E-Pass Can Resue Patent Case Against Palm

kisrael writes "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that a patent held by E-Pass may have been infringed by Palm and other PDA makers even though their devices are larger than 'credit-card sized.' The 1994 patent describes a 'multifunction, credit card-sized computer that allows users to securely store a multitude of account numbers, PIN codes, access information and other data from multiple credit cards, check cards, identification cards and similar personal documents.'"

Comments

Umm...hello?

[Surak]

Can you say prior art? The HP 95LX ran MS-DOS in 1991, even though it's not credit card sized, according to this judge it would be infringing right?

Re:Umm...hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also those pics of the mainboard and yet not one of the outside. That website authour has a lot to learn.

Re:Umm...hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't the old Texas Instruments Calculators count, since they use a CPU and can hold data as well as be "programmed"? What about those old Franklin Personal Organizers..... that's used to hold various data like that and is also a "Computer"

Re:Umm...hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't the Apple Newton introduced in '93? I've seen many a program for keeping credit card numbers on my trusty MP2100..

Re:Umm...hello?

[gustaffo]

One would think a piece of paper would be prior art in this case. :) Or maybe a post-it pad with only a few pieces of paper (to be credit card sized). Just another reason why patents and "IP" need to be done away with.

Re:Umm...hello?

[Felinoid]

Well no. The Franklin personal organizers were (if I remember) not programable and did nothing more than hold data (such as credit cards) and was the size of a credit card.

The patent is for the device consept of a credit card sized device that holds credit card data.

In other words you picked the grand prize of prior art that fits the patent description so long as you disguard the fact that this is just one application of a brouder device.

The palm however defys the patent as it's not a credit card sized device but in fact much larger and like it's counterpart it holds a broud range of information not just credit card data.

What should be argued is the patent had to be detailed as a larg number of general function devices already existed before the patent was issued many of those devices were made in the 1980s for example the Rolodex brand organiser designed to hold all matter of data as an electronic rolodex.

Here's one that will do doupt break the brains of many Linux geeks....

The Sharp Zarus. No wait for it I'm not talking about the new Linux PDAs but the older Sharp brand general data organisers who were originally called the Sharp Wizard. I believe it was designed to hold any kind of data including spread sheets.

Re:Umm...hello?

[servoled]

The patent in question has a foreign application priority date of Mar 01, 1989. In order for a piece of prior art to qualify it must have been publicly known before this date, which it sounds like the HP 95LX was not.

Re:Umm...hello?

[Progman3K]

Want to talk prior art going back quite a bit?

A wallet. /endtagline

Re:Umm...hello?

[belroth]

I still have (and used to use) a MicroWriter AgendA, you can find newsletters on this from 1989 using google. The patent was filed in '92' and granted in '94'. So yes, I'd say there should be enough prior art around to make Palm happy.

Re:Umm...hello?

[Parsec]

Or see one of those stupid Casio calculator/phone # storing watch circa 1980s... smaller than a credit card.

Re:Umm...hello?

[Surak]

The Casio Databank came out around 94 or 95 actually...around the time of Windows 95. Bill Gates wore his brand spankin' new Microsoft/Casio Databank watch at the Windows 95 product announcement speech.

(I had one of those too...;)

Re:Umm...hello?

[tbannist]

How about ENIAC? Or maybe we can go all the way back to... Babbage's Difference engine?

Re:Umm...hello?

[Parsec]

I thought I remembered having something like that in high school... {hmmm}... maybe it was just the calculator version.

I've got one too.

[Malicious]

Someone should put a patent on numbers entered sequentially. They'd make a fortune.

Re:I've got one too.

[Gyorg_Lavode]

1. Patent 01 00 10 and 11
2. Sue Everyone.
3. Profit

Re:I've got one too.

[HoppQ]

My favorite patent idea is patenting energy.

Infringement?

[Jasin Natael]

Please. The PalmOS is Totally not secure. Just hook it up to a Hotsync port and run debug. :-P

--Jasin Natael

I call Godwin's Law...

