<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;design&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 09:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Awesome Stuff: Cool Product Designs</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130518/00045923138/awesome-stuff-cool-product-designs.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130518/00045923138/awesome-stuff-cool-product-designs.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For this week's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=awesome+stuff">awesome stuff</a>, we've got three different projects that just caught my eye for being different and interesting in a design sense.
<ul>
<li>I don't know about you, but I've had a few too many experiencing having to try to inflate an air mattress of some kind or another, and realizing what a freaking total pain it is using regular valves (not to mention the inevitable annoying emptying process as well).  So I have to say that the <a href="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1484284472/windcatcher-inflates-in-seconds-with-no-power-or-p?ref=category" target="_blank">Windcatcher</a> project definitely piqued my curiosity.  I don't understand the mechanism behind it, but it certainly looks like an air mattress that you can fill with 4 or 5 breaths -- and all without having to put your mouth on anything.  It looks kind of like magic, so check out the video.
<center>
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1484284472/windcatcher-inflates-in-seconds-with-no-power-or-p/widget/video.html" frameborder="0"> </iframe>
</center>
These guys still have a bit of a way to go on the funding front, having raised only about a quarter of the $50,000 they're seeking, but the product definitely has that neat design factor going for it.
<center>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="380" src="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1484284472/windcatcher-inflates-in-seconds-with-no-power-or-p/widget/card.html" width="220"></iframe>
</center>
</li><li>There's been something of a hipster revival in pinhole cameras lately, it seems, but the <a href="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ondu-/ondu-pinhole-cameras?ref=category" target="_blank">ONDU Pinhole cameras</a> are definitely the nicest design I've ever seen.  A nice wooden box with no exposed screws.  A backplate that's held on by magnets.  It just <i>looks</i> cool.  Also, bonus points for the cool music in the video (apparently <a href="http://rxtx.bandcamp.com/album/what-sticks" target="_blank">this is the musician</a>.
<center>
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ondu-/ondu-pinhole-cameras/widget/video.html" frameborder="0"> </iframe>
</center>
This project has already surged past its goals, so it's definitely going to get funded, and with another 25 days to go, it'll likely end up much, much higher.
<center>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="380" src="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ondu-/ondu-pinhole-cameras/widget/card.html" width="220"></iframe>
</center>
</li><li>Finally, there are times when someone designs something and you wonder why no one else has done it before -- or even why such things aren't <i>common</i>.  That was the feeling I got after seeing <a href="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1704062015/nuplugtm-the-most-convenient-outlet-for-your-smart?ref=category" target="_blank">the Nuplug</a>, which is basically an extension cord/surge protector/outlet that attaches to furniture.  So, rather than having your outlets on the wall and behind furniture, you can connect them in a more convenient way.  Given how much stuff folks are charging all the time these days, I could definitely see how this could be handy for many people.
<center>
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1704062015/nuplugtm-the-most-convenient-outlet-for-your-smart/widget/video.html" frameborder="0"> </iframe>
</center>
The one thing holding me back on this one, frankly, is that it's a bit on the ugly side -- in that it really stands out.  Seems like something a little more subtle would be cooler.  Maybe future iterations.  This one also has a pretty ambitious $75,000 goal, and they're  only a little past halfway there with 18 days to go.
<center>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="380" src="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1704062015/nuplugtm-the-most-convenient-outlet-for-your-smart/widget/card.html" width="220"></iframe>
</center>
</li></ul>
That's all for this week...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130518/00045923138/awesome-stuff-cool-product-designs.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130518/00045923138/awesome-stuff-cool-product-designs.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130518/00045923138/awesome-stuff-cool-product-designs.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>design-matters</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130518/00045923138</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Cool Food Packaging Designs</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100624/0917379947/dailydirt-cool-food-packaging-designs.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100624/0917379947/dailydirt-cool-food-packaging-designs.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Packaging designs can make foods and drinks more attractive. There's a reason why people shy away from food that comes in generic black &#038; white packaging that looks like <a href="http://www.spurgeonworld.com/blog/archives/2007/02/make_your_pantr.html">Dhamra Initiative rations</a>. Here are just a few examples of some interesting packaging designs that probably aren't going to hit the store shelves anytime soon, but it'd be cool if they did.

<ul>
<li> <a title="http://www.fastcodesign.com/1669476/the-pringles-package-sucks-this-chip-can-blooms-into-a-bowl" href="http://bit.ly/QlOuNy">If you've ever tried to reach into a Pringles can for the last chip, there's a better can design that transforms a can into a bowl for easier snacking.</a> Once you pop, you can't stop -- because turning the bowl back into a can is like re-folding a map.... [<a href="http://www.fastcodesign.com/1669476/the-pringles-package-sucks-this-chip-can-blooms-into-a-bowl">url</a>]</li>
 
<li> <a title="http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/calendars/biotechnology/wikicells-bottles-that-we-eat" href="http://hvrd.me/PBAr5t">WikiCells have nothing to do with anyone being able to edit a spreadsheet. WikiCells are a strangely-named form of food packaging that consists of an edible membrane filled with some kind of nutritious liquid or emulsion or foam or solid food substance.</a> All the cool kids will be eating these in the future, but some people will wonder why we don't just eat fruit. [<a href="http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/calendars/biotechnology/wikicells-bottles-that-we-eat">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/332787" href="http://bit.ly/QlOLjD">Really old soda cans had pull tabs that came off and posed a choking hazard. Current aluminum cans have push in tabs that are slightly better, but now there's an even better design (called a 'smart tab') that lets you re-close the can.</a> Still, an even better design would prevent your soda from losing its carbonation, so watch out for the 'smarter tab' someday. [<a href="http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/332787">url</a>]</li>
</ul>


If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100624/0917379947/dailydirt-cool-food-packaging-designs.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100624/0917379947/dailydirt-cool-food-packaging-designs.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100624/0917379947/dailydirt-cool-food-packaging-designs.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100624/0917379947</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 1 Oct 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Make The Logos Bigger, Better</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101007/10185011324/dailydirt-make-logos-bigger-better.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101007/10185011324/dailydirt-make-logos-bigger-better.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Logos can convey all kinds of messages -- and instill a sense of confidence or demonstrate a lack of attention to detail. Some logos are fun. Others are serious. Some company logos don't change very much over a long period of time, but others seem to change with every passing design fad. Some logo <a href="http://branddunk.com/2008/10/31/can-pepsi-afford-to-spend-1-billion-on-a-butt-crack/">re-designs</a> are more successful than others. Here are just a few interesting logo collections of some branding campaigns that you might recognize.

