A Taxonomy of Internet Appliances1
`
`Sharon Eisner Gillett and William H. Lehr
`
`John T. Wroclawski and David D. Clark
`
`Center for Technology, Policy and
`Industrial Development
`Internet & Telecoms Convergence Consortium
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology
`
`Laboratory for Computer Science
`
`Paper prepared for
`Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Alexandria, VA, September 2000
`
`Abstract
`
`The world is evolving from one in which almost all access to the Internet comes from personal
`computers (PCs) to one in which so-called Internet appliances (IAs) will make up a greater share
`of end-user equipment. Today's PC is a general-purpose, highly configurable and extensible
`device – an "intelligent end-node" of the sort the Internet's designers had in mind. As such, it
`allows users much freedom of choice (such as which service provider to use, which Web sites to
`visit, and which new software to download) in exchange for dealing with associated complexity.
`
`An IA is a device connected to the Internet, but beyond that there is little consensus on
`functionality and target markets. There is, however, general agreement that it reduces the level
`of complexity seen by the user. A variety of approaches to reducing complexity are being
`pursued. These fall on a spectrum from totally fixing the function of devices, to automating the
`configuration of more general purpose systems. In the middle are devices whose functions
`appear more or less fixed to the user, but which retain some limited capability for upgrade
`through their Internet connection.
`
`We argue that truly fixed-function Internet-connected appliances make no sense unless they are
`extremely cheap, throwaway devices. We speculate that general-purpose end-user equipment
`will endure but evolve into a more modular form, driven by user frustration with a proliferation
`of devices with overlapping functionality and the desire for consistency across multiple
`environments (such as home, car and office). Finally, we observe that most appliances being
`developed today fall into the middle category. These vary in the degree to which they bind users
`to particular service providers, both technically and through their business model. Our analysis
`suggests that appliances in and of themselves do not introduce new opportunities for walling the
`Internet garden, but that industry players seeking to consolidate control over potential Internet
`choke points, such as broadband access networks or WAP gateways, may attempt to leverage
`appliances toward this goal. To the extent that appliances provide services already available
`over the PC-based Internet, we speculate that such efforts will fail.
`
`
`
`1 Authors' email: {sharon, wlehr}@rpcp.mit.edu; {ddc, jtw}@lcs.mit.edu. The authors gratefully acknowledge the
`support of the industrial sponsors of the MIT Internet & Telecoms Convergence Consortium (ITC), listed on ITC's
`web site at http://itel.mit.edu.
`
`LNX00229230
`
`LENNOX EXHIBIT 1023
`Lennox Industries Inc. v. Rosen Technologies LLC, IPR2023-00715, Page 1
`
`

`

`Introduction
`
`The world is evolving from one in which almost all access to the Internet comes from people
`
`using personal computers (PCs), to one in which so-called Internet appliances (IAs) will make up
`a greater share of end-user equipment.2 In this paper we consider whether this shift has
`implications for industry structure that might require regulatory intervention. We conclude that
`
`in most cases technology and market drivers will perpetuate the wide range of business models
`
`presently observed, but that policy makers may need to intervene if industry players use
`
`appliances to further leverage control over existing monopolistic choke points.
`
`As a general-purpose computing device, the PC has complemented the flexibility of the Internet's
`
`architecture to support a spectrum of business models with varying degrees of vertical
`
`integration. Broadly speaking, the more vertically integrated the service, the easier it is to use
`
`but the less flexibility it provides to users. To date, multiple models have co-existed, serving
`
`groups of consumers differentiated by their relative weighting of these two attributes (ease of use
`
`vs. flexibility).
`
`At one extreme lies a fully disaggregated model selected by consumers who place a premium on
`
`flexibility and freedom of choice. In this model the consumer buys her own PC and phone line,
`
`selects an Internet service provider (ISP) from among many competitors, loads the software of
`
`her choice (any Web browser, e-mail program etc. conforming to Internet standards) and
`
`configures it to visit whatever pages she wants, download email from whatever server she wants,
`
`and so on.
`
`In the middle lie semi-integrated models such as broadband Internet access delivered via cable
`
`modem or America OnLine (AOL). The consumer still buys her own PC, but other portions of
`
`the overall package are bundled. Cable modem services, for example, bundle the cable-based
`
`network access with ISP services such as assignment of e-mail and IP addresses. The user gives
`
`
`
`2 Our primary focus in this paper is on consumer access to the Internet. Appliance-like devices that are deployed
`first in commercial settings (e.g. vertical markets such as rental car operations, point of sale or inventory control
`applications, factory or office environments) or are embedded in other devices in a way that is transparent to the
`consumer (e.g. in automobile engines) are beyond the scope of the present discussion.
`
`Gillett, Lehr, Wroclawski & Clark
`
`2
`
`LNX00229231
`
`LENNOX EXHIBIT 1023
`Lennox Industries Inc. v. Rosen Technologies LLC, IPR2023-00715, Page 2
`
`

