Patent on Wireless Transfer of Pupil Data
hjayres writes: "London based Company Bromcom has a patent on 'wireless pupil data transfer' and is suing companies they feel have broken this patent. If a school wants to use the government grants available to reduce truancy by wireless linking pupil attendance records on PDAs and handhelds have to first pay Bromcom for the licence. Is this potentially more damaging than BT's Hyperlink scam? This also includes open source Learning Management Systems that are used over Wireless. The Patent applies in the USA."
How can wireless data transfer of any specific type of data be patentable when we've had wireless digital transmission for decades? Perhaps starting with Aloha wireless ethernet in Hawaii done with university, state and federal cooperation? This seems patently absurd!
Isn't all pupil data transferred wireless?
(Leastwise ain't nobody stickin' any wires in my pupils!)
Since my one of my schools has been using 3 airport base stations and numerous airport cards to exctend the lan into portable classrooms, I guess we are in violation of this patent. All the airport equipment cost under $3000 compared to over $10000 for the lowest bid to cable these classrooms that will be moved or ripped out by next summer because of permenant construction. Frankly, this company can go fork themselves.
This is potentially a direct attack on Apple since they have the greatest marketshare in schools and certainly pioneered 802.11b in the classroom.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
What's a sequel server? .NET technologies incorporated a Structured Query Language server - I've never heard of Sequel server. Maybe this /is/ an innovative product.
I always thought that the spiffy
</sarcasm>
When I first saw the headline, I thought it meant "pupil" as in "eye"...
And I though...I have to pay if I want wireless transmission of pupil data? So if I don't pay, what, do I have to jam fiber optics into both eyes?
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
I think patents should be about protecting specific ways of doing something. For example, you should be able to patent a "fork" but not "using a tool to get food to your mouth".
This patent is very much of the latter sort.
.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Dont send them over the internet, it might get routed via 801.11b, or even IP over Avian Carrier!
BTW, this patent really sucks.
Is it possible for the governemnt or FCC to actually put pandents and ownership on spcific frequncys? It would be understandable if the company who "owns" this frequency to claim rights to it, but it's local and in the air, floating around out there. Which considerably is part of the world, and no one owns the world, not even Microsoft... yet. I suppose I have no point into writing this, but feed back on the essentials own frequency clams would be great. --Drake
Patents are not supposed to be of material that is obvious. IANAL, (though I have drafted a couple of patent apps) but I'd guess that patent goes into the shitter as of the first court test when the other side has enough money to hire good attorneys.