One of the issues with this particular crowdfunding campaign that goes beyond the normal risks involved in any such campaign is that the vast majority of folks have no clue what is involved in bringing a PLB to market. Prior experience in backing crowdfunding campaigns won’t help. It’s far more complicated than your typical tech gadget or mechanical gadget you see on a crowdfunding site. They don’t know what they don’t know, so they have no basis on which to make an informed decision. Informed risk is one thing. Uninformed risk is another.

A PLB is, typically, a pocket-sized distress alerting device used to notify authorities via an international satellite system (COSPAS-SARSAT) that you are in need of rescue. It also provides your location and a homing signal for those coming to rescue you. These are typically used in marine, aviation and wilderness distress situations. A PLB is distinct from a Satellite Emergency Notification Device (SEND) that requires a subscription and that may also provide additional value-added services such as remote area text messaging and tracking.

(NOTE: A copy of this article has been sent to Indiegogo. If the page has been taken down you can view a saved image of the page at: www.equipped.org/smartwatch_plb_indiegogo_07072016.pdf)

Is it irony or hubris that the music the promoter chose for the promotional video accompanying the campaign is the original theme from Mission Impossible? That video is a mash-up of scenes from a number of PLB and SEND promotional videos and Search and Rescue videos, including many from Breitling EMERGENCY videos. The Breitling EMERGENCY is the only available PLB watch you can purchase in the U.S. with a $16,000 +/- MSRP. (Disclaimer: Equipped To Survive Foundation supported the waiver of certain normally required PLB specifications required for the FCC to certify the EMERGENCY for sale in the U.S.)

Only one other PLB “watch” has received COSPAS-SARSAT approval, the chunkier and decidedly unfashionable SAT406 by Mobit Tekecom, but it doesn’t have a 121.5 MHz homing signal, doesn’t have FCC approval and isn’t available for purchase. While aiming to be more affordable than the Breitling, it might be better described as a wrist-worn PLB with auxiliary digital watch functions. Currently, conventional PLBs that are easier to engineer, certify and manufacture start in the low $200 range in a very competitive market.

I sent the Indiegogo campaign promoter, Bernie Goldmann of Riverside, California, a query with a number of common questions you would want answers to for any high-tech crowdfunding campaign via the “Ask a question” link on the Indiegogo page as well as to the email listed on his press release. As of publication of this article, I have not received a response. There was also no response to my voice mail I left when I called the phone number on the press release.

Goldmann’s goal of $25,000 with delivery in December 2016 is, in my opinion, laughable, given the actual costs and time required to bring a PLB to market. Ignore, for the moment, the cost and time for the challenging technical development of this device. A PLB must be certified by COSPAS-SARSAT and the FCC before it can be sold in the U.S. That COSPAS-SARSAT certification process, including lab testing, can typically take up to a year or more, even for a company that is experienced with the convoluted process. There are only four approved labs in the world, only one in the U.S. and that one charges a 200% surcharge for non-military testing. The lab in the Ukraine and Russia cannot be used by U.S. entities, leaving only TUV in the U.K. the only practical choice.

As a result, there is typically a 2- to 3-month lead time to get your beacon tested, assuming you plan ahead and meet your deadlines. The testing will typically take 3 months, and with multiple issues, a lot longer. The more that a beacon stretches established design parameters, the more likely there will be significant issues in testing thereby extending the time and cost. A smart watch PLB would be stretching them nearly to the breaking point with existing technology. The cost of beacon testing alone will be no less than $15,000 and it’s been known to go as high as $60,000 (according to my industry sources).

Then comes RTCM testing in order to get FCC approval that’s required to sell the PLB in the U.S. which industry sources quote at $20,000 – $80,000 through the testing and the FCC approval process itself. The more complicated the application, the more time and money it will cost. Given that any watch-sized PLB will likely need similar exceptions as granted to Breitling, which added years to its approval, that will only add to the time and cost involved.

So, just the testing and certifications required to sell in the U.S. will cost far more than the meager $25,000 budgeted. And, the odds of getting it done by December of this year are zero.

Finally, while Breitling and its technology partner proved you can develop a miniaturized PLB on a chip, so to speak, that is small enough to fit in a relatively large watch case (bigger than any current smart watch) and gain FCC approval, the cost to develop that unique chip and watch is reputed to have been in excess of a million dollars and it took years!

I could go on for pages about the technical and market challenges that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this campaign as presented is nonsensical given the $25,000 goal and promised delivery date, but I think just from these few issues you can see that it’s a non-starter.

Much of the text on the Indiegogo page are copied off other PLB or satellite beacon pages, images grabbed from the mash-up video or similarly other beacon pages. The image of a trio of smart watches was grabbed off the Internet and then surrounded with symbols and text. There’s no possible way that a PLB smart watch could fit inside an existing smart watch case.

Whether it is a con or simple naivety, I’ll leave for you to decide. Anyone buying into it (becoming a “backer”) is likely throwing away their money, in my opinion, since “flexible goal” means the promoter gets to keep the money, even if they don’t reach the goal. From our point of view, the good news is that with approximately one month to go, so far only a single person has backed it. Caveat emptor! Buyer beware!

I have been getting a number of inquires about Astronics DME Corporation’s SATRO PLB-110 “world’s smallest and lightest” PLB that we first wrote about back in December of last year (2011). Besides being small, one of the unique features of the PLB was a form factor that mimicked a modern smart phone, making it flatter and more pocketable than existing designs. It was also buoyant, despite the small size, another unique feature at the time. There’s been a lot of interest and DME was saying that they expected to reach market in the Spring of 2012, though Spring came and went without the PLB being available.

Since it isn’t unusual for a distress beacon manufacturer to blow their expected introduction date, in my experience, I wasn’t all that concerned or surprised. In any case, we are now in the Fall of 2012, and after more emails to me asking what was happening, I decided to check up on what was going on.

I was able to ascertain that both COSPAS-SARSAT and FCC approvals were gained in March and May, 2012, respectively, but, I found that the SATRO PLB has disappeared from the DME web site.

When I tried to talk to DME about the SATRO, I got nowhere, zip, nada, nothing! Think “black hole.” Clearly, something was awry and when a company clams up that tight, my first suspicion is some sort of legal issue is involved. After some further sleuthing around the Internet, seems my instincts were correct.