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/its_a_sports_nation_we_are_only_living_in_it.php" href="http://bit.ly/URsF7M">SB Nation's network of 300 blogs redesigned all their logos for a re-launch -- with just a single designer, Fraser Davidson, in 7 weeks.</a> Designing 300 logos is hard enough, but add in the complication that none of these logos should in any way infringe upon their related sports teams' official trademarks.... [<a href="http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/its_a_sports_nation_we_are_only_living_in_it.php">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://hipsterbranding.tumblr.com/" href="http://bit.ly/SkvQo3">Imagine some popular corporate logos redesigned for a hipster blog or startup.</a> You don't have to imagine it, there's a Tumblr blog for it. [<a href="http://hipsterbranding.tumblr.com/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://best-ad.blogspot.com/2008/08/evolution-of-logos.html" href="http://bit.ly/P2cYFv">The evolution of corporate logos is kinda fascinating.</a> Apple's first logo in 1976 is really different from its current minimalistic logo. [<a href="http://best-ad.blogspot.com/2008/08/evolution-of-logos.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.graphicdesignblog.org/hidden-logos-in-graphic-designing/" href="http://bit.ly/OSHUxm">Some logos have hidden messages in them.</a> The Big Ten collegiate conference logo has a little nod to the fact that there are actually eleven teams in its organization. [<a href="http://www.graphicdesignblog.org/hidden-logos-in-graphic-designing/">url</a>]</li>

</ul>

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101007/10185011324/dailydirt-make-logos-bigger-better.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101007/10185011324/dailydirt-make-logos-bigger-better.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101007/10185011324/dailydirt-make-logos-bigger-better.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101007/10185011324</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 5 Sep 2012 16:05:45 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Robot Makers Redesign Robot After Google Refuses To Give Permission To Make Android-Style Bots</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/17034120197/robot-makers-redesign-robot-after-google-refuses-to-give-permission-to-make-android-style-bots.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/17034120197/robot-makers-redesign-robot-after-google-refuses-to-give-permission-to-make-android-style-bots.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ So the folks over at "Be the Robot" decided to make a cute little robot that could be controlled via your mobile phone.  Not surprisingly, they decided to <a href="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/realityrobotics/be-the-robot-bero-bluetooth-controlled-open-source" target="_blank">launch the thing on Kickstarter</a>.  You might notice that the robot has some resemblance to the Android robot... but it's not quite the same.
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/yWrpK"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/yWrpK.jpg" width=560 /></a>
</center>
Why?  Well, originally it <i>was</i> going to be designed as the Android robot... but then at the last minute, they realized that might be a legal issue.  Even though Google <a href="http://developer.android.com/distribute/googleplay/promote/brand.html" target="_blank">encourages the use</a> of the robot, it wasn't clear if this was allowed.  So the team delayed launching the Kickstarter campaign to go visit Google and to seek permission... where hilarity (and no actual answer) ensued:
<blockquote><i>
Just after we had uploaded the complete project on Kickstarter and about to press the &#8220;Submit to the world button&#8221; &#8230;we started to second guess ourselves and wanted to know are we really allowed to do this?
<br /><br />
After further investigations, as well as talking to a few lawyer friends, we discovered that the Google Bug Droid in 2D form and in printed materials is in fact Open Source, so anyone can stick it on posters and make cut outs. But there  seemed to be a gray area regarding the issue of whether a 3D version is in fact allowed for resale. So instead of killing the project or possibly getting into legal issues, we thought it would be a good idea to meet with some higher-ups at the Google Android headquarters and hear what they had to say.
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/F3T3M"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/F3T3M.jpg" width=450 /></a>
</center>
To make a long story short, at this meeting (during which we felt like we were on a reality TV show) the concept was well received, but there was not definitive answer as to &#8220;Yay&#8221; or &#8220;Nay&#8221;.
<br /><br />
Not wanting to kill the project after having already put so much work into it, and to make sure we could launch without any issues; we redesigned the outside shell to have a different appearance, while maintaining the same internal integrity and design we developed in the BERO secret lair.
