Michel, how can we help?

[Goose66]

1 hour ago, larryllix said:

Owning the IP, UDI could license out the technology so they do not become the next 'sole provider', that SmartHomes was so mass rejected for. 

I don't think UDI wants to be in the business of switch and module hardware manufacturing (but I could be wrong). The solution I suggested would just be a way to give the large base of ISY users who's homes are almost 100% Insteon a few years to transition to ZWave or other while keeping the seamless integration of the ISY/IoP.

[Frozen001]

2 hours ago, larryllix said:

It wouldn't matter. It would be an Intellectual Property violation. Until the patents are allowed to ex$pire, permission is needed.

I am not a lawyer, but if one were to basically look at what comes out of the IC given certain commands on the input, and then make software for a microcontroller to mimic the same behavior, is that really a patent violation?  The above linked PDF has the PL schematic, along with all the serial commands that are used with it. The IC (have not open up my PLM to actually look at the IC) could just be a preprogrammed microcontroller with Insteon's code on it.  If we treat that as a black box, and walk through all the commands and see what it puts out for each command, then we independently generate our own source code to mimic the behavior, I cannot see how that would be a violation. Again I am not a lawyer, but I believe the IP would be the program within the IC, not the protocol.

 

 

[lilyoyo1]

39 minutes ago, Frozen001 said:

I am not a lawyer, but if one were to basically look at what comes out of the IC given certain commands on the input, and then make software for a microcontroller to mimic the same behavior, is that really a patent violation?  The above linked PDF has the PL schematic, along with all the serial commands that are used with it. The IC (have not open up my PLM to actually look at the IC) could just be a preprogrammed microcontroller with Insteon's code on it.  If we treat that as a black box, and walk through all the commands and see what it puts out for each command, then we independently generate our own source code to mimic the behavior, I cannot see how that would be a violation. Again I am not a lawyer, but I believe the IP would be the program within the IC, not the protocol.

 

 

Yes, that would be an infringement which would then be illegal..

[asbril]

3 hours ago, larryllix said:

Owning the IP, UDI could license out the technology so they do not become the next

'sole provider', that SmartHomes was so mass rejected for

I share your opinion. In fact it must be one of the reasons why Smartlabs failed.

[jec6613]

54 minutes ago, Frozen001 said:

I am not a lawyer, but if one were to basically look at what comes out of the IC given certain commands on the input, and then make software for a microcontroller to mimic the same behavior, is that really a patent violation?  The above linked PDF has the PL schematic, along with all the serial commands that are used with it. The IC (have not open up my PLM to actually look at the IC) could just be a preprogrammed microcontroller with Insteon's code on it.  If we treat that as a black box, and walk through all the commands and see what it puts out for each command, then we independently generate our own source code to mimic the behavior, I cannot see how that would be a violation. Again I am not a lawyer, but I believe the IP would be the program within the IC, not the protocol.

Assuming that the original patents and IP were protected properly, "Pulling a Compaq," and cloning the IBM PC Insteon equipment might still be illegal, but either way would be an expensive court battle.

[lilyoyo1]

3 hours ago, apostolakisl said:

Generally I agree, but above I do not.  This is not emotional in the sense that I have some nostalgia.  I have a gigantic system and I am happy with it because it functions perfectly.  It is a lot of work, I mean a lot of work, to set it up.  So I suppose in the sense that I have an emotional aversion to all the work of setting up a new system, then I guess it is emotional, plus it is expensive. 

There is a cost to multiple versions of the same product, I understand.  I also think your current base of Insteon customers is your best asset, especially the hub people who will see UD as their savior.  I started with about a dozen devices, I now have over 100.  And I went on to install Insteon at my church with another ISY.  I suspect there are lots of people who are at that dozen point, ready to grow.  And, I started with a 99i, then a 994i, then a polisy. . . what is next?

Gadget people buy more gadgets!  It is a psychiatric illness my friend.

You are correct. The current base is their best asset. But that doesn't mean continuing to throw money at a bad product to appease that base. Especially if there is a replacement device that's better. 

You said it yourself. You've grown to over 100 devices. How many more will you actually add compared to a new person just buying polisy for the first time and seeing UDI switches that work with it?

If they dont buy insteon what are you going to do if a device fails? Replace it with something else. So what's the difference in doing the same with Nokia switches?

You're probably correct about those with a dozen devices. That was my point earlier. While still costly, that's not too large of a number (only 600 bucks) that you can't start over (or move old devices to less used areas...

