12 ms·

Honeywell Files Patent Lawsuit Against Smart Thermostat Developer Nest

292 points by ryanwaggoner 15y ago

glimcat 15y ago
Congratulations, Nest! You're officially successful enough to be sued by entrenched non-innovators who took out overly broad patents so that they would be able to milk anyone who successfully built and marketed a product. Honeywell makes damn near every wall thermostat I've ever seen, so it's not like they haven't had time to think about this application area.
- malandrew 15y ago
  edit: "... so it's not like they haven't had time to think about this application area [and bring a product to market already.]." Further proof that Congress has failed to create a patent system that "promotes the Sciences and the useful Arts"
- feralchimp 15y ago
  > Honeywell makes damn near every wall thermostat I've ever seen ...and now we have a slightly improved understanding of why that is, since the underlying technology is not highly advanced.
- adestefan 15y ago
  Can you please tell me why you think Honeywell is a non-innovator? Is it because they don't make shiny boxes to put on the wall of your home? Honeywell is well established as an innovator in advanced HVAC command and control for commercial buildings.
  - warfangle 15y ago
    Advanced HVAC for commercial buildings perhaps, but not for homes. Every thermostat I've seen that can do half of what Nest is doing is covered in about 50 buttons, and the ownership manual is a 70 page behemoth. It's like every thermostat manufacturer out there read The Design of Everyday Things and decided to do the exact opposite.
    - theycallmemorty 15y ago
      And yet when was the last time you heard of someone having to apply a patch to the firmware on their thermostat?
      - outworlder 15y ago
        Not all patches are bad. They can be very beneficial, adding new features, for instance. And there's the obvious bug fixing. You are stuck with a defective device if you can't update it.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
    - hmottestad 15y ago
      True. You'd think that by now, with everyone having wifi, they would make a thermostat you could sync with you calendar, or at least turn on and off from your iphone. Well, actually they do make this(1) but it's got a hefty price tag and it's made for enterprise users, not homes. (1) http://www.forwardthinking.honeywell.com/products/wireless/total_connect http://www.forwardthinking.honeywell.com/products/wireless/t...
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - jonhendry 15y ago
        No, it's for residential use also: http://www.forwardthinking.honeywell.com/related_links/thermostats/prestige/50-1078.pdf http://www.forwardthinking.honeywell.com/related_links/therm... "Prestige Comfort Systems have Honeywell RedLINKTM technology inside - giving you endless possibilities for controlling and monitoring comfort inside your home"
    - jonhendry 15y ago
      As I note above, Honeywell does have a color touchscreen, no-button, net-connected programmable thermostat that costs about what the Nest thermostat costs. For homes. But, stupidly, they don't sell it in stores, they sell it through HVAC contractors, so do-it-yourselfers won't run into them at the hardware store.
  - Lewisham 15y ago
    * Is it because they don't make shiny boxes to put on the wall of your home?* Well, yes, that's exactly what he's saying, because that's exactly the market Nest is targeting. What's your point?
    - adestefan 15y ago
      Just because someone isn't targeting you doesn't mean they aren't innovating. It reeks of HN bias that no one in their right mind should ever become an employee of some corporation because they aren't making a shiny box or a X, Y, Z website (substitute your favorite tech of the month for X, Y, and Z)
      - wtallis 15y ago
        If you're not innovating in an area, you aren't furthering "the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Unfortunately, 35 U.S.C. § 271(d)(4) makes it ok to do nothing with a patent except sue, so you aren't doing anything illegal, but you sure as hell are gaming the system.
  - jerf 15y ago
    "Can you please tell me why you think Honeywell is a non-innovator?" In general, I wouldn't defend that statement (which isn't mine). But I would defend the statement that these are either not "innovations", or certainly are innovations so obvious they are mostly or entirely not worthy of government-granted monopoly: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3558260 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3558260
- jonhendry 15y ago
  Honeywell makes fancy full-color LCD touch-screen thermostats with internet connectivity, friendly graphics showing the weather, etc. http://yourhome.honeywell.com/home/Products/Thermostats/7-Day-Programmable/Prestige+HD+7-Day+Programmable+Comfort+System.htm http://yourhome.honeywell.com/home/Products/Thermostats/7-Da... But I don't think they sell them in regular stores much, so you don't see them on the rack at Home Depot. You only see the cheaper lower-end models with all the buttons. Honeywell sells their $250 fancy thermostats through HVAC contractors, so do-it-yourself types probably won't encounter them. Nest might not be taking advantage of a gap in technology in the thermostat market, so much as taking advantage of a flawed distribution model.
URSpider94 15y ago
The Nest is the thermostat that Honeywell should have made. I hope that the two parties can come to an agreement that allows the Nest to stay on the market and the Nest team to continue innovating.
_delirium 15y ago
For reference, here are the seven patents in question. 7,634,504 - Natural Language Installer Set Up for Controller (http://www.google.com/patents/US7634504 http://www.google.com/patents/US7634504) - The claims really are as broad as the title implies, claiming to cover any system that presents the user questions in natural language, allows the user to select among multiple choices, and then modifies the HVAC settings based on their response. 7,142,948 - Controller Interface with Dynamic Schedule Display (http://www.google.com/patents/US7142948 http://www.google.com/patents/US7142948) - Claims to cover any controller that can change temperature from one temperature to a second temperature, while displaying an ETA for reaching the second temperature. 7,584,899 - HVAC Controller (http://www.google.com/patents/US7584899 http://www.google.com/patents/US7584899) - Claims the idea of having a movable housing over a display that, when rotated, changes an HVAC-system parameter that is reflected on that display. 