Turns out that just days before I published my initial report on the SATRO, ACR Electronics filed a Federal lawsuit against DME and its design consultants, former ACR design engineers and employees. These former ACR employees left ACR and formed their own electronics design consultancy, gaining DME as a client. ACR claims, among other things, that they had misappropriated ACR trade secrets and documents and incorporated them into the new SATRO PLB. ACR also asked for a Preliminary Injunction to prevent DME from selling the SATRO PLB, which has not, to date, been granted. You can see all the allegations in the filing here:

ACR’s 1st Amended Complaint

Also, I have posted some motions from ACR and DME:

ACR Motion for Preliminary Injunction
DME’s Proposed Findings of Fact
ACR’s Proposed Findings of Fact

These all make for interesting reading, but, they only tell part of the story. There have been dozens of filings in this case (as of this article, 166 items on the docket). Some of the filings have been sealed at ACR request and there’s hundreds of pages of declarations and additional motions (costs money to get these, so we just got a few of what seemed like the most critical). Whatever else happens, the lawyers involved must be making a mint.

This lawsuit certainly could explain why DME decided against selling the SATRO, at least at this juncture. If they were deemed in the end to be liable, any damages would be significantly lessened if they didn’t sell any of the beacons. And, the motion for preliminary injunction is pretty much moot if they aren’t selling the PLB. On the other hand, there is no certainty that ACR will prevail in court.

Also, along the way, DME filed a counterclaim against the consultants, a normal strategy in such a complicated lawsuit, covering their butt somewhat in case the consultants actually did do what ACR alleges.

If ACR’s claims are true, they have every right to sue and stop the theft of their property. A cynic might note that as long as DME isn’t selling the SATRO, ACR benefits by not having to compete with a PLB that could offer consumers some significant perceived advantages over the existing ACR PLBs.

No surprise, DME and the design consultants counter in their filings that they did nothing wrong and that ACR is way off base. Mostly they say that whatever similarities that exist between the SATRO and the ACR PLBs are the result of common design solutions to electronics required by dint of the regulatory specifications in any PLB and/or expertise and procedures these particular engineers already had prior to be hired by ACR and/or existing technology freely available or not really a trade secret of ACR.

I won’t bore you with the myriad convoluted details, claims and counterclaims, allegations and rebuttals, you can read the filings above if you need help falling asleep one night, but only time will tell how this ends up. As of the end of last month, the court docket shows that the parties had agreed to a mediator, a standard procedure in such cases, and perhaps that means that a settlement can be reached…or not. Another option might be that DME will redesign the SATRO to avoid any possible issues with the claimed stolen ACR tech, or it may be that one or the other may eventually prevail in court.

Without access to all the court filings, it is impossible for me to render an opinion as to who is in the right in this fight. The only thing that is certain at this point is that it is a nasty fight that is costing all involved lots and lots of money and consumer availability of this smaller and lighter PLB is uncertain at this point, so don’t be holding your breath. If you need a PLB today, just get one before you find yourself wishing you had.

Not surprising given the ongoing litigation, neither ACR or DME would comment for this article.

Stay tuned!

NOTE: DME has withdrawn the SATRO PLB from the market. Click here for the final judgement in this lawsuit.

BriarTek’s patent claims threatened to strangle expansion and innovation is this increasingly popular distress beacon market. At best, the patent claims would increase the cost of the devices for consumers, which inevitably discourage purchase and their subsequent use to save lives.

Updated December 17, 2012: At the RTCM Board of Directors meeting last week, BriarTek delivered a letter stating that their patent was “not essential” and that it was possible to build a two-way SEND to the SC-128 standard without violating their patent. Discussion ensued and it was noted that in the opinion of at least one manufacturer present (and I concur), such a SEND would not be commercially viable since there would be little communication afforded without text, which is the essential part of the patent and essential to a commercially viable two-way SEND.

The conclusion was that while BriarTek was technically correct about it being “not essential,” in reality they were splitting very fine hairs. When I asked if they had amended their patent or planned to do so to encompass those alternative means, we were told by BriarTek’s representative at the meeting, Chuck Collins, that they had not done so and he couldn’t tell us if they planned to do so. BriarTek’s Intellectual Property attorney, John Fuisz, also attended.

In the end the Board determined that BriarTek had not violated the specific elements of RTCM’s Intellectual Property Policy, even if the general sentiment was that they had violated the spirit of the policy, and they decided not to invalidate and pull the SC-128 standard. Rather, they will revise the standard to incorporate a notice of BriarTek’s “not essential” patent.

This situation clearly exposed loopholes in the RTCM Intellectual Property Policy that was intended to prevent exactly this type of situation, where a party to the development of a standard could benefit financially from holding a patent essential to building devices that meet the standard. The Board took action to begin revising their Intellectual Property Policy to attempt to prevent the occurrence of such a situation again in the future.

With regards to the ITC complaint, I understand that Yellowbrick have capitulated and signed a licensing agreement with BriarTek. Given their very small market share and even smaller sales in the U.S. , that probably made sense from a purely financial perspective. I should note that doesn’t have any bearing on the validity of the patent.

I spoke to Delorme President Mike Heffron, who told me they had no intention of backing down. In an interesting turn of events, he told me that in a move initiated prior to the ITC complaint being filed, they will begin production in the U.S. very early in 2013. That would essentially nullify the ITC complaint, since the ITC ’s powers are limited to importation issues. At that juncture the ball is back in BriarTek’s court; they would need to file a lawsuit in Federal Court to continue their effort to enforce their patent.

Stay tuned. I somehow doubt this is the end of this story.

Updated October 10, 2012: BriarTek contacted me after this article was published and advised that they did have distribution and provided a list of 12 distributors for their Cerberus SEND. I requested that they provide links to the companies’ web sites, but they never responded to that request. With their help I was able to locate the product on REI’s web site and I independently located it on the SatPhoneCity USA web site, another of the listed distributors. The other distributors listed, most of which I was unable to locate with Google, appear to be strictly industry oriented operations, many of which are not located in the U.S., and clearly not consumer oriented U.S. businesses. That was the issue at hand in the article (below) regarding the claim that there was lack of distribution in the U.S. sufficient to replace, somehow, the existing widespread distribution of the targeted Delorme inReach, which if barred from sale would have an adverse effect on consumers.

I had hoped to visit BriarTek while I was in the D.C. area the week following publication of the article, at Joe Landa’s invitation, but was unable to do so due to unanticipated conflicts.

At the RTCM Board of Directors meeting in Orlando, there was considerable discussion of this issue. I arrived a few minutes late and then participated in that discussion. A Delorme representative attended the meeting. Joe Landa attended via conference call. BriarTek had indicated to the Board that in their opinion, their patent is not an “essential” patent. If this is the case then devices could be produced that meet the standard without infringing the Briartek patent. However, it could be that such devices would be far less commercially viable. RTCM requires any patents related to the standard to be declared. The difference between an “essential” patent and a “non-essential” patent is that RTCM does not publish standards that rely upon an essential patent. If the BriarTek patent is deemed “essential,” then it is possible the RTCM SC128 standard for SENDs might be withdrawn, which could create all sorts of problems.