`

`up the freedom to choose her ISP in exchange for the enhanced connectivity service (higher
`speed, always on) that broadband provides. AOL bundles even more, packaging network access3
`together with AOL-specific application software and services, such as an AOL email account. In
`
`exchange for the convenience of this bundle, the user gives up the flexibility to mix and match
`
`components: for example, she can't use non-AOL email client software (such as Eudora) to read
`
`her AOL email.
`
`At the other extreme lies a fully integrated business model exemplified by the various "free PC"
`
`services that have been tried. In this model, the PC is contractually bundled with ISP and
`
`application services. By giving up her choice of which PC to buy and which service or service
`
`elements (e.g. which application software) to choose, the user gets in exchange a complete
`
`package that works out of the box and can be set up without any error-prone configuration or
`
`time-consuming research among competing alternatives at many levels.
`
`Clearly, these different models appeal to different types of users. Some people appreciate how
`
`easy AOL's email client is to use and don't want to be bothered with competing alternatives.
`
`Others are accustomed to more powerful client programs from their workplaces and find it
`
`greatly limiting not to be able to access their personal email in the same way. The key point is
`
`that the user has the choice of which model to adopt depending on her individual preferences.
`
`Further, because in all of these models the user access device is a general purpose PC, the user
`
`can shift among the models reasonably fluidly. A free PC user whose comfort level rises as she
`
`uses the box has the technical capability to take off the training wheels (so to speak), if she is
`
`willing to wait for the service contract to expire or simply eat the financial commitment.
`
`Although not all Internet users will select the fully disaggregated model, the fact that some do
`
`helps drive the innovation engine of the Internet. For example, several years ago non-AOL
`
`email clients introduced the capability to attach Web pages to messages and view them from
`
`within the email program. As a result, it became common practice for people who used such
`
`clients to send Web pages around via email. AOL users who received such messages began to
`
`
`
`3 Typically dialup today, with broadband soon to become more prevalent.
`
`Gillett, Lehr, Wroclawski & Clark
`
`3
`
`LNX00229232
`
`LENNOX EXHIBIT 1023
`Lennox Industries Inc. v. Rosen Technologies LLC, IPR2023-00715, Page 3
`
`