</i></blockquote>
So, it's sorta a little like the Android bot, but not quite, because no one could tell them definitively one way or the other if doing what they wanted to do was allowed.  Isn't <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120727/14251019859/dear-permission-culture-this-is-why-no-one-wants-to-ask-your-ok.shtml">permission culture</a> just great?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/17034120197/robot-makers-redesign-robot-after-google-refuses-to-give-permission-to-make-android-style-bots.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/17034120197/robot-makers-redesign-robot-after-google-refuses-to-give-permission-to-make-android-style-bots.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/17034120197/robot-makers-redesign-robot-after-google-refuses-to-give-permission-to-make-android-style-bots.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>open-source?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120828/17034120197</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 9 May 2012 04:01:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Did Apple's Claims Over Rectangles And Corners Lead To 'The First Smartphone Designed Entirely By Lawyers'?</title>
<dc:creator>Leigh Beadon</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120507/06530818813/did-apples-claims-over-rectangles-corners-lead-to-first-smartphone-designed-entirely-lawyers.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120507/06530818813/did-apples-claims-over-rectangles-corners-lead-to-first-smartphone-designed-entirely-lawyers.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Android blogger Ron Amadeo has a great post over at <a href="http://androidpolice.com/" target="_blank">Android Police</a> where he tries to explain the design of the new Samsung Galaxy S3 smartphone, which many people have deemed pretty hideous. In his opinion, <a href="http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/05/04/the-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-the-first-smartphone-designed-entirely-by-lawyers/" target="_blank">it all comes down to legal tiptoeing</a>.</p>

<p>As you may recall, last year Apple <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110419/08383113960/details-apples-lawsuit-against-samsung-revealed-its-even-more-ridiculous.shtml">sued</a> Samsung over earlier products in the Galaxy line, claiming infringement of all sorts of different rights, among them some broad trade dress registrations involving basic design choices like black borders and rectangles with rounded corners. Amadeo walks through the many notable aesthetic elements of the S3 (including the stark changes from previous Galaxy phones) and compares them to Apple's list of trade dress claims, noting how several aspects of the phone seem designed to counter specific complaints&mdash;and the case he makes is pretty compelling. These are just a few examples (bolded portions are quotes from the Apple trade dress complaint):</p>

<blockquote><em>
<strong>A rectangular product shape...</strong><br />
... A rectangle needs to have parallel sides; the GSIII sides aren't straight at all. The outmost part is about 1/3rd of the way down, with serious curves leading to the top and bottom. So it's very much not a rectangle, or a rounded rectangle, or even horizontally symmetrical. It's more of an amorphous blob.
<br /><br />
<strong>...with all four corners uniformly rounded;</strong><br />
Nope. The top and bottom corners are not the same shape. Observe the outlines of the top-left and bottom-left corners. Note how they are different.
<br /><br />
<strong>The front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders</strong><br />
Having a giant screen on the front is kind of unavoidable. The only colors available though, are white and dark blue. Neither of those colors are black. The lawyers can sleep easy.
<br /><br />
<strong>Substantial black borders above and below the screen having roughly equal width</strong><br />
Apple's use of "roughly" is really obnoxious, but just in case they get into minutia (lawyers love minutia!), the top and bottom borders are not the same size. These to-scale measurements show the top bezel is about 16% smaller than the bottom. Also, they're not black!
</em></blockquote>

<p>In the past, some people have <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120320/04033218169/just-because-companies-can-design-around-patents-doesnt-mean-theres-no-impact-consumers.shtml">argued</a> that this sort of thing is an example of intellectual property doing its job and encouraging innovation, because competitors come up with new and different ways of doing things&mdash;but, as we have pointed out, the innovation being encouraged is the wrong kind. Instead of letting market demands dictate what engineers and designers spend their time on, their effort is wasted reinventing the wheel over and over again. The result is often an inferior product that lacks overall vision, as some are saying about the S3, at least aesthetically speaking. If a camel is a horse designed by a committee, what's a horse designed by a committee of lawyers? Some horrific Darwinian accident from the deep ocean, I'd wager.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120507/06530818813/did-apples-claims-over-rectangles-corners-lead-to-first-smartphone-designed-entirely-lawyers.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120507/06530818813/did-apples-claims-over-rectangles-corners-lead-to-first-smartphone-designed-entirely-lawyers.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120507/06530818813/did-apples-claims-over-rectangles-corners-lead-to-first-smartphone-designed-entirely-lawyers.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>seems-that-way</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120507/06530818813</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 8 May 2012 19:31:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Honeywell's Lawsuit Against Nest: The Perfect Example Of Legacy Players Using Patents To Stifle Innovation</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120508/03354418823/honeywells-lawsuit-against-nest-perfect-example-legacy-players-using-patents-to-stifle-innovation.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120508/03354418823/honeywells-lawsuit-against-nest-perfect-example-legacy-players-using-patents-to-stifle-innovation.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I'd been meaning to write about this lawsuit ever since it was filed, but other stuff got in the way, so this is a bit of a catch-up post, to go along with Honeywell's response to Nest's counterclaims (which we'll get to in a bit).  But the key to this highly questionable lawsuit is that electronics giant Honeywell wants to use the patent system to <a href="http://dockets.justia.com/docket/minnesota/mndce/0:2012cv00299/124497/" target="_blank">effectively kill off the well-hyped Nest thermostat</a>.  Nest, a company that launched just last fall, got some well-deserved <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20111026/01492716514/applying-apples-design-sense-to-other-items-like-thermostat.shtml">attention</a> for applying an Apple-like design sense to everyday gadgets -- starting with the lowly thermostat, a device that really hasn't seen that much innovation in quite some time.  The product was, indeed, a pretty big leap forward, and I know a bunch of people who have Nest devices and love them.
