Thread: Caution if you are going to buy or are doing IR work during a home inspection

It has been awhile since this topic has came up and much work has been done on the federal level and in many states.

Right now I would caution anyone about buying and using any IR during a home inspection as long as we have the patent trolls lurking in the shadows. The manufacturers don't care, but they are not the ones who will have to defend themselves.

This is what many ASHI members received over the past couple of days via email. It seems that the company at the heart of the action is trying to silence those that oppose them. Many predicted that this would happen when Nick paid off the company and that prediction is coming true.

HomeSafe-may-2014.pdf

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

It has been awhile since this topic has came up and much work has been done on the federal level and in many states.

Right now I would caution anyone about buying and using any IR during a home inspection as long as we have the patent trolls lurking in the shadows. The manufacturers don't care, but they are not the ones who will have to defend themselves.

This is what many ASHI members received over the past couple of days via email. It seems that the company at the heart of the action is trying to silence those that oppose them. Many predicted that this would happen when Nick paid off the company and that prediction is coming true.

HomeSafe-may-2014.pdf

After reading their statement, they (HomeSafe) sound like a bunch of good ol boys just trying to help mankind. How altruistic of them.

I am curious to know if they are also suing fire departments, search and rescue, building departments, military, or other municipal, state and federal bodies who use iR technologies?

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

I am curious to know if they are also suing fire departments, search and rescue, building departments, military, or other municipal, state and federal bodies who use iR technologies?

No, of course not, that is unless those department infringe on the patents and have money.

But they would be infringing, so then it's all about the money and those that are 'easy' pickings and those least able to defend themselves from this questionable practice.

yeah---there ought to be a law against this Contemptible, Reprehensive, Assinine Practice of claiming to be the one who was first to stake their claim as being the be all, end all to IR in home inspections. This CRAP sure seems to be a legal wrangling - like maybe I can get a patent on the use of a screwdriver or flashlight for a home inspection. Everybody has to pay me to use one if they are on a home inspection. Yeah-- that's the ticket. I'll be rich and everybody will owe me bigtime. Like that will work - but wait a minute - isnt that what they are doing?
CRAP, and they've got a claim on this and they have their hired guns to enforce it. " If y'all don't see this here badge of the law, and pay yer ransom - we'll git the sherriff on ya."
Ben Dover

I have not looked at the details of all of their patents, but surely they were not the first to use IR for evaluating moisture in buildings. If they were, maybe they have a claim. As for one patent, here is what they say:

"This invention provides a method to conduct a complete inspection of a residential building. A complete inspection includes the steps of: conducting an infrared scan of a residential building, conducting a visual home inspection and conducting an acoustic scan to detect wood destroying insects. The term infrared scan of a residential building includes all of the methods discussed infra in the section on infrared scanning methods."

There seems to be a typo in there, but that is what I copied from Google's Patent site. So does this mean that if you are not doing all three of the above you are not violating their patent?

Originally Posted by Mark Reinmiller

I have not looked at the details of all of their patents, but surely they were not the first to use IR for evaluating moisture in buildings. If they were, maybe they have a claim. As for one patent, here is what they say:

"This invention provides a method to conduct a complete inspection of a residential building. A complete inspection includes the steps of: conducting an infrared scan of a residential building, conducting a visual home inspection and conducting an acoustic scan to detect wood destroying insects. The term infrared scan of a residential building includes all of the methods discussed infra in the section on infrared scanning methods."

There seems to be a typo in there, but that is what I copied from Google's Patent site. So does this mean that if you are not doing all three of the above you are not violating their patent?

It really makes no difference, if you are named in a lawsuit you must prove you are not infringing and that is where the extreme cost come into play. They know it is cheaper to settle with the demand letter and join their club and this is just folks will do and have done.

This is why folks should put off investing in any IR camera from Flur, Fluke, Testo,or any manufacturer until we all have some assurance that we will not be sued for using what is basically a glorified moisture meter.

Flashlight:

"This invention provides a method (of the use of a flashlight) to conduct a complete inspection of a residential building. A complete inspection includes the steps of: turning the flashlight on at a residential building, conducting a visual home inspection and conducting a visual scan to detect stains, cracks, improper wiring, leaks, damage, or wood destroying insects (if that is your bag). The term flashlight in a residential building includes all of the methods discussed de facto in the section on flashlight viewing methods."

Tying this thread to the other thread with the same topic in it:
- http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...tml#post242989

See my other posts too, including my permission to use my methods, which predate most of their applications, and predates all of (or at least most of) their patent dates.