The Board requested that BriarTek provide a letter that clearly stated whether they considered their patent to be essential or not, and why, and that they also include their proposed licensing requirements. Landa agreed to do so in a timely manner. The issue was then tabled until the next Board meeting in December, pending receipt of that letter. It was clear that not everyone on the Board agreed with the BriarTek position that their patent was non-essential.

September 6, 2012: On August 17, 2012, BriarTek IP, Inc. of Alexandria, Virginia, filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that alleges that Delorme’s and Yellowbrick’s 2-way Satellite Emergency Notification Devices (SENDs) infringe upon a BriarTek patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,991,380) and should be barred from importation. If their petition is granted, that would shut out Delorme’s popular inReach from U.S. consumers. Yellowbrick so far has only limited distribution, mostly in Europe, so that has limited direct impact on U.S. consumers.

BriarTek, Inc., a related company, licenses the BriarTek IP patent and manufactures and markets its Cerberus SEND and related smart phone applications and computer software.

By way of background, BriarTek filed a provisional patent application in March, 2006, for a “Global Bidirectional Locator Beacon and Emergency Communications System.” The patent was granted in August 2, 2011. It must be noted that grant of a patent doesn’t mean a patent is actually valid or enforceable, as many patents are later found to be invalid. The BriarTek patent is very broad in scope. It essentially claims invention of the entire concept of using satellites for 2-way text messaging distress beacons.

According to BriarTek President Joe Landa, BriarTek is simply interested in protecting its intellectual property and the investment it has made. He claims that he “doesn’t want to slow down release of any products into the market.” He explained that they had approached Delorme about licensing the patent prior to the filing and that is still BriarTek’s aim. He told me that he had extensive discussions with Delorme at the highest levels. “I offered Delorme a very reasonable license,” be said, but no agreement was reached. Yellowbrick was given 24-hour notice of the ITC filing. He explained that he “has long been a big proponent of getting these devices in the hands of the public,” and would “prefer to see more of them in use. ” Landa said in closing that he “cannot comment about any discussions either in the past or ongoing at this time that relate to the case or any potential settlements… We worked hard, we were awarded a patent, we hope others will respect our legal rights.”

This ITC complaint notice caught many in the industry by surprise. More on that later. Because of the very short eight-day timeframe provided for initial public comments on the complaint, only Delorme and Iridium filed comments (responses) opposing the complaint. (Click to read: Delorme Comments and Iridium Comments)

The ITC process is expedited compared to normal court proceedings. About 30 days after initial filing of the complaint, or in about one week, the ITC will institute the case (assuming all the legal requirements are met) and assign an administrative law judge (ALJ) to the case. The ALJ will set a target dates for the expedited process, which typically lasts from 9-18 months, but which can be extended. After motions and the like, the next big step will be an evidentiary hearing which is very similar to a federal trial. There is no option for a jury, the ALJ hears the case in accordance with administrative hearing rules.

After conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the ALJ will issue an initial determination that is subject to review by the full Commission. At the stage they will publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on public interest issues and ALJ recommendations. That comment period is 30 days. Sixty days after notice is published the Commission will announce whether they will review the decision or not. At this juncture there’s another opportunity for the public to comment on public interest issues and ALJ recommendations If they chose not to review, the ALJ’s ruling becomes final. If reviewed, then they can reject the ALJ’s determination or modify it as they see fit. You can find an explanation for the ITC’s public interest accommodations here: http://usitc.gov/press_room/documents/featured_news/publicinterest_article.htm

Intellectual property is a key element in industrial development, but like anything given government sanction, patents can be abused. It is not uncommon for patent holders to demand licensing fees from existing commercial product manufacturers on patents. Then the issue becomes, is the patent is valid? The cost of challenging the patent must be weighed against the cost of litigation or paying a licensing fee. Certainly, those holding valid patents should expect to benefit from their efforts. If BriarTek’s patent claims are valid, it has every right to earn financial compensation for use of that patent.

If the patent is unquestionably valid, this is usually a fairly straightforward issue. After negotiations, the parties sign some form of licensing agreement and, typically, a royalty is paid to the patent holder. If there are issues with patent validity or if the demands for fees are outrageous, then the next step is typically either a request to re-evaluate the patent on the part of those accused of infringement , more on that later, or a lawsuit is filed by the patent holder where a judge or jury will eventually determine patent validity, damages and the like. Depending on how things are proceeding, a settlement may reached that resolves the issue, one way or another, prior to either effort coming to a conclusion.

When the alleged infringing product is imported, as is the case here, then the ITC can become another venue for the patent holder to assert pressure. Landa is quite clear that this is their goal, to pressure the parties to compensate them for use of their patent. And, he claims, “this is a less onerous process because it cannot reach back for damages and other claims.”

Anyone reading headlines about the patent battles occurring in the cell phone/smart phone/tablet wars will have some understanding of the stakes and the costs involved in protecting intellectual property.

Reading the Delorme Comments and Iridium Comments, they make the case that this ITC complaint should be rejected by the ITC due to the public interest issues alone, which are a significant area of concern for the ITC, as noted above. In their comments they assert that many of BrairTek’s claims of injury don’t hold water and that there is little question that consumers would be the losers.

A few weeks ago at Outdoor Retailer Summer Market, I spoke with Landa about the Cerberus SEND and he specifically said their primary emphasis was on government and corporate markets. Given the relatively high cost of their Cerberus SEND, up to three times more than the inReach, that made a lot of sense. Their primary existing product line is comprised of Man Overboard Beacons and systems that are, likewise, primarily sold direct to the military and commercial/industrial market. They currently have no significant presence in the consumer marketplace. Cerberus is only available online from their own web site.

As Delorme points out in their filing, there appears little likelihood that BriarTek could fill the existing consumer market niche, and certainly not in a reasonable timeframe, due to their much higher price and limited manufacturing capacity as well as virtually no presence in the consumer marketplace. There is also little evidence that these other 2-way SENDs are actually harming BriarTek. Most critically, they claim that a decision in BrairTek’s favor could put lives at stake.

If the ITC decides on BriarTek’s behalf, it is certainly possible that, absent some licensing or other scheme being implemented, consumers will take a hit and a growing market in advanced 2-way SENDs will be nipped in the bud until it sorts itself out. That could take considerable time, perhaps years if Delorme decides to fight rather than come to some sort of financial agreement with BriarTek.

