can tell. Clearly longer than any patents last. It uses a coiled bi-metallic strip and a mercury switch to operate. I am not an Electrical Engineer (I have some experience with it as a hobby and from where it overlapped with the Computer Science courses I took at University and even a small amount of professional experience doing such work) and don't really qualify as someone "skilled in the art". Nevertheless, if someone came to me and said "we want to adapt this familiar, no-longer patented design to modern off-the-shelf technology using a digital thermometer" I would say put a micro-controller in it and hook up a calibrated potentiometer to figure out where the dial is turned to and throw a screen in the target price range into the thing to display the current temperature and target temperature and maybe other things like humidity if desired. Now, the method of detecting where the dial is turned doesn't have to be a potentiometer, it's just the easiest off the shelf way to do it. It could also be a magnetic sensor, or an optical sensor like in an opto-mechanical mouse or a modern optical mouse. Or it could even be a custom circular set of contacts, 1 for each degree of temperature in the devices range, otherwise, I'm sure there are dozens or even hundreds and thousands of pre-existing, off the shelf devices for telling you the position of a rotary dial. Tying one of those into a classic thermostat design is not worthy of a patent. It's just not an invention. Neither are any of these other inventions listed. Time to reach desired temperature is not an invention, it's an item off a wishlist, the obstacle to developing it as a commercial product is availability of the paltry computing power and long-term storage needed for it in a simple device like a thermostat. How to actually accomplish it with those computing resources is trivial. Any eighth-grader of reasonable intelligence (and without some sort of antipathy towards thinking) has the knowledge of statistics to figure out an algorithm to do it.

As for the other patents involved, such as the "natural language" patent, they're garbage. The hard parts are interpreting the language in the first place, and those parts surely aren't Honeywell's invention. It's well understood that, once you have such technology, you can give instructions to home automation devices: "vacuum the floors tomorrow while no-one is home or by five P.M. even if someone is home", "Turn the lights on in the front hallway at six pm tomorrow", "turn on the heat every day by six or when the garage door is opened, whichever comes first", etc., etc. This stuff has been going on in science fiction for longer than there have even been electronic computers that might be able to interpret the commands. That part of the "invention" is already invented and has just been waiting for the computers to get good enough at following along with basic language.

Re:Get a Nest

[JaredOfEuropa]

They may be leading innovation, but a round design and using natural language in an interface shouldn't be counted among those innovation. For everything made by man, someone is going to be the first to apply a particular method or come up with a particular feature. That doesn't mean that being first always implies brilliant ideas and/or painstaking, long research.

Re:Get a Nest

[makomk]

The interesting thing is that even though they've patented it and are suing Nest for patent infringement over it, it doesn't look like Honeywell have released any thermostat using the most distinctive feature of the Nest themostat - the rotating outer ring that's used as a means of input. The only Honeywell thermostats with rotating outer rings appear to be fairly dumb mechanical ones not covered by the patents, with all the even slightly intelligent ones using fiddly buttons or touchscreens.

Honeywell are genuinely suing Nest to stop them for offering a product that there's lots of demand for but that they've failed to produce themselves.

Re:Get a Nest

[makomk]

Ah, I beg their pardon. Honeywell do have one digital thermostat where you can rotate the outer ring to set the temperature. Except that's literally all you can do - there's no timer or programming features, it's an exact emulation of the most basic analog thermostat you can buy with a digital readout.

Re:Get a Nest

[makomk]

Their crime is making a superior competitor to Honeywell's expensive proprietary technology. See my comment upthread - all of Honeywell's expensive programmable thermostats use touchscreens with fiddly little onscreen buttons for everything. The only thermostat from them which lets you use a nice big rotating outer ring to adjust anything is a barebones digital emulation of the most basic home thermostat you can buy - no timer or programming features and requires you to manually switch between heating or cooling.

Re:Get a Nest

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously calling Nest a knockoff because it is also a thermostat? A knockoff is something made to look like something else. A competitor is something that does the same thing. Hopefully better or cheaper.

The first part of your comment was insightful, the second part is clearly trollbait. Many of the patents appear to be basically patenting obvious engineering methods, but applying it to thermostats, somehow making it unique.

Re:Get a Nest

[Anonymous Coward]

you work for Honeywell? or just sucking their dick for the taste?

Re:Get a Nest

[Lehk228]

IMO using a potentiometer for it is a shitty design, they are in the long run unreliable, a trivial adaptation of the mouse ball sensor would be more reliable and allow for infinite rotation in either direction

Re:Get a Nest

[gmhowell]

You just compared a learning thermostat to a programmable thermostat. That leads me to this question:

Nest $249
Oranges $1.29/pound

So who is more expensive?

Apples! Everyone knows Macs are more expensive.

Next time ask me a hard one.

Re:Get a Nest

[tragedy]

I don't know if they actually use a potentiometer, that was just the language of the actual patent. I'm sure that, as holder of the patent, Honeywell feels that their patent covers the specific language of the patent and anything vaguely like it. A potentiometer is just the first circular motion control device that springs to mind. As I said, there are probably literally hundreds of off the shelf control devices that can be used simply to provide a circular control to digitally select a temperature in the range of a typical home thermostat.Using any of them to implement a thermostat control doesn't qualify as an invention in any sensible person's eyes, nor does it by the literal terms of the non-obviousness clause.