And that is the date of that photo, I started investigating IR use the previous year and bought my camera the previous year, so my idea and business model using IR dates from the previous year - 2004, early spring as I recall.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

It really makes no difference, if you are named in a lawsuit you must prove you are not infringing and that is where the extreme cost come into play. They know it is cheaper to settle with the demand letter and join their club and this is just folks will do and have done.

Scott,
That is the way things work. As I understand it, so far they only sued one person who operated in their backyard, where it was convenient for them to go to court. Otherwise they have just made threats. I don't have a camera, so this does not directly affect me. If I did, I think I would just ignore them until they filed a lawsuit. Make them spend the money. Worst case, if I did not defend the suit, they have to file quite a few more motions and eventually they get a judgment forcing me to stop using the camera. Then I could choose to pay the licensing fee or not use the camera. If everybody took a similar approach they might run out of money filing lawsuits. Of course, don't take this as legal advice.

I am a member of iNACHI, so it would seem I am covered. But if I wasn't, I would continue doing business as usual and make them catch me and sue me for infringing on "their" patent.

Originally Posted by Duane Nelson

I am a member of iNACHI, so it would seem I am covered..

All this time Lisa has been yammering about free training and government approvals, but never heard a word about this. This could be worth the price of admission (yuck).

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Mark Reinmiller

I think I would just ignore them until they filed a lawsuit. Make them spend the money. Worst case, if I did not defend the suit, they have to file quite a few more motions and eventually they get a judgment forcing me to stop using the camera. Then I could choose to pay the licensing fee or not use the camera..

Easy to just hire an attorney local to the inspector.
Once they have spent time and money I doubt they would accept just the license fee.

Seems as though Lisa's (Nick's) premonition http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...isa-endza.html post #63 is a good indication that inachi is behind or along side of this company's patent trolling. I haven't received a letter here in MN and haven't heard of anyone in MN receiving one. I'm guessing we won't because of the strict patent trolling legislation we have here. And, because Energy Auditors are licensed by the State of MN and require thermal imaging by state law.

I'll license my method, which predates their patent, to anyone who wishes to use it - send $1 to ...

Originally Posted by Duane Nelson

I am a member of iNACHI

My condolences.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

All this time Lisa has been yammering about free training and government approvals, but never heard a word about this. This could be worth the price of admission (yuck).

Originally Posted by Duane Nelson

I am a member of iNACHI, so it would seem I am covered. But if I wasn't, I would continue doing business as usual and make them catch me and sue me for infringing on "their" patent.

Originally Posted by Darren Miller

My condolences.

Love him or hate him, right or wrong..... Nick jumped ahead of this one. Our future is InterNACHI......I wonder if they'll have their own country like the Vatican?

This certainly is a game changer.

" I would caution anyone about buying and using any IR during a home inspection (Scott Patterson)"

INACHI has now become the MOST important association to join.

It should be interesting to see how the conversations are going to change.

This is NOT a paid advertisment, but is has suddenly become the smartest, cheapest, easiest and fastest thing to do would be to join INACHI TODAY before the dues goes up. To be quite frank, if I was the guy in charge; Right now I would be thinking about the dues.

I can picture Nick sitting behind his desk, with his feet up puffing on a big Cuban.

Originally Posted by Steven Turetsky

This certainly is a game changer.

" I would caution anyone about buying and using any IR during a home inspection (Scott Patterson)"

INACHI has now become the MOST important association to join.

It should be interesting to see how the conversations are going to change.

This is NOT a paid advertisment, but is has suddenly become the smartest, cheapest, easiest and fastest thing to do would be to join INACHI TODAY before the dues goes up. To be quite frank, if I was the guy in charge; Right now I would be thinking about the dues.

I can picture Nick sitting behind his desk, with his feet up puffing on a big Cuban.

Considering some of us inspectors are considered by nicki , his preferred venders and staff, dumb stupid scum bags that should not be inspecting, and even be killed,
this looks like a good option at 1/2 the price.
Kurt Says | Legal Shield is your best defense

Homesafe also patented use of a moisture detector, next a screw driver?.....hell.....using your car to drive to an inspection could be next.

But since Nick settled this for his member, this patent has never passed the adjudication process. Where is FLIR, etc in all this? I wonder if they quietly support Homesafe?

That's my question as well. Flir did not respond to my request for their stance.

Originally Posted by Jim Robinson

That's my question as well. Flir did not respond to my request for their stance.

Flir and Fluke are both being silent... I too have sent several emails to a couple of sales managers at both asking what they are doing or if they have advices, silence!