[stillwater]

I don't think we on this forum should get too speculative about what UDI might or might not do if it succeeded in some way in licensing Insteon technology or buying some Smarlabs assets including IP.  It does not help UDI if we talk up the value of the Smartlabs IP or assets!

If resurrecting the existing product line were going to be  a significant money maker the sale Smartlabs was negotiating would probably have gone through.   If you look at modern  equivalent products they have lots of features the existing insteon products lack -- like (for example in the Shelly pucks) Bluetooth Low Energy or  wifi setup, software defined dimmer parameters (for example leading edge vs trailing edge, soft start, etc.). energy monitoring, etc. etc.  Now the dexterity of the ISY or IoP makes up for some of that but not all of it.  Making the insteon protocol a going proposition into the future would require very significant investment, in my opinion.   It isn't impossible that it could work out, but it isn't a a sure thing either, even at a possibly very low purchase price.  

 

[Brian H]

8 hours ago, Frozen001 said:

I am not a lawyer, but if one were to basically look at what comes out of the IC given certain commands on the input, and then make software for a microcontroller to mimic the same behavior, is that really a patent violation?  The above linked PDF has the PL schematic, along with all the serial commands that are used with it. The IC (have not open up my PLM to actually look at the IC) could just be a preprogrammed microcontroller with Insteon's code on it.  If we treat that as a black box, and walk through all the commands and see what it puts out for each command, then we independently generate our own source code to mimic the behavior, I cannot see how that would be a violation. Again I am not a lawyer, but I believe the IP would be the program within the IC, not the protocol.

 

 

The 2412S in the documentation and the 2413S have a 5 pin programming connector. Two on the 2413S as it also has a RF controller chip.

It does not cover things like the I2CS protocol where a check sum was part of the messages. I don't think anything was done in the PLM as it is just a change in the contents of the messages.

Mine have a sticker on them and they where a standard Micro Chip PIC controller. I suspect but have no data that the chips protection fuse was opened to stop reading it back.

I have seen reports Smarthome could reprogram units though in later years they may have started using programmed controllers.

[lilyoyo1]

10 hours ago, stillwater said:

I don't think we on this forum should get too speculative about what UDI might or might not do if it succeeded in some way in licensing Insteon technology or buying some Smarlabs assets including IP.  It does not help UDI if we talk up the value of the Smartlabs IP or assets!

If resurrecting the existing product line were going to be  a significant money maker the sale Smartlabs was negotiating would probably have gone through.   If you look at modern  equivalent products they have lots of features the existing insteon products lack -- like (for example in the Shelly pucks) Bluetooth Low Energy or  wifi setup, software defined dimmer parameters (for example leading edge vs trailing edge, soft start, etc.). energy monitoring, etc. etc.  Now the dexterity of the ISY or IoP makes up for some of that but not all of it.  Making the insteon protocol a going proposition into the future would require very significant investment, in my opinion.   It isn't impossible that it could work out, but it isn't a a sure thing either, even at a possibly very low purchase price.  

 

I agree with you about the insteon not worth being bought back though i don't think alot of hypothetical and wishful banter on a forum is going to make the price jump or bring another buying into the mix. 

I don't think Shelly is a good comparison to insteon. What's comparable is zwave as both insteon and zwave are both geared towards similar types of customers. 

Shelly using WiFi is because it's a wifi based device. All the other additional features are geared towards their desired market. 

I personally don't think UDI should resurrect insteon (moot point since Michel already stated they wouldn't). I'd like to see them keep the Nokia line going under their name. This way they have a few devices they have full control over similar to homeseer, aeotec, and fibro.

[Frozen001]

3 hours ago, Brian H said:

The 2412S in the documentation and the 2413S have a 5 pin programming connector. Two on the 2413S as it also has a RF controller chip.

It does not cover things like the I2CS protocol where a check sum was part of the messages. I don't think anything was done in the PLM as it is just a change in the contents of the messages.

Mine have a sticker on them and they where a standard Micro Chip PIC controller. I suspect but have no data that the chips protection fuse was opened to stop reading it back.

I have seen reports Smarthome could reprogram units though in later years they may have started using programmed controllers.

Exactly...  It makes complete sense to go to a programmed MCU instead of an ASIC as it is much easier make upgrades and you have a better supply chain as for example in a PIC MCU, there are several parts with the same footprint that if one is not available, you could easily substitute the other.