Re:Get a Nest

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not *that* awesome for a geek. Here's a detailed review I put together after three weeks of use: http://diy-zoning.blogspot.com/2012/01/competition-nest-three-weeks-later.html Disclaimer: I'm the author of an open source project that is in direct competition with Nest (with one minor difference, Nest is $250 a pop and I don't sell hardware).

There may be another reason *not* to buy Nest: it depends on their infrastructure. I don't know what happens to it if/when they lose the lawsuit, and, of course, being an Apple offspring, Nest didn't publish communication protocols, so there's a good chance installations will be left in the dark.

Re:Get a Nest

[russotto]

The fact is Honeywell has been making computer controlled systems like this for decades. Just because some little knockoff came along years later and packaged up a cheap version for consumers does not mean they have the right to infringe on legitimate proprietary designs.

If they've been making them for decades (and indeed they have), the patents are expired.

Damages?

[Anonymous Coward]

Damages? Bull****. This is about killing the competition.

Ummm.... I know this may not be a popular view around here (and my comment doesn't reflect any love of the patent system on my part), but what exactly IS competition, if not damaging?

Re:Damages?

[sjames]

If we're going to take THAT broad a view of damages, then Honeywell owes me money for 'damages'. They have, after all, abused the patent system and now the taxpayer funded courts.

Re:Damages?

[Anonymous Coward]

Competition might be damaging, to the market participants, but the whole interest of competition is for the consumers, who are in no way damaged by it.

Re:Damages?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the government should be a referee. The government is there to call a low blow, send the competitors to their corners, count out the loser, etc. In the case of these patents it's more like the government took a suitcase full of money from one fighter, handed him some brass knuckles and then looked the other way.

Thanks, Honeywell!

[mepperpint]

I had no idea these Nest Thermostats existed, but they look awesome. Now that I know about them I can go out and buy one and enjoy an increased quality of life. Thanks, Honeywell, for bringing them to my attention!

Re:Thanks, Honeywell!

[Osgeld]

I know right? my cheapass honeywell is absolute junk that if you bump into it too hard it will fall off of its base and dangle by its wires. and forget setting it it couldn't tell the temperature any better than it could tell the difference tween its ass and a hole in the ground. It had gotten down to like 40 in here last night even though that innovative digital POS thought it was 62, its set to kick on at 60 during the night.

Re:Thanks, Honeywell!

[gmhowell]

I had no idea these Nest Thermostats existed, but they look awesome. Now that I know about them I can go out and buy one and enjoy an increased quality of life. Thanks, Honeywell, for bringing them to my attention!

Honeywell should get Barbara Streisand to sing the jingle for their Nest commercials.

Re:Thanks, Honeywell!

[Kooty-Sentinel]

Seems like Honeywell hasn't heard about... *queue music* da dum dum dum dum, da dum dum... Barbra Streisand

Good luck to Nest

[Anonymous Coward]

I would bet a small amount of money that their original business plan has this risk addressed in some way. Whether they will prevail or not is left to be seen.

To anyone that has purchased a cheap consumer thermostat, the need or market for improvement is absolutely obvious and the IP thicket is pretty much the only conceivable problem.

Make no mistake, the patent system that has morphed into an easy tool for established corporations to control markets is working exactly as intended. If you believe the current system is morally and economically sound, then Nest is clearly in the wrong here. Whatever.

Re:Good luck to Nest

[Darth Snowshoe]

Concur! Geez the lame bottom-of-the-market-sucking thermostat they included in my freaking expensive-as-Hell house is so cheap looking, under-brained, and just plain unconsidered as to be insulting. Honeywell did a lousy job innovating, and thus allowed a market opening in a market they OWNed for decades. I figure they deserve what they get.

Go Nest!

Re:Good luck to Nest

[kidgenius]

To anyone that has purchased a cheap consumer thermostat, the need or market for improvement is absolutely obvious and the IP thicket is pretty much the only conceivable problem.

The Nest is definitely not "cheap". In fact, it costs more than Honeywell's Prestige thermostat, which does all of the same things that the Nest does (which is what Honeywell has patents on). Your problem is in buying a "cheap" thermostat. The products are there, just not at your price point, and the Nest definitely doesn't fit into your price point.

Re:Good luck to Nest

[kidgenius]

You're kidding right? Honeywell has been innovating in the thermostat area. They have thermostats priced from $5 all the way up to $200 for their top of the line Prestige model....which does the same things that the Nest does...for cheaper. Yeah, maybe it's not brushed metal and glass, but it doesnt look "ugly".

Re:Good luck to Nest

[BenLeeImp]

To anyone that has purchased a cheap consumer thermostat, the need or market for improvement is absolutely obvious and the IP thicket is pretty much the only conceivable problem.

The Nest is definitely not "cheap". In fact, it costs more than Honeywell's Prestige thermostat, which does all of the same things that the Nest does (which is what Honeywell has patents on). Your problem is in buying a "cheap" thermostat. The products are there, just not at your price point, and the Nest definitely doesn't fit into your price point.

I believe the Nest attempts to learn your habits, which the Prestige does not do. I'm not entirely certain that this is a useful feature, mind you, as I figure most people's schedules are regular enough to just program in. However, the point remains that the functionality is somewhat different.

Re:Good luck to Nest

[Darth Snowshoe]

http://yourhome.honeywell.com/home/products/thermostats/

Are there really 53 different products there? I might have miscounted.

