Honeywell Vs Nest: When the Establishment Sues Silicon Valley

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Honeywell Vs Nest: When the Establishment Sues Silicon Valley

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday February 7, 2012 @06:42AM from the going-for-the-jugular dept.

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."

48 of 228 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Really? by HexaByte · 2012-02-07 06:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
1. Re:Really? by Hognoxious · 2012-02-07 06:47 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I total agree's you.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
2. Re:Really? by crawling_chaos · 2012-02-07 06:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
  -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
3. Re:Really? by SJHillman · 2012-02-07 06:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
4. Re:Really? by tgd · 2012-02-07 06:51 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  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.
5. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 06:52 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Isn't it the dream of every company to kill the competition?
  I think you mean "blow the competition away."
6. Re:Really? by mepperpint · 2012-02-07 07:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
7. Re:Really? by tilante · 2012-02-07 07:26 · Score: 2
  
  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.
8. Re:Really? by Miamicanes · 2012-02-07 07:29 · Score: 2
  
  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.
9. Re:Really? by Curunir_wolf · 2012-02-07 07:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
10. Re:Really? by Bobfrankly1 · 2012-02-07 07:55 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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
11. Re:Really? by jeffmeden · 2012-02-07 08:01 · Score: 2
  
  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.
12. Re:Really? by sqldr · 2012-02-07 08:01 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
13. Re:Really? by JaredOfEuropa · 2012-02-07 08:02 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
14. Re:Really? by sexconker · 2012-02-07 08:07 · Score: 2
  
  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.
15. Re:Really? by sexconker · 2012-02-07 08:09 · Score: 2
  
  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.
16. Re:Really? by Genda · 2012-02-07 08:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
17. Re:Really? by almitydave · 2012-02-07 09:28 · Score: 2
  
  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."
  
  --
  my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
  I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
18. Re:Really? by hey! · 2012-02-07 09:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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*.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
19. Re:Really? by Seraphim1982 · 2012-02-07 10:08 · Score: 2
  
  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?
20. Re:Really? by hey! · 2012-02-07 11:04 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
21. Re:Really? by idontgno · 2012-02-07 11:48 · Score: 2
  
  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.)
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
22. Re:Really? by AK+Marc · 2012-02-07 12:39 · Score: 2
  
  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).
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
the thing is by larry+bagina · 2012-02-07 06:49 · Score: 2

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.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
1. Re:the thing is by Trepidity · 2012-02-07 06:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
2. Re:the thing is by gl4ss · 2012-02-07 07:04 · Score: 2
  
  have they sued car manufacturers, or do they have different patents that have "in a car" plastered on them.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
3. Re:the thing is by sjames · 2012-02-07 07:10 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  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?
4. Re:the thing is by jbengt · 2012-02-07 07:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You are confusing the "lameness" of the patent with the "lameness" of the feature.
5. Re:the thing is by Miamicanes · 2012-02-07 07:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
6. Re:the thing is by powerlord · 2012-02-07 08:12 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
7. Re:the thing is by sjames · 2012-02-07 11:07 · Score: 2
  
  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 by Myopic · 2012-02-07 06:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Get a Nest by Quantus347 · 2012-02-07 07:04 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
2. Re:Get a Nest by Myopic · 2012-02-07 07:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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?
3. Re:Get a Nest by gmhowell · 2012-02-07 14:04 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Thanks, Honeywell! by mepperpint · 2012-02-07 06:57 · Score: 5, Funny

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!
Common technology in large HVAC systems by Animats · 2012-02-07 07:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
But the patents can be BS by DeadCatX2 · 2012-02-07 07:09 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
:(){ :|:& };:
1. Re:But the patents can be BS by DeadCatX2 · 2012-02-07 07:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  >.> 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.
  
  --
  :(){ :|:& };:
2. Re:But the patents can be BS by jbengt · 2012-02-07 07:26 · Score: 2
  
  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?
US Government? National Security? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-02-07 07:20 · Score: 2

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.

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
"This is about killing the competition." by John+Hasler · 2012-02-07 07:31 · Score: 3, Informative

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.)

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Probably not too much of an issue by robertchin · 2012-02-07 07:34 · Score: 2

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.
Saw it coming - MagicStat by jtara · 2012-02-07 08:05 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
Here's the Trademark record - 1982 by jtara · 2012-02-07 08:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
More details by MountainLogic · 2012-02-07 08:38 · Score: 2

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) by frith01 · 2012-02-07 08:59 · Score: 2

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).
Privacy policy and EULA by Animats · 2012-02-07 12:41 · Score: 3, Informative

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.