<br /><br />
But, of course, under a crony capitalist system, the incumbents can't have any of this nasty "disruption."  Honeywell was not pleased.  Bizarrely, just days before Honeywell filed the lawsuit, it had told GigaOm that it had built something similar to Nest but <a href="http://gigaom.com/cleantech/honeywell-20-years-ago-we-killed-off-our-learning-thermostats/" target="_blank">killed it off</a> because consumers weren't interested.  Yeah, this certainly sounds like a company jealous that Nest actually figured out how to truly innovate (bring something to market in a way consumers want) rather than just invent (create something new).
<br /><br />
The simple fact here is that consumers really seem to like the Nest, and apparently Honeywell is ill-equipped to compete in the marketplace.  So it's response is to sue and try to kill off the competition.  It's a sickening display of a legacy company resting on its laurels afraid to actually compete in the market against a disruptive player that's younger and nimbler and actually in touch with what consumers want.  Out of this, we get some absolutely ridiculous claims, such as the suggestion that Honeywell has patented the idea of a thermostat asking you what temperature you like, and only Honeywell could do such a thing:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/6rB5d"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/6rB5d.png"  width=500 /></a>
</center>
<br />
Honeywell also seems to suggest that merely connecting a thermostat to the internet infringes on its patents, because, of course, no one else could have possibly thought of connecting home devices to the internet before Honeywell came along.  While the filing also does highlight some evidence that Nest looked at Honeywell thermostats, isn't that how competition works?  You look at what others are doing, and figure out how you can do it better?  Basically, what Honeywell seems to be admitting is that it can't do it better, so instead it will sue.
<br /><br />
Nest's counterclaim hit back pretty hard on a bunch of these points, stating upfront:
<blockquote><i>
This lawsuit is a bald effort by Honeywell to inhibit competition from a promising new company and product in a field that Honeywell has dominated for decades.  Nest Labs, with its Nest Learning Thermostat, has generated consumer and critical enthusiasm around the home thermostat -- a device that most people had long since written off as a bland, dumb appliance....  That "blah-looking controller" on the market today is very often from Honeywell, which has long dominated the thermostat market, but has yet to generate a device that offers ordinary consumers as much as the Nest Learning Thermostat.  Instead of countering product innovation with its own new products, Honeywell has a track record of responding to innovation with lawsuits and overextended claims of intellectual property violations.  
</i></blockquote>
Nest also points out that Honeywell has lost previous lawsuits that similarly appeared to be bullying competitors.  The Nest response doesn't just call out the company for what it's obviously trying to do, but further claims that all of the patents are "hopelessly invalid" and points to prior art that raises significant questions about the validity of the patents in play.
<br /><br />
Nest also files some counterclaims for declaratory judgment -- which basically start out as a long commercial about Nest and how awesome everyone thinks it is.  While this may seem out of place, there's a reason for this.  The company is trying to demonstrate that it's not just a clone of Honeywell, but that <i>it</i> (not Honeywell) is the true innovator here.  It not only pumps itself up, but provides plenty of evidence of Honeywell's own failures to innovate.