I think people on Slashdot especially are smart enough to be insulted. What's the difference between a 7-day thermostat, a 5-2 day thermostat, and a 5-1-1 thermostat? I'm pretty sure if you popped the cheap injection-molded plastic cover off, you'd find the same 8-bit microprocessor and eeprom in each of them. Why should they all be priced differently? And could you or I, sitting in a room somewhere, even dream up fifty different feature sets for a thermostat? The fact that they named their high end product "prestige" is itself an indictment.

Honeywell wouldn't be sinking so much $$ into legal attacks if they didn't feel threatened, and they wouldn't feel threatened if they knew they had a better product. The issue is, Honeywell has had decades with minimal competition in this market, so they let everybody have their way with the interface. Look at the web page! No two of them have the same interface, because the interface is a feature. Seriously, game controllers have better interfaces.

Decades later, I still have to walk over and switch from "heat" to "cool" and back, dozens of times each year. My house is five, FIVE, years old. If Honeywell really gave two craps about the consumers, they could have migrated THAT one useful feature downmarket at some point. Nobody buys a house based on the thermostat, and both Honeywell and the builders know it. That's why most of the thermostats installed in new homes, regardless of the home's price, are crappy. Do I really need to buy a million dollar home before I get a thermostat that both "heats" and "cools" without my intervention?

Honeywell marketed all these at the residential builders, that's why there's dozens of different price points and no consistency in the interfaces or clarity in the feature sets. Nest is marketing their one product at the people who actually live in the homes, who have to actually use and live with these things.

Re:Good luck to Nest

[Anonymous Coward]

http://yourhome.honeywell.com/home/products/thermostats/

Are there really 53 different products there? I might have miscounted.

I think people on Slashdot especially are smart enough to be insulted. What's the difference between a 7-day thermostat, a 5-2 day thermostat, and a 5-1-1 thermostat? I'm pretty sure if you popped the cheap injection-molded plastic cover off, you'd find the same 8-bit microprocessor and eeprom in each of them. Why should they all be priced differently? And could you or I, sitting in a room somewhere, even dream up fifty different feature sets for a thermostat?

A modern top-of-the-line thermostat has to reliably integrate and control HVAC systems that may be 150 years old to systems that may be 150 days old. My Honeywell 7-day thermostat can control something like 17 different kinds of HVAC systems, ranging from steam heat only to multi-stage, multi-zone, central air with humidity control with capability for both heating and cooling within a defined day -- with the attendant timing and control issues inherent to each one.

So while the switching may not be all that complicated, there is an amazingly diverse set of heating and cooling devices to which a given thermostat may be attached.

Re:Good luck to Nest

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that kind of proves his point. Your thermostat can handle many different types of devices all on its own. If a single thermostat is that flexible why on earth do they need 53 different models. That kind of laziness and product creep is what I'd expect from a company with not much competition and hence not much of a need to be efficient.

This is about killing competition.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the purpose of each and every patent. That is the point of them. They do not grant one the right to produce something, they grant one the right to stop others from producing something, thus killing competition, for a limited time. The original poster does not seem to understand this simple fact.

Common technology in large HVAC systems

[Animats]

Large buildings already have control systems that do this, and Honeywell manufactures many of them.

The "Nest" device may well be mostly hype. (What is "far-field motion detection", anyway?) There's only so much you can do with input from one location and nothing but on/off control over heating and cooling.

Compare the EcoBee, which does the same job, and probably better. EcoBee can handle remote sensors for outdoor air temperature. It measures humidity, which "Next" doesn't claim to do. It can be set up to control fans and dampers. (One of the biggest wins in HVAC management is figuring out how much air to take from outside and how much to recirculate.)

Nest is a status symbol, not a HVAC management system. It looks cool. It creates the illusion that it's doing something "green". It probably helps a little.

Re:Common technology in large HVAC systems

[Cyclopedian]

Large buildings already have control systems that do this, and Honeywell manufactures many of them.

The "Nest" device may well be mostly hype. (What is "far-field motion detection", anyway?) There's only so much you can do with input from one location and nothing but on/off control over heating and cooling.

Compare the EcoBee, which does the same job, and probably better. EcoBee can handle remote sensors for outdoor air temperature. It measures humidity, which "Next" doesn't claim to do. It can be set up to control fans and dampers. (One of the biggest wins in HVAC management is figuring out how much air to take from outside and how much to recirculate.)

Nest is a status symbol, not a HVAC management system. It looks cool. It creates the illusion that it's doing something "green". It probably helps a little.

Look at the EcoBee, and without reading any instructions or manual, attempt to change the temperature lower or higher. Do those "menu" type buttons do that job? Or is it a touch screen? Those are not immediately obvious, and most of the population would say the same thing.

Nest is an attempt at making the interface in such a way that the usage is obvious to most of the population without looking it up in a manual. Right now, that costs extra, but maybe not for long.

Re:Common technology in large HVAC systems

[Tharsman]

Nest is a status symbol,

Because being able to say you are able to afford a $250 thermostast gives you greater status bragging rights than getting a $700 phone or a $100k car!

Re:Common technology in large HVAC systems

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Nest is a status symbol, not a HVAC management system. It looks cool. It creates the illusion that it's doing something "green". It probably helps a little.

It was produced by an ex-Apple employee's startup, after all...

Re:Common technology in large HVAC systems

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks for linking the ecobee. it looks interesting, but right off the bat you can't just buy it. you have to go through an HVAC contractor. no thanks.