It is looking like as long as they are selling cameras they could care less.

FLIR and Fluke may figure that there is no downside for them either way.

So, who will quit using IR if Homesafe makes all users pay for their "method" or just join Nachi?

Originally Posted by Lon Henderson

FLIR and Fluke may figure that there is no downside for them either way.

So, who will quit using IR if Homesafe makes all users pay for their "method" or just join Nachi?

They will not 'make' anyone do anything.
The next likely move will be to file a suit against an ASHI inspector not too far from their home turf. If a judge finds in their favor, then it will be time to decide on a course of action.

Originally Posted by Lon Henderson

FLIR and Fluke may figure that there is no downside for them either way.

So, who will quit using IR if Homesafe makes all users pay for their "method" or just join Nachi?

Many are working on this issue on behalf of all home inspectors and other professions in the form of a non profit organization whose only purpose is to fight these patents. Not only home inspectors are impacted by this. Water/Fire restoration contractors, pest control contractors, carpet/flooring contractors are part of the mix as well..

One issue is that fighting this is not inexpensive. Right now, all of the cost has been covered by numerous volunteers who have contributed their personal dollars and time. The legal footwork has been accomplished and the wheels are in motion. This could be a lengthy and time consuming battle that will need the support and backing from all involved, from the manufacturers, the IR education providers, trainers, the insurance profession, professional associations and the inspectors and users of IR cameras. Hope is high that the manufacturers will commit to help. I have been told that one large IR manufacturer has recently given a verbal commitment.

As soon as a few technical details are worked through more information will be released, hopefully this will be within the next 60 days. This is not being rushed as everyone involved wants to insure it is being done in the most professional way possible.

Fighting Patent Trolls, Tech Giants Seek to Recover Legal Costs - Businessweek

https://gigaom.com/2014/02/20/white-...e-the-problem/

What about thermographers? I have a thermography only company that is not connected to my HI company.

Meh.



They claim to have patented a “process”; I would counter that I was simply following a “procedure” (as outlined in the IR equipment’s “manual”).


Going to the can is a “procedure”; not a “process”. The end product is the results of a process.

“Processes” typically result in a unique product; as in a “chemical process”; which is patentable.


An inspection report can be produced in any number of ways; using a variety of “procedures”.


Do your IR inspections behind closed doors. How is anyone going to prove you used their “process”. Tell them you used “divining” (for moisture detection); etc.


“People” who grant patents can issue patents on things that are not really patentable; they are not infallible.

Originally Posted by Marc M

What about thermographers? I have a thermography only company that is not connected to my HI company.

Thermographers have to be in the bullseye. You're a soft target.

Originally Posted by Gerry Schmitz

Meh.
They claim to have patented a “process”; I would counter that I was simply following a “procedure” (as outlined in the IR equipment’s “manual”).

“People” who grant patents can issue patents on things that are not really patentable; they are not infallible.

I like and agree with your argument, but I think the better counter argument is whether the common use of IR is what their "process" covers. In other words, if they have patented how anyone would use IR, instead of patenting a unique or special "process", then I suspect they might have trouble defending their patent; particularly since the common use of IR was being done long before their patents. How specific is their "process" and does any variant from their "process" separate your use of IR from what they patented?

Only a fully adjudicated test will answer those questions. Just asking an attorney tells you little, any trial is led by attorneys who disagree.

Patents are given out like cheap candy on Halloween. The validity of a patent is only found in a court.

And you have to believe that Homesafe is reading this thread.

Originally Posted by Lon Henderson

Thermographers have to be in the bullseye. You're a soft target.



I like and agree with your argument, but I think the better counter argument is whether the common use of IR is what their "process" covers. In other words, if they have patented how anyone would use IR, instead of patenting a unique or special "process", then I suspect they might have trouble defending their patent; particularly since the common use of IR was being done long before their patents. How specific is their "process" and does any variant from their "process" separate your use of IR from what they patented?

Only a fully adjudicated test will answer those questions. Just asking an attorney tells you little, any trial is led by attorneys who disagree.

Patents are given out like cheap candy on Halloween. The validity of a patent is only found in a court.

And you have to believe that Homesafe is reading this thread.

We equine, electric panel insp, moisture damage assessment and roof inspection...

[QUOTE=Lon Henderson;243332]Thermographers have to be in the bullseye. You're a soft target.

then I suspect they might have trouble defending their patent; particularly since the common use of IR was being done long before their patents. How specific is their "process" and does any variant from their "process" separate your use of IR from what they patented?


