Re: Insteon/X10

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

"Dan Wright" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>"Marc_F_Hult" <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:7vb903p4ttas4ndvaqke0blnd910hvq2q2@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>> Point being that Z-wave and Zigbee are also seen as vulnerable.
>
>The article was quite slanted, looking more like a Lutron press release than
>anything resembling responsible journalism.  Presumptively since Leviton is
>a big dog they did not go into this without adequate preparation.
>
>Anyone interested in this would find Lutron's litigation history
>instructive.

"responsible journalism"? What a quaint concept.

Julie Jacobson has been an editor of Electronic House and similar (related?)
publications for many years. She posted to CHA as far back as 1995. I've
never found her technical analyses very useful or very accurate. I think she
mostly rewrites advertiser's press releases. In the article on the Lutron
vs. Leviton patent suit she implies Z-Wave hasn't been shipping two-way
switches when all Z-Wave RF switches have been two-way from the beginning.

Over the past 25 years patent law has become increasingly divorced from
reality so I wouldn't venture to guess how the Lutron vs. Leviton and
similar Lutron suits will shake out but it would appear that INSTEON, not
having any RF switches, is one recent technology that need not worry about a
suit, at least along these lines.

Here are some links that think Lutron has a strong position...

http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/347888/residential_wireless_control_network_patent.htm
http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3636111

The Control4 suit might explain why several ZigBee based systems were
delayed and, when introduced, were rather limited in utility.

http://davehouston.net
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx