Re: Insteon now or wait?

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"BruceR" <br@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Z6kxg.32089$uy3.11815@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Not to get into a whole legal debate, but they do disclaim any implied
> warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.
>
> But let's look at the real issue: Flickering - which I think we can all
> agree is somewhat less egregious than bouts of cardiac arrhythmia!

But the legal principles are essentially the same.  While I'm sure both
Guidant and Smarthome disclaim warranties of merchantability and fitness,
those disclaimers have to be considered within the circumstances of the
sale.  If such blanket disclaimers were truly effective, there wouldn't be
any product liability lawsuits whatsoever, but we know that's just not the
case.  In fact, most such warranties add "not valid where not legal" or some
such language to acknowledge many states don't care what you disclaim.  The
maker is responsible for producing defective products, period.

>  First, let me describe exactly what constitutes a flicker - at least in >
my installation - which is the only one I have experience with.  When an
> Insteon signal is transmitted, some lights, described more fully below,
> may brighten to full intensity for maybe 100ms - less than the blink of
> an eye - and return to normal.  Multiple signals may cause multiple >
'flashes' which is probably a more accurate word than 'flicker.'

Agreed as to you installation, but IIRC, there have been reports of bulbs
blowing out.  That's not just annoying, it's plain dangerous.  If someone's
blinded, SH will be on the hook for some very big $$ indeed if a smart
lawyer can put the blame at their feet.  Exploding light bulbs cause plenty
of injuries every year,  Such was the case with ?Desperate Housewives?
actress Teri Hatcher, who suffered an injury to her eyte from an exploding
light bulb.

www.aao.org/news/release/20060426.cfm

I'm sorry, Bruce.  Although we agree on a lot of things, there's no way I
can agree with you here.  They did the wrong damn thing.  When the reports
of problems were confirmed, sales should have stopped.  They did wrong to
everyone who purchased switches between then and now.  They knew better, but
they didn't DO better.  Those customers deserve a level of compensation that
exceeds what original buyers or the folks that purchase reworked switches
should receive.

>  As many here know I have about 50 Insteon devices installed now being
> controlled primarily by a JDS TimeCommander through a (for now) 2414X
> translator (beta version).  Most of the devices control incandescent
> lighting and most are dimmed.  The flicker only occurs when Insteon
> signals are transmitted and only at loads that contain multiple
> incandescent bulbs that are already dimmed.  Each of the affected loads
> add up to 200 or more watts.  Single bulb dimmed loads, like my desk
> lamp, and larger non-dimmed loads never flicker or flash.
>
>  At most, I have 4 wall switches that demonstrate the problem due to the
> larger loads attached to them.  The LEDs in all the switches, modules
> and Keypadlincs also flicker when signals are received but I actually
> consider that to be a useful diagnostic "feature."  Other than the
> flickering (and the modules subject to safety recall) I am satisfied
> that these products are performing properly.  There is no MAJOR defect,
> and certainly not one that affects every light in the house or seriously
> impedes the utility of the system as a whole.
>
> So, will I rip out all 50 and replace them? No. Instead I'll exchange
> the ones that are controlling the larger loads (as well as the recalled
> units) and be done with it.  I will however, ask Smarthome if they will
> agree to a free warranty extension on the units that I do not replace.

I think they ought to be thinking in terms of gift certificates for people
who have to return the entire stinkload of flickering switches and not just
$5 ones.  Something in the $100 to $200 variety would be appropriate.  Why?
Because if even one in ten people see this problem, it means they failed to
do a comprehensive beta test and shifted that development costs onto first
adopters like you.  While it seems like an expensive solution for them,
history shows that companies are likely to end up paying a lot more if some
class action lawyer decides he's underworked or bored and prevails.

> That would seem like a fair compromise that would save them having to
> replace them all today - or perhaps ever - and give me peace of mind
> that I can if and when I need to. If they don't agree to that then I
> MIGHT, over the term of the regular warranty, replace them all.

>  I really can't fault Smarthome for continuing to sell units while they
> were working on the problem.

Why?  Apparently they didn't do a thorough enough beta test.  Should those
interim customers be the ones to bear the cost of that testing in the real
world?


> Most people will not be controlling and
> dimming larger loads so I think it's fair to say that less than one in
> ten will actually need upgrading.

Whoa!  I don't think *either* one of us can make an assertion about how
*most* people will be using this product.  Nor can we place numeric
quantifiers on the scope of the problem.  The best we can discern from
what's been revealed is that they appear to have decided - recently - to
stop selling the unfixed switches and to repair all in inventory.

They *should* have stopped selling them when they KNEW for certain they had
a design problem.  That's the ethical position.  They know full well that at
least *some* people are going to incur considerable electrician's expenses
swapping switches in and out.  Were I in that position, I'd feel very
confident in filing against them, pro se, in a California court for those
expenses.  I wouldn't need any internal "smoking gun" memos.  I'd just need
the information I can provide from net.   I'm pretty sure they'd settle,
quietly, less they lose and set a public precedent.  IIRC, there were at
least 100 such "hush money" settlements on the Ford Explorer before the lid
blew off.

> Rather than fault them for not  stopping sales completely,
> I think they should be commended for
> modifying existing stock rather than just selling it off and replacing
> the possible 10% that might come back as returns.

Wait a gol-durned minute.  Reward them for being shamed into *finally* doing
the right thing?  No, I believe they're reworking the switches because their
legal counsel has told them that they have exposure, not because they
suddenly developed a conscience.  If it's obvious to me that they've screwed
people, it's obvious to legal counsel, too.  If no one faults them for
screwing those people who bought defective switches when SH knew they were
bad, what process will keep them from doing it again?