Ok, the best thing to do is to find inspectors and mechanics and others who have used infrared before the patent. Have each of them send thier information as sworn notarized statements to the patent office.

On two occasions I have seen patents and registered marks voided because of specific proof that the process or mark was not patentable or even owned by that party.

If the manufacturer of any of the IR products marketed it for a specific use prior to a patent for the same thing, then that information should be sent as well. The patent can be voided by the patent office.

Also if voided, any settlements for infringement could be demanded returned nder fraud laws.

THose that have been around longest need to find the advertisements and information about use of the technology by specific trade professionals and have notarized statements sent to the patent office wiht copies etc.

- - - Updated - - -

[QUOTE=Lon Henderson;243332]Thermographers have to be in the bullseye. You're a soft target.

then I suspect they might have trouble defending their patent; particularly since the common use of IR was being done long before their patents. How specific is their "process" and does any variant from their "process" separate your use of IR from what they patented?


Ok, the best thing to do is to find inspectors and mechanics and others who have used infrared before the patent. Have each of them send thier information as sworn notarized statements to the patent office.

On two occasions I have seen patents and registered marks voided because of specific proof that the process or mark was not patentable or even owned by that party.

If the manufacturer of any of the IR products marketed it for a specific use prior to a patent for the same thing, then that information should be sent as well. The patent can be voided by the patent office.

Also if voided, any settlements for infringement could be demanded returned nder fraud laws.

THose that have been around longest need to find the advertisements and information about use of the technology by specific trade professionals and have notarized statements sent to the patent office wiht copies etc.

- - - Updated - - -

[QUOTE=Lon Henderson;243332]Thermographers have to be in the bullseye. You're a soft target.<br><br>&nbsp;then I suspect they might have trouble defending their patent; particularly since the common use of IR was being done long before their patents. How specific is their "process" and does any variant from their "process" separate your use of IR from what they patented? <br>
<br><br>Ok, the best thing to do is to find inspectors and mechanics and others who have used infrared before the patent. &nbsp;Have each of them send thier information as sworn notarized statements to the patent office.<br>
<br>On two occasions I have seen patents and registered marks voided because of specific proof that the process or mark was not patentable or even owned by that party.<br><br>If the manufacturer of any of the IR products marketed it for a specific use prior to a patent for the same thing, then that information should be sent as well. &nbsp;The patent can be voided by the patent office.<br><br>Also if voided, any settlements for infringement could be demanded returned nder fraud laws.<br><br>THose that have been around longest need to find the advertisements and information about use of the technology by specific trade professionals and have notarized statements sent to the patent office wiht copies etc.

- - - Updated - - -

[QUOTE=Lon Henderson;243332]Thermographers have to be in the bullseye. You're a soft target.<br><br>&nbsp;then I suspect they might have trouble defending their patent; particularly since the common use of IR was being done long before their patents. How specific is their "process" and does any variant from their "process" separate your use of IR from what they patented? <br>
<br><br>Ok, the best thing to do is to find inspectors and mechanics and others who have used infrared before the patent. &nbsp;Have each of them send thier information as sworn notarized statements to the patent office.<br>
<br>On two occasions I have seen patents and registered marks voided because of specific proof that the process or mark was not patentable or even owned by that party.<br><br>If the manufacturer of any of the IR products marketed it for a specific use prior to a patent for the same thing, then that information should be sent as well. &nbsp;The patent can be voided by the patent office.<br><br>Also if voided, any settlements for infringement could be demanded returned nder fraud laws.<br><br>THose that have been around longest need to find the advertisements and information about use of the technology by specific trade professionals and have notarized statements sent to the patent office wiht copies etc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In United States patent law, a method, also called "process", is one of the four principal categories of things that may be patented through "utility patents". The other three are a machine, an article of manufacture (also termed a manufacture), and a composition of matter.^[1]
In that context, a method is a process, or series of steps or acts, for performing a function or accomplishing a result.^[2] The terms are largely interchangeable,^[3] but "process" usually refers to a manufacturing process—a series of steps for making something, while a "method" usually refers to a way of using a product to accomplish a given result. Thus, one might speak of a process for making soap or candles, or speak of a method for curing headaches comprising administering a therapeutically effective dosage of aspirin.

Not all methods, in the dictionary sense, are methods for purposes of United States patent law. The case law "forecloses a purely literal reading of § 101."^[4] The concept is elaborated in the article machine-or-transformation test.
Previously, a method patent claim could be infringed only when a single person or entity practices all claimed steps.^[5] Neither a physical device, such as a product that can be used to practice the method, nor instructions for practicing the method, are infringing until they are used by a single person to perform all the steps together. This rule was changed in Akamai Tech. v. Limelight Networks (Fed. Cir. 2012).^[6] That case, however, has been granted an appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court, and was argued on Wednesday, April 30, 2014 (docket number 12-786).^[7]

Is it starting to make sense now? Waiting to see how the appeal goes before proceeding.

Love him or hate him, right or wrong..... Nick jumped ahead of this one. Our future is InterNACHI......I wonder if they'll have their own country like the Vatican?

Nick didn't want any of his members to worry about being sued or having to pay defense costs which could financially devastate an inspector. It sure is good to be a member of InterNACHI!

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

Nick didn't want any of his members to worry about being sued or having to pay defense costs which could financially devastate an inspector. It sure is good to be a member of InterNACHI!

Hey Lisa, can you bring me up to speed on this subject? All i know is Nick paid to settle out of court for something..

This is what Nick posted about the matter.

Most people who know me, know that I'm no stranger to courtrooms. I enjoy litigation (I should have gone to law school). I find it really interesting and exciting. InterNACHI has a full-time legal staff. One of our staffers at InterNACHI is an international patent attorney. That's what she specializes in... patents. And she's one of the best in the world. Anyway, for me, lawsuits are sport.

However, my first and very immediate duty was to my member who got sued. I did what I had to do to get the suit withdrawn for him and his family. Defense costs were going to be outrageous. He can sleep well now.

My second duty is to InterNACHI members. I can't justify putting our members at financial risk just so I can go play pretend hero and cut YouTube vidoes. I didn't want any other members getting sued. So last year, I structured a blanket agreement to make sure that all InterNACHI members are protected. Our master license covers all InterNACHI members, even members who don't have IR cameras, even members who live in Bangladesh, even members who may have infringed on any number of patents, even before they joined InterNACHI. InterNACHI members can all sleep well now.

My third duty is to protect InterNACHI, the organization itself. Yes, InterNACHI has the world's best in-house legal staff. They like to fight in court (because without litigation, they have nothing to do but fetch me doughnuts all day). However, there is always a chance that we could lose, and lose big. Going to court is a roll of the dice. It makes no business sense to take unnecessary risks just to keep our legal staff busy (and me on my diet ).

My fourth duty is to the industry. I didn't leave ASHI members out in the cold and at risk of personal financial destruction (like ASHI did to their own members). Instead, last year I structured an agreement with the patent owners such that it allows me to offer a safe haven for non-members. Did I exploit my license by turning into a troll? Did I sue ASHI members? Did I send out even one letter to any ASHI member? No. In fact, I kept my efforts quiet until ASHI's leadership broke their gentleman's agreement with me and shot their big mouth's off. Anyway, I made available to ASHI members (offer still stands BTW) that which we already provide for InterNACHI members... and at no additional cost. That's fair, more than fair IMHO.

My fifth duty is to use members' dues wisely. Wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe even millions of dollars of our members' money on litigation makes no business sense to me. I'd rather use members' dues to continue adding to the bottom of this list. If you'll excuse me now, I have to get back to adding to that list.

Lisa
If Nick made that statement (not that I doubt he did). Then he made a good business move for members, and the iNachi organisation. If he extended those rights to non-members, well he is being generous. He did not post the details of his generosity, but just to have it available is more than expected.
I think it only fair to say; Nick, good job.

To my knowledge there has not been a successful lawsuit brought before the courts by the iR trolls. If Nick is such a legal beagle he paid-out to what can only be termed as extortion by the patent trolls. So much for his legal understandings.

I noticed the slight against ASHI members again, and the overused 'best'.

Thanks for the advocacy advertisement.

Not being involved with either association, this is what I find of interest:
"nyway, I made available toASHI members (offer still stands BTW) that which we already provide for InterNACHI members"

"offer still stands BTW"

Do you have the details of the offer, what is required, what is involved, what the limitations and restrictions are?

Sounds interesting, but the devil is always in the details ... and sometimes there are no details ... other times there is no devil ... just sayin' (or just curious).

http://www.energyvanguard.com/blog-b...ome-Inspectors

http://optimalbuilding.com/files/Hom...Inspection.pdf

Scanner on a network patent troll
Developers On Patents: We Were Forced To Defend Ourselves | DevsBuild.It

Patent Troll Wins First Case Over Use of Infrared Cameras | DevsBuild.It

Scumbag lawyers taking on cases they know they can't win.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Not being involved with either association, this is what I find of interest:
"nyway, I made available toASHI members (offer still stands BTW) that which we already provide for InterNACHI members"

"offer still stands BTW"

Do you have the details of the offer, what is required, what is involved, what the limitations and restrictions are?