7,159,789 - Thermostat with Mechanical User Interface (http://www.google.com/patents/US7159789 http://www.google.com/patents/US7159789) - A rotatable selector with several selectable positions, and a potentiometer. For an HVAC system. 7,159,790 - Thermostat with Offset Drive (http://www.google.com/patents/US7159790 http://www.google.com/patents/US7159790) - Some more rotatable-selector inventions, involving linking mechanical position and electrical signals. 7,476,988 - Power Stealing Control Devices (http://www.google.com/patents/US7476988 http://www.google.com/patents/US7476988) - Something to do with switching between primary and secondary power sources. My EE is too rusty to figure out exactly what this one is claiming without spending more time than I'd like on it. 6,975,958 - Profile Based Method for Deriving a Temperature Setpoint Using a 'Delta' Based On Cross-Indexing a Received Price-Point Level Signal (http://www.google.com/patents/US6975958 http://www.google.com/patents/US6975958) - Claim 1 is even broader than the title, claiming to have invented and patented the idea of adjusting an HVAC system's setpoints based on communicating with a remote host. They strongly have the flavor of taking some standard control method (rotating knobs attached to potentiometers, 1950s-style feedback control & rate prediction), tacking on "for an HVAC system", and deeming the result, which applies standard control techniques in the obvious way to the domain, an "invention".
- swombat 15y ago
  Goes to show that it's not just software patents that can be utterly ridiculous in their breadth... Here we seem to have half a dozen examples of the one-click patent applied to thermostats.
malandrew 15y ago
I'm not a fan of patents at all, but at the very least we should make having a product in the market as an absolute minimum for defending it. No product in market === no patent for you.
- smackfu 15y ago
  How would that work exactly? You end up turning the patent from protecting an idea/invention into protecting who can get a product manufactured first. In particular, it seems trivial for your manufacturing partners to steal your patent by delaying delivery and putting your product on the market instead of you. The little guy is the one who loses. Or did you think companies would follow the guidelines in good faith??
  - onemoreact 15y ago
    Defending it != acquiring it. It seems reasonable that if your going to sue for X$ in damages you need to have an actual product in the market, or at least licence your patent to someone who actually makes it.
    - polshaw 15y ago
      Take this case for example. Honeywell would simply throw together a crappy product and sell a couple of hundred of them just so they could put Nest out of business. There needs to be greater reform IMO.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - onemoreact 15y ago
        Honeywell has no choice but to licence their patents to Nest. The question is simply are the patents valid, did Nest infringe, and how much can Honeywell charge Nest. That said, if a company as large as Honeywell can only point to say 50,000$ in sales for their patent protected product it's hard for them to justify outrageous licencing fees.
duzour 15y ago
This is likely extremely naive: But would requiring a patent-filer to demonstrate a working implementation help mitigate this sort of thing? From what I can tell, Honeywell at least had the foresight to know where the tech was heading, but seemingly exerted no actual effort in getting there. Maybe I'm wrong about that - but this pattern seems to be true for patent trolls, at least. If that's the case, they're basically building an artificial moat. So what now? Does Honeywell sue Nest out of existence? Require Nest license their patent? What are some likely goals and motives? What happens now? There's a big difference between saying we WANT to go the moon, versus we WENT to the moon, or even we CAN go to the moon.
- _delirium 15y ago
  My guess is that they did actually have working prototypes; some of the patents have fairly detailed drawings. Some of the things being claimed in the patents aren't even particularly hard to build; standard feedback-control-system stuff that no doubt some Honeywell engineer could prototype. They just never brought them to market, which is a different issue.
djtriptych 15y ago
This is the sort of patent suit that I find revolting, and I suspect I'm not alone on HN in feeling that way. But does anyone else see a continuum between this and the dustup over the 5-word already-derivative "stay focused & keep shipping" poster last week? Should we be upset about this and not that?
- aiscott 15y ago
  US citizens at least, should be upset about the state of patents in the US. I don't begrudge companies playing the game--for them it is a fact of life in US business. What I take issue with is the granting of such trivial patents in the first place. edit: (non-trivial --> trivial)
Alexx 15y ago
Nest is an interesting piece of hardware. They have over 100 people, and if rumours are true have quite significant backing. Which is particularly interesting as it's hard to see on the surface where their margins come from on a device most could consider as novel and expensive. Though there are potentially gains to be had from a smarter thermostat, the headline figures in their white papers will most likely never be realised in the real world. Most reviews and bloggers seem to get caught up in focusing on the simple heating and cooling experience. The company on makes sense once you look at it in the context of the larger market. The silent but important features are zigbee integration (current unused), and excessive processing power. We are just on the cusp of huge smart-grid rollouts in many western countries. British gas in the UK has decided on the zigbee standard and are starting to roll out over 1000 new meters a day; with government backing for an £11bn rollout to 27 million households by 2019. In light of these rollouts, the energy companies will be looking to capitalize on their investment (which will be mostly funded by the consumer, via higher bills). The hardest part is figuring out what the consumer face of the smart grid should look like. Expensive 'home hubs' and touch screens are a red herring - the future is distributed (every household members phone etc), yet you still need a link between the rather 'dumb but integrated' meters, and devices in the house. In my opinion nest's game plan is to become that link. Your thermostat controls around 50% of the energy usage in your house. Eventually it has the potential to control 100%. With smart GPS integration into your phones it becomes realistic to have houses that react silently to it's various inhabitants patterns and blend those needs with the energy grids demand levels; now this is a valuable proposition. If you're an energy company absorbing several billion because of government pressure, suddenly the hardware cost of a nest doesn't seem so bad, especially if it can be offset or laid off over time. edit; footnote - All figures are rough (off the top of my head)