 

I did some patent searching last night and some things I noticed is that most of them are about mesh networking and other networking type of things, not about the contents of the PLM IC.  There is some mention of the solutions including hardware and software.  While I completely respect and understand IP, I still do not see an infringement if one were to generate a "compatible" product to just interface existing devices.  From my light perusing of the patents, someone making a compatible PLM would not be infringement. 

I guess one question to see if the owners of the patents consider the PLM design and/or protocal something that is protected is did did third parties have to license something from Smarthome/Insteon to make controllers?

[lilyoyo1]

34 minutes ago, Frozen001 said:

Exactly...  It makes complete sense to go to a programmed MCU instead of an ASIC as it is much easier make upgrades and you have a better supply chain as for example in a PIC MCU, there are several parts with the same footprint that if one is not available, you could easily substitute the other.

 

I did some patent searching last night and some things I noticed is that most of them are about mesh networking and other networking type of things, not about the contents of the PLM IC.  There is some mention of the solutions including hardware and software.  While I completely respect and understand IP, I still do not see an infringement if one were to generate a "compatible" product to just interface existing devices.  From my light perusing of the patents, someone making a compatible PLM would not be infringement. 

I guess one question to see if the owners of the patents consider the PLM design and/or protocal something that is protected is did did third parties have to license something from Smarthome/Insteon to make controllers?

Anyone can make a controller to operate insteon devices or their own insteon switch. That isn't infringing on insteon patents or copyrights.

The second you use one of their chips for your product or duplicate the protocol, you've crossed the legal threshold since insteon owns the rights to the code which is protected by copyright law

[Michel Kohanim]

Hello everyone,

First of all, I am so very honored and, frankly, this is the greatest career achievement I could have ever imagined for anyone let alone for myself. So, THANK YOU.

From my perspective, things that are worth it:

1. Hub customers ... but I think 100K is exaggerated 
2. PLM
3. INSTEON IP if and only if it's relatively inexpensive. The reason is that, for the technology to be viable, a) it has to be secure and b) it has to be extensible (not just for switches/sensors and simple thing for which the market is way too saturated). So, the tech will need to be extended since the current 24 bytes are not sufficient for any type of security or extensibility. If the tech can support longer packet sizes (even if fragmented), then the sky is the limit since we can have node servers on devices, and thus the same protocol can be used for pretty much anything in the world. Therefore, an opportunity to license it to everyone and for anything

We are still going through all the numbers and their documentation. I will keep you all posted.

Thanks again so much for your vote of confidence.

With kind regards,
Michel

[whywork]

Again, good luck.

If there is something I, and it sounds like a lot of others, can do, let us know.

[kenrok1]

re: hub customers - possibly they are basing this on the # of hubs sold? I've personally bought no less than 4 (one 2242 and three 2245's when my 1st 2245 went bad I bought 2 so I'd have a spare).

I'm sure there is someway to verify active (or at least active as of 4/14) hub accounts - since the hub cannot function through the native app without talking to connect.insteon.com  ... and that was on AWS VPC

Maybe they could also share what the AWS monthly spend was to get an idea of what it would take from a hosting perspective if the service were to be brought back online. 

[Michel Kohanim]

2 hours ago, whywork said:

If there is something I, and it sounds like a lot of others, can do, let us know.

@whywork, thank you so very much. At this juncture, we have a couple and active private equity investors who are interested in the same. Just going through the numbers right now. I shall definitely keep everyone posted.

Thanks again so much.

With kind regards,
Michel

[apostolakisl]

The concept of node server on the device.  Since the protocol is not over internet, how does that work?

[Goose66]

1 hour ago, apostolakisl said:

The concept of node server on the device.  Since the protocol is not over internet, how does that work?

Yeah, it seems a little bit of a stretch, but I guess you could view PLC data like Ethernet vs. Wi-fi. I can do UDP/TCP and HTTP over both Ethernet and Wi-fi even though they are completely different. So why not over PLC if the packet length and addressing is sufficient. But, I would think there would need to be a gateway of some kind until the devices can have a low power Wi-fi (802.11n) chip in them. 

Frankly one of the things I like about Insteon over, say, Wi-fi enabled bulbs or switches, is that it has its own communication network (PLC/RF) and works pretty flawlessly within its own sphere. I have way more problems talking to devices from the ISY through the PLM than I have problems with device-to-device communication in my Insteon switches and such. Of course, a large portion of the devices in my home that must communicate with each other are most often in the same room and/or on the same circuit.

