BX24-AHT code snippet

It is a matter of public record that I did nothing of the sort. So who accused you?

I wrote "Dave designed (with input from comp.home.automation discussions) built, marketed, and recommended the BX24-AHT []".

You responded "There was _no_ design input from anybody in CHA (and this lying SOB cannot reference a single message to support his lies)."

I then quoted what you wrote in comp.home.automation, namely:

:Dave announced the BX24-AHT a month _after_ he wrote this in :comp.home.automation

: From: snipped-for-privacy@fuse.net (Dave Houston) : Subject: multi-housecode transceiver : Date: 2000/10/06 : Message-ID: #1/1

: Following Tom Laureanno's progress I've been doing a bit more work on this. Once Tom posts his BS2SX code, I'll see if I can adapt it to a BX-24 but with a CM11A as the powerline interface.

and I remarked "Sounds a lot like a BX24-AHT-thingy to me ..." and cited other discussion about the code cited above and general discussion of the need for an All Housecode Tranceiver in comp.home.automation.

You obviously saw the cited code as potentially useful "input" because you yourself stated that you would see if you could adapt it.

I made no statement whatever about whether any specific details of this demonstrated "input" made it into the final design, only that there was "input from comp.home.automation discussions" -- which there demonstrably were -- and that adapting the cited BS2SX code to a BX24 with a CM11A "sound[ed] a lot like a BX24-AHT-thingy to me" -- which it does.

I make no claims. I posted publicly available information. with references.

To save you the trouble of looking it up in the phone book:

Marc F. Hult

WOW,

Does this go back some time....

Yup. T. Laureanno here... back from a rather long break I would say. Glad (or am I really) to see my name sprinkled throughout this thread. So, there appears to be a little controversy here re: the adaptation of the whole house transceiver? I must say though from the top, I believe I was the first to develop such a device and I was happy enough to share my finding with others who had interests (I in fact am still using the whole house transceiver I designed years ago). I really do not want to get into a pissing contest here but Dave, you must admit that I did initially come up with the decoding scheme and most importantly, the idea of interfacing to the RF daughterboard. I would hate to think that others illegally made $$ off of something I intellectually own, but in any case, to me, it's "water under the bridge". In the past, I have learned to watch what I often freely divulge to people over the internet. Lessons been learned (Dave and Ido are just a few examples). BTW (here comes a plug!), my webpage has been moved to

cheers, Tom

Marc F Hult wrote:

HI Dave, I'm unsure who you are "strenuosly" disagreeing with but in any case, I think the writing's on the wall.

When I mentioned, "decoding scheme", I was referrring to the "basic" code required to decode the RF stream. Did you really think I was talking about the all encompassing X-10 RF coding ? I know I've been away for a while but,... lets be serious now. I also put a lot of effort into documenting/commenting my code. To me, the comments are worth more than the code itself. If you were to look at it, you will see I pointed out an error in previous decoding documenation (did I hear you say you were the one that found this error?).

You might have been messing with Ming receivers well before I started my Whole house transceiver projects but from what I can remember, I was the first to come up with the DIY whole-house transceiver approach, the first to post/share ideas surrounding the idea of such a project, the first to post actual operating code, and the first to actually get a DIY whole-house transceiver built and working.

Believe me, I really didn't rejoin this newsgroup to get into pissing contests (one of the main reasons I took a break), but please give credit where it's due. This will be my last post on this topic.

Tom

Seems to me QED (Latin) and, for that matter, QED (English) ;-)

.... Marc Marc_F_Hult

I'm afraid I have to disagree - strenuosly.

NEC came up with the coding/decoding scheme several years before you did anything.

I was work>WOW,

I'm not mentioning any names but someone owes you and Tom Laureanno a major apology.

You are making a serious charge which cannot be supported by any facts. I used different hardware and different code. I did not use any elements of your design nor did I use any of your "basic" code. You cannot claim a concept or idea as intellectual property but only the specific expression of an idea.

The following quote is from the U.S. Copyright Office web site at...

EXTENT OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION

Copyright protection extends to all of the copyrightable expression embodied in the computer program. Copyright protection is not available for ideas, program logic, algorithms, systems, methods, concepts, or layouts.

There were several people involved in a general discussion of an all housecode transceiver in CHA. I believe I was the one who initiated those discussions and recall that Dan Lanciani, Brian Karas, Guy Lavoie and others were involved. It's all a matter of public record.

The NEC protocol had been in use for many years prior to this. It was very popular with Asian manufacturers of AV gear. In addition to NEC's datasheets for their chips there were and are several web sites that give details of the protocol including code in various languages for various processors (e.g. Atmel AVR, PIC). X-10's documentation for the CM17A included the two payload bytes for all the standard X-10 codes.

I merely stated there were errors in the data on the Cheung site. I did not claim I discovered such errors. As I recall, Dan Lanciani mentioned that there were errors in an email but he did not point out any specific errors. I decided it was simpler to just start from scratch.

I made no use of anyth>HI Dave,

Tom,

Please don't let Dave chase you away from this newsgroup again.

Dave used vulgar language directed at me to categorically (and falsely) deny any input from the newsgroup. When I demonstrated that to be false, he threatened me with a lawsuit in defense of a charge that he manufactured as a smoke screen. Now he attacks you for clarifying his mis-statements and in the process provides the very evidence of input that he earlier falsely claimed didn't exist, namely "There were several people involved in a general discussion of an all housecode transceiver in CHA." and so on.

Dave has pontificated on his nice (accurate) usage of language, so he may be leading up to arguing about the meaning of the word "design" and "input" as in "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is " .

I dunno. I do agree with Dave's gleeful self-characterization as a curmudgeon, and that a curmudgeon is "an ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn notions" (American Heritage Dictionary). So Dave is doing and being what he wants to do and be. It is unlikely that we will change that.

Thanks for coming back to the newsgroup and for your past contributions. Your web site is neat!. Don't let Dave bully you away.

.... Marc Marc_F_Hult

Indeed, it is a matter of public record that you were *not* the person who "initiated those discussions".

See the thread ' "All Housecode" RF Receiver ??? ' at the url and quoted below my signature that was started by Tom Laureanno on May 13th, 1997.

This was about 2-1/2 years before you state that you began work on your version !

You made exactly 1 out of the 17 posts to the thread. Your only contribution was about the CM11a and you seemed to have zero interest in the RF aspects -- certainly no contributions.

Why do you continue to make false, self-agrandizing statements?

Do you understand that you are digging your hole deeper?

.... Marc Marc_F_Hult

1. Tom & Mary Dec 13 1997, 4:00 am show options

Newsgroups: comp.home.automation From: Tom & Mary - Find messages by this author Date: 1997/12/13 Subject: An "All Housecode" RF Receiver ??? Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

I wonder why they don't make an "ALL Housecode" X10 RF Receiver. I have the need for four separate 16-Unit (1 House code!) Receivers, one for Occupancy sensors, one for Upstairs Lights, one for Downstair Lights, and one for misc. things like macros. I wonder why these RF receivers are only designed to communicate on ONE housecode. ????