Draft RESNET Standard now open for public comment

[Jason Kaylor]

Originally Posted by rbibler

I have a problem with the energy deficiencies program and the all the required certs. to do this type of work. Looks to be nothing more then a drag on the backs of young inspectors or guys trying to start up a small company to offer this service. from what i can see the Obama energy program and the money is stuck in the mud of Wash DC. Red tape.
looking at the required Certs and what it cost to get this going is a rip off. the standards are a joke at this point. Good for John S. For trying set the bar. The Certs are way over priced. and the work load and pay is out of balance.

Trust me the money is there! We have open orders with manufactures right now to just ship us whatever they can make. They cannot keep up with the demand. Call around and try to buy a blower door, good luck. There are two of us right now that have them in stock, and even that changes from day to day. We have went from tons in stock to back ordered over 10 units in a matter of hours.

What I do not understand is why some states are getting funded and others still have yet to. New Jersery and New York were first, back in March. Just this week Arizona and Washington got theirs.

Here is the real wacky thing about the whole mess. Normally California leads the nation in new ideas/technologies etc. CA still has yet to get their funding. Add that to the fact that CA has the lowest amount of HERS raters per capita than any other state. Call around CA and try to get a HERS rater. When you finally do find one, ask how backed up they are. I know the president of CalHers and he doesn't understand it either. The raters he has right now are backed up 2-3 months.

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

Ideal
Blower Door

[James H. Bushart]

A INACHI member holds a patent issued to him by the U. S. Government.

The member has asked other members not to violate his rights and, as is required, he has filed a lawsuit to defend his patent. He has extended a courtesy to his fellow members by informing them in advance of his patent.

In the interest of his own personal financial gain, another member advises the public to disobey the law and refuse to observe the member's rights.

Others....for their own personal financial gain derived from infringing upon this member's patent, swim with McKenna in the same cesspool...arguing with nothing more than their own personal greed as their qualifications, that the patent is "invalid".

This is possibly....next to Tedesco's attempts to have Paul Abernathy fired from his job.....the most unethical act ever taken by a member against another member.

McKenna's attempt at logic fails...but then, it always has. His attempts at blindly defending the mistakes of those upon whom he depends for additional income (he calls "loyalty"), while advising and endorsing the illegal and unethical behavior of others against another member's legitimate claim for a patent...is more than unacceptable.

I don't expect to see McKenna or NACHI sued by the member with the patent. I expect to see them sued by members who invested in equipment and training with their concealment of and/or their advice to ignore the existence of a patent that subjects the trainees and purchasers to being sued, themselves.

For that reason, it can be expected that he continue to blabber and flounder in his disintegrating argument that the Federal Government was mistaken in their decision to provide the member with his patent.

I don't expect too many, however, to fall for it. In this case, time will tell.

[David A. Andersen]

Does anyone have a copy of the patent-standards in question?

Or do we want to know?

"Using a thermal camera on a building" patent is like patenting the use of a volt meter (designed, developed and patented by another company) to determine the electricity capacity in a house.

There has got to be some specific application or standard involved in this patent.
They can patent a procedure or a device, but they can not patent the entire industry as a whole when they did not design that industry.

There is nothing preventing anyone from designing another device, standard or use that is better than an existing patent and receive a new patent on that new and improved technique. The patent must be specific and cannot be all-inclusive for future development and modification.

This conversation about what a patent is and isn't and whether it is valid or not is rather silly without specifics.

I received one of those letters a long time past. I looked into their program and did not see any similarities in use between what I do and what they propose. Their equipment design is different. They use acoustic inspections in conjunction with thermal imaging etc.

I elected not to join their program and pay their royalties as their application has no similarities to my usage. I am not performing my inspections in accordance with their guidelines and program. I did not steal any of their materials or ideas to generate an income. There may be similarities, just as automobile design tends to mirror each manufacturing company throughout the years. If they wish to provide me with the standards that they do not wish for me to utilize or provide information on their program so that I can join their program that would be fine. However, they are providing nothing, I am not utilizing their program so I do not intend to pay for it.

