The article was quite slanted, looking more like a Lutron press release than anything resembling responsible journalism. Presumptively since Leviton is a big dog they did not go into this without adequate preparation.
Anyone interested in this would find Lutron's litigation history instructive.
Dan Wright Starwolf Systems
In our last home (no CFLs but a whole lot of X10), occassionally there would be a whole bunch of commands spew from somewhere...used to turn the stairwell light on at odd time. Searched everywhere, checked with neightbor, looked for TOD or occupancy patterns without success, I never found it. I finally abandoned that house code rather than screw with it any longer.
"responsible journalism"? What a quaint concept.
Julie Jacobson has been an editor of Electronic House and similar (related?) publications for many years. She posted to CHA as far back as 1995. I've never found her technical analyses very useful or very accurate. I think she mostly rewrites advertiser's press releases. In the article on the Lutron vs. Leviton patent suit she implies Z-Wave hasn't been shipping two-way switches when all Z-Wave RF switches have been two-way from the beginning.
Over the past 25 years patent law has become increasingly divorced from reality so I wouldn't venture to guess how the Lutron vs. Leviton and similar Lutron suits will shake out but it would appear that INSTEON, not having any RF switches, is one recent technology that need not worry about a suit, at least along these lines.
Here are some links that think Lutron has a strong position...
I didn't mean to imply that SmartLabs was a party to that lawsuit, only that if they were to be targeted by one of the others they might not have the wherewithal to prevail. Sorry for the confusion.
The finder of fact will need to examine how exclusive such a patent is and whether public policy might prevent its enforcement. If Leviton can show that the patent is so broad as to prevent development of competing technology the court can throw out the patent and the lawsuit.
It's difficult to tell since there's apparently a mistype in the quoted article. I checked the US Patent Office and they report "No such patent number found."
This, too, might be too broad a protection for "public policy." It's a matter for the court to decide. I wouldn't be surprised if several of the major players developing Z-Wave products decide to file amicus briefs in support of Leviton.
From Lutron's POV, it's a no-brainer. File the lawsuit or watch their lock on RF lighting control vaporize. That doesn't mean they even expect to prevail. If they can just slow the tide of new Z-Wave products which are as good as, if not better than Radio RA, it's worth the cost of the lawsuit.
They're out now. I posted about them recently.
We'll see what happens. I don't think Lutron can maintain a lock on 2-way transceivers in a junction box any more than Genie (or whomever) can maintain a lock on motorized garage door openers.
Sounds like prior art exists in the X-10 two-way modules. The home powerline is a network, even if it's not a terrible intelligent one. Reminds me of when Apple sued Microsoft over technology they both had stolen from Adele Goldberg and Xerox. The judge told them both to "go pound sand." That would be a nice outcome here, too, at least for HA consumers.
-- Bobby G.
No matter what they do, we end up paying for it. :(
Dave gratuitously bashes yet another entire profession on which he personally depends.
When Dave is done, he will be remembered for having trash-talked everyone but himself.
This article was a timely article and the news was the lawsuit that was filed a couple of days before. It was much more than a re-write of a press release.
Dave misses the point with this circular argument. The original question was why INSTEON wasn't shipping any RF besides the coupler. One explanation is that it hasn't invested in/developed RF switches and other RF gear because it wanted to avoid the expensive lawsuit that has now been filed by Lutron against Leviton and is waiting for the dust to settle.
Which was the conclusion offered in the article that Dave trashes.
Which was a point made in the article. And the same point to be made about INSTEON RF that involves switches and two-way comms.
... Marc Marc_F_Hult
Might that be why the author outlined the litigation history complete with case numbers ?
Dan also wrote: "look[s] like a Lutron Press release"
Might that be because the article quotes the Lutron press release verbatim and clearly identifies it as such? Because the press release announcing the lawsuit _was_ , in essence, the news?
Dan also wrote: "Presumptively since Leviton is a big dog they did not go into this without adequate preparation."
Might that be why the author wrote: " My guess is {Leviton] have some pretty good lawyers; obviously they knew about Lutron's patents. They must be fairly certain they're not infringing." ?
Not "responsible journalism"? What was not responsible?
Did you read the same article that I did?
... Marc Marc_F_Hult
My point was to suggest that interested parties look back at Lutron's litigation history prior to their Z-wave suit. Its quite instructive.
Quite...and I stand by my position that it was poorly done.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.