Re:Common technology in large HVAC systems

[Anonymous Coward]

I purchased a Nest for my business when they first came out. The first month my energy bill was $60 less than it has ever been in the eleven years I've been in business (which is saying a lot - my company is open twice as many hours now as it was when I first started). The second month was about the same. Ironically my previous unit was a programmable Honeywell that my employees despised.

It may not be hugely innovative, but it has already paid for itself in my application. It's easy for my employees to understand, they rarely touch it anymore because it has 'learned' how to keep the temperature , and I can control it from my iPhone. I understand that this lawsuit is just part of business 2.0, but I hope Nest survives it. They make a product that works and their customer service is great when it doesn't.

Re:Common technology in large HVAC systems

[Anonymous Coward]

EcoBee can handle remote sensors for outdoor air temperature. It measures humidity, which "Next" doesn't claim to do.

While it doesn't directly measure outside air temperature (which would require a more complicated setup for the consumer), Nest grabs the local weather off the interwebs. Close enough for me.

And it *does* measure humidity. As of less than 1 minute ago, humidity was 33% in my house - just checked on my iPhone. Among other things, I would guess that information is used in the feature where Nest allows household temps to deviate from my explicit settings (e.g. - I set it for 68 and it may not fire the furnace even when the temp is 67...a definite energy savings, even if small). Since humidity affects perceived temperature, the amount of "drift" away from my settings probably takes that into consideration.

Re:Common technology in large HVAC systems

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't say I've got any experience to back this, but the Nest website claims their tests show their Auto-Away works well even when the thermostat is installed in an out of the way location. As long as it's not behind a bookshelf or something...

Re:Common technology in large HVAC systems

[Anonymous Coward]

monetary value was never the key criteria for a "status symbol"

Re:Common technology in large HVAC systems

[Kazin]

Do a little web searching. I found it at Amazon, among other places.

Re:Common technology in large HVAC systems

[bruckie]

It does have a humidity sensor: http://support.nest.com/customer/portal/articles/181007-what-kind-of-data-does-the-nest-learning-thermostat-track-or-measure-

Re:Common technology in large HVAC systems

[Peganthyrus]

If you have multiple Nests they'll talk to each other and share data. Plus, well, much simpler UI. People comparing it to things like the EcoBee and saying it loses because it has less features sound like CmdrTaco's infamous take on the iPod.

"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

But ANYONE can figure it out in seconds. And it looks GOOD. And that counts for a LOT.

A bit of a contradiction

[sunking2]

Nest keeps being referred to as novel and innovative in the article and honeywell as the old giant, yet how can that really be when they clearly infringed on patents that honeywell previously had. Honeywell was clearly more novel and innovative before Nest even existed.

Re:A bit of a contradiction

[Kenja]

Its simple, like Apple Nest uses brushed aluminium and glass while the Honeywell Prestige (which does the same and more) costs less but is made out of white plastic. Glass, aluminum & other peoples technology is innovative!

Re:A bit of a contradiction

[makomk]

That only appears to be true if you don't count good UI as a feature.
Honeywell Prestige: jab at a tiny little onscreen button repeatedly to change the temperature, the time, or any of the other settings.
Nest: has a nice big, intuitive rotating outer dial to turn.

Now you may have noticed that Honeywell is suing Nest over, amongst other things, a patent on that exact rotating outer dial. Honeywell do have a digital thermometer that uses it but it's essentially the dumbest digital thermometer you could possibly build. No timer to adjust the temperature when you're away or asleep, requires manual switching between heating and cooling mode, just a basic digital emulation of the most brain-dead analog thermometer you can handle. It doesn't even seem to have crossed the mind of anyone at Honeywell that maybe, just maybe, users of expensive digital thermometers want a decent UI experience or how to give it to them.

But the patents can be BS

[DeadCatX2]

TFS doesn't say (probably to drive more views to the linked page) but this is all about thermostats.

Some of the patents include "thermostat is round and can be rotated", "thermostat asks the user questions", and stuff like that. Considering how skeptical many people are about Apple's "design patents" on "rounded rectangles with touch screens", I would be skeptical of some of these as well.

Now some of the other patents, like leeching power off of the main system, may hold up under more scrutiny (though this technique has been in wide use throughout the industry; I recall two-wire sensors that derive their power parasitically from the data line, and if the patent covers similar technology then it should be revoked).

Also, FYI, you can compel some patents to be licensed. FRAND patents, for instance; Samsung got into hot water when they tried to use FRAND patents as a weapon against Apple.

IMO, you shouldn't be able to use patents to shut down competitors. Especially competitors that outsmarted you by building a better product than you could.

Re:But the patents can be BS

[kidgenius]

Now some of the other patents, like leeching power off of the main system, may hold up under more scrutiny (though this technique has been in wide use throughout the industry; I recall two-wire sensors that derive their power parasitically from the data line, and if the patent covers similar technology then it should be revoked).

Considering Honeywell is in "the industry", maybe it's their sensors that derive their power parasitically, and therefore it shouldn't be revoked.

Re:But the patents can be BS

[DeadCatX2]

>.> Reading comprehension fail?

Honeywell's thermostat is parasitically powered, not their sensors. I'm saying the general technique - drawing power from other devices over e.g. data lines - is obvious to anyone skilled in the art of circuitry.

Here's a Maxim DS18S20 1-wire parasite-powered digital thermometer chip. http://www.maxim-ic.com/datasheet/index.mvp/id/2815

Arduino parasitic power. http://www.arduino.cc/playground/Learning/OneWire

Hell. RFID chips derives power parasitically from the transmitter.