Sounds interesting, but the devil is always in the details ... and sometimes there are no details ... other times there is no devil ... just sayin' (or just curious).

It is simple, the offer is you join INACHI....

It is simple, the offer is you join InterNACHI....

Scott is correct.

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

Scott is correct.

The OTHER option is to obtain an EXACT copy of the "process patent" and to write your OWN process and make sure it does NOT infringe.

Also, if you were using IR BEFORE the patent, then you need to show documentation and to send a copy to the patent office proving that the process was in use PRIOR to patent.

This makes it NOT patentable or at least NOT enforceable against the individual or group that had it in use.

Remember to notarize all statements and to get cunstomers and contractors and sub-contractors to notarize as well.

If one can showe that a given IR process was in general industrial use, OR that the specific use for purpose was ADVERTIZED by a manufacturer of IR equipment then that can be copied and notarized and submitted to the patent office as well.

Once it is proven that these guys had no patentable process, they are using the patent office for extortion. That is illegal and unethical. The wheel will have turned.

I will guarantee that SOME manufacturer somewhere has advertisements or even proposals etc for specific inspection use. THis would prove no patentable process if dates can be shown.

Somebody? anybody? who has the proof? Would love to see thee kinds of usurpers taken down a peg. Hell, I know that IR it was used in commercials to show the effectiveness of insulation years ago, I think I remember seeing it used to find moisture in another film or movie, just cant remember , except it was a LONG time ago...

Or just join InterNACHI. Walk into the light.

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

Or just join InterNACHI. Walk into the light.

More like crossing over to the dark side and making a deal with the Devil!

More like 'stump the chump', when you can't fight with logic, provide a link.

Heck I thought maybe ole nicki had a good marketing idea with his latest marketing scam.

Until I did the math .. 400 inspections a year pay nicki only $5.00 for every inspection that I do.
hmmm that's $2000 per year, add in $500 annual membership dues = $2500 per year to nicki, hmmm that's a heck of a lot of $s for something that ole nicki himself claims very few if any body will ever take his offer to buy their home back after they figure out that they will be out of the thousands of dollars they spent for closing and moving costs.

Another man's gain is not your loss. The question you have to ask yourself is this. How much would InterNACHI's programs make for you and your family? If your answer is more than $499, you should join.

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

Another man's gain is not your loss. The question you have to ask yourself is this. How much would InterNACHI's programs make for you and your family? If your answer is more than $499, you should join.

Heck If I saw a chance to collect say 2.5 mil per year [based on 1000 inspectors paying me $2500 per year] and it didn't cost me anything I would defend it as well

I don't know much about his new Buy Your Home Back Guarantee. He's still working on it and not pushing it yet. But I'm 100% positive that $499 for membership in InterNACHI is a no-brainer (no offense to you Dan ) for any businessperson in the inspection business. Inspector Membership Benefits - InterNACHI

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

Or just join InterNACHI. Walk into the light.

I didn't think forums were supposed to be used for advertising.

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

Or just join InterNACHI. Walk into the light.

Sad to see inachi in bed with patent trolls. But it doesn't surprise me.

Nick bought them for his members, not to troll them. He buys up everything inspection related.

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

Nick bought them for his members, not to troll them. He buys up everything inspection related.

Never mind.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

I am curious to know if they are also suing fire departments, search and rescue, building departments, military, or other municipal, state and federal bodies who use iR technologies?

Great point.
IR is used throughout many industries and cameras are specific in defining what element they are observing.
Its not only objects and systems but gas valours which is why to me Testo IC imagers have an advantage and there new algorithms will start another marketing behavior by the compatition.

Testo's new algorithm can turn a 160 120 field array into 320 X 240 and 320 X 240 into 640 X 280.

Hard to see anything coming out of this.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

I am curious to know if they are also suing fire departments, search and rescue, building departments, military, or other municipal, state and federal bodies who use iR technologies?

Great point.
IR is used throughout many industries and cameras are specific in defining what element they are observing.

Testo IC imagers have an advantage and their new algorithms will start another marketing behavior by the competition.

Testo's new algorithm can turn a 160 120 field array into 320 X 240 and 320 X 240 into 640 X 280.

Hard to see anything coming out of this email to ADSHI members.
You utilizing IR Ray?