If John Snell and others write a standard for energy auditing that is not copyright of another, and it becomes an acceptable standard of the industry that requires a different criteria and produces a different end result, how is he in violation of a patent? I didn't read anything about energy audit standards from that other company.

Let's dig up some real meat and potatoes and see what's actually going on.

[ldapkus]

Originally Posted by dandersen

Does anyone have a copy of the patent-standards in question?

Or do we want to know?

"Using a thermal camera on a building" patent is like patenting the use of a volt meter (designed, developed and patented by another company) to determine the electricity capacity in a house.

There has got to be some specific application or standard involved in this patent.
They can patent a procedure or a device, but they can not patent the entire industry as a whole when they did not design that industry.

There is nothing preventing anyone from designing another device, standard or use that is better than an existing patent and receive a new patent on that new and improved technique. The patent must be specific and cannot be all-inclusive for future development and modification.

This conversation about what a patent is and isn't and whether it is valid or not is rather silly without specifics.

I received one of those letters a long time past. I looked into their program and did not see any similarities in use between what I do and what they propose. Their equipment design is different. They use acoustic inspections in conjunction with thermal imaging etc.

I elected not to join their program and pay their royalties as their application has no similarities to my usage. I am not performing my inspections in accordance with their guidelines and program. I did not steal any of their materials or ideas to generate an income. There may be similarities, just as automobile design tends to mirror each manufacturing company throughout the years. If they wish to provide me with the standards that they do not wish for me to utilize or provide information on their program so that I can join their program that would be fine. However, they are providing nothing, I am not utilizing their program so I do not intend to pay for it.

If John Snell and others write a standard for energy auditing that is not copyright of another, and it becomes an acceptable standard of the industry that requires a different criteria and produces a different end result, how is he in violation of a patent? I didn't read anything about energy audit standards from that other company.

Let's dig up some real meat and potatoes and see what's actually going on.

I agree David. You've got the same out of work inspectors here with nothing better to do than ***** about technology they don't even utilize.

[Nick Gromicko]

The patent in question is for a method (SOP) and yes, it is a valid patent. Don't use that exact method and you haven't violated the patent. We are ignoring their patent because we are not interested in using their method.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by gromicko

The patent in question is for a method (SOP) and yes, it is a valid patents. Don't use that exact method and you haven't violated the patent. We are ignoring their patent because we are not interested in using their method.

The big unanswered question is this:

Is the party being sued using the method specified in the patent?

From reports of other HIs that have been harassed they were not using those methods.

[Nick Gromicko]

Joe Farsetta:

The reason InterNACHI hasn't put out a press release stating that their patent is bogus is because it isn't. It just has nothing to do with us as we are not using their patented method of inspecting a home with an IR camera.

As for "scaring the hell" out a mini-minneapolis member who had the balls to set up a booth at a major real estate trade show in our headquarter's home town, and trash us to agents who regularly use InterNACHI members... I assure you... we're going to do much more to him than "scare" him: http://www.nachi.org/documents/ron-tipton.pdf

As for Certified Master Inspector, it is not a mere Trademark. It is a Registered Federal Certification Mark (damn near impossible to acquire and all but impossible to get revoked). It has also acquired registration in Canada and applications are filed in many other countrie.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by mlarson

John,

I too think the patent is bogus but is is only my OPINION.

The sad fact is that HIs are being sued for patent infringement and the big players are standing by and doing nothing.

I wonder if you would change your tune if you were the one being sued.

This (as Joe stated) is fueling the speculation that the patent MAY have some level of credibility.

I hope it doesn't but you, I, Joe and the rest do not know at this time.

If you clean out the illogic and non sequitars in your posts we are left with this:

I John M. declare the patent bogus so there is nothing to worry about.
Please buy your IR equipment and training courses and don't worry your pretty little head about being sued for patent infringement or having to pay a recurring fee to use this technology. Trust me I know what I'm talking about.

Please explain why this patent is good so I can join you in
calling for the entire IR building industry to shut down... or should
all of us just trust you? Give all of something to go on
except your fears.