- Symmetry 15y ago
  Excellent post, but remember that internet providers like Comcast are taking steps to do that same thing. Nest has the hooks into the power system, but Comcast controls the gateway to the larger internet and interfacing with things like your smartphone. How this sill interact with the ZigBee push for IPV6 integration, for the Smart Energy profile at least, is anyone's guess.
meow 15y ago
I'm betting that any start-up company that comes out with a truly usable home robot in US will go out of business within its first year of operation. If a tiny thermostat can infringe on 7 patents, imagine how many patents will 'infringed' upon by a fully functional robot. If the same environment that we have now existed in 1970's I doubt if apple-2 would have been released.
kstrauser 15y ago
I just sent this through Honeywell's contact page and I mean every word of it: I'm in the market for a programmable thermostat for my house. I had been considering several units, including yours and one from Nest Labs. Apparently you've decided that it's more important to batter competitors with the legal system than actually, you know, put your supposed patents to use building a thermostat that your potential customers actually want to buy. You seem to be under the impression that suing other companies over patents on obvious ideas will make your own products look more attractive. It's clear that you're out of touch with your market. I don't know what unit I'm going to buy for my house, but I can promise you that it won't be a Honeywell thermostat.
- djtriptych 15y ago
  Link to the contact page, maybe we can automate signed submissions...
  - mootothemax 15y ago
    Link to the contact page, maybe we can automate signed submissions... I think there's a very good chance that I've misunderstood your comment, but - for the sake of doubt - please tell me that you're not advocating fraud :)
    - djtriptych 15y ago
      By "signed" I just meant a way to quickly get a lot of valid submissions. More like a petition. Not trying to bot it. There's a CAPTCHA anyway =)
  - kstrauser 15y ago
    It's at https://honeywell.com/Pages/contact-us.aspx https://honeywell.com/Pages/contact-us.aspx . I selected that I'm a "Customer", no company, product type "Thermostats", inquiry type "Home Owner".
- batista 15y ago
  I don't know what unit I'm going to buy for my house, but I can promise you that it won't be a Honeywell thermostat. Doesn't matter much, if they are still able to shut down a competitor like Nest legally, especially seeing as millions of people will continue to buy their products. Better join some action to abolish the stupid patent laws.
designium 15y ago
If I were Honeywell... 1. I sue Nest, freak them out. 2. I offer to buy them out on the cheap. 3. Nest sells themselves "gracefully". 4. Techcrunch: "Honeywell acquires Nest for $1 million!" 5. Honeywell says: "Nest acquisition will enhance our shareholders value." 6. Honeywell sells a little bit of Nest product. 7. End game: Honeywell decides that there's not enough demand for Nest product. Nest team is fired. Product dies.
- brk 15y ago
  Interesting theory, but unlikely (IMO). Given the people involved in NEST, and the capital behind them, this isn't "two easily scared dorm-room occupants". Most likely patent lawsuits were anticipated, and potentially even budgeted for in terms of licensing costs being assumed at some point. This is, IMO, another example of a company (Honeywell) with a book of patents they don't truly understand how to leverage on their own making a money-grab. I would wager a guess that this plays out very uninterestingly overall.
LVB 15y ago
I'm not ready to cry for poor Nest just yet. The company has substantial funding, experienced backers/advisors, and is clearly aware of the patent environment they operate in. Heck, their About page touts how the founder Tony Fadell has authored more than 100 patents. They knew they were entering a well-covered market. If their patent work left them confident that there were OK, then the courts will see if they're right. If they chose to take a chance... this is what can happen. Like another commenter mentioned, these are the rules of the game in the US. Complain about them and try to get them changed... I'm all for that because I think the rules are hurting innovation. But Nest is no victim here, and Honeywell isn't the devil. I'm more sympathetic to the garage shops that get hammered by big companies, but Nest is far from a garage shop. They knew what they were getting into.
- mkn 15y ago
  Huh. I really thought the days of the (she-was|they-were)-asking-for-it-I-mean-look-at-how-(she-was-dressed|well-covered-their-market-was) argument were over. Wonders never cease, I guess. If their patent work left them confident that there were OK, then the courts will see if they're right. If they chose to take a chance... this is what can happen. The only trouble with that statement is that it's completely incoherent. On the most charitable reading of it, there is no way not to "take a chance." This is, in fact, the very thing that you're obscuring, whether by accident or design. If the patent system is a structural quagmire that stifles innovation, then that is the problem precisely because "due diligence" is impossible. Incredibly, you continue: But Nest is no victim here... Yes. Yes, they are. They may be an affluent victim. An able victim. But a victim nonetheless. And, as long as this kind of victimization is allowed to continue, innovation will continue to carry a market-altering penalty that retards human progress. And, lest you think I'm being grandiose in my assessment of this thermostat as an example of human progress, it saves energy, and energy is one of the more pressing problems facing humanity. They knew what they were getting into. "But, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, look at how short that skirt was, and she decided to walk home on a Friday night! Drunk! Who's the real victim here? My client couldn't resist!"
  - CamperBob 15y ago
lr 15y ago