<br /><br />
The latest news is that Honeywell has now filed its own response to Nest's counterclaims and (not surprisingly), Honeywell is not at all happy.  It says that Nest's counterclaims are "self-serving characterizations based on Nest Labs' unfounded opinions and speculations that are irrelevant to Honeywell's valid claims..."  These are legal filings, so I'm pretty sure that all of them are "self-serving."  As for whether or not they're "unfounded opinions and speculations," that seems like a pretty big stretch from Honeywell, in an attempt to smear any competition making valid legal arguments against them.
<br /><br />
Either way, it does not seem like either side is likely to back down any time soon.  So, what remains is a classic case of a legacy industry player who failed to adapt reacting to the young upstart everyone likes by going legal, rather than actually competing.  This is pretty short-sighted.  If it actually competed in the market it might learn <i>why</i> people like the Nest device and why they're buying them instead of Honeywell thermostats.  All I know is that my house has a Honeywell thermostat currently, and this lawsuit makes me much more interested in buying a Nest device to replace it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120508/03354418823/honeywells-lawsuit-against-nest-perfect-example-legacy-players-using-patents-to-stifle-innovation.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120508/03354418823/honeywells-lawsuit-against-nest-perfect-example-legacy-players-using-patents-to-stifle-innovation.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120508/03354418823/honeywells-lawsuit-against-nest-perfect-example-legacy-players-using-patents-to-stifle-innovation.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>if-you-had-invented-nest,-you'd-be-making-nest-devices</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120508/03354418823</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:31:23 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Applying Apple's Design Sense To Other Items... Like The Thermostat</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20111026/01492716514/applying-apples-design-sense-to-other-items-like-thermostat.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20111026/01492716514/applying-apples-design-sense-to-other-items-like-thermostat.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's no denying that Apple has been amazing at industrial design for years.  Tons of companies strive (and usually fail) to reach the bar that Apple regularly crosses.  But what if you took a bunch of ex-Apple designers, and they started building <i>other stuff</i>?  Apparently that's the question being answered by a company called "Nest" which is <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkanellos/2011/10/25/nest-labs-can-apple-alums-make-a-thermostat-hip/" target="_blank">releasing a smart thermostat</a>, that beyond looking awesome, also learns from you and your habits to become much more efficient.  It also, conveniently, allows access via computers and mobile phones.  My thermostat with a mobile app?  Why not?  And it is definitely nice looking.
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/YUooD"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/YUooD.png" /></a>
</center>
And, yes, a bunch of people there, including the founder and CEO, came from Apple, and helped design the iPod and iPhone.
<br /><br />
Nest claims that using the thermostat will help you save a ton of money by making your heating usage a lot more efficient -- though it would be nice to see some real world testing on such claims before anyone buys into them.  Also, while perhaps not nearly as <i>pretty</i>, we've seen similar home automation thermostats on the market for years, without making a huge dent.  It's just not that clear people that care enough to make even the initial outlay ($250 apparently).
<br /><br />
Still, I'm intrigued by getting more products out on the market with exceptional design.  We need more of that.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20111026/01492716514/applying-apples-design-sense-to-other-items-like-thermostat.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20111026/01492716514/applying-apples-design-sense-to-other-items-like-thermostat.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20111026/01492716514/applying-apples-design-sense-to-other-items-like-thermostat.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>just-as-long-as-it-doesn't-crash-so-often</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111026/01492716514</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:30:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Why Just Copying Isn't Enough: Cargo Cult Science And Copycats</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090827/0353036021.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090827/0353036021.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've talked about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090716/2342255574.shtml">cargo cults</a> in the past around here, and <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2009/08/26/iphone-copycats-are.html" target="_new">Boing Boing</a> points us to a great video of a talk by Jeff Veen, which argues that copycat innovators are a form of a cargo cult:
<center>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8CtC_qbQ51U&#038;color1=0xb1b1b1&#038;color2=0xcfcfcf&#038;hl=en&#038;feature=player_embedded&#038;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8CtC_qbQ51U&#038;color1=0xb1b1b1&#038;color2=0xcfcfcf&#038;hl=en&#038;feature=player_embedded&#038;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
</center>
The point he's making is one that we've tried to make here many times in the past -- though his analogy is much better than most we've used.  Basically, it's easy to just copy what you <i>think</i> is cool about a product, but that's rarely (if ever) enough to actually get people to buy.  This is an issue we see all the time when people get upset about our position on patents.  They say that, without patents, someone would just come in and "steal" the idea, and then where would you be?  But, the fact is, just being able to "copy" the product isn't enough to get it sold.