These 2-way SENDS offer significant advantages to someone in an emergency situation and the Search and Rescue community, alike, compared to traditional 1-way alerting, albeit this comes at a cost increase. So, it’s not for everyone. Having said that, this same communications capability in non-distress situations can make them much more appealing than a more simplistic distress beacon or SEND. That helps to drive sales.

Text communications are inherently less costly and more compact compared to voice communications capability. As such, the uptake by consumers will be far greater for a 2-way text device compared to a satellite phone. The more competition there is in this market, the better it is for consumers and the SAR community as more of these devices will end up in the hands of those in need. That will result in more lives saved and fewer SAR responders put at risk.

BriarTek has certainly got Iridium’s attention, evidenced by their comments. Iridium has worked hard the past few years promoting 2-way SENDs and encouraging companies to enter the market. I am aware of numerous such devices in the works. Iridium sells modems and satellite data plans, so the more SENDs, the better from their viewpoint. Iridium is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Without the Iridium satellite system, BriarTek is pretty much out of business. While it may not be able to cut BriarTek off “for cause” over this effort to monetize their patent, Iridium can certainly make their life difficult and could easily choose not to renew their agreement when the time comes.

Neither Delorme nor Iridium were willing to comment further due to the pending legal action, for the time being letting their public interest comments on the complaint stand on their own. Other companies with 2-way SEND devices in the works declined to go on the record. I can characterize their off-the-record comments as disdainful of BriarTek’s patent claims.

Beyond SENDs, if the patent was held to be valid, this could potentially impact the Next Generation COSPAS-SARSAT (MEOSAR) system which is currently in development with satellites and systems already being tested. That internationally supported distress alerting system allows for optional 2-way messaging incorporated into next generation 406 MHz EPIRBs, ELTs and PLBs.

There is also another issue, which may or may not bear on the legal side, but needs disclosure since this potentially affects many new SENDs in the pipeline and these devices are all about saving lives. The more SENDs out there, the more lives saved.

BriarTek, in its manufacturer guise, is a member of RTCM (Radio Technical Committee for Maritime) http://www.rtcm.org/ and Joe Landa was an active participant in the RTCM SC128 Special Committee that developed the SEND standard. That effort started in December, 2008, with the new standard being voted on in March, 2011, passing in May, http://www.equipped.org/blog/?p=331 and it was formally adopted on August 1, 2011. The FCC is a participant in RTCM committees and this SC128 standard has been forwarded to the FCC to be incorporated into FCC regulations. Delorme, as manufacturer of the inReach that was not yet released at the time that SC128 started work, was also a participant in the SC128 committee. Delorme’s current Vice President and General Manager, Patrick Shay, was employed by Iridium during that time period and was Iridium’s representative on the SC128 committee. He was also active in promoting 2-way SENDs via the ProTECTS Alliance (standing for Promotion of Two-way Emergency Communication and Tracking Systems) that Iridium initiated.

While the primary motivation for developing the SC128 standard was to protect consumers and ensure these devices work in emergency situations by setting a minimum level of performance, similar to the SC110 PLB standard, there’s no question that the SEND standard provided financial benefits to manufacturers. It essentially makes their conforming products more marketable and valuable.

RTCM has a long established policy that it “develop standards that do not require the use of patented technologies as the only means to comply with a standard (essential patents)” and that “Members of RTCM Special Committees and members of the RTCM Board of Directors should identify patented elements they are aware of which are included in any standard in preparation or revision.” In addition, “The ballot to approve every RTCM standard shall ask the member to identify any applicable patents they are aware of which are not identified in the standard.”

Having participated in SC128 meetings from the start, I can testify that I do not recall Landa ever once mention BriarTek’s pending patent, which would clearly be deemed an “essential patent” for any 2-way SEND. Checking with other SC128 members, nobody else that I spoke with recalls any such disclosure. Having said that, Landa claims that he recalls advising SC128 “that we had pending patents in this area. In general I do not comment on specific patents that are pending. I had no way at that time of knowing what claims would or would not be allowed or even if the patent would ever be awarded.”

Also, RTCM confirms that Landa did not vote on the standard, which may have required he disclose the patent on his ballot. I say “may,” because the patent at that time was still pending and the plain wording of the RTCM policy applies to issued patents. The consensus of those SC128 members I spoke with, who declined to be quoted on the record, is that Landa chose to not disclose a pending patent that could potentially affect many SEND manufacturers while he participated in developing a standard with many of those same manufacturers that could thereby enrich his company if he was awarded the patent and the patent is found to be valid.

It must be noted that while it appears that nobody else in the room was aware of the pending patent except Landa, at least those I spoke with, the patent application process is not confidential and patent applications are publicly available, with this patent application published October 7, 2007. Whether the other manufacturers at the table ought to have done a better job of keeping an eye on patent applications relating to their existing or potential products is another issue altogether.

The RTCM Board of Directors will take up this issue at their meeting the last week in September.

Consistent with Landa’s remarks to me, the assumption on the part of most I spoke with in the industry is that BriarTek’s ultimate goal is to license the patent or achieve some other form of financial settlement, which would give it a steady income stream from every 2-way SEND sold or a lump sum payment or something along those lines. The ITC action then is viewed as a way to assert pressure towards such an agreement. If a major player like Delorme signs, others would typically follow. That could take the validity of the patent out of play. The validity of the patent is the crux of the matter.

At this point, beyond dealing with the pending ITC complaint or acceding to BriarTek’s demands, Delorme certainly has the option of either requesting a re-examination of the patent due to documented prior art (meaning documentation that this capability covered by the patent existed or was discussed in some public forum prior to the patent application date) or filing a court challenge against BriarTek over the infringement claim that is contained in the ITC complaint. On balance, the expedited ITC process is likely its best choice. Note, however, that even if the ITC rules against BriarTek, including if it finds the patent to be invalid, that decision does not actually invalidate the patent and BriarTek could still file a lawsuit in Federal District Court. Not typically an effective strategy according to my sources, but…

With regards to the validity of that patent, ETS Foundation Board of Directors member, Scott Weide, an intellectual property attorney, provided this considerably simplified explanation of the issues:

The BriarTek patent claims some fairly broad concepts. For example, Claim 1 is generally directed to an emergency monitoring system which includes a user satellite communication device which communicates with a monitoring system via a satellite network, incorporates a GPS device, and where the user device includes a text entry device which is adapted to receive textual data entered by the user. During review of the patent, BriarTek argued that the feature of the user device having a text entry device adapted to receive textual data rendered the system unique over the prior art. The breadth of this claim certainly makes it subject to an invalidity attack.