[Anonymous Coward]

The "department" line basically has rendered this article moot and irrelevant. You have lost. Have a nice day.

Re:I call Godwin's Law...

[Anonymous Coward]

Godwin's law sucks, you nazi.

That judge needs a dictionary

[dtolton]

That's just what we need, another patent case gone wrong. This whole
concept of allowing patents on a concept is crazy. Whatever happened
to the american dream of building a better mouse trap? In this day
an age it seems someone could patent the idea of catching mice, and
if you attempt to build a better one, you better watch out.

I find it suprising that a judge would say "credit card sized"
doesn't really mean "credit card sized", he actually agreed with
E-Pass that it's simply a generic term for a small computer!!

Somehow, the country needs to be mobilized against this more
expansive more generic term of patents. It used to be that your
device had to be 20% different than a patented device. It seems now
though, it just has to be vaguely the same as the concept patented,
and you could be infringing. Of course the judge didn't specifically
rule in favor of E-Pass, rather he just said the District judge was
incorrect when he threw out the case based on size. So it seems like
now there is caselaw that allows you to argue that a very specific
wording in your patent like "credit card sized" can instead be
applied generically to small.

More fun times with the legal system.

Re:That judge needs a dictionary

[John Seminal]

There are too many lawyers. I guess not everyone can get into medical school.

Re:That judge needs a dictionary

[justsomebody]

Main problem with generic terms used as patents is that if they prevail, all that people should do is register idea that is not possible yet, but it's possible in the future and wait for progress, then sue everybody.

Patent cases without exact blueprints or without real product should never be considered as proof. So if someone registers a "something car-sized used for transportation, but using nature friendly material, that works something like a common fuel" he can sue anybody that would try to make a progress on car technologies.

In my opinion patents should have exact blueprints and timeline as obligate in order to make possible to differentiate that 20%.

Re:That judge needs a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, even if the Palm were "credit-card sized", why the hell would a patent be granted for a small computer which can DO WHAT COMPUTERS CAN FUCKING DO. There's nothing inventive in their patent whatsoever. But it really is the District Court judge's fault for choosing a flimsy (no pun intended) reason for throwing it out, instead of getting to the heart of the matter. E-Whatever's patent is a bunch soapy water.

Re:That judge needs a dictionary

[brianosaurus]

A patent is supposed to contain enough information about the invention that a knowledgable person in the field could build one based on the description in the document. Anything less should not be patentable.

In 1994 the only possibly interesting thing about a "credit-card sized computer that can store [data] and access [data]" is that it is credit-card sized. Take that away, as the judge did, and the rest is just a computer.

By 1994 I already owned an Apple Newton which could store and access data. My major complaint at the time was that it was too big. I knew eventually it could be made smaller, since that's just how computers go (better, faster, smaller). Based on that I say "credit-card sized" doesn't make this patentable, since that's just a matter of time making that possible. E-Pass didn't come up with the idea of making things smaller, and making a smaller computer has always been an insanely obvious thing to do.

I think by expanding this patent by removing the "credit card sized" restriction, they're simply exposing it as something that can and should be easily defeated by abundant prior art, as others have said, in the multitude of computers that had been created before 1994.

Re:That judge needs a dictionary

[frovingslosh]

That judge needs a dictionary

Oh, I expect they gave him a lot more than just a dictionary to bu... er... obtain this decision. But if he had wanted a dictionary they would have likely given him that too.

Re:That judge needs a dictionary

[Grax]

I second that. Why in hell is Palm responsible for how their customers use the computers that Palm makes for them?

Once you remove the size limitation the patent affects all computers and can be applied against MS Money, Quicken, online banking, Notepad (when used to store credit card numbers), and just about anything else.

According to the article the decision states the patent may cover all handhelds but what makes a computer a handheld? I run many of the same programs on my Zaurus as I do on my desktop. Do I have to deal with people telling me which programs I can run on which computer now because they have a patent on running whatever program on whatever sized computer?