I know we all want patents to die, but until then, perhaps a more palatable way to deal with the problem... How about: If a patent is not implemented in a marketed product within two years (for a mechanical product) and 4 (or 5 years for a chemical product), the patent is void. In other words, no more patenting things and then sitting on them and suing others. Also, only certain entities would be able to patent something and then license it out (like the government, universities, legitimate research outfits, etc.). Just thinking off the top of my head here.
- rhizome 15y ago
  I would say that if the patent holder doesn't manufacture a product containing the same patents and similar functionality, that there should be a compulsory license, the company should be required to license those patents. That is, If you're not making it, you're not allowed to stand in someone else's way.
- ceejayoz 15y ago
  > How about: If a patent is not implemented in a marketed product within two years (for a mechanical product) and 4 (or 5 years for a chemical product), the patent is void. In other words, no more patenting things and then sitting on them and suing others. Also, only certain entities would be able to patent something and then license it out (like the government, universities, legitimate research outfits, etc.). I think that cure would be worse than the disease. It'd be a major incentive for large companies to say "no thanks" to small inventors, knowing that they can just copy it two years later.
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  That doesn't solve the problem. Anyone acting as a patent troll could just create a proof of concept; it wouldn't add significantly to their expenses in most cases. I don't think you could safely define "marketed product" in any way that excludes such cases, without effectively limiting the use of patents to large companies. Meanwhile, companies building actual products can still create a giant pile of excessively broad patents which apply to your product, and which also apply to any better product that tries to displace yours. That doesn't make them better than the patent trolls in any way that matters to the end user. By definition, patents exist to prevent competition. If you build a product, it should compete with everything else. If you can't stand competition, get out of the way of those who can.
brianobush 15y ago
If you can't innovate, sue. Sad to think that this line of reasoning will persist.
- rndmize 15y ago
  I doubt they can't innovate so much as have no interest in spending the money needed to do so, and probably found that suing the new competitor is cheaper than working hard enough to compete with them.
hyperbovine 15y ago
Ahh, the Streisand effect. Show me where to buy one of these!
zach 15y ago
This is a sign that Nest has found a great market. I don't mean smart thermostats, but in accessible premium home technology (as you can tell, their name is more general than thermostats). There are many areas of technology in the home that are controlled by very old companies that are in markets that are very slow to innovate. The real proof of this is in these patents (q.v.), which detail seemingly near-archaic technology. Seriously, this is their state of the art? These are exactly the kind of competitors you want to have. That is a byproduct of the fact that brands and design for home technology last a long, long time. Recently, I replaced my gas water heater valve and discovered that it's a part that's been around since the 1950's in its current design. Proven technology sticks around. Similarly, Honeywell has been in thermostats since forever. Finally, the margins in this business can be pretty impressive. There are home appliances and technology products whose premium versions cost twice as much as the regular version even though they're not much different. Some people are just willing to spend a good bit more for the absolute best. Very much an Apple market strategy (i.e. high-capacity iPods). I hope to see Nest introduce more devices like their learning thermostat soon, as well as a new way for them to communicate and be controlled which can hopefully improve on and replace the ancient X10 automation standard. Nest is in a great position right now.
tsumnia 15y ago
As someone in the startup HVAC Optimization industry, it really pains me to see this. To be fair, Nest scares the crap out of me as the proverbial Goliath to our David, luckily we're not in the same markets (for now). If Honeywell is throwing these types of accusations at them, what chance does my company have? I understand that tech patents are just a part of the business, but coming from the little guy here, how do I not get slapped with a lawsuit for having an idea?
msutherl 15y ago
You can let this comment float to the bottom, but I just want to say that this makes me want to cry. When this product came out, it gave me so much hope for a few ideas that I've been working on related to tuning HVAC and lighting with better interfaces and control systems. Now I'm incredibly discouraged. Thanks US patent system.
narrator 15y ago
Patents should be about encouraging inventors to reveal their inventions and methods that would otherwise remain secret and granting them the 20 years monopoly for that. It's not a license to choose any idea that is obvious to one skilled in the art after a purely superficial observation of the device in action.
madao 15y ago
They look pretty smart to me http://yourhome.honeywell.com/Home/Products/Thermostats/SummaryList.htm http://yourhome.honeywell.com/Home/Products/Thermostats/Summ... seriously every time someone sues someone else about a patent the whole world screams bloody murder. sure Honeywell's devices does not look like they come out of an apple lab but I think they have a right to protect their IP.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
bborud 15y ago
A couple of days ago I talked to a very gifted friend of mine who is spending his days finishing up a truckload of patent applications for his current company. Something I find very sad because I think patents are inherently bad and I wish he would spend his time doing more worthwhile things. However, in the space they operate they need patents to ward off other companies with large patent portfolios. In fact, he likened what they do to creating mine-fields. To make it really, really dangerous for other companies to even try to compete with you. And to make sure that no challengers will get uppity with you. In any case, what stuck with me was what he said about his next startup; in his next startup he would spend most of the money on patent lawyers. Because inventing, developing and bringing an invention to market is just too risky these days. The money is better spent on rigging whatever IPR you have with patents to "increase the number of possible exit strategies". This makes me really sad.