`

`want this capability as well, eventually leading AOL to integrate this feature into its email client
`
`(Hu 2000).
`
`A key policy question about Internet appliances is whether they threaten the fully disaggregated
`
`model that helps drive the rapid pace of Internet innovation. Where will they lie on the spectrum
`of business models and how much of the fluidity among different models might they pre-empt?4
`Will IAs be designed and marketed like free PCs or will the training wheels be, in effect, welded
`
`to the bike because of the appliance nature of the device?
`
`This question is impossible to answer in the abstract because today there is no single definition
`
`of an Internet appliance. Several factors contribute to the diversity of views and products in this
`
`space, including different perspectives on the industry depending on one's position within the
`value chain,5 and differing notions of who the target customer is. The first part of this paper
`gives an overview of the driving forces behind Internet appliances and explains why we find it
`
`useful to segment the space of potential products into three classes:
`
`• Class 1 appliances are truly fixed function: they always do exactly the same thing they
`were built to do;
`
`• Class 2 appliances appear more or less fixed function to the user, but retain some degree
`of upgradeability through their Internet connection;
`
`
`
`4 Although this fluidity is desirable for users, it is not particularly desirable from the perspective of service
`providers, who are able to impose switching costs even in the fully disaggregated Internet model with access from
`the PC. For example, most consumer e-mail addresses are not transferable across service providers, websites do try
`and introduce such sticky applications as personal information management services (calendar, phone directories,
`account information) to keep customers from switching, and compatibility issues across different hardware and
`software platforms can limit end-users ability to freely change content or service providers.
`5 For example, when X hears "Internet appliance" they think as follows:
`• Mobile telephone carrier => turbo-charged cell phone
`• Cable service providers => set-top box connected to home entertainment center
`• PC manufacturer => smaller, cheaper PCs throughout the home
`• Communications equipment provider => home LAN equipment (router, network printer etc.)
`• Consumer electronics manufacturers => Internet-enabled gadgets (digital camera, digital picture frame,
`game console, screen-phone, Web tablet, etc.)
`• Automakers => GPS empowered Internet radios
`
`Gillett, Lehr, Wroclawski & Clark
`
`4
`
`LNX00229233
`
`LENNOX EXHIBIT 1023
`Lennox Industries Inc. v. Rosen Technologies LLC, IPR2023-00715, Page 4
`
`

`

`• Class 3 appliances retain the full general-purpose functionality of today's PCs, although
`they may be quite different both "under the hood" and in their appearance to the user.
`
`The rest of the paper explores the business model question posed above in the context of each
`
`class, asking whether appliances of each type threaten to retard the Internet innovation engine.
`
`We conclude that Class 1 and Class 3 appliances do not pose a serious threat: the former because
`
`they are unlikely to succeed in the marketplace unless they are extremely cheap and therefore
`
`readily replaceable, and the latter because they do not restrict the user. Class 2 appliances, on the
`
`other hand, encompass a wide range of intermediate approaches in which many gray areas are
`
`likely to present themselves to regulators seeking to preserve the openness and rapid innovation
`
`that today characterize the Internet.
`
`Internet Appliances: Drivers, Definition and Classes
`
`The space of Internet appliances – products that actually exist, are in development or are still at
`
`the prototype or concept stage – is diverse because it is driven by a number of different factors.
`
`Some of these factors reflect supply-side pushes (things the industry can or wants to do) while
`
`others are demand-side pulls (things people actually want). Clearly, a large part of the success or
`
`failure of any individual Internet appliance will have to do with how well it matches industry
`
`pushes with market pulls.
`
`Supply-side pushes have their origins in both technology and the industry's desire to expand
`
`markets. The technical progress that constantly makes digital technology better, faster and
`
`cheaper (commonly referred to as Moore's Law) pushes two kinds of Internet appliances. First,
`
`it enables small cheap processors that can be embedded into portable devices. This trend drives
`
`the integration of cellular networks and the Internet, as users who have grown accustomed to
`
`portability through their mobile phones and personal digital assistants (PDAs) come to expect
`
`portable Internet access from those devices as well (leading to products like the Palm VII
`
`wireless PDA and Sprint's Wireless Web phones in the U.S., Wireless Application Protocol
`
`(WAP) phones in Europe, and NTT DoCoMo's I-Mode phones in Japan). Second, Moore's Law
`
`drives multimedia capability into digital technology, as access networks, storage and processing
`
`devices all become able to handle the large volumes of bits required by audio-visual content.
`
`This trend drives a collection of entertainment-oriented Internet appliances such as digital photo
`
`Gillett, Lehr, Wroclawski & Clark
`
`5
`
`LNX00229234
`
`LENNOX EXHIBIT 1023
`Lennox Industries Inc. v. Rosen Technologies LLC, IPR2023-00715, Page 5
`
`

