Draft RESNET Standard now open for public comment

[David A. Andersen]

Manufacturers who provide training (directly or indirectly through another subsidiary) are teaching the procedure for inspecting buildings, which is allegedly covered by the patent.

For example, ITC is not Flir. But Flir owns ITC.
I used the major manufacturers names rather loosely.
They still have an interest though.

[James H. Bushart]

Exactly, Rick.

It is the user of the device who, once sued by HomeSafe, will have recourse against the people who sold/trained without revealing to them their knowledge of the patent restricting his use of the product they profited from selling/training him on.

The patent holder is not harmed by the salesmen and trainer, for they are not violating his patent. Their customer is.

How many fewer people might pay the $500 fee to listen to McKenna "teach" about a camera knowing they may be sued for using it? His declarations to them that the patent is "bogus" and "invalid" can be further construed as misrepresentation of fact in order to financially gain while exposing them to lawsuits for infringing on a patent that was, indeed, valid.

As Joe has suggested, a moratorium in purchases and other financial inducements, is an incentive to those manufacturers etc who are presumably harmed by such a patent. If it is not real.....then they should be the ones addressing it to further their own interests in selling it. They have the resources that many of their clients (HIs buying IR cameras) do not.

If the claim is not real....it harms the distributors and manufacturers. If the claim is real....the distributors and manufacturers are setting up others for harm. In either case, they sit at the pivotal point of the issue and their silence on it provides the patent holder with 90% of his legitimacy.

[Jason Kaylor]

Originally Posted by rmaday

Homesafe is taking the "safe bet" that individual HIs won't have the resources to fight them. Besides, they have no basis to sue any manufacturers, as their patent alegedly covers the use (process) of the camera in a home inspection.

The largest of the manufactures has a training facility, which trains similiar processes.

As David stated, FLIR and Fluke both buy up companies that they need their services from. Fluke is owned by Danaher, their pockets are extremely deep. They just recently bought Hawk IR, and really pushed in to the infrared business years ago by aquiring IR Insight. If you look at the old IR Insight line it is basically the current line of Fluke IR cameras.

If either company really found this patent to potentially affect their bottom line they would have bought it up by now.

Another interesting fact in the IR industry that just doesn't make any sense to me about this patent is the fact that current IR training facilities are training to standards (using temperature analysis via an IR camera)that were developed long before HomeSafe. In the HomeSafe patent it even refers to this. Stating that other processes have already been developed for industry, commercial building applications and flat roofs. Which is why they came up with one for sloped roofs. Which by the way doesn't work all that well. Water goes where it wants. So if HomeSafe truly has this process that they know will stand up (at least they try to get money from people based on this fact) why not get royalities from ICT, Infraspection, Snell, McKenna, etc.

I think the most important point made in this thread so far is what David just put in his post. Ultimately he has a paper trail from his training facility. Which in his case is ICT. Providing you have that, you really should be safe from any litigation from HomeSafe. Technically the training facilities/providers are the ones teaching the methods which you are now following. Its just yet another reason to get certified training, that you know will back you up against even more potential litigation.

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
Retrotec Duct & Blower Door

[Joe Farsetta]

Here's a prime example of sleazy business practices. Totally unrelated to this IR patent issue, but illustrative nonetheless...

A company manufactures a testing product. The law states that these testing services/products need to be licensed by the state in which they are sold. You see these items in a local store. For sale... cheap.

The manufacturer is unlicensed by the state. The product is not approved by the State. But, it is still for sale inthe store...

You purchase it.

Who had violated the law?

You? NO

The manufacturer? NO

The Store? YES


David A... dont get me wrong. I support you. However, I believe that the only way to rid the industry of this threat, is by taking it head-on. Now, who will do this? Will it be you?

Who should be responsible for handling this issue, which will require money to squash? Those who stand to make the most. My friend, that aint you or Will, or Mario. It's the responsibility of the manufacturer and major training player/partner.

Perhaps FLIR and Fluke think this is a tempest in a teakettle? Perhaps they are hiding in hopes it all goes away.

Problem is they are consciously DUCKING the issue at every turn.

I feel it is a slap in the face to every one of their customers out there.

[Nick Gromicko]

http://www.nachi.org/documents/flir-...fe-lawsuit.pdf

[David A. Andersen]

Yes Joe, You have a point and I am not saying it does not hold merit.

I am not going to stop my income because of a company that trained me may not be above board. If they come after me, Flir/ITC will be listed in my counter suit. Yes it will cost me. But it will cost me no matter.

As Jason has pointed out, we don't make much money on residential IR work. I can do without it and carry on if it comes to that.

They can't even prove anything I do IR. I can use the IR and just report on the follow up investigation. Find water with IR, document with the use of a moisture meter. Have an electrical load imbalance, use an amp meter. Have something hot, use an IR thermometer or thermocouple. This should be standard practice anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My client will just be saying, "How the hell did you find that"? They have been saying that to me for 11 years anyway (long before my use of IR). IR is just a means of documenting the condition as far as I am concerned.