There should be plenty of other good reasons to throw out this case. I hope they don't waste much time tossing it out.

Re:That judge needs a dictionary

[khadrin]

kisrael wrote:

The 1994 patent describes a 'multifunction, credit card-sized computer that allows users to securely store a multitude of account numbers, PIN codes, access information and other data from multiple credit cards, check cards, identification cards and similar personal documents.'

It looks like the text in (single) quotes is directly from the patent. That is not the case at all.

dtolton wrote:

I find it suprising that a judge would say "credit card sized" doesn't really mean "credit card sized", he actually agreed with E-Pass that it's simply a generic term for a small computer!!

The phrase "credit card sized" does not appear even once in the patent. The "Advantages of the Invention" section does say "[p]articular advantages are provided by the simple form of the electronic multi-function card which has the outer dimensions of usual credit or check cards." The appeals court decision noted that "[i]nterpretation of descriptive statements in a patent's written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment." So it is clear that the basis of the appeals court's ruling is not "credit card sized" doesn't really mean "credit card sized".

Also of interest, the appeals court refers to definitions of the word "card" from two different dictionaries.

I have read both the patent and the decision, and frankly I find them both unreasonable.

It is sad that this decision is only available in a proprietary format like Microsoft Word when there are so many better options.

Re:That judge needs a dictionary

[cshark]

Well, your message denouncing patents on conecpts violated my "METHOD FOR DENOUNCING PATENTS WHEN APPLIED TO CONCEPTS AND BUSINESS PROCESSES ON A PUBLIC FORUM OR MESSAGE BOARD" patent. Even though slashdot is not actually a message board, it still applies because message board means "web site," and you should know that. Shame on you. You can pay me now, or risk costly litigation which you could not possibly win, because my lawyers are bigger and sexier than your lawyers. So there :-P

Re:That judge needs a dictionary

[Moraelin]

Well, that's the whole problem with patents nowadays. I don't mind patents that detail a speciffic and reproductible way of solving a problem right now (yes, including software patents for new algorithms.) But patents on vague and obvious concepts are just nuts.

_Everyone_ occasionally has one vague idea that's impossible or economically unprofitable to do right now, but might be an obvious thing for the future.

E.g., back in the late 80's, I had this idea "hey, you know, how come noone makes a game console out of a PC. You just replace the floppy and hard drive with a Nintendo style cartridge slot, and... uh... stuff like that." (There were no CD ROM based consoles back then, hence the cartridge idea.)

You'll have to admit that it's an obvious idea. Especially since consoles _are_ computers anyway. Impractical at the time, yes, but obvious. But had I patented it, now I could ask for royalties from Microsoft for their XBox.

Small computers? Ditto. Rewind further back in time to the early '80s, and there's me in high school with my Sinclair ZX-81 home computer, thinking, "man, you know what would be cool? If it had an LCD display on top and some batteries, so I can haul it around."

'Course, I had no idea how to actually design such a thing, but the idea was obvious. I don't doubt that at least half the ZX-81/ZX-Spectrum/Commodore-64/whatever owners had the exact same thought at one point or another. (Not to mention the poor buggers lugging around those luggage sized "portable PCs" at the time.)

Well, aren't you sorry that you didn't patent that concept back then? Now you could be asking for royalties from every single manufacturer of laptops, portable consoles, or PDAs. Probably from the cell phone makers too.

the opposite of over-general patents

[Transient0]

In connection with a system for simplifying the use of a plurality of credit cards, check cards, customer cards, or the like, it is proposed to provide an electronic multi-function card comprising a storage accommodating a plurality of individual data sets representing individual single-purpose cards.

What we have here is a patent on a extremely specific type of device for a single, specific purpose. It so happens that palmtop PCs are general Turing machines and are capable of reproducing this behavior as well as MANY MANY others. Can the the patent holders of a piece of software now go after the manufacturers of any programming language which would be capable of instantiating that program?