`

`displays (e.g. Ceiva, Storybox picture frames), net-top boxes (e.g. WebTV, AOLTV), and digital
`
`VCRs (e.g. ReplayTV, TiVo).
`
`The industry's desire to expand its markets encompasses three different product directions
`
`depending on the nature of the expansion: to non-PC users, to existing users who wish to do
`
`more, and to new product niches not yet dominated by a competitor. The first type of product
`
`arises from the general consensus that PCs are too complex and hard to use, and that products
`
`whose main goal is simplicity (e.g. Netpliance's i-opener, Landel Telecom's Mailbug, Compaq
`
`and Microsoft's iPAQ IA-1) can expand the market beyond current users of PCs. Many of these
`
`products were originally conceived as substitutes for the PC, although they are unlikely to
`remain exclusively positioned that way.6
`
`The second category arises because the things that existing users do can be expanded, which is
`
`especially desirable for service providers if it creates new revenue-generating uses for existing
`
`infrastructure, or strengthens user loyalty to the service. For example, RCN, a broadband and
`
`dial-up ISP, markets support for a portable e-mail device (Research in Motion's Blackberry) as a
`
`premium (read: extra charge) service for its users. AOL's recent AOL Anywhere announcement
`
`includes a service called AOL By Phone, which lets a user call a toll free number to listen to
`
`their email or check news and stock quotes (Hu 2000). Products in this category are clearly
`
`positioned as complements to the PC and the traditional services that go with it (e.g. desktop e-
`
`mail).
`
`The third category arises from the desire of many players in the industry to increase profitability
`
`by moving beyond desktop PCs. In other words, the desire is to create new product segments
`
`that are not already dominated by the Wintel hegemony. Developments in this area include thin-
`
`
`
`6 This may happen if devices marketed for simplicity raise naive users' comfort level with the Internet to the point
`that they are ready to venture into more functional devices, or if appliance makers find a winning fixed-function
`formula that appeals to existing PC owners as a second, probably cheaper device for rooms other than the home
`office (for example, if it's cheap enough you put in your bedroom a device with buttons for checking the local
`weather on the Web, much as many people use a TV in the bedroom to tell them what weather to dress for in the
`morning). In March of this year, Netpliance estimated that 30 percent of its customers were not first-time Internet
`users (Davis 2000). Similarly, producers of the Mailbug have added complementary Web-based services for the
`portion of their customer base that also has a PC.
`
`Gillett, Lehr, Wroclawski & Clark
`
`6
`
`LNX00229235
`
`LENNOX EXHIBIT 1023
`Lennox Industries Inc. v. Rosen Technologies LLC, IPR2023-00715, Page 6
`
`

`

`client boxes targeted for business use7 and wireless Web tablets targeted for non-work-related
`use of the Internet at home.8
`
`Amazingly enough, some of these supply-side pushes actually coincide with demand-side pulls.
`
`The consumer market for Internet appliances can be segmented as follows:
`
`• People with less disposable income than today's PC owner. This segment is constantly
`shrinking as PCs get cheaper, and is rarely (if ever) mentioned explicitly as a target
`
`market for Internet appliances.
`
`• People with less technical sophistication, confidence, or simply patience for the PC's
`complexity. The assumption is that these people (or at least some of them) want to use
`
`the Internet (or at least some aspects of it), just not from a PC. Products aimed at this
`
`market segment (such as the i-opener, Mailbug and iPAQ) are pitched as substitutes for
`the PC.9
`
`• People who are comfortable (even happy) with the PC but who also want to extend its
`functions around their homes and wherever else they go, preferably with a unified and
`
`synchronized view of the same information (e.g. archived email, personal calendar, Web
`
`bookmarks and so on). Makers of countless wireless gadgets (including Blackberry e-
`
`mail device, Palm VII PDA and Web tablets) are aiming at this segment, as are the
`
`operators of many related services (Web sites that synchronize information from personal
`
`organizers, AOL By Phone, etc.). All of these products and services complement
`
`existing PCs, which works for this market segment.
`
`• People who couldn't care less about using the Internet per se, but appreciate how the
`Internet makes something they were already doing better or cheaper (for example,
`
`imagine a VCR with no knobs but screen-based control from a Web site).
`
`
`
`7 (Nicholls 2000) describes a trial of Internet appliances designed to access the Web in order to run enterprise
`programs remotely i.e. through an Applications Service Provider (ASP).
`8 Personal correspondence, Ken Anderson, MediaOne/AT&T Broadband.
`9 A year from now, it will be interesting to determine what percentage of these devices' adoption actually matches
`this positioning.
`
`Gillett, Lehr, Wroclawski & Clark
`
`7
`
`LNX00229236
`
`LENNOX EXHIBIT 1023
`Lennox Industries Inc. v. Rosen Technologies LLC, IPR2023-00715, Page 7
`
`

