potential home automation patent war looming?

electron

Administrator
Staff member
Lately, I have been playing with many ideas on how to control my HVAC system through home automation (I am sure you have encountered my threads), and came up with some cool (no pun intended!) ideas. So I started searching the patent database to see if I was the first one to think of this, and while searching, I found a rather disturbing patent which might affect many of us:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7047092.html

Abstract:
A user interface having a plurality of user interface elements including: background, passive elements such as frames and borders, information display elements that present information from application software operating on the control unit, and control elements that cause application software operating on the control unit to initiate programmed behaviors. The user interface as a whole is contextually sensitive in that the appearance of user interface elements (e.g., color, size, font, contrast, order, grouping, arrangement, etc.) and/or the behavior of user interface elements are varied in a manner that is dependent on the context of the control unit. The context of the control unit is represented by state information known to the control unit, which includes context-specific state information known to a particular control unit as well as global context information known to multiple or all control units in a system.

Doesn't this even cover a PDA running MainLobby, CQC or NetRemote?
 
Wow, who owns that bad boy? I'm surprised that you can get a patent on a vague concept like that. It makes me wonder if there is a similar patent that covers having air-filled continuous tube rubber/steel devices mounted near the four corners of automotive vehicles...
 
Wow. Keep in mind that the section you quoted is just the abstract, which has no legal bearing on the patent; the claims are the important part. I'll look at those while I eat lunch! <_<

air-filled continuous tube rubber/steel devices
Think that's a joke? A guy in Australia patented something like this within the last year to make a point on how bad patent examiners have become!
 
How about a patent on a Human Gene? I have seen news stories on such things? Some research scientists have had to stop research since the patent holder of that gene wants a large royalty to use it. <_< :wacko:
 
I know it's the abstract, but it did a good job explaining what it is all about, I definitely do recommend that everyone reads that entire patent before judging tho, maybe I read it wrong
 
I'm not a lawyer, but this is insane! It seems to actually claim a client/server home automation system with GUI's. Some of the referenced prior-art is just as scary...

I know I'm going to dig into this some more; very interesting. Thanks e!
 
This is typical of the overly broad vague patents that the patent office is so prone to grant (especially to the software industry). Most of these could be vacated if anyone could afford to sue since there is alot of prior art in this area (even PC controlled x10 systems predate most of this stuff). Companies file all these patents to use as weapons against competitors and small start ups since once they are granted (even if erroneously) they are expensive to get rid of. Nowadays it is a reare patent that is truly original and a real invention.

Anyone who wants to access the full text and images can search patent number (or names or words) at:
http://www.uspto.gov/patft
 
They even reference this patent in their product descriptions of their Companion product.
 
Paul_PDX said:
Companies file all these patents to use as weapons against competitors and small start ups since once they are granted (even if erroneously) they are expensive to get rid of.
This is very true.

However, companies often file patents that they have no intention of enforcing, simply to increase the value of it's patent portfolio. It makes the company more attractive to potential suitors, who are unlikely to asses each patent's enforceability. I would bet this falls into that category.

I have an Allen-Bradley touch-screen that appears to violate many of the claims in this patent, except that I bought the touch-screen in 1997. I suspect you could find a lot of prior-art that dates prior to April of 2004.
 
Would be nice if the public could submit prior art at any time and get the patent invalidated. I know there is some way of forcing the USPTO to reexamine the patent, but I don't remember what's involved.
 
I cannot believe those types of patents get granted (assuming it's not just pending.) And in this case, they'd have to defend it against many and sundry companies far larger than they are, so they'd be doomed. I mean what is the Windows task list but exactly what is described there? Not to mention it would sit squarely on Crestron, AMX, C4, etc..., all of whom sell products that exist almost totally to present a plurality of elements on a screen that represent the state of the devices under control.
 
Would be nice if the public could submit prior art at any time and get the patent invalidated. I know there is some way of forcing the USPTO to reexamine the patent, but I don't remember what's involved.

A better option would probably be to point it out to Crestron, whose lawyers would squash them like a bug over that silly a claim. I think I'll do that just to amuse myself today.
 
Would be nice if the public could submit prior art
There was a site I came across before where you could post stuff like this, but I can't recall the URL, and wasn't able to find anything by searching.
 
I contacted Crestron and passed on this information. Not sure if they'll do anything about it, but if I were them I would. If that patent has been grated, and it looks like it was, then effectively Crestron's entire business would be at legal risk.
 
Back
Top