I mean come on, I would like to see anyone make an argument that the MAIN purpose of PDAs is strooing credit card information.

Re:the opposite of over-general patents

[Anonymous Coward]

It so happens that palmtop PCs are general Turing machines and are capable of reproducing this behavior as well as MANY MANY others

Since a general TM has an infinite amount of memory, can you explain how I can make my palm reproduce the behavior of an identical palm with 200 gig of memory? Of course adding more hardware isn't an option because it's already got infinite memory in its turing machine.

While we're at it, the non-deterministic turning machine is no more powerful than the standard TM (and can be simulated by a standard TM). I want the new palm variant to be non deterministic, that way I can instantly factor numbers (and crack encryption) with it.

Re:the opposite of over-general patents

[aussersterne]

Why not just patent "a set of computer instructions organized in such a way as to represent one or several algorithms for performing some specific function or set of functions related to data manipulation, analysis, representation and storage."

In other words, why not just patent software? Then anything anyone did with modern technology would be yours...

It seems that US Patent office is an international joke. How can you patent a concept? In some cases, it's not even a concept, it seems that people are out there patenting their brainstorms. They provide few or no implementation details or defining characteristics for the device or process they propose to patent; instead they simply state a broad type of functionality and are granted a patent on it.

Think about it... People are essentially patenting any problem they can think of. Somebody may someday need to get water to higher ground but won't have room for any extra pipe in their installation. So we'll patent "method for distributing large amounts of low viscosity liquied to higher elevations without the use of piping or tubing." Someone else may need a heart monitor that can run while the power is out, so we'll patent "method for measuring consistent bodily function in the absence of availability of electricity" and so on and so on.

Anyone else happens to actually solve one of these problems with their hard work, and *boom*, they get sued for having actually produced something, for actually having solved the problem! Instead if them being rewarded in any way by a grateful society, the patent owner alone gets rich, because they already patented the solution to that problem in general terms, whatever it may be.

And of course who has the time and resources to file patent after patent after patent? Large companies and concerns supported by venture capitalists. The rich get richer in essence because there is a government agency through which they can pre-emptively say "All your base are belong to us!"

Re:the opposite of over-general patents

[swdunlop]

If you have a go-nowhere state machine, the amount of memory involved is unimportant. If the state machine's traverse of states can be encompassed by either machine, again, the amount of memory involved is unimportant. The original statement, that the Palm is a general purpose machine, capable of "infringing" on many ludicrous patents, would appear to be quite sound, in my opinion.

Casio

[Anonymous Coward]

Casio should rake them over the coals, then. They had databank watches long before '94. And they had secure areas that allowed storage of text other than just phone numbers.

Re:Casio

[servoled]

I have posted this basic thing a few times already, but here goes again:

The patent in question has a foreign application priority date of Mar 01, 1989. Was the casio watch availible before then? If so it may qualify, but it would also have to meet the requirements of the claims in order to be of any use.

Re:Casio

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a Casio mini-computery thing in 1984 that had passwords to protect data and one could have stored the same sort of info.

The wee cards you saved info on were smaller than Credit card though

Man, talk about vague...

[WIAKywbfatw]

If a Palm or Pocket PC device qualifies even though it's larger than credit-card sized, then so does the human brain and we're all guilty of patent violation.

After all, the human brain is a "computer" that allows its user to "securely store a multitude of account numbers, PIN codes, access information and other data from multiple credit cards, check cards, identification cards and similar personal documents".

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The USPTO is a joke.

Re:Man, talk about vague...

[teamhasnoi]

After all, the human brain is a "computer" that allows its user to "securely store a multitude of account numbers, PIN codes, access information and other data from multiple credit cards, check cards, identification cards and similar personal documents".

And in the case of E-Pass executives, the human brain is credit card sized as well.

Re:Man, talk about vague...

[martyb]

A small pad of paper would also qualify... and to make it secure, just write the info using a simple cypher.

What I would like to see is a super card or meta card where all of your credit card info are entered into it and the user can select which card they want to use. No more carrying around a dozen different credit cards, store cards, etc. - one card does it all!

By the way, I'd strongly advise against losing that card!

Re:Man, talk about vague...

[jtroutman]

After all, the human brain is a "computer" that allows its user to "securely store a multitude of account numbers, PIN codes, access information and other data from multiple credit cards, check cards, identification cards and similar personal documents".

I think I have a data leak, I keep losing my information.

Patent wars...

[John Seminal]

From the paper:

Two years later, in 2002, E-Pass extended its action by filing similar suits against Compaq and Microsoft. It alleged Microsoft had actually tried to buy the patent for $10 million. E-Pass said if refused to sell, and claimed that Microsoft subsequently behaved as if it had never heard of the patent.

I wonder if we are getting to a point where patents are being used not to protect products a company makes, but to force others to pay for what they make? Can I patent every idea I have, and then sue others who have the same idea and make something of it?

Re:Patent wars...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if we are getting to a point where patents are being used not to protect products a company makes, but to force others to pay for what they make?

that's the whole point of a patent, genius. nobody actually cares about protecting their product, they just want money. people need to make a living.

Re:Patent wars...

[John Seminal]

And that is good for inovation how?

And to make a living by suing someone else who is making a usefull product is wrong. Society is shooting itself in the foot.

Re:Patent wars...

[cperciva]

And that is good for inovation how?

Because patents get published. Theoretically, you'd only get a patent if your invention was unobvious; giving you a patent (which you can then use to extort money from other people) is better than having your invention remain unpublished because you're not interested in doing anything with it.

The patent system fails where it gives patents for inventions which would be rediscovered and published anyway.

Re:Patent wars...

[CedgeS]

Can I patent every idea I have, and then sue others who have the same idea and make something of it?

Yes

Re:Patent wars...

[brianosaurus]

But only in the United States, right? Other countries actually think before issuing patents, don't they?

You can patent, or at least attempt to patent, every idea you have. You can sue others who implement that idea. Making something of it depends on how things go.

Patents aren't free. Lawsuits aren't free. So unless you have lots of money, you're probably better off patenting your concept, then selling the patent to one of those companies that buys patents for lawsuit purposes. (I don't recall any names, but they appear frequently on slashdot, usually in articles about stupid lawsuits over stupid patents that shoudn't have been granted in the first place).

Really....

[Microsofts slave]

Since when can you pantent somthing, and just because someone makes somthing that performs one of your fucntions, you can take them to court.

Too broad

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else think patents like this are too broad? Nobody else can have a PDA store account info because these guys "thought of it first?" Reminds me of the suit against eBay where some guy has a patent on online auctions...could someone have patented, for example, the hybrid SUV and blocked all competition?

Thisis a...

[zarthrag]

...prime example of patent abuse. It's not like the technology was stolen, or a trade secret was infringed upon. If someone mimics your product and makes it better than yours, you shouldn't be allowed to sue. That would be like the USPTO allowing Ford to sue Honda for "patent infringement". Completely unwise, in a few years, a patent suit isn't going to be too far detached from corporal punishment.

"On the Moon, nerds get their pants pulled down and are spanked with Moon rocks!" "Now drop those sweat pants right now! " - Aqua Teen Hunger Force

Re:Thisis a...

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be like the USPTO allowing Ford to sue Honda for "patent infringement".

finally! someone here finally understand this.

Current IP laws are bad for everyone. If AT&T was allowed to patent the idea of a phone system, all you would be able to buy today would be AT&T phone systems. Ford would be the only cars legal in the USA and you would be required to watch yout Zenith Television and cook on your GE stove.

Why? because if IP laws from today were in place 100 years ago the idea of a television would be patented.

It's complete idiocy that has made the patent laws of today the way they are now. and the same is happening to copyright.

Re:Thisis a...

[ralphclark]

in a few years, a patent suit isn't going to be too far detached from corporal punishment.

You mean patent infringers will be whacked across the rear end with a cane? I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting.

