
Honeywell Files Patent Lawsuit Against Smart Thermostat Developer Nest - ryanwaggoner
http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/06/honeywell-files-patent-lawsuit-against-smart-thermostat-developer-nest/
======
glimcat
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.

~~~
adestefan
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
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.

~~~
huggyface
>Every thermostat I've seen that can do half of what Nest is doing is covered
in about 50 buttons

Remove control and it's easy to remove buttons. There is no brilliant design
or innovation there. Whether the removed control is logical or beneficial,
however, is a completely different matter -- there is absolutely zero evidence
that the Nest delivers on the farfetched promises it makes.

I personally can't believe it has gotten as much attention as it has. It is a
non-solution for a non-problem. The single and only reason it got coverage was
the Apple angle.

~~~
acdha
You sound like the slashdot review of the iPod: even if all of the features
were possible before does not mean there's no benefit to producing a solid,
high-quality implementation.

As for Nest's claims, I assume you're talking about energy savings and, if so,
are so very, very wrong: I'm a software developer and rarely adjusted the
program on my old Honeywell thermostat because it took a minimum of 7 * 3
button clicks (morning, evening, night for each day of the week) simply to
navigate through the program. I'm rather confident that the average American
is even less likely to put up with all of that clicking and simply leaves at
anything which isn't uncomfortable, even if it does waste power.

~~~
huggyface
_You sound like the slashdot review of the iPod_

Not really, unless your world is binary. There are a lot of extremely refined,
slick implementations out there. You don't know about them because they
couldn't be called the "ipod of thermostats" (with leading comparisons with
the ugliest, most rudimentary thermostats, as if the giant industry doesn't
exist).

 _As for Nest's claims, I assume you're talking about energy savings and, if
so, are so very, very wrong_... _I'm rather confident that the average
American_...

It is interesting how you arrived at such an energy claim with no clear avenue
between the beginning and the end.

~~~
acdha
You asserted that it was “a non-solution for a non-problem” - the onus is on
you to explain why the stated problems aren't real or how the Nest doesn't
solve them.

As for the promise of saving energy, either reading Nest's citations or
spending a second or two on Google might prove educational as to the current
gap between what is technically possible and what people actually do:

[http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2011/03/21/do-
programmable...](http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2011/03/21/do-programmable-
thermostats-really-save-money/)

------
zach
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.

------
_delirium
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>) - 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>) - 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>) -
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>) - 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>) - 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>) - 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>) - 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
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.

~~~
johno215
The sheer amount of obvious non-innovations that the patent office accepts is
staggering.

Anecdotal personal experience being part of patent applications has showed me
that almost any idea, as long as there are no _mainstream_ examples of prior
art, can be patented given time (will take 4-5 years these days) and money.
Most decently smart people will come up with patentable ideas all the time,
just doing their job, but won't file because they don't have the desire or
resources (and don't understand why their only somewhat-novel obvious-to-them
idea is patentable).

"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve
it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be
legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years
ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." - John Carmack

~~~
nextparadigms
It's as if patents serve to stop innovation from happening rather than help
make it happen, more often than not.

~~~
speleding
Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but there is some research to back that
claim
([http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/study_says_patents_hind...](http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/study_says_patents_hinder_innovation.php))

~~~
gabaix
Will the America Invents Act change anything to this problem? Or should it
require another reform?

------
Alexx
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)

~~~
there
_Nest is an interesting piece of hardware._

I'm curious what you find so interesting about it. I've had an Ecobee
thermostat (<http://www.ecobee.com/solutions/home/smart/>) for years and have
even done silly hacks with it like integrating it with my wireless access
point to detect when I'm home (<http://jcs.org/ecobee>) and making a SiriProxy
plugin to be able control it with an iPhone (<http://flic.kr/p/aNuGaF>).

But even before the Ecobee, programmable and even WiFi-enabled thermostats
have been around for many years and they have not gained any significant
traction. My dad owns an HVAC company and they've only sold 1 or 2 Ecobee
units in the years they've stocked them, with most people just opting for a
schedule-based programmable thermostat.

What makes the Nest so much different? Is it just that it's pretty? Right now,
their website says it costs $250. For the average person, that's probably at
least a few years of energy savings needed to justify that cost.

~~~
jtchang
I love logic like this.

You bought an Ecobee thermostat, integrated it with your access point, and
made a SiriProxy plugin.

This is awesome but think about it for the general consumer. They just want
shit to work.

This is what makes Nest different.

~~~
there
Where did I say that I expected anyone else to do any of that? By my own
words, they were silly hacks. My question was why the Nest is different than
the Ecobee or any other smart thermostat that has been around for years. They
all do the same things: smartly adjust to the outside temperature and usage
patterns, provide data to the user about energy use, and allow control from
the Internet or wireless network.

~~~
jot
"My question was why the Nest is different than the Ecobee or any other smart
thermostat that has been around for years."

That's like asking:

\- Why is the iPod different from all the mp3 players on the market?

\- Why is the iPhone different from all the smart phones on the market?

\- Why is the iPad different from all the tablets on the market?

None of these questions are easy to answer in full, if they were Apple would
have more serious competition. The simple answer is:

Because the overall experience of owning them, for the average person, is
better than with the alternatives.

~~~
senorprogrammer
None of those examples actually answer his question, they just belittle it a
bit, but the original question, and in fact all of those, are very valid.

I suspect the current hype about the Nest is due to two reasons: 1) Apple
people made it, and Apple is newsworthy right now; 2) it doesn't look like
other thermostats, it looks easy to use and unique. I think that right now the
Nest's aesthetic is getting it traction, time will tell if that's enough to
get it sales.

------
kstrauser
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.

~~~
batista
_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.

~~~
kstrauser
_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._

I can't do anything about millions of people, but I can do something about my
own buying patterns. I can also tell others why I did so and hope they agree
with me.

------
meow
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.

------
bborud
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.

------
LVB
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
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
_Yes. Yes, they are. They may be an affluent victim. An able victim._

... who, as the GP points out, played the game with the best of them. Live by
the patent sword, die by the patent sword.

I like the idea someone posted on HN a few months ago; it should be possible
to "opt out" of the patent system entirely. You can't be sued for patent
infringement, but you also can't hold any patents yourself. Let's do that, and
watch the market determine whether patents are really good for innovation or
not.

~~~
ryanpetrich
It would be too simple to split a company into a subsidiary that owned and
monetized patents and a parent that made real products.

~~~
Robin_Message
Not if the punishment for doing that was execution of the board and all
shareholders >5%.

------
tsumnia
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
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.

------
madao
They look pretty smart to me

[http://yourhome.honeywell.com/Home/Products/Thermostats/Summ...](http://yourhome.honeywell.com/Home/Products/Thermostats/SummaryList.htm)

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.

------
lr
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.

~~~
ceejayoz
> 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.

------
URSpider94
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.

------
duzour
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
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
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
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)

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

~~~
rndmize
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.

------
malandrew
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
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
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
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.

~~~
onemoreact
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.

------
designium
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
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.

------
narrator
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.

------
hyperbovine
Ahh, the Streisand effect.

Show me where to buy one of these!