292 points by ryanwaggoner 15y ago

Congratulations, Nest! You're officially successful enough to be sued by entrenched non-innovators who took out overly broad patents so that they would be able to milk anyone who successfully built and marketed a product. Honeywell makes damn near every wall thermostat I've ever seen, so it's not like they haven't had time to think about this application area.

malandrew 15y ago
edit: "... so it's not like they haven't had time to think about this application area [and bring a product to market already.]." Further proof that Congress has failed to create a patent system that "promotes the Sciences and the useful Arts"
feralchimp 15y ago
> Honeywell makes damn near every wall thermostat I've ever seen ...and now we have a slightly improved understanding of why that is, since the underlying technology is not highly advanced.
adestefan 15y ago
Can you please tell me why you think Honeywell is a non-innovator? Is it because they don't make shiny boxes to put on the wall of your home? Honeywell is well established as an innovator in advanced HVAC command and control for commercial buildings.
- warfangle 15y ago
  Advanced HVAC for commercial buildings perhaps, but not for homes. Every thermostat I've seen that can do half of what Nest is doing is covered in about 50 buttons, and the ownership manual is a 70 page behemoth. It's like every thermostat manufacturer out there read The Design of Everyday Things and decided to do the exact opposite.
  - theycallmemorty 15y ago
    And yet when was the last time you heard of someone having to apply a patch to the firmware on their thermostat?
    - outworlder 15y ago
      Not all patches are bad. They can be very beneficial, adding new features, for instance. And there's the obvious bug fixing. You are stuck with a defective device if you can't update it.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
  - hmottestad 15y ago
    True. You'd think that by now, with everyone having wifi, they would make a thermostat you could sync with you calendar, or at least turn on and off from your iphone. Well, actually they do make this(1) but it's got a hefty price tag and it's made for enterprise users, not homes. (1) http://www.forwardthinking.honeywell.com/products/wireless/total_connect http://www.forwardthinking.honeywell.com/products/wireless/t...
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - jonhendry 15y ago
      No, it's for residential use also: http://www.forwardthinking.honeywell.com/related_links/thermostats/prestige/50-1078.pdf http://www.forwardthinking.honeywell.com/related_links/therm... "Prestige Comfort Systems have Honeywell RedLINKTM technology inside - giving you endless possibilities for controlling and monitoring comfort inside your home"
  - jonhendry 15y ago
    As I note above, Honeywell does have a color touchscreen, no-button, net-connected programmable thermostat that costs about what the Nest thermostat costs. For homes. But, stupidly, they don't sell it in stores, they sell it through HVAC contractors, so do-it-yourselfers won't run into them at the hardware store.
- Lewisham 15y ago
  * Is it because they don't make shiny boxes to put on the wall of your home?* Well, yes, that's exactly what he's saying, because that's exactly the market Nest is targeting. What's your point?
  - adestefan 15y ago
    Just because someone isn't targeting you doesn't mean they aren't innovating. It reeks of HN bias that no one in their right mind should ever become an employee of some corporation because they aren't making a shiny box or a X, Y, Z website (substitute your favorite tech of the month for X, Y, and Z)
    - wtallis 15y ago
      If you're not innovating in an area, you aren't furthering "the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Unfortunately, 35 U.S.C. § 271(d)(4) makes it ok to do nothing with a patent except sue, so you aren't doing anything illegal, but you sure as hell are gaming the system.
- jerf 15y ago
  "Can you please tell me why you think Honeywell is a non-innovator?" In general, I wouldn't defend that statement (which isn't mine). But I would defend the statement that these are either not "innovations", or certainly are innovations so obvious they are mostly or entirely not worthy of government-granted monopoly: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3558260 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3558260
jonhendry 15y ago
Honeywell makes fancy full-color LCD touch-screen thermostats with internet connectivity, friendly graphics showing the weather, etc. http://yourhome.honeywell.com/home/Products/Thermostats/7-Day-Programmable/Prestige+HD+7-Day+Programmable+Comfort+System.htm http://yourhome.honeywell.com/home/Products/Thermostats/7-Da... But I don't think they sell them in regular stores much, so you don't see them on the rack at Home Depot. You only see the cheaper lower-end models with all the buttons. Honeywell sells their $250 fancy thermostats through HVAC contractors, so do-it-yourself types probably won't encounter them. Nest might not be taking advantage of a gap in technology in the thermostat market, so much as taking advantage of a flawed distribution model.

URSpider94 15y ago

The Nest is the thermostat that Honeywell should have made. I hope that the two parties can come to an agreement that allows the Nest to stay on the market and the Nest team to continue innovating.