Doubtful they will succeed

[vanyel]

You never know with our legal system, but the E-pass patent is much too specific, detailing a device specifically designed to hold credit card numbers and pins, not a general purpose computer as pda's are. While the judge is probably right that exact size alone isn't reason to throw out the case, I don't think they'll win on the merits.

Re:Doubtful they will succeed

[Dun Malg]

While the judge is probably right that exact size alone isn't reason to throw out the case, I don't think they'll win on the merits.

Yeah, I think everyone is reading the point of the judgement wrong here. The ruling is probably more of along the lines of a judge saying:

"The size issue is not a reason this patent infringement claim should be rejected...(cough)Dedicated-vs-GeneralPurpose design(cough)."

Dear E-PASS

[Anonymous Coward]

It's 2003, where is my credit-card sized device to store all my passwords, pin-codes and other similar personal information that you patiented in 1994? Oh, you don't have any engineers or expertise in designing such a device. Well I can dream too. I'm dreaming that you can bite my shiney credit-card sized ass.

Sincerely,

Bender

Re:Dear E-PASS

[taped2thedesk]

Dear Bender,

We are unable to comment on the credit-card sized device(tm) at this time.

However, your shiny, credit-card sized ass is in violation of our patent. You have 30 days to either pay us $30-million in licensing fees, or surrender your ass to us.

Sincerely,

E-Pass

What's the infringement claim?

[PCM2]

Personally, I can't understand this at all. The device in question sounds so totally unlike a Palm as to make no odds. But putting aside all "bogus patent" claims -- even if you take away the credit-card-based function of the patent, how do they get around this one?

In connection with a system for simplifying the use of a plurality of credit cards, check cards, customer cards, or the like, it is proposed to provide an electronic multi-function card comprising a storage accommodating a plurality of individual data sets representing individual single-purpose cards, and comprising at least two display boxes in which data can be displayed by electronic activation

Baffled.

Re:What's the infringement claim?

[Saeger]

Personally, I can't understand this at all.

If you want to understand, just follow these three easy steps!:

1. Put on a suit, and a jugular-vein-strangling tie.
2. Remove all parts of your brain except the primitive, selfish evil bits.
3. Profit!

Re:What's the infringement claim?

[jerryasher]

The display boxes aren't physical, they are logical. Think a text/label field in a windowing api.

I suspect the inventor imagined a card with 3-4 LED displays, one for cc number, one for exp date, and one for name.

Re:What's the infringement claim?

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like quite a clever use of light-emitting diodes. :)

Maybe it's just me, but liquid-crystal displays ("LCDs") sound more suited for the purpose.

specific words ignored?

[geoff lane]

I don't see how a specific size spec (credit card sized) in a patent spec can be taken to mean anything 5 or 6 times the size.

If the author had intended to indicate a range of sizes surely a range would have been specified.

Re:specific words ignored?

[Moth7]

"Judge Jensen's ruling essentially centred on argument that the term 'credit card-sized', when applied to electronic devices, was intended to be generic rather than to refer specifically to the industry standard length, breadth and thickness of a credit card."
The above quote totally backs that idea up. How can you be any less generic than to state a specific size of a common object which cannot vary in size? Either this judge is completely daft our he's never tried to put a PDA through a credit-card reader o_0

Re:specific words ignored?

[devilspgd]

Have you ever tried to put a PDA through a credit-card reader? Seriously?

Re:specific words ignored?

[Dun Malg]

Either this judge is completely daft our he's never tried to put a PDA through a credit-card reader

I think what Judge Jensen is trying to say is that the patent isn't about the size of the object. Patents are about function. He essentially kiccked it back down to the lower court and told the lower court judge "you have to find a functional reason to reject this patent suit, doofus"

Don't read too much into this

[Glassbear]

Unfortunately, the court only posts its decisions in MS Word format, but if you want to read it, here's the link: E-Pass Technologies v. 3Com, Inc.

