Ring, The Doorbell Security Company Accused Of Stealing
The Security Company who makes the Ring Doorbell sold at JB Hi Fi has been accused of stealing the IP of a product owned by arch rival ADT.
Ring are facing the real possibility that their new security Protect product could be blocked from being sold at retailers after a judge in the USA temporarily blocked sale of the product which was due to be launched in Australia.
The action follows the filing of a lawsuit by rival electronic security provider ADT who also sell their products in Australia.
ADT has accused Ring of stealing and using the platform originally developed for its products.
According to the lawsuit, ADT sunk $36 million into a company called Zonoff, commissioning it to develop the Z1 home security platform.
ADT said the company defaulted on its debts and Zonoff CEO Mike Harris handed Ring’s reps a USB stick loaded with Z1’s secrets during a covert meeting at a parking lot.
In his defence Ring CEO Jamie Siminoff claims that his company paid $1.2 million for Zonoff’s help in developing a platform of its own.
Ironically Zonoff shut its doors after Ring paid and before it could fulfil its obligation to either company.
The court has yet to reveal its final verdict, but the injunction will definitely affect Ring’s sales claims analysts.
Ring, who’s doorbell products are sold in JB Hi Fi launched the Protect home security system last month and had planned on launching the US $199 product locally up against offering from ADT.
The product comes with a base station, a keypad, a contact sensor, a motion detector and a range extender.
Ring then pulls in an additional $120 a year selling a subscription with the system. Ring’s lawyer told Law360 that ADT is “trying to slow roll the case” in order to “keep Ring out of the market during the holiday season.” The plaintiff said in a statement.
ADT executives said “We are pleased with the Court’s decision to enter a preliminary injunction against Ring’s improper use of ADT’s intellectual property. ADT respects the intellectual property of others, as we expect others to respect our own; and we look forward to a successful final resolution of this matter.” they said.