_delirium 15y ago

For reference, here are the seven patents in question. 7,634,504 - Natural Language Installer Set Up for Controller (http://www.google.com/patents/US7634504 http://www.google.com/patents/US7634504) - The claims really are as broad as the title implies, claiming to cover any system that presents the user questions in natural language, allows the user to select among multiple choices, and then modifies the HVAC settings based on their response. 7,142,948 - Controller Interface with Dynamic Schedule Display (http://www.google.com/patents/US7142948 http://www.google.com/patents/US7142948) - Claims to cover any controller that can change temperature from one temperature to a second temperature, while displaying an ETA for reaching the second temperature. 7,584,899 - HVAC Controller (http://www.google.com/patents/US7584899 http://www.google.com/patents/US7584899) - Claims the idea of having a movable housing over a display that, when rotated, changes an HVAC-system parameter that is reflected on that display. 7,159,789 - Thermostat with Mechanical User Interface (http://www.google.com/patents/US7159789 http://www.google.com/patents/US7159789) - A rotatable selector with several selectable positions, and a potentiometer. For an HVAC system. 7,159,790 - Thermostat with Offset Drive (http://www.google.com/patents/US7159790 http://www.google.com/patents/US7159790) - Some more rotatable-selector inventions, involving linking mechanical position and electrical signals. 7,476,988 - Power Stealing Control Devices (http://www.google.com/patents/US7476988 http://www.google.com/patents/US7476988) - Something to do with switching between primary and secondary power sources. My EE is too rusty to figure out exactly what this one is claiming without spending more time than I'd like on it. 6,975,958 - Profile Based Method for Deriving a Temperature Setpoint Using a 'Delta' Based On Cross-Indexing a Received Price-Point Level Signal (http://www.google.com/patents/US6975958 http://www.google.com/patents/US6975958) - Claim 1 is even broader than the title, claiming to have invented and patented the idea of adjusting an HVAC system's setpoints based on communicating with a remote host. They strongly have the flavor of taking some standard control method (rotating knobs attached to potentiometers, 1950s-style feedback control & rate prediction), tacking on "for an HVAC system", and deeming the result, which applies standard control techniques in the obvious way to the domain, an "invention".

swombat 15y ago
Goes to show that it's not just software patents that can be utterly ridiculous in their breadth... Here we seem to have half a dozen examples of the one-click patent applied to thermostats.

malandrew 15y ago

I'm not a fan of patents at all, but at the very least we should make having a product in the market as an absolute minimum for defending it. No product in market === no patent for you.

smackfu 15y ago
How would that work exactly? You end up turning the patent from protecting an idea/invention into protecting who can get a product manufactured first. In particular, it seems trivial for your manufacturing partners to steal your patent by delaying delivery and putting your product on the market instead of you. The little guy is the one who loses. Or did you think companies would follow the guidelines in good faith??
- onemoreact 15y ago
  Defending it != acquiring it. It seems reasonable that if your going to sue for X$ in damages you need to have an actual product in the market, or at least licence your patent to someone who actually makes it.
  - polshaw 15y ago
    Take this case for example. Honeywell would simply throw together a crappy product and sell a couple of hundred of them just so they could put Nest out of business. There needs to be greater reform IMO.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - onemoreact 15y ago
      Honeywell has no choice but to licence their patents to Nest. The question is simply are the patents valid, did Nest infringe, and how much can Honeywell charge Nest. That said, if a company as large as Honeywell can only point to say 50,000$ in sales for their patent protected product it's hard for them to justify outrageous licencing fees.

duzour 15y ago

This is likely extremely naive: But would requiring a patent-filer to demonstrate a working implementation help mitigate this sort of thing? From what I can tell, Honeywell at least had the foresight to know where the tech was heading, but seemingly exerted no actual effort in getting there. Maybe I'm wrong about that - but this pattern seems to be true for patent trolls, at least. If that's the case, they're basically building an artificial moat. So what now? Does Honeywell sue Nest out of existence? Require Nest license their patent? What are some likely goals and motives? What happens now? There's a big difference between saying we WANT to go the moon, versus we WENT to the moon, or even we CAN go to the moon.

_delirium 15y ago
My guess is that they did actually have working prototypes; some of the patents have fairly detailed drawings. Some of the things being claimed in the patents aren't even particularly hard to build; standard feedback-control-system stuff that no doubt some Honeywell engineer could prototype. They just never brought them to market, which is a different issue.

djtriptych 15y ago

This is the sort of patent suit that I find revolting, and I suspect I'm not alone on HN in feeling that way. But does anyone else see a continuum between this and the dustup over the 5-word already-derivative "stay focused & keep shipping" poster last week? Should we be upset about this and not that?

aiscott 15y ago
US citizens at least, should be upset about the state of patents in the US. I don't begrudge companies playing the game--for them it is a fact of life in US business. What I take issue with is the granting of such trivial patents in the first place. edit: (non-trivial --> trivial)

Alexx 15y ago

Nest is an interesting piece of hardware. They have over 100 people, and if rumours are true have quite significant backing. Which is particularly interesting as it's hard to see on the surface where their margins come from on a device most could consider as novel and expensive. Though there are potentially gains to be had from a smarter thermostat, the headline figures in their white papers will most likely never be realised in the real world. Most reviews and bloggers seem to get caught up in focusing on the simple heating and cooling experience. The company on makes sense once you look at it in the context of the larger market. The silent but important features are zigbee integration (current unused), and excessive processing power. We are just on the cusp of huge smart-grid rollouts in many western countries. British gas in the UK has decided on the zigbee standard and are starting to roll out over 1000 new meters a day; with government backing for an £11bn rollout to 27 million households by 2019. In light of these rollouts, the energy companies will be looking to capitalize on their investment (which will be mostly funded by the consumer, via higher bills). The hardest part is figuring out what the consumer face of the smart grid should look like. Expensive 'home hubs' and touch screens are a red herring - the future is distributed (every household members phone etc), yet you still need a link between the rather 'dumb but integrated' meters, and devices in the house. In my opinion nest's game plan is to become that link. Your thermostat controls around 50% of the energy usage in your house. Eventually it has the potential to control 100%. With smart GPS integration into your phones it becomes realistic to have houses that react silently to it's various inhabitants patterns and blend those needs with the energy grids demand levels; now this is a valuable proposition. If you're an energy company absorbing several billion because of government pressure, suddenly the hardware cost of a nest doesn't seem so bad, especially if it can be offset or laid off over time. edit; footnote - All figures are rough (off the top of my head)