<br /><br />
<b>If you're truly innovative, then you not only understand your <i>product</i> better than some random copycat, but you also understand what makes your market want your product.</b>
<br /><br />
That can't be copied.  Not easily.  Yes, the copycat may win over some customers, but it's not the same.  And, by knowing the product and the market better than anyone else, you should also be able to stay ahead of the curve and keep innovating.  The copycat just has to catch up -- they're running towards where they think you were, when you may already be well past that.
<br /><br />
But the comparison to a cargo cult is quite accurate.  The cargo cultists built up their faux airports, thinking that it would bring in the same wonders as the real wartime airports did.  Companies make copycat iPhones because they think that people will suddenly rush to buy them like they bought the iPhone.  But it doesn't work that way.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090827/0353036021.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090827/0353036021.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090827/0353036021.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>gotta-leapfrog</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090827/0353036021</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 6 Apr 2009 02:54:50 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Designer Threatened With Copyright Infringement Claims... On His Own Work</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090405/1849164399.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090405/1849164399.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A whole bunch of people have been submitting this story all weekend, about how designer Jon Engle is <a href="http://www.jonengle.com/2009/04/accused/" target="_new">is accused of copyright infringement for his own designs</a>.  The site is down right now, but <a href="http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:http://www.jonengle.com/2009/04/accused/" target="_new">Google cache has it</a>.  Basically, the story is that a stock art site claims that it owns the copyright on 65 logos that this guy created for clients -- and is demanding he pay $275 for each one (which is actually somewhat low, given what they <i>could</i> demand).  He's not sure how the images got on the stock art site, but it looks like someone just took the images of logos from a showcase site, removed the text, and uploaded the icons themselves.  He explained this to them, but instead of an embarrassed apology:
<blockquote><i>
When I refused to pay the bill they hired <a href="http://www.artlaws.com/">a law firm specializing in copyright infringement</a>. The attorney called and offered a settlement of $18,000. How is that any different than the bill? I refuse to pay THEM for work I created. That is the epitomy of ridiculous. The attorney didn't like my response. He threatened to sue. I say BRING IT ON! I have no doubt I can win in court.
</i></blockquote>
So what did the lawyers do?  They started going after all of Engle's clients, telling <i>them</i> that their images infringe on its copyright and that Engle is "being investigated for copyright infringement."
<blockquote><i>
However, the new tactic I discovered this morning is so much harder to fight. They are calling or emailing every one of my clients they can find. They inform the client that I'm being investigated for copyright infringement and that the logo I designed for them may have been stolen from their client. After discovering my ban from Design Outpost I began contacting clients to see exactly who they've been in touch with. So far, I've heard back from three. In every case so far my client is furious with me. They took the lawyer's warning at face value without bothering to contact me. I understand their reaction to an extent. I'm sure they're worried that they may be sued as well for using 'stolen' artwork and the best thing they can do is distance themselves from me.
<br /><br />
I feel like this is nothing more than an underhanded campaign meant to demoralize me and destroy my reputation. If you read through their website you can see they work on contingency. This means they don't get paid if their client doesn't get paid. I've also made it very clear there's no way in hell that I'll ever pay up. I'll declare bankruptcy and go to work for McDonald's before that happens. Are they thinking they can beat me into submission? Do they think I'll agree to a settlement to make it all go away? Guess again. I have the truth on my side and I will NEVER pay a rip-off artist or their extortionist lawyers.
