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: , , , , ,
Companies: brk, nest

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Nest Gets Sued Again For Patent Infringement For Daring To Make A Better Product”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Richard Ahlquistsays:

Re: Re:

In addition to that when someone wins like say Apple just did against Samsung that 290million comes out of the consumers pockets. So all it’s created is a litigious money pit.

Create something new, patent.

Competitor creates it, sue, lawyers profit, joe schmuck pays.

It’s no longer about innovation if indeed it ever was. It’s truly about crushing competition. They claim its about protecting the R&D costs of a company. They spend hundreds of millions like Microsoft did in designing the new controller for the Xbox One so they must be allowed to patent it to recoup those costs. Here is the catch..

What if my company was designing a similar controller at the same time and didnt get the patent first? What if my company had spent 100million, well that just means I get to eat that loss. In virtually any design space there are multiple companies all at once designing similar products with minimal differences that shouldn’t be protected in this way. This is all about big business protectionism. It completely stifles innovation because we want to assure that the big pockets people get compensated.


Re: Re: From the Verge comments

What if I have an idea that hasn’t been brought to the market for some time (1-2 years or maybe never will) because the ‘inventor’ does nothing with their patent and I’ve therefore no prior awareness of the idea (i.e. for my part I invented it)?

Should infringements not be recognised during that period of inactivity and protected from negative legal implications? Otherwise it simply puts up a wall for startups bringing consumer-beneficial products to the market, particularly if the registered patent is overly broad.

John Fendersonsays:

Being first

But being first is meaningless. What matters is if you can get people to use the devices

Right on the money.

Further, being first comes with some large disadvantages. These disadvantages can be overcome by properly using the advantages of being first, but it’s actually really hard to do that. There’s a reason for the truism “the pioneers get all the arrows”.

From a pure business point of view, you generally want to be second, not first.


Re: Re: Being first

“There’s a reason for the truism “the pioneers get all the arrows”. From a pure business point of view, you generally want to be second, not first.”

A good example of that is comparing the Diamond Rio to the Apple iPod. The first was snuffed out by the litigious record industry, the second reaped a fortune after the smoke on the battlefield had cleared.


Anyone else play Bioshock?

I’m aware that it’s not condoning Objectivism; rather, it shows how Ayn Rand’s dream of the future would quickly go down the drain. But there’s an audio diary about a third of the way into the game that I’ve never really forgotten:

“Gregory, don’t come whining to me about market forces. And don’t expect me to punish citizens for showing a little initiative. If you don’t like what Fontaine is doing, well, I suggest you find a way to offer a better product.”

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow