Draft RESNET Standard now open for public comment

[John Snell]

I take the liberty of reproducing this email from Steve Baden, Executive Director of RESNET, with regard to the new draft infrared standard I was fortunate to help write; I encourage all to read this and, as appropriate, make comments so that it can become an even better standard. I know many NACHI members who read this board will have experiences that can be incorporated, even given the difference in "mission" between RESNET and a more traditional home inspection:

"The thermal imaging technology has advanced significantly in the past few years and the price of equipment has grown more affordable. The technology offers the promise of a way to measure the EPA ENERGY STAR Homes Thermal Bypass Checklist and the quality of the installation of the insulation after the dry wall has been installed. To pave the way to achieving this potential, RESNET recruited an Infrared Scanning Task Force to draft a standard.

The committee drafted an IR standard based on the experience of its members and the United Kingdom's standard for using the technology in measuring the quality of insulation installation. The draft standard was reviewed and approved by the RESNET Technical Committee. After the Technical Committee completed its review, the task force made a number of organizational changes to the proposed amendment. These changes are:

• The IR Standard is now labeled CHAPER 8 Performance Testing Standards. Section 801 is Pressure Diagnostics (Blower Door and Duct Testing), Section 802 is Thermographic Inspections of Buildings (formerly IR Standard) and Section 803 is Combustion Safety Testing. Section 801 and Section 803 are not written yet but have place holders in this Chapter for later adoption.
• The language for certification requirements was changed to be more concise in Section 802 for both Methods 1 and 2.
• The training time in Section 802 was changed from 3 days-36 hours to 3 days-24 hours. (802, Method 2, #2)
• Provisions for inspecting Grade I insulation deleted since this type of thermographic inspect tion will not allow for evaluation of Grade I insulation. (805.2, Grade I)
• Measuring of "insulation anomalies" changed from "square foot" to "square inch". (805.3)
• Inclusion of "framing fraction" as part of the "thermal bridging" inspection. (805.4, #2)
• Other changes involve minor word edits to better define statement meanings.

Public comments on all of the proposals will be accepted until July 16 13, 2009.

At the completion of the comment period, the Infrared Scanning Task Force will review comments and revise the amendment where appropriate. The amendment will then be submitted to the Amendment Revision Committee, composed of three representatives of the rating industry and three representatives of state energy offices. The RESNET Board will then consider the recommendations of the revision committee and vote on whether to adopt the amendments.

To view the proposed amendments and submit comments go to <http://www.resnet.us/standards/mortgage/amendments/2009/performance_testing/default.htm>

Steve Baden
Executive Director
RESNET"

Thermally yours,
John Snell
Snell Infrared
800-636-9820
www.snellinfrared.com
www.irtalk.com
www.irwebinars.com

[Joe Farsetta]

John,

You and your buddy are clearly stepping all over HomeSafe's patent, and infringing on their rights accordingly.

Therefore, I am calling for you to immediately cease and desist with this charade, and use of this message board to further your agenda.

You are encouraging every member of this organization to step directly into the sights of HomeSafe's attorneys.

Unless and until InfraRed education providers can prove otherwise, and beyond rhetorical references, it is my belief that all communications relative to InfraRed standards and techniques be blocked at the door.

It is also my opinion that the manufacturers of this equipment also have a duty to warn their clients of the HomeSafe patent issue, and encourage them to respect the patent, until such time that it is revoked or modified.

My word is final. I command you from the top of Mt. Olympus...

Seriously, though... Maybe the time has come for inspectors to stop buying these products and taking your training, and looking at your standards.

There is apparently a standing US Patent where someone legally occupies the field. Currently, every student who takes your course is a potential target. Will you indemnify them? If not, you should legitimately cease and desist. Step up and be pro-active to halt the madness. The fact that you sit idly while others become the target isnt right.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

There is apparently a standing US Patent where someone legally occupies the field. Currently, every student who takes your course is a potential target. Will you indemnify them? If not, you should legitimately cease and desist. Step up and be pro-active to halt the madness. The fact that you sit idly while others become the target isnt right.

I talked with some very high level people in the IR camera industry and their educational providers on this subject. They treat this subject like it is a non-issue. Other than a few novices, I have never talked to anyone in the IR industry who takes these claims seriously.

Also see some examples below as to why...

Every year numerous illegitimate patent applications make their way through the United States patent examination process without adequate review. The problem is particularly acute in the software and Internet fields where the history of prior inventions (often called 'prior art') is widely distributed and poorly documented. As a result, we have seen patents asserted on such simple technologies as:

• One-click online shopping (U.S. Patent No. 5,960,411.)
• Online shopping carts (U.S. Patent No. 5,715,314.)
• The hyperlink (U.S. Patent No. 4,873,662.)
• Video streaming (U.S. Patent No. 5,132,992.)
• Internationalizing domain names (U.S. Patent No. 6,182,148.)
• Pop-up windows (U.S. Patent No. 6,389,458.)
• Targeted banner ads (U.S. Patent No. 6,026,368.)
• Paying with a credit card online (U.S. Patent No. 6,289,319.)
• Framed browsing; (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,933,841 & 6,442,574.) and
• Affiliate linking (U.S. Patent No. 6,029,141.)

http://www.zmetro.com/archives/000459.php


Among the ten recommendations of today’s report, the FTC proposes legislative and regulatory changes to improve patent quality. Patents of questionable validity can slow further innovation and raise costs to consumers. Specifically, the report recommends:

• Creating a new administrative procedure that will make it easier for firms to challenge a patent’s validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), without having to raise an expensive and time-consuming federal court challenge; and
• Allowing courts to find patents invalid based on the preponderance of the evidence, without having to find that clear and convincing evidence compels that result. The current standard of “clear and convincing evidence” undermines courts’ ability to weed out questionable patents. This is especially troubling, since certain PTO procedures and rules tend to favor the issuance of patents.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/10/cpreport.shtm

There are many non defendable patents out there, but that is a far cry from them being called "LAW". By the example listed above, are we suppose to pay every bogus patent claim for the rights to surf and do business on the internet?

So far, using an IR camera to scan a building is not illegal and no laws are pending to change that. There is no proof IMHO that these patent claims mean anything to the thousands of IR users and camera manufactures.

Can I now patent the rights to use a hammer and nail?

If your website ask people to pay online with a credit card, you are asking them to violate a standing patent. This can really get funny after a while.

[Rick Maday]

Perhaps some leaders in the IR industry should take homesafe to task, file the necessary paperwork to get this patent thrown out.

I don't think anyone here thinks the patent will stand up to review, but no one has taken that step to squash the patent.

And as it stands, now they do indeed hold apatent.

They can file suits against inspectors at will and it is on the inspector to prove they do not infringe on their patent.

Do you know if any of those actions have been implimented in the six years since that was written?

[Jason Kaylor]

Originally Posted by rmaday

Perhaps some leaders in the IR industry should take homesafe to task, file the necessary paperwork to get this patent thrown out.

I don't think anyone here thinks the patent will stand up to review, but no one has taken that step to squash the patent.

If they actually pursued this with Resnet that is exactly what would happen, and I am sure HomeSafe knows that.

This upcoming Resnet IR standard is a big deal for anyone in the IR business. Just as a side effect, it should finally put a muzzle on HomeSafe.

Jason Kaylor – JJ
VP of Specialty Products
877/207-1244
AC Tool Supply
Fluke Thermal Cameras
Testo Infrared Cameras
HotShot Hi-Rez Infrared Cameras
Fluke TiR1 Resources
FLIR B60 Resources
Retrotec Duct & Blower Door

[Chris Mayes]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

John,

You and your buddy are clearly stepping all over HomeSafe's patent, and infringing on their rights accordingly.

Wow.... Joe... just.... wow. I really hope you decide to take on RESNET. That would probably just put the nail the coffin and let you move on. BTW, how'd that suit with FLIR go for ya?

Please Lord, let this be the end-all on this.

It's hilarious when chihuahua's 'yap' at 'rotties.

Chris Mayes
AC Tool Supply, Inc.
www.energyauditortalk.org

[Rick Maday]

Originally Posted by jkaylor

If they actually pursued this with Resnet that is exactly what would happen, and I am sure HomeSafe knows that.

And that's exactly why they won't. They'll continue to go after the little guy in hopes of extorting their "license fee" rather than pursue someoe who would have the means to end the harrasment.

The only way to "muzzle them" is to get the patent thrown out. A Standard, created after the fact (patent), won't do it.

[John Snell]

I hope my main message is not lost in this thread going a bit haywire! Please, as I said, we are looking for input from qualified, concerned parties: " I know many NACHI members who read this board will have experiences that can be incorporated, even given the difference in "mission" between RESNET and a more traditional home inspection"

I'd value input from those with experience and a voice of reason. Thank you!

Thermally Yours,
John Snell
Snell Infrared
800-636-9820
www.snellinfrared.com
www.IRTalk.com
www.IRWebinars.com

[John McKenna]

I guess we should all stop doing any business on the Internet because there are patents that say we are in violation.

• One-click online shopping (U.S. Patent No. 5,960,411.)
• Online shopping carts (U.S. Patent No. 5,715,314.)
• The hyperlink (U.S. Patent No. 4,873,662.)
• Video streaming (U.S. Patent No. 5,132,992.)
• Internationalizing domain names (U.S. Patent No. 6,182,148.)
• Pop-up windows (U.S. Patent No. 6,389,458.)
• Targeted banner ads (U.S. Patent No. 6,026,368.)
• Paying with a credit card online (U.S. Patent No. 6,289,319.)
• Framed browsing; (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,933,841 & 6,442,574.) and
• Affiliate linking (U.S. Patent No. 6,029,141.)

http://www.zmetro.com/archives/000459.php

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

I guess we should all stop doing any business on the Internet because there are patents that say we are in violation.

• One-click online shopping (U.S. Patent No. 5,960,411.)
• Online shopping carts (U.S. Patent No. 5,715,314.)
• The hyperlink (U.S. Patent No. 4,873,662.)
• Video streaming (U.S. Patent No. 5,132,992.)
• Internationalizing domain names (U.S. Patent No. 6,182,148.)
• Pop-up windows (U.S. Patent No. 6,389,458.)
• Targeted banner ads (U.S. Patent No. 6,026,368.)
• Paying with a credit card online (U.S. Patent No. 6,289,319.)
• Framed browsing; (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,933,841 & 6,442,574.) and
• Affiliate linking (U.S. Patent No. 6,029,141.)

http://www.zmetro.com/archives/000459.php

You are repeating yourself John.

A very real lawsuit directed at a very real person by a very real holder of the "patent" is underway.

iNACHI and others should be in contact with the parties and monitoring developments and being proactive in this fight.

Since you are a provider of IR training services I would think it would concern you greatly.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by mlarson

You are repeating yourself John.

A very real lawsuit directed at a very real person by a very real holder of the "patent" is underway.

iNACHI and others should be in contact with the parties and monitoring developments and being proactive in this fight.

Since you are a provider of IR training services I would think it would concern you greatly.

Other legal minds, who have looked at this matter, say this is
a non-issue. If you want to spend your resources on it, no
one is stopping you. Home Safe has been playing this game
for a long time and has never won any suites, even though
it threatens to do so every day.

[Rick Maday]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

Other legal minds, who have looked at this matter, say this is
a non-issue. If you want to spend your resources on it, no
one is stopping you.

It is certainly not a "non-issue" for the inspector being sued.

Are those same legal minds representing him pro-bono, I hope?

Or perhaps he can simply walk into court and say that you told him it's non-issue. Will you write him a note too?

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

Home Safe has been playing this game
for a long time and has never won any suites, even though
it threatens to do so every day.

The fact that the defendant will likely win is, I'm sure, of no consequence to that defendant as he pays for his defense.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by rmaday

It is certainly not a "non-issue" for the inspector being sued.

Are those same legal minds representing him pro-bono, I hope?

Or perhaps he can simply walk into court and say that you told him it's non-issue. Will you write him a note too?

Please send him a donation if you REALLY care so much.
Then come back and preach to me.

[Rick Maday]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

Please send him a donation if you REALLY care so much.
Then come back and preach to me.

I'm not the one declaring it a "non-issue"

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by rmaday

I'm not the one declaring it a "non-issue"

It's a non-issue for John.

He is not the one being sued.