Nest Gets Sued Again For Patent Infringement For Daring To Make A Better Product

from the you-need-a-patent-to-add-a-voice-to-a-smoke-detector? dept

A year and a half ago, we wrote about the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Honeywell against Nest. Honeywell, of course has a huge market share for thermostats, while Nest is the innovative upstart -- the darling of the tech set for rethinking how to make a simple thermostat and include Apple-style design touches and features. It was a perfect example of a complacent legacy player caught off-guard by a disruptive upstart... which then chooses to sue instead of just compete in the marketplace. Recently, Nest launched its second product to much fanfare: doing a similar rethinking of the lowly smoke detector -- adding a bunch of features that make it more useful, safer and less annoying than today's common smoke detectors. Hurray for innovation.

And so, of course, Nest has now been sued for patent infringement again, this time by BRK, makers of "First Alert," which holds a patent on certain features, like having a smoke detector that uses a voice instead of a loud beeping. Wait, you may be saying to yourself: you can patent using a voice in a smoke detector, instead of a beep? According to BRK, apparently you can get six such patents: 6,144,310, 6,600,424, 6,323,780, 6,784,798, 7,158,040 and 6,377,182. Okay, okay, I exaggerate. Only five of those six patents are about voice alarms. One is about how the damn thing is mounted.

Part of the lawsuit seems to suggest that the folks at BRK are just kinda pissed off at Nest's marketing -- in which they've said that "there has been no innovation in the market for years." That was clearly an exaggeration for marketing effect. What BRK is really angry about is that Nest's marketing is working. But that's how competition works. Yes, perhaps BRK put voices into smoke detectors first -- and that's great. But being first is meaningless. What matters is if you can get people to use the devices, and Nest is doing a good job getting the word out. If BRK were smart, it would recognize that Nest is helping to educate the market, and that should increase the opportunity to get their own products more well known. Compete in the marketplace, don't try to shut down the upstart because you're jealous that they're the hot new thing.

Furthermore: I've got two of the BRK First Alert smoke detectors/carbon monoxide detectors in my house already. They're definitely a step up from the traditional kind of smoke detectors (of which I've got another half a dozen around the house as well). But, frankly, the Nest Protect goes way beyond what the First Alert does and puts it in a much more compelling package. It's got lots of innovations that go way beyond just adding a voice, providing more detailed information, and is a product more likely to keep you safe.

In Nest's response, it points out that merely adding voice to a smoke detector was an obvious concept and shouldn't be patentable -- also pointing out that there's significant prior art. There's also the (big) problem that BRK doesn't own most of the patents in the lawsuit. Instead, they're owned by Gary Morris, the inventor, who licensed (but did not assign) them to BRK. BRK argues that it has the exclusive license to those patents, which could potentially mean it has the right to sue, but Nest points out that Morris shows those patents available for license on his website, suggesting otherwise (though, I just looked and it appears those particular patents are no longer listed on his website...).

Either way, BRK may be jealous, but it should channel that effort into building a better product and convincing people to buy it. Don't stomp on the competition just because the new guy is getting some attention: innovate and compete. The world will be a better place and more people will be protected from home fires and carbon monoxide poisoning. Isn't that better than trying to shut down a product that might help keep people safe?

Filed Under: competition, fire alarms, first alert, innovation, patents, smoke detectors
Companies: brk, nest

Sweden Insists On Fire Alarms On Hotel Made Of Ice

from the that's-cold,-man dept

In these highly charged political times, you tend to hear the term "nanny state" thrown around quite a bit. Whether it's the mayor of a major US city lovingly playing psy-ops with citizens on vices like cigarettes and soda, or an otherwise sane nation keeping its citizens safe from the horrors of accurately depicted street view maps, the general impression is that the government in question doesn't think enough of its own people to allow them to live out their lives as they choose. And, while a simple stroll down the street might cause me to have some sympathy with their premise, most of us tend not to believe that our governments should be in the business of social-engineering our free choices (even though that's essentially the business they're in).

But sometimes a nanny state action moves beyond the mildly frustrating and into the realm of the hilarious. Reader btr1701 writes in about one such instance, in which the government of Sweden is engaging in some manner of performance art on the silliness of over-regulation by the government.

Sweden's Ice Hotel has been ordered by the National Housing Board to install fire alarms, despite being made completely out of frozen water. The Ice Hotel, which is rebuilt every year in northern Sweden out of enormous chunks of ice from the Torne River in Jukkasjärvi, Kiruna, will this year come equipped with fire alarms – and the irony isn't lost on the staff.

"We were a little surprised when we found out," hotel spokeswoman Beatrice Karlsson told The Local.

Now, before your laughter at the concept of a hotel made completely out of ice being forced to install fire alarms reaches shart-inducing levels, it should be noted that some of the decorations in the hotel are not made of ice and could conceivably catch fire. On the other hand, one would assume that such a fire wouldn't be able to spread all that much, what with it being surrounded by ice and all. There might be some minor concerns about a small fire melting the ice-based construction and bringing the whole thing crashing down I suppose, but I'm of the belief that if you're planning on staying in a hotel made of ice, you probably know the risk of that happening anyway. Or you want to punish yourself, in which case a collapse would only be helping you out.

Regulations exist for a reason, but their blanket-style approach highlights their rigidity when an ice-house needs a fire alarm.

Filed Under: fire alarms, ice, regulations, sweden

Wasabi Fire Alarms For The Deaf

from the now-there's-an-idea dept

It's always fascinating to see technology come up with unique solutions to certain problems. For people who are deaf, it makes sense that a traditional fire alarm might not work, since they wouldn't hear the alarm in order to escape. So, if I were tasked with coming up with a special alarm for the deaf, I'd most likely target one of the other senses. I would probably go with sight or touch as the first two, creating fire alarms that light up and flash or perhaps bang or shake something so the person would feel the alarm. However, Boing Boing notes that some researchers in Japan went after a different sense: smell. They've created a horseradish fire alarm (I'm assuming it's actually a wasabi smell, but since the two are effectively the same, perhaps it doesn't matter). In tests, the wasabi smell woke up 13 of 14 test subjects in less than two minutes. What's not clear, however, is how much more effective the smell of wasabi is than, say, the smell of smoke from the actual fire. Also, what happens if there's already a strong wasabi smell in the house? If I'm deaf, I think I'd prefer a flashing light.

Filed Under: deaf, fire alarms, wasabi