While the U.S. Patent Office did not locate any prior art specifically disclosing a satellite communication system which allowed a user to input text, such prior art may still exist (in other literature or use not located by the Patent Office) such that the invention claimed in Claim 1 is not novel under U.S. patent laws (as we note below, it appears that could be the case – DR).

In addition, the claims of the BriarTek patent may be invalid based upon obviousness. Under Section 103 of the U.S. patent laws, a claimed invention is obvious, and thus not patentable, if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains (in other words, if someone knowledgeable regarding the subject would consider the invention an obvious next step, it isn’t patentable – DR).

BriarTek admits that satellite distress communication systems incorporating GPS which did not have text input/transmission functionality existed at the time of the invention. At the same time, user communication devices with text entry features and the ability to transmit textual data over a communication system were well known in other communications systems (beepers, cellular phones, etc.). Thus, although satellite distress communications systems may not have been implemented specifically with text transmission capabilities, it doesn’t appear to be because the feature wasn’t within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. In fact, it would be obvious to just about anyone that it was just a matter of time before that capability would be implemented via satellite.

One example of prior art may be found in the Distress Alerting Satellite System (DASS) which was seen as the next generation of distress system, building on the first generation COSPAS-SARSAT 406 MHz system. Many of the DASS concepts have evolved into the COSPAS-SARSAT Next Generation (MEOSAR) System. DASS originated back in 1998 and in February 2003, NASA, NOAA, the USAF, the USCG, and the DOE signed a Memorandum of Agreement regarding DASS development and demonstration. From the start, 2-way messaging was a key element of DASS. A published DASS document notes “the system also has the potential of providing additional one-way or two-way, non-vocal digital messaging.” Clearly, this predates the BriarTek patent submission.

Another example of a system that appears to have incorporated all the elements of the patent claims in prior art is the Volvo SeaKey system, first deployed in the early 2000’s. This maritime system uses the Orbcomm satellite system to provide tracking and distress alerting and response via text.

At this point there are a lot of accusations being flung around, often contradictory. Ultimately, I think this will resolve itself, either because the patent is invalidated or a settlement is reached on licensing terms if the patent looks to held up as valid.

Speaking to industry members, who spoke to me on condition of confidentiality, it seems clear that BriarTek’s patent will be challenged with support from at least most of those potentially affected. The cost to both parties, BriarTek and those opposed to this action and the validity of the patent, will be high, no matter the outcome. That will inevitably be reflected in the price of these SENDs.

Stay tuned for further developments.

Updated December 3, 2014: BriarTek’s patent claims relating to 2-way Satellite Emergency Notification Devices (SENDs) have been invalidated in a federal court ruling that granted summary judgement to Delorme. While the ruling makes interesting reading, if you are so inclined (Click here for links to the ruling download or viewing), the bottom line from District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema was that “all the asserted claims have been found to be invalid as a matter of law over the prior art, either as anticipated or as obvious,” and therefore BriarTek’s patent was invalid.

BriarTek’s patent claims threatened to strangle expansion and innovation is this increasingly popular distress beacon market. At best, the patent claims would increase the cost of the devices for consumers, which inevitably discourage purchase and their subsequent use to save lives.

NOTE: DME has withdrawn this PLB from the market. Click here for the full story about why you cannot buy this PLB

A new entrant in the PLB wars is claiming to be the world’s smallest and lightest Personal Locator Beacon, eclipsing the current record holder in this regard, the ACR ResQLink which was just introduced earlier this year. Slated to be available in Spring of 2012, the new SATRO PLB-110 from Astronics DME Corporation certainly seems to have a good basis for that claim at just 4.09 x 2.39 x 0.92 inches (104 x 61 x 23 mm) and only 4.3 oz. (122 g).

While not a name familiar to most consumers, DME has been making aviation ELTs (Emergency Locator Transmitters) for 20 years with a reputation for quality and robust products. You will find many of their emergency products installed on most airliners. SATRO is a new brand name for their consumer oriented products, derived from the parent company’s NASDAQ symbol “ATRO,” of which the PLB-110 is the first.

Unlike the other pocket-sized PLBs introduced to date, McMurdo’s Fast Find Model 210 and ACR’s ResQLink, the SATRO PLB-110 is inherently buoyant. While not an essential feature in my opinion, you should always have the PLB tethered to you if flying over water, that’s a pretty neat trick in such a small package. No need for a “float coat” to slip on to provide flotation.

I had the opportunity to handle a prototype and the flat form factor, clearly modeled on the iPhone, makes it very much more pocketable than its competition. The antenna wraps around the body, similar to the ACR designs.

It is equipped with a current generation 66-channel integral GPS, full GPS test function, and a flashing LED. The clear top case has a Fresnel lens molded over the LED to help spread that light wider. I’ll be interested in seeing exactly how effective that is in the real world.

The PLB-110 is rated to transmit at a minimum of 5 watts for the duration of its battery life, rated for 24 hours at -20C (-4F). Its depth rating is 10 meters (32.8 ft) for 5 minutes and 1 meter (3.28 ft) for an hour.

The MSRP is expected to be $299, so street price should be competitive with the McMurdo and ACR.

NOTE: This device has not been authorized as required by the Rules of the FCC. This device is not, and may not be offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained.

NOTE: DME has withdrawn this PLB from the market. Click here for the full story about why you cannot buy this PLB

Having said that, the big question is if Goodrich will muck it up as typically occurs when a huge corporate conglomerate takes over a niche company. They destroyed their own corporate aviation division because they had a big corporate mentality. Winslow has succeeded because they have been nimble, innovative and always went out of their way to put the customer first. That’s the reason I have for many years rated them number one in the life raft business and they have been my recommendation for many years.. So far, I have heard all the right lines from the parties, in particular that they are not going to mess up a good thing, but I am too much of a cynic to take that as gospel. I would love to be pleasantly surprised and see Winslow prosper under the new ownership and I wish them the best of luck going forward.

It should also be noted that Goodrich itself is being acquired by United Technologies, an even bigger conglomerate. Winslow is the guppy in all this…

———————————-

Goodrich Corporation has acquired Winslow Marine Products Corporation (Winslow), a leading provider of life rafts to the corporate aviation, helicopter, and marine markets. The transaction closed on September 30, 2011. Terms of the acquisition were not disclosed.

Winslow, a privately-held company, employs approximately 70 people at its Lake Suzy, Fla. facility. Founded in 1941, Winslow has a long history of innovation in the aviation and marine life raft markets. Winslow products are used by the leading corporate and business aircraft manufacturers, and are custom-designed to fit in a variety of aircraft interior configurations. Winslow has also successfully applied its aviation life raft design capabilities to the commercial helicopter market.