`

`Products aimed at these different segments are typically marketed very differently, even if they
`
`are functionally similar. For example, both the Mailbug and the Blackberry have e-mail as their
`
`primary function. Because the Blackberry is a wireless device, however, it commands a
`
`significant price premium over the Mailbug. This premium reflects the Blackberry's mobility but
`
`also its positioning as a complement to the PC (never miss that critical deal-making email just
`
`because you have to attend your wife's labor), rather than as a device to make e-mail easier to use
`
`for the grandparents.
`
`Out of these many pushes and pulls, we identify three characteristics that define an Internet
`
`appliance:
`
`1. It's not a PC; rather, it exhibits particularity of purpose and it "just works;"
`
`2. It connects to the Internet; and
`
`3. It wouldn't make sense in a non-networked world.
`
`By "not a PC" we don't mean "doesn’t run Windows." Rather, we mean that the device does not
`
`present the user with the same kind of confusing complexity that arises from the collection of
`
`essential features that characterize today's PCs. Aside from the presence of some form of
`
`processor, storage and a general-purpose operating system, these features include user-
`
`customizable hardware (ability to choose or add slots for multiple boards), software (ability to
`
`load multiple applications), and system (ability to integrate components from multiple vendors).
`
`These attributes of the PC make it general purpose – and of course also complex and unreliable.
`
`Complexity, unpredictability, and general-purpose, user-customized operation are not part of
`
`what people think of as appliance-like behavior. To be an appliance, the function of the device
`
`must be readily understood and manipulated by the user. When you buy a toaster, you expect it
`
`to toast bread. Particularity of purpose does not preclude devices from performing more than
`
`one function: a toaster-oven is still an appliance even though it can burn potatoes as well as
`
`toasting bread. Rather, particularity of purpose means that somewhere before the end user's view
`
`of the device, its purpose(s) is (are) fixed.
`
`Gillett, Lehr, Wroclawski & Clark
`
`8
`
`LNX00229237
`
`LENNOX EXHIBIT 1023
`Lennox Industries Inc. v. Rosen Technologies LLC, IPR2023-00715, Page 8
`
`

`

`"It just works" encompasses two related ideas. First, it should be obvious on the face of it how
`
`to use an Internet appliance: people expect toasters to present them with simple, intuitive
`
`controls, like buttons and knobs for on/off and light/dark. Second, the device's behavior should
`
`be predictable and reliable: when you flick a light switch, you don't expect that half the time it
`
`will turn on the lights and half the time do nothing (for no apparent reason, of course).
`
`Our definition requires that an Internet appliance connect to the Internet, but not necessarily
`
`always, and not necessarily as a "first-class" Internet citizen. In other words, it is still an Internet
`
`appliance if, like the digital picture frames from Ceiva and Storybox, it dials up a server on the
`
`Internet for only a few minutes each day. Likewise, a mobile phone that doesn't run the full
`
`stack of Internet protocols (TCP/IP) but instead communicates with a helper device -- an Internet
`
`gateway running the suite of Wireless Application Protocols (WAP) -- may be a second-class
`
`citizen on the Internet, but it is still an Internet appliance by our definition. On the other hand, a
`
`digital television that has no connection to the Internet is an interesting gadget for the digital age,
`
`but not an Internet appliance.
`
`Finally, by our definition an Internet appliance is a device that wouldn't make sense in the
`
`absence of a broader networked world. A portable MP3 player, for example, is useless without
`
`the rest of the Internet value chain that creates, stores and helps users find audio files. A digital
`
`picture frame that accepts a memory module (such as early models from Sony) is useful for
`
`displaying photos you've taken on your own digital camera, but it is not networked. It becomes
`
`an Internet appliance when it can download photos stored on the Internet, decoupling the source
`
`and destination of the photos (you take digital photos of your kids and display them to the
`grandparents who live elsewhere).10
`
`
`
`10 A very different segment of the media coverage of "Internet appliances" concerns the notion of connecting
`traditional household appliances (e.g. washing machine or refrigerator) to the Internet. We are not aware of real
`products in this space, only prototype concepts. Some of these concepts make sense (e.g. connecting thermostats so
`you can program them through a Web site, not have to reset time when power blinks, perform remote diagnostics on
`large appliances, etc.) while others seem like concepts destined to evolve (e.g. Screenfridge which bundles PC with
`refrigerator – and will be obsolete long before people are ready to replace fridge). Unlike an MP3 player, an oven
`makes plenty of sense without an Internet connection. So these don't strictly meet our definition of Internet
`appliance, rather we simply think of them as appliances connected to the Internet.
`
`Gillett, Lehr, Wroclawski & Clark
`
`9
`
`LNX00229238
`
`LENNOX EXHIBIT 1023
`Lennox Industries Inc. v. Rosen Technologies LLC, IPR2023-00715, Page 9
`
`