Symmetry 15y ago
Excellent post, but remember that internet providers like Comcast are taking steps to do that same thing. Nest has the hooks into the power system, but Comcast controls the gateway to the larger internet and interfacing with things like your smartphone. How this sill interact with the ZigBee push for IPV6 integration, for the Smart Energy profile at least, is anyone's guess.

meow 15y ago

I'm betting that any start-up company that comes out with a truly usable home robot in US will go out of business within its first year of operation. If a tiny thermostat can infringe on 7 patents, imagine how many patents will 'infringed' upon by a fully functional robot. If the same environment that we have now existed in 1970's I doubt if apple-2 would have been released.

kstrauser 15y ago

I just sent this through Honeywell's contact page and I mean every word of it: I'm in the market for a programmable thermostat for my house. I had been considering several units, including yours and one from Nest Labs. Apparently you've decided that it's more important to batter competitors with the legal system than actually, you know, put your supposed patents to use building a thermostat that your potential customers actually want to buy. You seem to be under the impression that suing other companies over patents on obvious ideas will make your own products look more attractive. It's clear that you're out of touch with your market. I don't know what unit I'm going to buy for my house, but I can promise you that it won't be a Honeywell thermostat.

djtriptych 15y ago
Link to the contact page, maybe we can automate signed submissions...
- mootothemax 15y ago
  Link to the contact page, maybe we can automate signed submissions... I think there's a very good chance that I've misunderstood your comment, but - for the sake of doubt - please tell me that you're not advocating fraud :)
  - djtriptych 15y ago
    By "signed" I just meant a way to quickly get a lot of valid submissions. More like a petition. Not trying to bot it. There's a CAPTCHA anyway =)
- kstrauser 15y ago
  It's at https://honeywell.com/Pages/contact-us.aspx https://honeywell.com/Pages/contact-us.aspx . I selected that I'm a "Customer", no company, product type "Thermostats", inquiry type "Home Owner".
batista 15y ago
I don't know what unit I'm going to buy for my house, but I can promise you that it won't be a Honeywell thermostat. Doesn't matter much, if they are still able to shut down a competitor like Nest legally, especially seeing as millions of people will continue to buy their products. Better join some action to abolish the stupid patent laws.

designium 15y ago

If I were Honeywell... 1. I sue Nest, freak them out. 2. I offer to buy them out on the cheap. 3. Nest sells themselves "gracefully". 4. Techcrunch: "Honeywell acquires Nest for $1 million!" 5. Honeywell says: "Nest acquisition will enhance our shareholders value." 6. Honeywell sells a little bit of Nest product. 7. End game: Honeywell decides that there's not enough demand for Nest product. Nest team is fired. Product dies.

brk 15y ago
Interesting theory, but unlikely (IMO). Given the people involved in NEST, and the capital behind them, this isn't "two easily scared dorm-room occupants". Most likely patent lawsuits were anticipated, and potentially even budgeted for in terms of licensing costs being assumed at some point. This is, IMO, another example of a company (Honeywell) with a book of patents they don't truly understand how to leverage on their own making a money-grab. I would wager a guess that this plays out very uninterestingly overall.

LVB 15y ago

I'm not ready to cry for poor Nest just yet. The company has substantial funding, experienced backers/advisors, and is clearly aware of the patent environment they operate in. Heck, their About page touts how the founder Tony Fadell has authored more than 100 patents. They knew they were entering a well-covered market. If their patent work left them confident that there were OK, then the courts will see if they're right. If they chose to take a chance... this is what can happen. Like another commenter mentioned, these are the rules of the game in the US. Complain about them and try to get them changed... I'm all for that because I think the rules are hurting innovation. But Nest is no victim here, and Honeywell isn't the devil. I'm more sympathetic to the garage shops that get hammered by big companies, but Nest is far from a garage shop. They knew what they were getting into.

mkn 15y ago
Huh. I really thought the days of the (she-was|they-were)-asking-for-it-I-mean-look-at-how-(she-was-dressed|well-covered-their-market-was) argument were over. Wonders never cease, I guess. If their patent work left them confident that there were OK, then the courts will see if they're right. If they chose to take a chance... this is what can happen. The only trouble with that statement is that it's completely incoherent. On the most charitable reading of it, there is no way not to "take a chance." This is, in fact, the very thing that you're obscuring, whether by accident or design. If the patent system is a structural quagmire that stifles innovation, then that is the problem precisely because "due diligence" is impossible. Incredibly, you continue: But Nest is no victim here... Yes. Yes, they are. They may be an affluent victim. An able victim. But a victim nonetheless. And, as long as this kind of victimization is allowed to continue, innovation will continue to carry a market-altering penalty that retards human progress. And, lest you think I'm being grandiose in my assessment of this thermostat as an example of human progress, it saves energy, and energy is one of the more pressing problems facing humanity. They knew what they were getting into. "But, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, look at how short that skirt was, and she decided to walk home on a Friday night! Drunk! Who's the real victim here? My client couldn't resist!"
- CamperBob 15y ago

lr 15y ago

I know we all want patents to die, but until then, perhaps a more palatable way to deal with the problem... How about: If a patent is not implemented in a marketed product within two years (for a mechanical product) and 4 (or 5 years for a chemical product), the patent is void. In other words, no more patenting things and then sitting on them and suing others. Also, only certain entities would be able to patent something and then license it out (like the government, universities, legitimate research outfits, etc.). Just thinking off the top of my head here.