Re:But the patents can be BS

[TheGratefulNet]

that would be chipmakers, like philips, who make i2c and other serial controlled devices.

honeywell is an integrator. they never designed these concepts.

its laughable if it wasn't such a shame.

Re:But the patents can be BS

[jbengt]

Some of the patents include "thermostat is round and can be rotated"

How could have they possibly applied for this patent in 2004, when they've produced round thermostats with rotating setpoint adjustments since just about forever?

Re:But the patents can be BS

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that's parasitic so much as symbiotic?

Re:But the patents can be BS

[Hadlock]

Isn't Honeywell a defense contractor as well? They're pretty well entrenched in the nuclear arms manufacturing industry. Or was the honeywell that makes thermostats spun off at some point and they are completely independent now?

Re:But the patents can be BS

[Anonymous Coward]

not even that complicated
good n' old landline phones used parasitic power from the data line...

Re:But the patents can be BS

[kcbnac]

Honeywell spun off the majority of the defense contractor side of things a few years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliant_Techsystems - ATK is the result of that.

They still do some things for the defense industry, but more related to their other fields (aerospace control boxes and such) - ATK does the actual weapons designs, etc.

Re:But the patents can be BS

[pixr99]

I had considered that possibility too but I believe POTS is different. It was designed to power ringers on the customer ends of a call path.

Not true

[Dogbertius]

Compulsory licensing agreements exist in the United States in a number of industries. Just a few include "West Publishing citations to court opinions", "U.S. v. 3D Systems", "US v. Miller Industries", "Dell Corporation VL Bus patents".

These compulsory licenses were put in place to prevent extremely anti-competitive behavior. Just like Motorola's latest suit against Apple, demanding 2.25% of all iPad sales. Motorola can't just demand a billion dollars per patent infringement case and clean out Apple by setting absurdly high values. In the US, it is very much possible for anti-trust lawyers to step in and force a deal for a "reasonable" patent pricing deal.

If a submarine patent were written that would effectively block every single phone manufacturer from producing phones unless they pay exorbitant fees, the average consumer would suffer considerably. These compulsory licensing deals are put in place to prevent established companies from being forced out of the market due to a single patent.

Re:Not true

[Anonymous Coward]

"2.25% of all iPad sales" is not licensing cost, it's past damages. Damages have to be higher, or else why would anyone license anything? Just go ahead and start selling, if we'll get caught, we'll pay the license out of the interest we've accumulated since then.

Court seemed not to find anything wrong with that. Now if'd they demand same 2.25% from now on, that would be different.

US Government? National Security?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

What if a company patents something that is "vital to the security of the country," like a "Terrorist-Find-O-Matic?" Can't the government say, "tough shit, we need that?"

I was about to start working on my "Crotch-Groping-O-Matic" device, but if the TSA folks are going to just steal it from me, I won't bother.

Re:US Government? National Security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the government grants patent protection and can take it away if needed. Of course, they tend to try to license first, and for the really 'good' stuff, they'll never let it get to the patent application stage.

Re:US Government? National Security?

[Anonymous Coward]

They can, at least in the USA. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act

re: industrial sector

[King_TJ]

I'd say it's ALSO a fact that the only products Honeywell has been offering consumers are basic, dumb thermostats or overpriced digital models with very basic functionality and a high price-tag that you're presumably supposed to pay to get that respected Honeywell name badge on the front.

If there are issues over some specifics, such as the particular control mechanism used, violating Honeywell patents? Then fine ... let them demand licensing fees for those items and move on. The fact Honeywell hasn't done this and instead, demands the product be pulled from the market and damages collected (before most people have even had the chance to BUY one!) speaks volumes about their true concerns here.

The Nest is almost impossible to think of as a "cheap knockoff" of anything Honeywell sells, consumer OR industrial. The Nest is designed very much along the same lines as the original Apple iPod ... meant to be very easy to use, with a simplified UI that encourages its use instead of intimidating a person into leaving it alone.

Your argument here sounds a bit like an architect who primarily designs skyscrapers (with a little bit of side work sketching up basic 1 bedroom shotgun shacks) claiming another architect designing elegant 2 story luxury homes must cease and desist, because he's clearly violated a number of design concepts used in those skyscrapers (and probably not so much in the shotgun shacks, but wants you to note he's familiar with those low-end products too).

It doesn't do what it's designed for...

[HerculesMO]

The whole purpose of the Nest is to "learn" your habits and then figure out how to save you energy. Most reports say that users don't like that feature because it's very poor, so they opt instead to manually control it. They just like the "look".

Needless to say it's being developed and sold by a guy who made the iPod, and Apple is famous for selling devices at a premium that just "look nice."

I wanted to like the device but if it doesn't really save me money, while Ecobee and the Honeywell Prestige systems do, then it's pointless to buy.

bayweb

[Anonymous Coward]

The bayweb thermostat does all of this as well, and in my mind is much easier to get set up. and MUCH cheaper!

It is a little strange to the missus, but she gets by because the control pad is simple. she got a little mad when i set limits though...

Re:bayweb

[Kenja]

Base model Bayweb thermostate is 220$. I'd not call that MUCH cheaper.

"This is about killing the competition."

[John Hasler]

No shit. What the hell do you think patents are for? They may or may not be socially desireable, but don't lose sight of the fact that they are government-granted monopolies. Preventing competition is what they are all about (Licensees are not competitors. They are customers.)

Re:"This is about killing the competition."

[spire3661]

They are government granted monopolies, granted to enrich the holder, for the purpose of promoting the useful arts and sciences. If patents are not serving the public, then there is no point to grant one. Patents are a NICETY we extend, not a natural Creator-given right.

Re:"This is about killing the competition."

[ScentCone]

What the hell do you think patents are for?

To protect the patent holder from damage by leeching immitators. Otherwise there's far less incentive to develop new stuff in the first place.

Probably not too much of an issue

[robertchin]

Let's see:
Patent number: 5482209
Filing date: Jun 1, 1994
Issue date: Jan 9, 1996

So patents filed before June 2005 the patent term is the longer of 20 years from the filing date or 17 years from the issue date. Check.
Expiration is Jan 9, 2014, based on 20 years from the filing date.

Let the Lawsuit drag on for two years until the patent expires, so as long as they don't get an injunction they will just pay some damages and presumably be on their way.

Re:Probably not too much of an issue

[maxwells_deamon]

I had an early digital thermostat in the late 1980's. Probably about 1988. It got power from the wall. would store programming for sometime with the power out on its own (for a very very short time) and had a battery backup (9v) battery.

Sold the house in early 91. So I know the time period is at least that long ago.

I think they are counting on all the claims being tossed as prior art as they should be!

Such fancy thermostats

[Anonymous Coward]

Wheres the digital toilet handle with a color touchscreen that lets me set the time and duration of my flushes? Maybe install Siri, TP Edition(tm) on it for voice activation.

Killing the Competition? Its a patent!

[AlienSexist]

If it is their patent, filed and awarded fair-and-square then they have a government issued, temporary license for a monopoly on that technology as a reward for their invention. The damages would be lost profits that the inventors were deprived of for the unauthorized use of the invention. If the technology is so useful then competitors must either license it (if inventor allows it), buy the patent, spend their own R&D to develop their own alternative, wait for the patent to expire, or buy the company that owns the patent. That's fair.

Who cares if it is "establishment" or not. What if it were Joe Brown with his patented nose hair trimmer? Would he be wrong in asserting his rights because it "kills competition?" I know it is fashionable to bash big business, but c'mon. You can't play favorites here, its the law and applies equally.

Toyota Prius vs. Honda Insight design copy

[Lashat]

I haven't heard that Toyota has brought suit against Honda yet.

Makes you wonder why we have these types of suits in the technology arena.

http://kristianwidjaja.com/blog/2009/03/the-2010-honda-insight-a-toyota-prius-copycat/

Re:Toyota Prius vs. Honda Insight design copy

[Anonymous Coward]

actually the prius was the honda insight copycat.
the honda insight is on gen 2 right now.
both are copied from the kamback shape.

Re:Toyota Prius vs. Honda Insight design copy

[Anonymous Coward]

I currently own an Insight and, when I was deciding what car to buy, test drove a Prius. Toyota has not sued Honda because they are COMPLETELY different cars. The only thing that is the same is the rain drop shape used to reduce drag. Not even the hybrid drive systems are similar. That's like Trek suing Cannondale because their bicycle frames look the same.

Re:Toyota Prius vs. Honda Insight design copy

[Lashat]

Not even close. We are not comparing hybrid motors. Try looking at the body design again and come back. Of course you are an AC, so I'm not even sure why I am replying.

What about a transformer?

[Anonymous Coward]

At first I was reluctant to believe the story, but one of their patents is a a method of converting power from the house for use in the device. This is called a transformer. They did not invent this, and it has been around for decades before Honeywell ever became a company.

Another one "A thermostats inner design", which to me doesn't make much sense. X10 had remote control thermostats which could be programmed in the early 2000's. Greenhouses have used remote control for over 20 years.

I'd like to innovate the whole system

[stabiesoft]

When I upgraded my HVAC to 2 stage heat/cool, they could not setup the 2 stage heat to be activated from the thermostat controller, so it had to be set to switch to hi mode after 15 minutes of continuous demand. Why? Because there were only 5 wires. Why couldn't they design a thermostat/HVAC that only needed 2 wires? Instead, it still uses an ancient protocol that needs more wires for more features.

Re:I'd like to innovate the whole system

[ian mills]

It's been done. Look at the Carrier Inifinty/Bryant Evolution systems. 4 wire communicating system. There are other communicating systems from Trane and various other manufactures as well, but they all use different protocols, which is a problem. Perhaps someday they'll standardize but for now you'll need a matched system from one company.

Re:I'd like to innovate the whole system

[Hatta]

Why do you need more than 2 wires? One signal, one ground.

Re:I'd like to innovate the whole system

[Lehk228]

the standard "protocol" is ancient hot/nothot

Re:I'd like to innovate the whole system

[homesteader]

jes, it uses the ON/OFF protocol

Saw it coming - MagicStat

[jtara]

I kinda saw this coming, but didn't grasp the implications, e.g. patent issue.

When I saw Nest, I chuckled at their claims that this was such a revolution. Why, the thermostat will learn your usage patterns by itself!

Scroll back like 30 years or so ago when I lived in Dertroit. A friend of a friend, I think in Ann Arbor, invented this thermostat call MagicStat. It learned your usage patterns all by itself. That's why was was unimpressed by Nest's claims. Yawn. Long, 30-year yawn.