`

`Our definition of an Internet appliance does not include some attributes that are present in many
`
`products in the appliance space but which we don't consider essential. These aspects include:
`
`•
`
`Instant-on (no long booting sequence);
`
`• Form factor issues such as those needed for portability (small, lightweight, battery-
`powered), household use (it comes in colors other than beige, matches the décor in the
`
`den, etc.), or familiarity (if you have to speak into it, it should have a telephone-style
`
`handset);
`
`• Adapted to environment of use (speech interfaces in car, wipe-clean surfaces in kitchen);
`and
`
`• Cheap (may have more than one in a house).
`
`Not all of these aspects are present in all products. However, they are worth mentioning here
`
`because they are often lumped together with the particularity of purpose, ease of use and
`
`predictability that truly define appliances.
`
`Particularity of purpose is the attribute of appliances that is most relevant to policy makers. This
`
`attribute is not an either-or characteristic but rather an axis defined by different points in the
`
`value chain at which a device's function may be fixed. Different appliances will vary along this
`
`axis, leading to different answers to the questions of who controls how each appliance can be
`
`used, and whether opportunities for strategic foreclosure exist and are likely to be exploited. To
`
`analyze these questions, we identify three classes of appliances based on points along this axis:
`
`• Class 1: Device's function is fixed by the manufacturer.
`
`• Class 2: Device's function is fixed by a service provider.
`
`• Class 3: Device's function is fixed by (at) the user.
`
`Class 1: Function Fixed by Manufacturer
`
`A device in this class has no capacity to change its function once it has been built. It has no slots
`
`into which cards can be added and no capacity to accept downloads of new software of any type,
`
`Gillett, Lehr, Wroclawski & Clark
`
`10
`
`LNX00229239
`
`LENNOX EXHIBIT 1023
`Lennox Industries Inc. v. Rosen Technologies LLC, IPR2023-00715, Page 10
`
`