“Winslow’s focus on customer satisfaction and delivery performance has created a leadership position in the market for corporate and business aircraft life rafts,” said Cindy Egnotovich, segment president, Nacelles and Interior Systems at Goodrich. “This acquisition complements Goodrich’s existing competencies in aviation safety products, fabric and technology and expands our broad aircraft interiors product portfolio.”

Additional information can be found at www.winslowliferaft.com .

Winslow will become part of Goodrich’s Interiors business.

Goodrich Corporation, a Fortune 500 company, is a global supplier of systems and services to aerospace, defense and homeland security markets. With one of the most strategically diversified portfolios of products in the industry, Goodrich serves a global customer base with significant worldwide manufacturing and service facilities. For more information visit http://www.goodrich.com .

Goodrich Corporation operates through its divisions and as a parent company for its subsidiaries, one or more of which may be referred to as “Goodrich Corporation” in this press release.

SOURCE Goodrich Corporation; GR – Nacelles and Interior Systems

This presentation resulted in an invitation to give the presentation at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, D.C. I was also invited to sit on a panel discussing these devices by Canada’s Search and Rescue Secretariat at their SARScene 2008 annual conference.

I called for development of a standard for what has since become known officially as Satellite Emergency Notification Devices (SENDs). Globalstar’s SPOT Satellite Messenger was first commercially viable consumer SEND, and the many issues that developed as a result of that device’s introduction into the consumer marketplace was impetus for that call to action. Without a standard in place regulating minimum performance, consumers might be enticed into buying a distress signaling device that might well not work under many circumstances.

Industry and the top level Search and Rescue community heeded that call and acting on a request from the U.S. Coast Guard, RTCM formed Special Committee 128 to develop a SEND standard in December 2008. Starting with the existing RTCM standard for PLBs, the SEND standard was developed with input from the major satellite system providers as well as all the stakeholders from Search and Rescue and manufacturers or potential manufacturers of SENDs. Yours truly was there, as usual, representing the end user, those who are trusting their lives to these devices.

At a meeting held in conjunction with the 2011 RTCM Annual Meeting on May 17, 2011, two and a half years after the inaugural SC128 meeting, the new SEND Standard was approved and will be published shortly. The U.S Coast Guard has graciously accepted responsibility for providing some manner of approval or certification authority pending incorporation of the new standard into FCC regulations, which could take years given the FCC’s glacial regulatory process. The details for that USCG process are being worked out, but this ensures that an independent authority will ensure that consumers can have confidence that SENDs built to the standard have, in fact, complied with the standard.

Another Piece of the Puzzle

This new SEND standard is only the first step needed to ensure that consumers can have a reasonable expectation of being rescued when they initiate a distress call with a SEND. Concurrent with the development of the new SEND standard, the National Search and Rescue Committee (NSARC), the nation’s top level SAR authority, commissioned its own working group to address another part of the equation, the interface between commercial SEND manufacturers or their agents and the SAR forces that will have to actually go rescue those in distress.

The Commercial Emergency Notification and Location Devices (CENALD) working group (their concern is about more than just satellite-based devices) first effort was to develop an Interface Control Document (ICD) that defines the specific requirements for a commercial emergency call center to pass on the distress alert to the national SAR authorities. This document ensures that that critical information in these messages or phone calls is standardized in format and order so that there is much less opportunity for errors to occur and so that all parties involved know what is expected of them in the process.

The CENALD meetings were held in conjunction with SC128 meetings as most of the same parties were involved. This ICD was completed earlier this year and has been recently approved by NSARC. Upon publication of the minutes of that meeting, expected shortly, it will become official.

Next Steps

While this was going on, yet another group dealing with these devices had been formed, called ProTECTS Alliance and standing for Promotion of Two-way Emergency Communication and Tracking Systems, this was an industry group “created to foster the rapid and orderly adoption of two-way satellite personal location, alerting and messaging technologies.” Once again, you had many of the same players at the table, looking for ways to accelerate the adoption of this rapidly evolving technology into the SAR system and attempting to do so in a responsible manner. As with the CENALD working group, ProTECTS met concurrently with RTCM SC128 meetings. ProTECTS was initiated by Iridium, which made it somewhat difficult to be all-encompassing for other providers in the industry. Late last year ProTECTS became a working group under the umbrella of RTCM, making it independent from Iridium.

A key issue for ProTECTS is the other element necessary for SENDs to be accepted and reliable, the commercial emergency response coordination center (CERCC). It became clear that however well designed the SEND units themselves might be, what happens to that distress alert after it is sent out is critical to saving lives and the ultimate success of this new industry. Right now there are no standards for commercial emergency response coordination centers. Theoretically, someone could set up something in their basement and be perfectly legal, even if it did not provide the quality of service that a consumer would expect.

There evolved two major concerns. One was the actual CERCC itself and the second was the database of SAR contacts that would be notified by the CERCC to affect the rescue. This latter was an issue highlighted in the early days of SPOT when there were difficulties in that interface (since mostly overcome). It would clearly be a disadvantage, potentially fatal, if every new CERCC had to experience the same steep learning curve in developing their database of SAR contacts that GEO (SPOT’s CERCC) had to go through when they, essentially, developed the first ever CERCC.

With urging from myself and others, it was decided that ProTECTS needed to explore the best way to solve this problem, either by pooling industry resources and developing their own SAR contact database or by licensing an existing SAR contact database. It would be costly and time consuming to develop and maintain such a database, but with all of the industry participating, the cost could be shared and made affordable. On the other hand, it would seem like reinventing the wheel was certainly a waste of resources if it was possible to gain access to the GEOS database. I and the chairman of ProTects and a representative of the Coast Guard were tasked with exploring the possibility.

During the RTCM Annual Meeting an exploratory meeting was held with GEOS management, who have subsequently indicated they may be open to a licensing arrangement. Certainly, there are still many details to be worked out, but that would accelerate things significantly if an entirely new database didn’t need to be developed. I commend GEOS for being willing to approach this with an open mind, hopefully to the benefit of all parties.

That then leaves the last part of the puzzle, the CERCC itself. After much discussion, it seems settled that NSARC is probably the best organization to develop a standard for a CERCC. We have plenty of materials to draw from, including the standard for 911 call centers, the AFRCC and USCG RCCs op specs and the experience of GEOS who have indicated they are interested in participating. By developing a minimum standard of performance and training for CERCCs and then providing some ongoing certification to ensure they are operated in accordance with this standard, consumers can be assured that they stand a good chance of being rescued when they are in distress. This would close the loop in the SEND concept, providing consumers an effective and reliably consistent distress alerting alternative to the traditional COSPAS-SARSAT system.

Beginning of the End for COSPAS-SARSAT?