Honeywell bought the MagicStat patents. I presume they've maintained those and taken out new ones throughout the years.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Here's the Trademark record - 1982

[jtara]

Here's the trademark listing for Magic-Stat which was issued to QuadSix Corporation of Ann Arbor, Michigan filed in February, 1982, and subsequently assigned to Honeywell Corporation. One

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4008:kk95v8.3.2

(I realize the trademark has nothing to do with patents. Just using the trademark to help fix the date and origination of the "learning thermostat" idea.)

So, it looks like Nest took 30 year old technology and created a buzz by giving it a bit of Apple shine.

I actually had one of the original Magic-Stats, before it was sold under the Honeywell label. I was reasonably happy with it. The unique feature is that it would learn the inertia of your system, so that it would achieve the desired temperature at the time that you wanted. That, and the unique simplified user interface. e.g. you just set it to the desired temperature when it doesn't seem right, and it learns your pattern from that.

It just amazes me how much buzz these guys got over something that was invented 30 years prior.

poster emotinonally involved

[Anonymous Coward]

Because who the hell is nest anyway? Nobody... So the poster must work for said company.

More details

[MountainLogic]

Very good and detailed by Katie Fehrenbacher coverage here: http://gigaom.com/cleantech/the-details-behind-the-honeywell-nest-lawsuit/ http://gigaom.com/cleantech/how-the-honeywell-nest-lawsuit-could-hamper-innovation/ http://gigaom.com/cleantech/honeywell-hits-nest-with-a-law-suit-over-smart-thermostat/

Originally invented in 1953 ( wiki)

[frith01]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_T87

60 years on one design, i think the patent on the circular design has expired.

They are probably suing on software patents. ( which shouldnt be allowed in the first place).

Killing Compeition?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Nest were a Chinese company they'd be labelled thieves and pirates. But since they're American, Silicon Valley-ites no less, they're labelled "competition." How unusual.

cheaper to get a 3M filterete

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a wifi enabled thermostat for $100.
http://radiothermostat.com
https://my.radiothermostat.com/filtrete/login.html

Patent Strength Must Be Adjusted

[Bob9113]

This is about killing the competition.

Patents are expressly designed to increase revenue flow to the patent holder. It is *always* about inhibiting the competition. Sometimes the inhibition is total ("killing"), sometimes it is limited. The decision is up to the patent holder.

Honeywell are anti-social profiteers who are using the system as it is designed.

Patents are a good mechanism. They have a positive role in a GDP maximizing economy -- inventors satisfy wants by coming up with new ideas, and a laissez-faire economy would not reward them for doing so. The well-regulated free market benefits from some degree of patent grants and enforcement.

Ever since the inception of the U.S. patent system, however, we have been increasing the duration and strength of patents, and decreasing the threshold of novelty and non-obviousness. For 200 years we have been turning the knob in the same direction; increasing the rate at which we transfer revenue from producers to inventors. We have never seriously considered turning the knob the other direction -- reducing the strength of patents in general -- and it is beginning to show. It is inhibiting our economic advancement.

We need ask whether we are channeling too much or too little revenue using the patent system knob. Are corporations spending too much on production and too little on invention, or the other way around? Are they spending too much of their revenue on acquiring patents, patent enforcement, and patent defense, or should they be spending more?

We design for behavior like Honeywell is exhibiting. Honeywell deserves to be shunned for harming our GDP for their own enrichment, and we also need to recognize that the general solution lies in diligently measuring and adjusting the patent system for optimal output.

Re:Patent Strength Must Be Adjusted

[Hatta]

Patents are a good mechanism. They have a positive role in a GDP maximizing economy

Unfortunately, GDP considers all expenditures valuable. If people buy more window panes because someone's going around breaking all the windows, that's good for the GDP. As such, the GDP is of very limited use. It's certainly of no use whatsoever when trying to determine whether a behavior is beneficial or not.

Re:Patent Strength Must Be Adjusted

[Bob9113]

If people buy more window panes because someone's going around breaking all the windows, that's good for the GDP

Only in the short run. Non-productive damage to useful capital necessarily reduces long-run GDP growth.

Re:Patent Strength Must Be Adjusted

[idontgno]

It's certainly of no use whatsoever when trying to determine whether a behavior is beneficial or not.

Well, that rather depends on your definition of "benefit", doesn't it?

If you're a strict utilitarianist, maybe the greater market good is served by compulsory licensing or other type of competitive marketing arrangement.

If you're Honeywell, the greater good is served by sucking up every penny to be made, and if more pennies are to be made with aggressively exclusive use of the patents, then that's what shall be done.

In other words: your definition of the meaning of the word "beneficial" is pre-loaded with your worldview. Unfortunately, the law isn't written to accomodate that. Increasing the GDP, on the other hand, is of significant benefit to those whose fortunes rise and fall on the popular perception of prosperity (i.e., the same people who often make the rules about things like intellectual property.)

I'm sure you've heard the phrase "It's the economy, Dummy". The seething masses insist their "elected servants" grow the economy by any means legally possible, and supporting the business model of a large company (large employer, publicly traded company, etc.) falls right into that line.

Damages? Bull****. This is about killing the compe

[Anonymous Coward]

""Damages? Bull****. This is about killing the competition."""

Which is why there are patents. We also call it private property. You own it, you say who can use it.

Pretty simple when you think (a little).

I'm a Hipster Now!