Not trying to necropost here - this one doesn't seem to be too old, but I just recently became aware of this IR inspection patent issue. Somehow I missed it until a week or so ago. I have talked to a two IP attorneys in my family about this who have looked at the patents and it appears that the claims are in fact quite narrow. It wasn't too difficult for them to patent such a specific process. Although they may claim that it would be hard to use IR in an inspection without infringing, the opposite is true. If it would be hard to use IR without infringing they would have been unable to patent the process. Instead they have patented a specific process with various steps or conditions, which unless duplicated would not be infringing. Most likely, unless you get some of the literature from their training courses, or watch one of their licensed and trained inspectors using the technique, and then try to duplicate the process, you would not infringe. Anyone can pull out an IR camera and look for signs of problems in an inspection, but only licensees of the patent holder can heat the building to a prescribed temp. difference, turn on all lights and blowers, take a specific set of IR pictures of particular locations, and report within a particular time frame etc.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Not trying to necropost here - this one doesn't seem to be too old, but I just recently became aware of this IR inspection patent issue. Somehow I missed it until a week or so ago. I have talked to a two IP attorneys in my family about this who have looked at the patents and it appears that the claims are in fact quite narrow. It wasn't too difficult for them to patent such a specific process. Although they may claim that it would be hard to use IR in an inspection without infringing, the opposite is true. If it would be hard to use IR without infringing they would have been unable to patent the process. Instead they have patented a specific process with various steps or conditions, which unless duplicated would not be infringing. Most likely, unless you get some of the literature from their training courses, or watch one of their licensed and trained inspectors using the technique, and then try to duplicate the process, you would not infringe. Anyone can pull out an IR camera and look for signs of problems in an inspection, but only licensees of the patent holder can heat the building to a prescribed temp. difference, turn on all lights and blowers, take a specific set of IR pictures of particular locations, and report within a particular time frame etc.

Probably true but the patent holders seem to be taking the opposite opinion and threatening to sue. There will need to be real test cases in the court to establish the case law... something "I" would not want to do since just answering, let alone defending the case in court, would be burdensome.

If there was a suite wouldn't it be in the best interest of the manufactures to side with the defendant. Plaintif wins and fewer cameras will be sold.. and the money is in the numbers. Sounds like adding a belt loop to jeans to make different than patent. Change the conditions and you have changed the product.

I haven't had a comprehensive search done, but it looks like there have only been 2 suits. One was dropped without settlement a year ago, and the other was filed a week or so ago. While the label "patent troll" might not be appropriate since they do make use of the processes they have patented, everything about their online presence and various threats seems to be an attempt to scare or trick people into licencing a process that they probably won't ever use - or could at least easily avoid using by simply leaving out or modifying a step (i.e. only record air quality data for 23 hours instead of at least 24) listed as limitation in the patent claims. Only 2 suits when you want people to think you own a process everyone is using isn't very convincing.

[Edit] Just like the above parodies where someone asked for $1 for a license to use a flashlight during an inspection - except that they do have some patents. It's like my owning a patent for a lightbulb that operates at 150v using a molybdenum filament in a glass substantially spherical enclosure full of compressed helium, and then sending out letters to companies who use lightbulbs warning them that I will sue people who infringe my lightbulb patent, so they should probably all just buy the right to make my lightbulbs. The only difference is that the legal teams for the big companies that make lightbulbs will quickly determine that they have nothing to worry about and throw the letter out, while most inspection companies employ 5 people and gross about 200k a year and have a cat mascot as the closest thing to a legal team.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I haven't had a comprehensive search done, but it looks like there have only been 2 suits. One was dropped without settlement a year ago, and the other was filed a week or so ago. While the label "patent troll" might not be appropriate since they do make use of the processes they have patented, everything about their online presence and various threats seems to be an attempt to scare or trick people into licencing a process that they probably won't ever use - or could at least easily avoid using by simply leaving out or modifying a step (i.e. only record air quality data for 23 hours instead of at least 24) listed as limitation in the patent claims. Only 2 suits when you want people to think you own a process everyone is using isn't very convincing.

[Edit] Just like the above parodies where someone asked for $1 for a license to use a flashlight during an inspection - except that they do have some patents. It's like my owning a patent for a lightbulb that operates at 150v using a molybdenum filament in a glass substantially spherical enclosure full of compressed helium, and then sending out letters to companies who use lightbulbs warning them that I will sue people who infringe my lightbulb patent, so they should probably all just buy the right to make my lightbulbs. The only difference is that the legal teams for the big companies that make lightbulbs will quickly determine that they have nothing to worry about and throw the letter out, while most inspection companies employ 5 people and gross about 200k a year and have a cat mascot as the closest thing to a legal team.