And, closing that loop is particularly important because of how I see the market moving. The new SENDs (devices) will be increasingly more sophisticated or less expensive or both. The value added by the tracking and messaging functions makes these devices increasingly appealing to consumers. Even with a not insubstantial annual subscription cost, consumers are turning to SENDs in droves.

And, that issue of an annual fee may well, over time, become irrelevant with regards to the distress alerting function of a SEND. I have long encouraged the SEND manufacturers and service providers to continue to provide just the emergency alerting function, even if a subscriber’s subscription has lapsed. I believe that sooner or later this will happen, either voluntarily for competitive reasons or by government fiat, just as all cell phone providers are required to pass through a 911 call, regardless of there being a current subscription or not.

The alerting advantages of 406 MHz COSPAS-SARSAT beacons are rapidly eroding with improved performance of SENDs. In terms of pure distress alerting, a 406 MHz beacon still has some advantages, but for many in the market they are not compelling advantages. Consumer uptake of these new SENDs will only continue to accelerate, for all these reasons. That poses a considerable threat to the established COSPAS-SARSAT organization, its structure and the manufacturers of the beacons that function within it. Some of these traditional COSPAS-SARSAT beacon manufacturers are already working on SENDs, seeing their future headed in that direction.

Given that COSPAS-SARSAT seems to be mired in bureaucratic morass that has gotten even worse in recent years, resulting in extraordinary bureaucratic delays in approvals and additional unnecessary expense, it is only a matter of time before they become irrelevant in the consumer world. There’s no indication that COSPAS-SARSAT management recognizes the problem, or that they might do anything about it if they did, given bureaucratic inertia.

Having said that, there just the tiniest glimmer of hope. COSPAS-SARSAT is getting a new chief and it might be that he has the vision and capability to turn around this ship before it is dashed upon the rocks. One can only hope this will occur, as it seems such a waste to see such an effective system descend into irrelevancy.

If that happens, then those bureaucrats are going to find themselves short on work, because if only those required by regulation to carry a 406 MHz beacon are buying, then the market is going to shrink significantly and innovation in 406 MHz beacons will dry up and some manufacturers may likely abandon it. Those who must buy a regulated product almost always go for low price, not performance or features.

Moreover, it is only a matter of time, in my opinion, before SENDs start being accepted as alternatives to 406 MHz beacons in regulated markets. The precedent already exists, no matter that it didn’t succeed for technical and marketing reasons years ago. The new technology is miles better, much cheaper and improving rapidly.

I will continue to work to ensure that consumers can depend upon whatever distress signaling device they settle on. You can help support this work with a contribution to the Equipped To Survive Foundation: www.equipped.org/donate.htm

According to Spot, “in certain incidents, intended messages may not be transmitted, including requests for help or emergency assistance, when the SPOT Satellite Communicator is used at temperatures below 40 degrees Farhrenheit/4.44 degrees Celsius.”

It is important to note that this recall DOES NOT impact the DeLorme Earthmate PN-60w handheld device itself or any other DeLorme product. Spot also says that this out of spec part does not impact any other products in Spot’s line-up.

Click here for details on the recall and how to get your SPOT Satellite Communicator replaced if you have one.

(3D CAD images provided by ACR – click for higher resolution images – the images are an accurate representation of the new PLB I examined.)

It’s been a long time coming, but I just got a firsthand look at ACR Electronics’ answer to the popular McMurdo FastFind 210 PLB. The new ACR ResQLink 406 MHz PLB (model PLB-375) is ever so slightly smaller and lighter than the McMurdo at 3.9″ (99mm) x 1.9″ (48.3mm) x 1.3″(33mm) and 4.6 oz (130 g). That compares to the FastFind’s 4.17” (106mm) x 1.85” (47mm) x 1.34” (34mm) and 5.3 oz. Enough for them to lay claim to the “world’s smallest and lightest” PLB title.

The price is not yet finalized, but expect it to be competitive with the McMurdo’s $250 street price.

This First Look is based on ACR provided information and my short opportunity to get some hands-on experience with a pre-production unit. It appears to offer some clear advantages compared to the FastFind, beyond the small difference in size and weight. What ACR have done, essentially, is to put their SARLink PLB on a severe diet, while keeping its desirable features.

As with all previous ACR PLBs, the ResQLink has a flexible blade antenna wrapped around the case that is very easy to deploy one-handed. Just slip the tip from the retaining clip and rotate it up into position. It has detents at both the perpendicular and horizontal points for flexibilitywhile in a pocket or some such arrangement. Its design configuration is to be set down on its back with the GPS antenna oriented to the sky and the antenna perpendicular to the body of the PLB. I like that ACR have added a retainer on the side of the PLB opposite the antenna pivot that the antenna slips into, addressing one of the minor annoyances of prior models of ACR PLBs, the antenna sliding away from the body while stowed. This one is much more secure when in the stowed position.

The activation and test buttons are covered by the plastic encased base of the antenna when stowed. Rotating the antenna away from the stowed position gives access to the two buttons on the side of the device. That’s very neatly solves the need for two separate physical actions required by the regulations and keeps the buttons safely protected from inadvertent activation when stored.

The ResQLink uses a 66-channel GPS for very quick acquisition of location, like its previous generation brethren that had very quick time to first fix, and has a full GPS self-test, which I prefer. It can also be used with ACR’s 406Link.com subscription-based web site for through system testing and limited messaging with GPS location. Two days of free testing are included so that the new owner can assure themselves that the PLB is working by testing it up to the COSPAS-SARSAT geostationary satellites and back down to an earth station.

ACR claims that the ResQLink will always exceed 5 watts output, which they claim to be better than the McMurdo’s measured nominal 4.6 watts. They are claiming typical battery life of 30-40 hours at -4 degrees F (-20 C), considerably more than the minimum 24 hours requirement.

There’s a flashing white LED “strobe” that automatically activates when the PLB is turned on that is visible through the clear plastic front of the body. Results of test mode operation are enunciated via this LED as well. A good size lanyard attachment point is provided, along with a lanyard to secure the PLB to you.

it is not inherently buoyant, so a float pouch will be an available option. ACR rate it as waterproof to 33 feet (10m) for 10 minutes.

ACR plans to keep the exiting AquaLink models in production as they feel there is a market for an inherently buoyant PLB, even if it is larger, plus they will keep the digital display “View” versions of the existing models around since they feel the display provides a compelling feature set for some purchasers.

From my point of view, I prefer the smaller, lighter new ResQLink for all uses. As I always say, “if it isn’t with you, it can’t save you™” and you are much more likely to carry the small ResQLink than a larger PLB. For marine uses or where you might end up in the water inadvertently (aircraft ditching, for example), as long as the PLB is connected to you by a lanyard, which you need to do regardless of whether or not it is buoyant, you are good to go.