I do not, and never have relied on IR for 100% of an analysis.

I can't say that for the industry as a whole. 99% of what you find on the internet about IR services is bogus. Just as HomeSafe claims being able to "see through walls"!

I have called this crap out many times in the past;
Google Search: "Clarksville Thermal Home Inspector debunks Memphis HI"

#1
Clarksville Thermal Home Inspector debunks Memphis HI - InterNACHI ...
Add-on services include thermal infrared imaging letting you see an MRI of your building. https://www.homegauge.com/home-inspe...ee/county/Dyer As hosted by ...
http://www.nachi.org/.../clarksville...phis-hi-35907/ - Cached - Similar -


http://www.nachi.org/forum/f58/clark...phis-hi-35907/

This is what gets us all in a heap of dog crap!

[Nick Gromicko]

Joe Farsetta writes:

What concerns me is the silence. Silence on the part of these manufacturers. Silence on the part of the big players of thermographic training.Silence on the part of this organization.

This: http://www.nachi.org/documents/HomeS...tent_issue.pdf first released in January 2009 on the InterNACHI message board:

http://www.nachi.org/forum/f58/flir-...t-issue-36397/

[David A. Andersen]

Thank you Nick! I pulled that up last year, but have not had time to locate it again.

To all: Read....

Their letter makes no claim that the recipient is in violation, only that you may be....

Again "acoustical" comes up many times.
To my knowledge, they are the only ones that use "acoustical" with IR.
I sure don't.

They also warn against using inferior IR equipment! Which in their eyes is FRAUD against your client.

Current standards taught are stricter that those of homesafe.
This is 2009! Their original equipment of 1995 vintage is CRAP in comparison to even the Extec I5 which is not for this application to start with!

[Nick Gromicko]

FlIR:

To be liable for patent infringement, a person must parctice each feature of a patent claim. Failure to practice even one feature allows a person to avoid infringement

[Chris Mayes]

"To be liable for patent infringement, a person must parctice each feature of a patent claim. Failure to practice even one feature allows a person to avoid infringement"

Posting this 10 pages ago could have saved you some server space for a relevant thread.

[Joe Farsetta]

Ummm...

Three things....

1) Flir's defamation suit was filed a while ago. What was the outcome?

2) Flir states that is will not comment on the validity of the patent...

3) One neednt follow EVERY item in a process to be infringing on a process patent. Substantially following the process will meet the test.

That's like saying if you use an electronic ringer instead of a mechanical bell, its no longer a telephone.

[Nick Gromicko]

I will comment on the validity of the patent. It's valid. I just don't care because we don't use their patented method.

An electronic ringer doesn't infringe on a mechanical bell patent. www.InfraredCertified.com filing its own patents.

[John McKenna]

I have never read the patent. When people tell me the entire IR building
industry is at risk and we must all shut down... my response is to say
that idea is a bogus patent. It is bizarre to make such claims IMHO and
no such patent of this kind exist.

As I read this thread and FLIR's response, I see many have misrepresented
this patent to begin with. It seems to cover a very detailed and narrow
set of protocols, from what they say. This makes me even less concerned
than before.

Thanks for the debate.

BTW... it does strike me as odd that this patent has been around for
8 years (I think) and of the many threatening letters and calls to go
to court... the patent holder has always backed off.

It seems more profitable to continue to threaten and collect fees
from a few novices than to actually take this patent into a court
room where it could come under the light of debate. It would
be very expensive and they would stand to loose their present
source of income.

As one person already said, those who do not use IR and have
a track record of attacking it, seem to be leading this charge of
the light brigade, to inflame a nation wide boycott or a law suite
against InterNACHI. These extreme ideas seem odd coming
from men I feel are smarter than this thread portrays.

[Joe Farsetta]

Mr. McKenna,

Your opinion doesnt count. You are a trainer who has repeatedly missed the boat with regard to patents and patent infringement. Your ignorance has reached new, never before attained heights with your last post, wherein you admit to never having read the patent.

That says it all.

You have lost all credibility.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Mr. McKenna,

Your opinion doesnt count. You are a trainer who has repeatedly missed the boat with regard to patents and patent infringement. Your ignorance has reached new, never before attained heights with your last post, wherein you admit to never having read the patent.

That says it all.

You have lost all credibility.

I listend to Nick's lawyer and thought his advise was good.
He advised Nick to not read it and therefore he would not
be held liable for trying to copy it. It would be impossible
to copy it.

That is why I never read it. I admit that I am not a lawyer
and I try to listen to people who are smarter than me.
I have no need to follow their patent process. It means
nothing to me. I was trained by FLIR-ITC.