Re: A question or two about WGL's V572A

[Marc F Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:08:28 GMT, nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston) wrote
in message  <4319eb22.131088227@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>Given that someone has chosen (anonymosly) to quote this bullshit, I guess
>I must respond once again.
>
>There was _no_ design input from anybody in CHA (and this lying SOB cannot
>reference a single message to support his lies). After I announced it and
>sent beta boards (sans BX-24 chips) to three beta testers, one (John Jones)
>provided some excellent feedback. One other beta tester never had anything
>to say until long after the beta period, and the third got too busy with a
>real world project to offer much feedback.

See my previous post in this thread in which I reference specific messages.

>Nobody in North America _EVER_ sold kits for the BX24-AHT. Initially, my
>grandson sold bare boards and listed Laipac (Canada) as a source for RF
>receivers. Neither my grandson nor my son ever sold any other components
>for the BX24-AHT.

I did not state that anyone sold kits in the US. Read what I wrote.

And it is demonstrably false that the web store operated by your son and
grandson www.MyElectricDog.com did not offer for sale parts for the
BX24-AHT. The fact they offered for sale receivers, RS485 IC's, antennas,
and cables can be substantiated here.

link to "BX24-AHT Parts"
http://web.archive.org/web/20030206212038/http://www.myelectricdog.com/products.htm

"BX24-AHT Printed Circuit Boards and components"
http://web.archive.org/web/20030206234000/www.myelectricdog.com/BX24-AHT.htm
"
>
>Laipac had a $25 minimum (plus S&H) so, when people complained, I first
>asked Reynolds Electronics, who sells a 433MHz version of the receiver, to
>stock the 315MHz version. They agreed - if someone would guarantee them
>1000 units. I found the Taiwanese manufacturer and my grandson started
>selling 310MHz receivers for $7.50 (a $2.50 markup).

Apparently these were among the parts your son and grandson sold that you
claim in the paragraph above that they didn't.

>Laser bought bare boards from my grandson (10% markup), bought 433MHz
>receivers from LaiPac, bought BX-24's from Peter Anderson and all of the
>other components came from Mouser as it was easier for them to do that than
>try to cross reference the P/N list and buy from Maplin or some other
>European source. They assembled the units and sold them pretty much at
>their cost (they had to pay a 17% VAT) because they have always had an
>interest in advancing HA in general. I think they sold all twenty.

Laser sold the  BX24-AHT for $220 + shipping + VAT where applicable, so it
is not surprising that sales were slow. Nothing you write here refutes
anything I've written.

>The FCC puts the burden on the manufacturer and/or dealer. It is illegal to
>sell Part 15 devices like these that have not undergone prescribed tests in
>FCC accredited labs. Europe puts the burden on the user. It's legal to sell
>things like this there as long as the dealer says it is "not for use in EU
>countries."

I didn't say anything to the contrary. I did say that there was legal and
ethical dodgem, and this supports that observation.

>As best I recall, Laser sold 2 assembled units to N. America. AFAIK, those
>sales violated no rules either in Europe or in N. America. In any case, I
>had no involvement. I sold nothing to Laser (nor to anyone, anywhere) and I
>received no money from Laser (nor anyone, anywhere).

It is preposterous for you to state that you had no involvement. The license
on your web site prohibits the sorts of sales that Laser made. So you had a
different agreement with them unless you are now claiming that there sales
were unauthorized.  If you gave authorization to Laser to produce and sell a
product that is your intellectual property, you were/are involved with them.

>When I announced the BX24-AHT, I made it plain that it would never be a
>commercial product and that it was primarily intended to be a demonstration
>project and, secondarily, to help Peter Anderson sell more BX-24 chips. I
>repeated that several times whenever anyone whined that they wanted to buy
>it assembled.

I never said anything to the contrary about your stated intentions. I have
simply posted facts. Peter is a good person and it a shame to drag him into
this.  I've purchased stuff from him since at least 1998. Your support of
his work is commendable.

>Those who approached me with a request to build it and market it, were told
>that I doubted the market would return the cost of FCC testing but if they
>wanted to do the FCC testing I would give them any details they needed.

But ABIK, you have not released the source code for the firmware or the PC
code.  And you retain copyright and authorize only private use on your web
site. Apparently  you did authorize the commercial use, including sale of
assembled units to www.laser.com.  I have made no statements whatsoever
regarding whether you received any funds.  ABIK nothing prevents you from
obtaining from royalties from such an arrangement with Laser or anyone else
(but I make no claim to being an expert on these matters).

>WGL decided to sell a similar device without testing and even tried to
>persuade Laser to handle it while boasting that they "were not worried by
>FCC rules". Kwong Li, who happens to be a licensed ham, told him "No."

So? From what I understand you to say, the FCC status of the assembled
commercial BX-AHT's that Laser did sell through agreement with you was the
exactly the same as the FCC status of the WGL product.

>Anyone who wishes can try the URL that Hult gave (www.laser.com/houston/).
>They will get "Not Found - The requested URL /houston/ was not found on
>this server."

Typo. Of course it was www.laser.com/dhouston/ (~3000 google hits in
comp.home.automation.com )  IIRC, you have indicated in another post that
you had the archive copies of laser.com/dhouston/ removed from
www.archive.org.  My computer had previously retained my visit to
www.laser.com/dhouston/ and so I can document my statements.

>Now, if people will stop quoting the lies of Hult and (b)ASS, I'll stop
>defending myself against them.

You haven't refuted a single thing I wrote except to point out the
triviality that I mistyped the url for (www.laser.com/dhouston/ by dropping
the "d".

And you keep adding to the list of statements demonstrated to be false and
shrill accusations without showing that a single one of my statements is
incorrect (because they aren't). Have you rationally assessed the cumulative
impact of this?

Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org