</i></blockquote>
Nice to see copyright law "protecting" the artist again.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090405/1849164399.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090405/1849164399.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090405/1849164399.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hurray-for-copyright</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090405/1849164399</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:20:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Does It Take A History Lesson To Figure Out You Can Make A Product In Different Colors?</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081210/1041223077.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081210/1041223077.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The amount of attention paid to and interest in industrial design has skyrocketed over the past several years, with people like Jonathan Ives, Apple's chief designer, becoming well known. Without question, industrial design is hugely important in the consumer electronics space, but some of the genius ascribed to it gets a little over the top. Witness a post on a BusinessWeek blog that attributes the launch of the iPod Mini in different colors to <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2008/12/what_apple_lear.html?campaign_id=rss_tech">"what Apple Learned from Kodak"</a>. It says that Apple's decision to give consumers a choice of colors was borne out of Kodak's 1926 release of its Vanity camera in different colors, an attempt to make the product more attractive to women, and that "What Apple did was learn from history, and adopt, adapt, and assimilate past success to current context." So figuring out you can make a product in different colors requires an immensely skilled designer with an acute knowledge of the history of colored products? That seems to be buying into the mystique of industrial design just a little too much. While it was beneficial for Apple to expand the iPod color palette, that move in and of itself wasn't all that innovative, was it? Furthermore, the success of the Mini, and continued success of the iPod, is because of many factors beyond design -- the ability to deliver more functionality at lower prices, for a start.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081210/1041223077.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081210/1041223077.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081210/1041223077.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>mindblowing,-like,-wow</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081210/1041223077</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:51:58 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Even In A Digital Age People Like To Build Stuff -- Like Real, Physical, Stuff</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080818/0246482007.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080818/0246482007.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Over the past few years, there's been a bit of a renaissance of the "DIY" culture towards building all sorts of "stuff."  It's sometimes unfortunate when so much focus in the tech world is just on the latest in what's happening online, in that it ignores all sorts of other interesting things going on.  The NY Times is noting a return to having even software and internet developers <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/technology/17ping.html?partner=rssuserland&#038;emc=rss&#038;pagewanted=all" target="_new">practice building physical things as well</a>, in part just to get them to start thinking outside the (computer) box when thinking about how to design digital things.  Think of it as cross-training for the digital developers mind.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080818/0246482007.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080818/0246482007.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080818/0246482007.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>tinker-away</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080818/0246482007</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:41:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Websites Still Designed For People Who Don't Use Them</title>
<dc:creator>Dennis Yang</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070928/011739.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070928/011739.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ When the executives at Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia <a href="http://newark1.com/2007/04/marthastewartcom-web-redesign-critique.html">redesigned</a> their site this year, they replaced a <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070108235524/http://marthastewart.com/">clean</a> site design with new snazzy one filled with images, flash, and video.  Unfortunately, while the redesign looked really pretty, regular users found it impossible to actually find any of the content that they were actually looking for.  The web has already been around for more than a decade now, so it's <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20070927/redesign-web-utility-beauty_all.htm">sad to see that companies are still failing to understand why people visit their site and designing sites that people find frustrating to use</a>.  Every day, millions of internet users still click on the "<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060614/1159239.shtml">skip</a>" to get through the ubiquitous flash introduction screen that still stands as an annoying sentry to many websites.  At what point will companies stop repeating the same mistakes over and over and over again?  With the "Websites that Suck" awards now entering their 12th year, we're clearly progressing at a very slow rate.  At least we're taking baby steps -- it's been awhile since I've seen an animated "under construction" sign.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070928/011739.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070928/011739.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070928/011739.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>design-matters</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070928/011739</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>