Draft RESNET Standard now open for public comment

[Nick Gromicko]

I've been on top of this Patent issue from the get-go, and I never heard of any lawsuit. This is news to me. Can you tell me where the suit was filed and against whom?

[Peter C. Russell]

John, thank you. I've looked at the standards but need to review them more before comment. I can tell you I for one am glad there will be a IR standard for inspecting homes. Unfortunately some will continue to do just a basic heat loss/moisture intrusion inspection and not realize the importance of these standards, especially since the house just pasted the climate and energy bill.

Thank you for posting here so that inspectors/performance contractors like myself have access to this info.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by gromicko

I've been on top of this Patent issue from the get-go, and I never heard of any lawsuit. This is news to me. Can you tell me where the suit was filed and against whom?

See post #32

http://www.nachi.org/forum/f6/ir-ins...tml#post529606

[Peter C. Russell]

I respectfully ask that all the replies to this thread concerning anything other than the topic be moved. Please!! this topic is very important and a couple of us would like to be able to have a professional dialog concerning it.
Thank you.

[rspermo]

Peter,

I totally agree. Let's talk about the proposed RESNET IR program not some lame lawsuit! That being said it is now time for me to go to the RESNET Web site and read their proposal!

[John McKenna]

Peter and Robert... please start talking... we are all waiting...

[Joe Farsetta]

RESNET is not important at this juncture. The livlihoods of those using infrared technology in execution of a home inspection is...;

Therefore...

I call on all purchasers of IR technology and related education to immediately cease any support of these companies or their products. Further, I would explore the possibility of launching class-action lawsuits against the manufacturers and education providers for failing to notify purchasers of their products that a patent issue relating to infringement is active and unresolved.

As an education partner of Kaplan, I wold name HomeSafe in the suit.

The only way to get action is to hold those accountable... accountable.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

RESNET is not important at this juncture. The livlihoods of those using infrared technology in execution of a home inspection is...;

Therefore...

I call on all purchasers of IR technology and related education to immediately cease any support of these companies or their products. Further, I would explore the possibility of launching class-action lawsuits against the manufacturers and education providers for failing to notify purchasers of their products that a patent issue relating to infringement is active and unresolved.

As an education partner of Kaplan, I wold name HomeSafe in the suit.

The only way to get action is to hold those accountable... accountable.

InterNACHI sells IR cameras and provides IR education.
Do you want to sue InterNACHI?

[Joe Farsetta]

If that's what it takes to have this addressed at a federal level, then yes.

[James H. Bushart]

The holders of these patents are members of our association.

IMO, we have an ethical duty to either honor...or formally challenge....that patent.

Simply ignoring it is not an option. The people who are selling you an IR camera with the knowledge that your use of it will violate a patent are...at a minimum...doing you a disservice and....at most....are open to being sued by the buyer as well as the patent holder.

[rmaday]

Originally Posted by jbushart

The holders of these patents are members of our association.

IMO, we have an ethical duty to either honor...or formally challenge....that patent.

Simply ignoring it is not an option.

Ignoring it is, indeed, honoring it.

[John McKenna]

There are hundreds of bogus patents that cannot be defended. Should we
shut down our business, out of fear, and go to court to fight them all?

• 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

And... it seems ridiculous to ask for a class action law suite against
InterNACHI when they have committed no crime. I am having trouble
believing that such a crazy idea has even been posted. How can
you expect any court in the land to hear a case where there has been
no crime and no damage? LOL.

As seen above, paying online with a credit card violates a patent, so
I guess we should file a class action law suite against each other... LOL.

The InterNACHI Ethics committee needeth some ethics, me thinks.

BTW... can you share with us how we are in violation of this IR patent?
Can you define the specs that shows when a person is in violation and
when they are not? I doubt you have even read the patent and your
comments are just a ploy to create debate.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

There are hundreds of bogus patents that cannot be defended. Should we
shut down our business, out of fear, and go to court to fight them all?

John,

How many times are yo going to post that?

Are there lawsuits trying to protect those patents?

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by mlarson

John,

How many times are yo going to post that?

Are there lawsuits trying to protect those patents?

Are there law suites to prove the moon is not cheeze...
Some things are just ignored.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

Are there law suites to prove the moon is not cheeze...
Some things are just ignored.

apparently Home**fe is not ignoring it.

You are dancing John.