The new ResQLink is small enough to easily fit into a pocket or can be carried in an appropriate-sized cell phone holster on your belt.

I found the ergonomics of the ResQLink to be very good. It is easy to grip securely, there’s enough exterior elements on the case to assist in that, and very easy to operate one-handed. Both are definite advantages over the McMurdo FastFind.

Notwithstanding some non-obvious issue, which given ACR’s reputation and past experience I don’t expect, the new ResQLink incorporates enough notable advantages over the McMurdo FastFind that it appears to be the next must-have PLB. Expect availability of the new ResQLink in the first quarter of 2011.

We will have a full report and images of the real PLB, along with side-by-side images with the McMurdo FastFind 210, as soon as we can get our hands on one for more than a few minutes.

UPDATE: July 21, 2011: FCC approval granted, now available for purchase.

(Updated 03/03/2010) While I was away this weekend the replacement for my recalled SPOT 2 arrived, as promised. This morning I unpacked the padded envelope and found a few surprises. Besides the reworked SPOT with a “You’re good to GO!” sticker on it (more on that shortly), there was a $2-off coupon for Energizer lithium batteries, a new set of adhesive-backed instruction decals for the back, an Addendum to the User’s Guide that originally came with the SPOT 2 and a spare black rubber band that goes around the SPOT 2, hiding the joint between the two halves.

I called and asked why they included the band and was told that it must have been a mistake because it wasn’t supposed to be included and nody had a clue why it was in my package. Guess I am just lucky.

A quick examination of the “new” SPOT 2 showed it had clearly been reworked, it was not a new unit, which was confirmed by SPOT. The case showed some signs of having been used, with black marks on the back. I was told that besides fixing the battery minding circuit by replacing the incorrect out-of-spec part originally used, they also made another modification.

In the recess on the back there are now two very small pinholes (see image). These are backed with a Gore-Tex membrane, effectively making them one-way pressure relief valves. Apparently the battery warning issue wasn’t the only problem that was discovered in the original SPOT 2. Seems that when taken to higher altitudes by pilots, the unit would turn itself on during the descent as the vacuum created by the lower pressure inside the unit sucked the buttons down (the opposite problem we saw when taken to depth and pressure outside activated the buttons). The new one-way “valves” prevent that from happening. The Gore-Tex membrane allows air through, but not water.

Speaking of which, the Addendum changes the original depth rating of 5 meters for up to 1 hour to 1 meter for up to 30 minutes. We were told this was a precautionary move since it was feared that the original seemed to encourage users to take it diving and such, with potential for problems to occur, and they didn’t want to encourage that sort of use. I’m not sure I agree with their reasoning and even then, not sure why they would reduce it by so much. Why not halve it, if that was a concern? Only time will tell if this has any negative consequences for users. We know that at least a few warranty claims were rejected on the original SPOT, with a similar 1 meter for 30 minutes rating, when they quit working while running a river and the like, even when it wasn’t immersed that deep or that long. With the original SPOT 2 specs, which we tested to and found to be accurate, we were encouraged that the SPOT 2 was substantially better in this respect. UPDATE 03/02/2010: While SPOT initially claimed that there was no actual reduction in how waterproof the SPOT 2 is, they have now confirmed that this is an actual reduction due to the Gore-Tex membrane “valves.” I’d have to say this is a disappointing move by SPOT. If anyone has any issues with the waterproofness of the new SPOT 2, please drop us an email. We’ll be testing it again at our earliest opportunity.

While on the subject of waterproofness, we noticed that the battery cover didn’t seem to fit very well on what was clearly a new seal. Both the top and bottom of the cover were raised when the cover retention screws in the middle were tightened down. SPOT told us that the seal would still seal just fine. The cause, we were told, was that the new seals they could get in a reasonable time-frame were a harder durometer rating than the original, so don’t compress as much. They said that waiting for the original seals would have added considerably to the time it would have taken to return the units to customers. All I can say is that it doesn’t look great, but it isn’t so bad as be more than a minor annoyance. We’ll see how well it works when we test the SPOT 2 at depth again. I suspect that SPOT may end up replacing a lot of these seals with the correct one for some disgruntled customers.

The Addendum has revised battery life times and a fair number of cautions about situations that could shorten the battery operating life. There is also a caution about dropping the unit and potential battery failure and a suggestion to replace the batteries if dropped. That is a bit worrisome. Only time will tell if that’s just lawyers being cautious or going to be a real problem for users who might bet their life on this device. Click here to read the Addendum:

It may be a few weeks until we have time to do much testing. After inserting the batteries in the replacement SPOT 2, we did a Check OK test and it properly showed up on our account and sent a text message. That confirmed not just that it was working, but also that SPOT had replaced the original EIN on the account with the new EIN as their previous email indicated they had done. A check of the billing also showed the promised free three-month extension of service.

We’ll let you know how well everything works when we have time to do some testing.

Today I received notice that the replacement for my recalled SPOT 2 has shipped and was happy to see that they are offering those whose SPOT 2s were recalled an additional two months of service beyond the one added month originally announced. I had thought the original offer was pretty cheap of them, this is much more respectful of the hassle their screw-up caused customers. (Read about the recall of SPOT 2 here.) They have also seamlessly migrated the IEN from the old unit to the new one, or at least that’s what they are promising. Here’s the email I received:

Thank you for returning your SPOT Satellite GPS Messenger (SPOT 2) as instructed under the SPOT Product Return Program. Your replacement SPOT 2 has shipped and you should receive it within 7 to 10 business days.

Spot LLC has performed an ESN swap migrating your complete profile and message contact information to your replacement SPOT unit. Your new ESN number [0-8054288] has been updated in your account. Simply access your existing account using the same username and password you have assigned during login at www.findmespot.com.

Your SPOT 2 is all set to go! Please make sure to install new AAA Energizer® Lithium Ultimate 8X batteries. We recommend that you test your SPOT 2 unit by sending a Check-in/OK message. A message should appear in the My GPS Locations section of your account.

Again, thank you for your patience. For your inconvenience, we are extending your existing service contract by 3 months, an additional 2 months more than originally promised at no cost to you. Your account will update automatically within 30 days reflecting your new renewal date.

SPOT is dedicated to providing you with only the highest quality satellite communications products. We appreciate your business.

Enjoy your adventures!

Sincerely,

The SPOT Team

Questions? Please call 1 (866) 727-7733 or email SPOTexchange@findmespot.com

(Replacement SPOT 2 received. Check it out here.)