If you do give us an explanation of why the patent is for real
and applies to us, your talking to deaf ears. We cannot trust
in only your opinion. Each person has to make up their own
mind.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gromicko

The patent in question is for a method (SOP) and yes, it is a valid patents. Don't use that exact method and you haven't violated the patent. We are ignoring their patent because we are not interested in using their method.

Thanks for clearing up NACHI's position on this, Nick. McKenna would be wise to follow your lead.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by rmaday

Here is the (biggest) flaw in your logic...


Except in this instance, the patent holder is NOT ignoring it. They are indeed enforcing their patent. If another patent holder does not enforce his patent, that is thier perogitive.

NO THEY ARE NOT. They have pretended to start
many times.

The patent does not have to be defended, it has been issued.
Absent official action concerning it's validity, it is a valid patent. (note - official action does not come from any individual saying its a non-issue).

There are MANY MANY patents that cannot be defended.
That is a simple fact.

If the patent holder sues for infringemnt, the onus is on the user to prove they are not infringing.

IF they do, and IF they win and IF they withstand the
the response, are all big questions that have not been
answered.

Hope that clears it up.

We are back to square one. The entire IR building industry
is not going to shut down because you say it should.

And please stop refering to what you posted as the on line payment by credit card patent. If you had read it you would see that what you posted is not a patent for online credit card payemt, but rather evaluating loan applicants.

Those items are still patents that are being ignored,
along with many other bogus patents.

Until you explain why this patent is good, then the IR building
industry is not going to shut down for you. Sorry.

No matter how much you demand that we listen to you,
it like a vapor in the wind.

[James H. Bushart]

LOL.....wait 'til needledick makes his way to Nick's post...contradicting him....and declaring that the patent is valid. I can't wait to read the line of crap he comes up with to make it look like he agrees......

[Joe Farsetta]

John,

This is a valid patent, and therefore enforceable until such time as the PTO has revoked it. The sole saving grace for the defendant in this matter is whether or not they have violated the patent. That will come down to a simple yes or no.

There has got to be some specific application or standard involved in this patent.

Agreed, David. However, whatever is claimed in the patent is validated by the fact that the patent had been issued.

Therefore, whether we agree with the crux of the patent or not, the fact remains that it does exist.

[Nick Gromicko]

When Mark Cohen found out about this issue last year, he quickly advised me not to read their patented method, and I haven't, but have read only parts of it. Should push come to shove, he wants to explain to the court that the method is so long and unique that it would be mathematically impossible for me to independently author the exact same method from scratch... and also that I can not copy something I never read.

Henry Ford had more patents than anyone... yet today, I drove to work in a Jeep.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Thanks for clearing up NACHI's position on this, Nick. McKenna would be wise to follow your lead.

I agree with Nick. If someone says that the IR building industry
should shut down because their patent applies to us, that is
bogus. If someone follows the patent holders SoP under their
guide lines and program, then it would apply to them, not us.

InterNACHI, myself, and the entire IR building industry can continue
without or without Mr Bushart's approval. I know that is hard
to imagine.

Many of us will be waiting breathlessly for the 10 days out of the
year, when their is no delta T ... so our IR cameras will work on
those days... ... Thanks James... that one will go down in the
record books as one of the all time great points of advise.

[Peter C. Russell]

Originally Posted by jbushart

As to the value of IR technology....Peter and John....it will take more than charlatans who bilk the public (as yourselves) with your self proclaimed expertise and financial dependence upon the acceptance of it by others....to convince me that it is worth more than a flashlight.

James, in the last 6 months my construction company was able to get my clients additional funds from their insurance companies by using thermal imaging. Both were from water intrusion inside the wall cavities, one from ice dams and one when a tree hit the house. In the case of the tree I was able to get an additional 10K the other 6K, why, because the insurance company did not want to remove the drywall and wet insulation. After submitting my IR report both insurance companies immdeatly stepped up to the plate with more money. So with that said you can think what you want about IR but I am profiting and helping my clients every day I use it.

I should tell you the one about a newly constructed home with the bad insulation but what the use, you have your head up your *** and no one will be able to convince you otherwise.


Good post as usual Dave, you hit the nail on the head, as Nick did too.