Re: I think they've done it again

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44d0f843.1326363906@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The author of those posts received one of the new "fixed" dimmers and he
> seems to confirm what I wrote here in his post dated 08/01/2006 : 1:35:25
PM
> where he says the SmartHome "fix" is a much larger choke that merely masks
> the underlying flaw.
>
> He has since backed down a bit (the red emphasis was not in the original)
> and even deleted a few posts. Perhaps he heard from a SmartHome attorney.
;)

While it's possible they've decided to explore some of the more onerous
provisions of the DMCA and go after him for reverse engineering their
design, it's not likely.  Threats don't buy nearly as much cooperation as $
does.   I get the feeling they've definitely gotten "smarter" about the
problem in recent months and taken some smart lawyers on board.

Smart lawyers know that clobbering people with legal goon squad is a
short-run tactic that eventually just contributes to an overall impression
of "coverup."  Maybe they just gave him a box full of all the defective
unmodified switches.  After all, that's what he was asking for in one of the
messages.  One of the hardest issues for lawyers in these cases is what to
offer as a enticement.  This guy answered that question up front.  I'm sure
they wish they were all that easy.

The disappearing posts and backing off of previously held opinions are the
tell-tale signs of an NDA, and therefore, a deal.  The squeaky wheel gets
the grease.  I'm pretty sure that's why the reports of bulb "blow outs" we
both seem to have seen weren't there anymore, either.  The author of the
triac posts is probably now a freelance engineering consultant for them
which makes him legally constrained from discussing any engineering issues.

It makes sense.  If you want to control the problem, pay off the most
strident or devastatingly accurate complainers and make them sign some sort
of secrecy or Non-Disclosure Agreement.  If you're dealing with someone that
can figure out where your engineers went wrong, it's smart to want them on
your team!  Analysis from non-defective switch owners like us presents
somewhat more of a problem.  (-:  We're the ones likely to get "cease and
desist" orders.

The Ford Explorer "blow out" recall was papered over with NDA's and
hush-hush settlements until someone decided they wouldn't sign!  It's pretty
standard stuff.  IIRC, Intel had the same sorts of issues when the Pentium
floating point error was exposed.  Eventually, someone said "no deal."

If *every* switch of the first batch is bad and will flicker under a heavy
load, Smarthome knows that keeping that fact quiet is going to save them a
lot of warranty exchange costs.  They hope that no one's going to notice
until they start driving large loads so the game, for them, is to keep
customers from noticing or deciding to test their switches with large loads.

The fact that they decided to fix every switch in their possession when the
ETL report came back isn't conclusive proof but it lends great support to
the contention that ALL the switches in the first batch were bad.

--
Bobby G.

>
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >news:44cf3dca.1213090875@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> If this guy's analysis (wrong type of triac, too large a current
limiting
> >> resistor) is correct, then I would expect all that use the same triac
and
> >> resistor are suspect.
> >>
> >> And if he's right, it means replacing the choke is curing the symptom
> >rather
> >> than fixing the underlying design flaw.
> >
> >Thanks for the explanation. He's promised to dissect the replacement
units
> >that they are shipping and report on what's different.  It will be
> >interesting what the fix is going to be.
> >
> >It sounds like the answer to my question is that the ALL the switches
from
> >the first batch are likely to flicker if driving large enough loads.
What
> >Smarthome is calling a "small percentage" of switches that are affected
> >really means "all switches are defective, but only those who are driving
> >250W lighting loads are seeing the ill-effects."
> >
> >More "wrong stuff." )-:
>