`

`thus eliminating the hardware and software customizability of the PC. It may have system-level
`
`customizability if the manufacturer equips it with plugs to connect to other devices, but the
`
`nature of these plugs cannot be changed.
`
`Devices in this class are the closest to traditional appliances – they always do just what the
`
`manufacturer built them to do. Because their hardware and software cannot be customized, they
`
`can be much more fully tested by the manufacturer, and therefore made much more reliable than
`
`a PC. Finally, because their function is truly fixed for all time, the manufacturer can equip them
`
`with buttons so that the appliance's main functions "just work" i.e. it is (more or less) self-evident
`
`to the user how to manipulate the device's functions.
`
`Fixing a device's functions at the time of manufacture is the standard way that non-Internet
`
`appliances are built, from toasters to (pre-Internet) cell phones. We argue that this is not a viable
`
`approach for any but the cheapest Internet appliances, however, because the Internet exhibits too
`
`much static and dynamic diversity. By static diversity, we mean the support that the Internet's
`
`"hourglass" architecture provides for the co-existence of many different technologies and
`standards at any given time, both above and below the spanning layer.11 By dynamic diversity,
`we mean the Internet's ability to support new technologies and standards that evolve over time.
`
`To see the kinds of challenges posed by static diversity, consider the Mailbug e-mail device
`pictured in Figure 1.12
`
`
`
`11 In the architecture of the Internet, the spanning layer is exemplified by the Internet Protocol -- the one layer that
`everyone absolutely must have in common. Layers above this include applications (e.g. e-mail, Web) and document
`formats (e.g. HTML, text, MP3, video formats such as Windows Media Player and RealNetworks, etc.), while layers
`below it include network infrastructure (e.g. Ethernet, ATM, wireless). Because these other layers, both above and
`below, can be "wider" (i.e. support more than one alternative) this architecture is often drawn in an hourglass shape.
`See (Lehr & Kavassalis 2000) and (CSTB 1994).
`12 See references at end for links to further product information for the examples discussed throughout this paper.
`Our inclusion of the Mailbug in the Class 1 discussion is not meant to imply that this particular product is a non-
`upgradeable device (Mailbug's product literature is not clear on this point) but rather to explore the challenges
`inherent in making a device of this nature fit into Class 1.
`
`Gillett, Lehr, Wroclawski & Clark
`
`11
`
`LNX00229240
`
`LENNOX EXHIBIT 1023
`Lennox Industries Inc. v. Rosen Technologies LLC, IPR2023-00715, Page 11
`
`

`

`Figure 1: Landel Telecom's Mailbug e-mail device
`
`First, consider diversity below the spanning layer: what kind of network plug should an e-mail
`
`appliance have? The MailBug builds in a modem and plug for an analog phone line, and there
`
`are no slots in which to add any other form of network card (such as an Ethernet connection).
`
`This is fine for most home users, especially for non-PC homes who are the primary target
`
`market. It will prove painful, however, in any office with a PBX, and a step backward for homes
`
`with broadband connectivity and/or home data networks, in which a MailBug could otherwise
`
`complement existing PCs by providing e-mail in the den, kitchen, bedroom etc.
`
`The manufacturer could choose to create alternative models with different types of plugs, or
`
`include more than one network plug (analog modem and Ethernet, for example) on the same
`
`model, but either approach adds cost and complexity for both the manufacturer and user. The
`
`latter is the approach taken by multi-mode cell phones, where it works well because the phone's
`
`selection of network access method (e.g. analog vs. digital) is automated. The picture is different
`
`for a wired device, though, because the user has to learn enough to understand which port to plug
`
`a wire into, and possibly get it wrong.
`
`Next, consider diversity above the spanning layer: what kind of message formats should an e-
`
`mail appliance support? The Mailbug can only support messages and attachments that can easily
`
`be converted to text, meaning that attachments such as Microsoft Word (or Excel or Powerpoint)
`
`documents or music (MP3) files attached to an e-mail message are simply stripped off. Will
`
`such a device really seem easier to use than a PC if it turns out that many emails can't be handled
`
`in the way that the sender intended?
`
`Gillett, Lehr, Wroclawski & Clark
`
`12
`
`LNX00229241
`
`LENNOX EXHIBIT 1023
`Lennox Industries Inc. v. Rosen Technologies LLC, IPR2023-00715, Page 12
`
`

`

`Even if this isn't the case when the device is first purchased, the dynamic diversity of the Internet
`
`is bound to make the problem worse over time. New media formats have a way of multiplying:
`
`in the PC-based Internet, these rely only on new software and are therefore relatively
`inexpensive to develop.13 Devices that can't download the software to handle those new formats
`will by their nature be at a disadvantage.
`
`Another kind of challenge posed by dynamic diversity is illustrated by the example of a major
`
`PC manufacturer that wished to develop a portable scanner that could print to any printer. It
`
`would certainly be possible to load such a device with all the firmware necessary to drive all
`
`printers known about at the time the scanner was manufactured. But how could it deal with
`
`features on future printers not yet invented? It is conceivable that standards for communication
`
`with printers are robust enough to enable least-common-denominator printing on fancy future
`
`devices. The problem is a lot simpler, however, if new printer drivers can simply be downloaded
`
`into the scanner.
`
`In other words, there is a fundamental tension between truly fixed functionality and the Internet's
`
`design for diversity and constant change. While static dive