Slashdot Mirror


Nest Labs Calls Honeywell Lawsuit 'Worse Than Patent Troll'

UnknowingFool writes "Over a year ago, Nest Labs launched the Learning Thermostat. The brainchild of Tony Fadell, former head of Apple's iPod and iPhone division, the Learning Thermostat promised a self-programming and wifi-enabled thermostat that would save energy costs. After some glowing reviews, Nest found itself in a patent infringement lawsuit against Honeywell. Nest responded with multiple claims calling Honeywell 'worse than a patent troll.' Among Nest's claims: Honeywell hid prior art (some on some previous patents that they owned) and inapplicable patents (patent on mechanical potentiometer when Nest's product does not include one). Nest's stance is that Honeywell filed the lawsuits not to extract money but to set back progress so that they can control the industry."

7 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. Worse than a patent Troll? by BagOBones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought allowing your products to succeed and preventing others from entering the market is part of the idea of a patent? Unlike a troll that has no product, at least Honeywell has one... Even if their claims do not apply. ;)

    --
    EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
    1. Re:Worse than a patent Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it depends your values, but I could see where this could be considered worse: Honeywell is trying to prevent progress (so that they might catch up and own the market, like they do for less advanced thermostats), whereas a patent troll is all for progress as long as they get a cut.

    2. Re:Worse than a patent Troll? by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the other hand, at least a patent troll (presumably) holds a real patent that the other company is infringing upon. Whereas Nest is saying Honeywell is just throwing litigation at them that Honeywell knows they can't win, in the hopes of either e generous settlement or keeping Nest out of the market long enough for Honeywell to reenforce their monopoly.

    3. Re:Worse than a patent Troll? by canajin56 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope, it's a lot worse to have a patent on a device you make, and sue competitors who do not violate the patent in hopes of putting them out of business with legal fees. Patent trolls may have possibly invalid claims and may be extorting, but Honeywell knows it is filing groundless lawsuits in hopes of crushing competition without having to innovate or compete. Patent trolls just want some money, not to destroy you and bury your corpse.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    4. Re:Worse than a patent Troll? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The original idea of patents was to foster innovation by encouraging inventors to make their inventions public, receiving a temporary monopoly in return. Historically, patents were considered to be an artificial construct to benefit society, not a natural right of inventors. The idea is that society benefits from the disclosure of non-obvious ideas, and from inventions that are perhaps expensive to implement.

      Now take a look at the patents claimed by Honeywell. It's all obvious crap and design gimmicks, simple intellectual land-grab. Society stands to benefit not one iota by the disclosure of these ideas, and would not have been worse off if Honeywell would have kept them secret. Someone else could have (and has) come up with these "ideas" in the course of designing their own product, without the benefit of knowledge of the details of these patents.

      The granting [of] patents 'inflames cupidity', excites fraud, stimulates men to run after schemes that may enable them to levy a tax on the public, begets disputes and quarrels betwixt inventors, provokes endless lawsuits...The principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just."

      This is from an issue of The Economist... published in 1851.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  2. How did they hide prior patents? by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    TFA says:

    and the patents in question should all be invalidated by prior art — even, in some cases, by previous Honeywell patents Nest claims the company hid from the Patent Office.

    How did Honeywell hide previous patents that are, by the very nature of patents, publicly available? If they are expired patents that are relevant in proving prior art, Nest themselves should have found the patents in their own prior-art search. It's clear from the many patents that have been issued despite clear prior art that the patent office themselves does not do a sufficient job of searching for prior art.

    While I do think that Honeywell is trying to shut out the competition, if they have a patent covering the technology that Nest is using, that's well within their rights. And since Honeywell does sell programmable thermostats, I think what they are doing is far less insidious than patent trolls that gather patent portfolios and using them to extract money from companies even though the troll has no intention of ever producing a product that uses the patent.

  3. LAW IS MADE BY THE POWERFUL by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To maintain their position and dominance.

    This includes everything from managing the progress of technologies, to profits from the trade in drugs and armaments.

    Law is your enemy. It was made without your representation, and adopted by managing your consent under a false pretense. Always treat it with suspicion.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."