I'm assuming the LIFX did their due-diligence and attained "freedom to operate" before undergoing this venture - or is "assumption the mother of all f-ups"?
Strangely most people who come up with these sorts of ideas independently usually operate with one of two perspectives:
1) I know I thought of this idea so I've got a right to use it.
2) This idea is pretty obvious, it just hasn't had anyone willing to implement it.
Both of which give the implementer a false sense of security. People who've done this once or twice and been hit on the head by the stupid patent hammer, will look around to see if anyone has done something similar, especially 15 - 20 years ago, and if they can create a credible path to their idea which doesn't involve things that are patented. Then they file a provisional patent to be sure they don't get stomped on.
When I saw http://www.smarthome.com/2672-222/INSTEON-LED-Bulb/p.aspx up-thread I wondered immediately whether the ribs were functional as they otherwise might be infringing on a design patent for the bulb, looks very similar to me. If there are patents on the Insteon implementation seems highly likely they'd be generalised to independent wifi networked devices.
Looks like the Insteon needs a controller but you can have 3 smartphone controlled lights (3x$30 + $99 controller) using their system now for the price of the $196 pledge (which gives you 4 bulbs).
Doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile, just that there may be roadblocks ahead.
Wow, that light looks very similar, I wondered if there was a design patent so I just did an 'Insteon' search on the USPTO database [1]. Could be a challenge ahead [2].
I've never understood why it makes an ass out of the "me" in that context. I can only imagine scenarios in which the person doing the assuming is making an ass out of themselves, not where their assuming is making an ass out of other people.