[IgnacioB]

Through life I've never had a cool new product when it first came out. Not only do I have a Nest installed....now it's part of a big lawsuit! Bonus! Now I guess I should go to a rave and show off.....let people set my Nest via iPhone. Do I have to buy trendy shoes and get a special haircut now? P.S. Honeywell can lick my love pump. I'm keeping my Nest!

they couldn't pull a new control wire?

[Chirs]

That's what they did when I upgraded...

there is a reason for separate heat/cool

[Chirs]

I have a White Rogers touchscreen thermostat. I'm quite happy with it, though it's not remote controllable. I can set it to do auto heat/cool, or else leave them separate. I leave them separate.

The reason is that in spring and fall the temperature might vary a lot during the day. Rather than run the AC and the furnace on the same day (wasting energy both ways) I'll live with slightly more variation in temperature as long as the average temperature is okay.

Re:there is a reason for separate heat/cool

[trout007]

I'm stuck with Honeywell for now. Nest doesn't support two stage heat pumps with variable speed fans.

radiothermostat remote thermostats @ $100

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they allowed 3M Filtrete to introduce wifi thermostats and radio thermostat makes em.
http://radiothermostat.com
The 3M 50 filtrete is a branded version of their products. They are the cheapest wifi thermostat today and available from home depot.
http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-202352449/h_d2/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10053&langId=-1&keyword=3m-50&storeId=10051

Re:radiothermostat remote thermostats @ $100

[ToddInSF]

You just demolished the entire premise his rant was based on.

And all it took was googling to prove his assertion that Honeywell bought the technology decades ago and shelved it with the intention of preventing anyone else from using it, is a lie.

It'd be nice if...

[getSalled]

... the big box retailers selling Honeywell products made a statement and pulled Honeywell products from their shelves. It sends a nice message: "You don't like competition? Fine, don't compete."

Re:radiothermostat not bayweb

[Anonymous Coward]

radiothermostat is $100 and is wifi enabled, open source code to drive it.
http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-202352449/h_d2/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10053&langId=-1&keyword=3m-50&storeId=10051

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Privacy policy and EULA

[Animats]

The thing has a privacy policy and an end-user license agreement. Remember, this thing is a slave to a server at the manufacturer, and they can download new firmware. So they have total remote control over your furnace. They disclaim all liability. There is no warranty. (Honeywell normally offers a 5-year warranty). They can discontinue the service at any time.

You can't even resell the thing. The software license doesn't transfer. So if you sell your house, the thermostat has to be replaced.

Re:Privacy policy and EULA

[Sez Zero]

If I bought a $250 thermostat, I'd definitely take it with me when I leave the house. Shoot, I did that with my $60 thermostat; the old owner can have the previous 1960's era piece of junk.

Sounds like Poloroid Vs. Kodak

[chromaexcursion]

Poloroid locked up all the patents for instant film. Kodak tried to break their patents, and lost. Honeywell has a competing systems, though not exactly the same. They still own the patents on the systems in question. This is not a public standard. Fair and reasonable licensing do not apply. Like it or not Nest is dead. The story itself is flamebait.

interesting honeywell case

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/legal-services-litigation/10606380-1.html
http://www.cmiengineering.com/courtdecide.htm
http://business.highbeam.com/5280/article-1G1-112541987/lebanon-company-wins-thermostat-battle-honeywell

RAdio Thernostat

[Xibby]

If you can't quite make the leap to the Nest, and what you really want is the ability to run the thermostat from your smartphone, 3M makes a nice WiFi Thermostat that you can pickup at Home Depot for under $100. I was motivated by laziness to switch out my old programmable thermostat for the 3M one a few months back. Yes, it's not as cool as the Next, but you can switch it into away mode from anywhere you can get online if you forget when you go on vacation. The 3M thermostat uses Radio Thermostat Company of America's WiFi module and software interface. I haven't read into it much, but it appears that the API is open so you can in theory write your own software to control the thermostat in the event of the company going under and their web services disappearing.

Pattern of a losing company

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies that sue in this way often do so from a lack of innovation themselves, or a fear that their innovation rate is too slow. If they felt to be innovators, they would not sue but claim 'we welcome the competition'.

I'm not investing in companies that behave like this. The big money never comes from the lawsuit, and they clearly feel that innovation is not the way to go. Even if Honeywell wins this case, there will be a time they don't. And as this market is not so technologically advanced the barrier to entry is low.

OTOH patents promote this kind of lazyness. Oh yes, for prior art: stealing power from signal lines was commony done for serial and parallel port devices, bot from auxiliary lines (use RTS and CTS for power, or use parallel port data lines for power, and do signaling over the remaining lines) but I may still have a 5 volt only device that outputs negative voltage that is capturen from the incoming data line. Pretty clever: if the other party uses negative signals, it will get negative signals back, entirely within spec. If it doesn't send negative signals, it will get 0 volts back, but shouldn't complain about that. Cute, and definitely tapping power from a signal line, though not powering an entire system from that. This was built approximately 1980.

so what is it...

[Skal Tura]

Good journalism! What device is it, what does it do? No summary of that in easy to see place.

It's the shape, Dummy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like Apple has a trademark / patent on the iPad shape, Honeywell expects people to have people see round thermostats with the Honeywell name on them.

Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this any different than darling Apple and Saint Jobs trying to "kill" Android with no desire to actually license their patents? Oh, that's right. When it comes to Apple people "think different" (R).