[Goose66]

Note that the Node Server API is currently a REST API (HTTP), but I believe (hope) it is on the roadmap to shift the Node Server API to MQTT (UDP), thus eliminating Polyglot (or at least shifting it into ISY on Polisy (IoP)).

[RPerrault]

do we know if nokia is moving ahead with their devices?  no mention on the nokia site 

do we know if the nokia devices use the insteon protocol unaltered?  probably need at least something to provision a device as either a switch or dimmer

 

[stillwater]

As others have noted, the "Nokia" devices were not a Nokia effort -- just a licensing of the Nokia name by Smartlabs.   So the informed view is that the Nokia devices are dead as well.  

[apostolakisl]

3 hours ago, Goose66 said:

Yeah, it seems a little bit of a stretch, but I guess you could view PLC data like Ethernet vs. Wi-fi. I can do UDP/TCP and HTTP over both Ethernet and Wi-fi even though they are completely different. So why not over PLC if the packet length and addressing is sufficient. But, I would think there would need to be a gateway of some kind until the devices can have a low power Wi-fi (802.11n) chip in them. 

Frankly one of the things I like about Insteon over, say, Wi-fi enabled bulbs or switches, is that it has its own communication network (PLC/RF) and works pretty flawlessly within its own sphere. I have way more problems talking to devices from the ISY through the PLM than I have problems with device-to-device communication in my Insteon switches and such. Of course, a large portion of the devices in my home that must communicate with each other are most often in the same room and/or on the same circuit.

Yeah, put some hardware in between that does the translations.  It would, I assume, be a completely new piece of hardware.

[Goose66]

12 hours ago, apostolakisl said:

Yeah, put some hardware in between that does the translations.  It would, I assume, be a completely new piece of hardware.

Or we could just use Node Server API -> Polyglot -> Insteon node server which is all supported now if a local API could be implemented (or perhaps simply exposed if it's already there) in the Insteon Hub.

[apostolakisl]

21 minutes ago, Goose66 said:

Or we could just use Node Server API -> Polyglot -> Insteon node server which is all supported now if a local API could be implemented (or perhaps simply exposed if it's already there) in the Insteon Hub.

You still need something to get plc/insteon radio into ip based protocol.  Unless you put ip based wifi into each device, but that would be a completely different device environment and incompatible with all current devices.  I'm thinking basically a PLM that instead of output usb or serial, it outputs to ethernet or wifi.  PLM plus ISY is more or less doing that as is.

[AD8BC]

On 4/21/2022 at 11:02 AM, Michel Kohanim said:

...

1. Hub customers ... but I think 100K is exaggerated 
2. PLM
3. INSTEON IP if and only if it's relatively inexpensive. The reason is that, for the technology to be viable, a) it has to be secure and b) it has to be extensible (not just for switches/sensors and simple thing for which the market is way too saturated). So, the tech will need to be extended since the current 24 bytes are not sufficient for any type of security or extensibility. If the tech can support longer packet sizes (even if fragmented), then the sky is the limit since we can have node servers on devices, and thus the same protocol can be used for pretty much anything in the world. Therefore, an opportunity to license it to everyone and for anything

We are still going through all the numbers and their documentation. I will keep you all posted.

Thanks again so much for your vote of confidence.

With kind regards,
Michel

Michel,

Thanks for your efforts through all of this.  The quality and support at Universal Devices is exemplary, the exact opposite of Smarthome. Your stuff just works -- I love my 994i.  I don't come to the forum a lot anymore because I really don't think about my ISY and my Insteon setup -- it's there and it works perfectly and I didn't even know of the Insteon debacle until a friend sent me a text yesterday about it.  

I guess that at some point I'll need to upgrade to a Polisy if/when I need to start adding Z-wave stuff into the mix as things break.

I know you're getting flooded here with questions and requests, I'm in complete agreement with you that a good business move would be immediate support of Hub customers, and getting a PLM-equivalent out there (I've been through so many of them and it's the most important link in my system).  I would love you guys taking over the Insteon IP and manufacturing but that sounds like a huge undertaking.  

We're all behind you, friend!  

-- Bill

[smokegrub]

I am here to support UDI in keeping my Insteon Devices up and running. I am 77 years old and have no desire to abandon my Insteon investment in two homes going forward and embrace a new technology. I am ready to invest in two Polisys and support UDI going forward but only if they are able support my Insteon investment otherwise I will likely abandon home automation altogether. That would be a sad day for me.