rhizome 15y ago
I would say that if the patent holder doesn't manufacture a product containing the same patents and similar functionality, that there should be a compulsory license, the company should be required to license those patents. That is, If you're not making it, you're not allowed to stand in someone else's way.
ceejayoz 15y ago
> How about: If a patent is not implemented in a marketed product within two years (for a mechanical product) and 4 (or 5 years for a chemical product), the patent is void. In other words, no more patenting things and then sitting on them and suing others. Also, only certain entities would be able to patent something and then license it out (like the government, universities, legitimate research outfits, etc.). I think that cure would be worse than the disease. It'd be a major incentive for large companies to say "no thanks" to small inventors, knowing that they can just copy it two years later.
JoshTriplett 15y ago
That doesn't solve the problem. Anyone acting as a patent troll could just create a proof of concept; it wouldn't add significantly to their expenses in most cases. I don't think you could safely define "marketed product" in any way that excludes such cases, without effectively limiting the use of patents to large companies. Meanwhile, companies building actual products can still create a giant pile of excessively broad patents which apply to your product, and which also apply to any better product that tries to displace yours. That doesn't make them better than the patent trolls in any way that matters to the end user. By definition, patents exist to prevent competition. If you build a product, it should compete with everything else. If you can't stand competition, get out of the way of those who can.

brianobush 15y ago

If you can't innovate, sue. Sad to think that this line of reasoning will persist.

rndmize 15y ago
I doubt they can't innovate so much as have no interest in spending the money needed to do so, and probably found that suing the new competitor is cheaper than working hard enough to compete with them.

hyperbovine 15y ago

Ahh, the Streisand effect. Show me where to buy one of these!

zach 15y ago

This is a sign that Nest has found a great market. I don't mean smart thermostats, but in accessible premium home technology (as you can tell, their name is more general than thermostats). There are many areas of technology in the home that are controlled by very old companies that are in markets that are very slow to innovate. The real proof of this is in these patents (q.v.), which detail seemingly near-archaic technology. Seriously, this is their state of the art? These are exactly the kind of competitors you want to have. That is a byproduct of the fact that brands and design for home technology last a long, long time. Recently, I replaced my gas water heater valve and discovered that it's a part that's been around since the 1950's in its current design. Proven technology sticks around. Similarly, Honeywell has been in thermostats since forever. Finally, the margins in this business can be pretty impressive. There are home appliances and technology products whose premium versions cost twice as much as the regular version even though they're not much different. Some people are just willing to spend a good bit more for the absolute best. Very much an Apple market strategy (i.e. high-capacity iPods). I hope to see Nest introduce more devices like their learning thermostat soon, as well as a new way for them to communicate and be controlled which can hopefully improve on and replace the ancient X10 automation standard. Nest is in a great position right now.

tsumnia 15y ago

As someone in the startup HVAC Optimization industry, it really pains me to see this. To be fair, Nest scares the crap out of me as the proverbial Goliath to our David, luckily we're not in the same markets (for now). If Honeywell is throwing these types of accusations at them, what chance does my company have? I understand that tech patents are just a part of the business, but coming from the little guy here, how do I not get slapped with a lawsuit for having an idea?

msutherl 15y ago

You can let this comment float to the bottom, but I just want to say that this makes me want to cry. When this product came out, it gave me so much hope for a few ideas that I've been working on related to tuning HVAC and lighting with better interfaces and control systems. Now I'm incredibly discouraged. Thanks US patent system.

narrator 15y ago

Patents should be about encouraging inventors to reveal their inventions and methods that would otherwise remain secret and granting them the 20 years monopoly for that. It's not a license to choose any idea that is obvious to one skilled in the art after a purely superficial observation of the device in action.

madao 15y ago

They look pretty smart to me http://yourhome.honeywell.com/Home/Products/Thermostats/SummaryList.htm http://yourhome.honeywell.com/Home/Products/Thermostats/Summ... seriously every time someone sues someone else about a patent the whole world screams bloody murder. sure Honeywell's devices does not look like they come out of an apple lab but I think they have a right to protect their IP.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

bborud 15y ago

A couple of days ago I talked to a very gifted friend of mine who is spending his days finishing up a truckload of patent applications for his current company. Something I find very sad because I think patents are inherently bad and I wish he would spend his time doing more worthwhile things. However, in the space they operate they need patents to ward off other companies with large patent portfolios. In fact, he likened what they do to creating mine-fields. To make it really, really dangerous for other companies to even try to compete with you. And to make sure that no challengers will get uppity with you. In any case, what stuck with me was what he said about his next startup; in his next startup he would spend most of the money on patent lawyers. Because inventing, developing and bringing an invention to market is just too risky these days. The money is better spent on rigging whatever IPR you have with patents to "increase the number of possible exit strategies". This makes me really sad.