You shouldn't judge the validity of patents, trademarks or copyrights by counting the number of lawsuits filed to defend them. If you are in the inspection business, you probably are using a product or service from a vendor that has licensed some intellectual property from Nick.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

It has been awhile since this topic has came up and much work has been done on the federal level and in many states.

Right now I would caution anyone about buying and using any IR during a home inspection as long as we have the patent trolls lurking in the shadows. The manufacturers don't care, but they are not the ones who will have to defend themselves.

This is what many ASHI members received over the past couple of days via email. It seems that the company at the heart of the action is trying to silence those that oppose them. Many predicted that this would happen when Nick paid off the company and that prediction is coming true.

HomeSafe-may-2014.pdf

Help me here Mr. Patterson
Has any ASHI members called the number?
Have any other home inspectors other than ASHI inspectors received this email?
Has anyone called the number to inquire about their demands?
If so what was the answer to the question/s they asked?

Emailing Nick Gromicko personally, I asked him to be more explanatory about the HomeSafe case in which "they assume" they have a patent two years back if my memory serves me well.
I use the word assume because as far as I am concerned the manufactures are not willing to peruse what maybe an expense for no other reason than HomeSafe's allegations.

I heard a different version from Nick Gromicko, Mr. Patterson.
So considering there are 3 sides to the truth, I would think it be reasonable to hear from all three sides.

Awaiting a reply from any ASHI members or others that called the number.

Recommendation: If you call that number insure they email you back a list of conditions one must abide to avoid litigation with list of consequences. Ask the company to insure replies have a company seal and duly signed by the C.E.O. or managing director for authentication.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Help me here Mr. Patterson
Has any ASHI members called the number?

Im sure some have, ASHI has around 6,000 members

Have any other home inspectors other than ASHI inspectors received this email?

I do not know, I would assume that anyone they have an email for will or have received it.

Has anyone called the number to inquire about their demands?

I have not, but I'm sure some have.

If so what was the answer to the question/s they asked?

I have no idea.

Emailing Nick Gromicko personally, I asked him to be more explanatory about the HomeSafe case in which "they assume" they have a patent two years back if my memory serves me well.
I use the word assume because as far as I am concerned the manufactures are not willing to peruse what maybe an expense for no other reason than HomeSafe's allegations.

I heard a different version from Nick Gromicko, Mr. Patterson.
So considering there are 3 sides to the truth, I would think it be reasonable to hear from all three sides.

I'm sure you did get a different story, Nick tends to do this....

Awaiting a reply from any ASHI members or others that called the number.

Recommendation: If you call that number insure they email you back a list of conditions one must abide to avoid litigation with list of consequences. Ask the company to insure replies have a company seal and duly signed by the C.E.O. or managing director for authentication.

I don't think anyone is really worried about this and folks are just waiting on the sidelines..

Scott Patterson falsely claims

Im sure some have, ASHI has around 6,000 members

Talk about exaggerating! LOL.

Nick put what he said in writing for all to refer to InterNACHI IR Patents

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

Scott Patterson falsely claims Talk about exaggerating! LOL.

Nick put what he said in writing for all to refer to InterNACHI IR Patents

More like NG succumb to blackmail, all in order to gain members, and keep members. We all know the patent trolls have no case otherwise there would be ample case law to back up HomeSafe patent infringements, and HS would have gone after the FLIR and the like which they have not.

Yes, talk about exaggerating.

No lets be civil everyone.
I know many FEEL they have an axe to grind, but lets keep the conversation civil please.

Mr. Patterson, or Scot, Mr. Gramicko is a businessman.
He is loyal to the members that are loyal to him and has gone out on a limb on more occasion for members that I feel do the association wrong. Even give it the association a black eye.

I am not judge or jury.

Lets keep an open mind gentlemen.

I know about HomeSafe patent he purchased as expressed Scot, he has been up front with me.
As expressed, I heard a different version from Nick Gromicko, Mr. Patterson.
So considering there are 3 sides to the truth, I would think it be reasonable to hear from all three sides.

Sorry for the edit.
Looks like I am mistaken on several issues.
I will read up and reply later.

The patents Nick purchased for InterNACHI members are just another membership benefit that he added to InterNACHI members' growing list of these.

He is claiming that he will double the length of that list in 2015. I guess we'll see.