Don't read too much into this decision. The court hasn't found that there was infringement, only that the lower court nees to take a closer look at the issue. (In legal terms, the court of appeals overturned a grant of summary judgment by the lower court, meaning that the lower court has to hear additional evidence and/or reconsider its application of law before it can render a final judgment.) This is an interim opinion, but the case is not over yet.

Re:Don't read too much into this

[Cytlid]

Unfortunately, the court only posts its decisions in MS Word format, but if you want to read it, here's the link: E-Pass Technologies v. 3Com, Inc.

Hmm... perhaps we can ascertain more information than the decision wanted us to know! Gotta love when /. stories work in tandem!

Re:Don't read too much into this

[kramer2718]

Well, sure, Palm hasn't lost the case yet, but the ruling on appeal was certainly a poor one. While it's true that credit card size does indeed refer to a range of sizes, palms would clearly not be considered credit card sized by any reasonable person.

Re:Don't read too much into this

[kiskoa]

Here is a text version if you are interested.

Traitors cannot hide

[Anonymous Coward]

Traitors cannot hide.

pathetic patents

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I used to think that it was just software patents that were ridiculous, but more and more I think the patent system is just totally fucked in general. The patent in the article in question is:

"multifunction, credit card-sized computer that allows users to securely store a multitude of account numbers, PIN codes, access information and other data from multiple credit cards, check cards, identification cards and similar personal documents"

This is a patent on a small computer. And in what way is this innovative enough to warrant a freaking patent? The other day I had to hook up two cables but had two male ends. So I dig in my parts box and get a gender changer - lo and behold there's a freaking patent number on it. Simply put there are very few things that are drastically different now days to typically warrant a patent at all. Most patents now days are simply ridiculous rehashing of things that have existed for years but in different places, with different uses, or merely different sizes and shapes. If anything, the current patent system is just choking modern innovation.

Re:pathetic patents

[servoled]

No, the patent is for a

A device for selecting data from a plurality of data sources such as credit cards, check cards, customer cards, identity cards, documents, keys, access information and master keys comprising:

an electronic multi-function card, said card having storage means for storing a data set from each of the plurality of data sources, said card having at least one display area for displaying said stored data set;

input means for producing a secret code;

activating means for activating said card for use;

processing means responsive to said secret code for enabling said activating means;

selection means for selecting a predetermined one of said stored data sets in said activated card; and

display means for displaying said selected data set on the card in said display area.

For the hundreth time, read the damn claims and ignore everything else.

Solution...

[bersl2]

/me starts mumbling.
/me reaches into the shed.
/me slaps E-Pass execs and appellate judges with a 2x4 of Enlightenment.

/me wakes up.

Re:Solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps redundant, but offtopic?

Prior art in fiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that there is lots and lots of science fiction from the 1950's onwards which describes such cards/computers. I mean, the idea of making a computer small enough to be easily portable doesn't exactly require the creativity of an Einstein, does it?

Would that work? In the Netherlands, there was a patent case once about the idea of salvaging sunk ships by filling them with air-filled ping-pong balls; the patent was denied because the idea had been used before in a Donald Duck comic. Is fiction a valid source of prior art by American law?

Re:Prior art in fiction?

[Moth7]

According to Title 35, Part 2, Chapter 10, then yes:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent
And, if we are going to madly overgeneralize, why not offer up the credit card itself as a prior art? Its credit card sized, it stores credit card data...

Re:Prior art in fiction?

[Felinoid]

Actually no. In the 1950's computers were expected to always be large in size.

Actually the idea of credit card sized devices was not forseen in sifi. However the 1980's saw a flood of such devices.

Re:Prior art in fiction?

[jaywee]

What about tricorder in Star Trek ?:)

Re:Prior art in fiction?

[ashre]

There's plenty of science fiction about small computer devices, some of which could store personal data. There's a useful summary here.

Re:Prior art in fiction?

[Felinoid]

You mean Spocks tricorder or the TNG tricorder?
Spocks tricorder is about the same size as the portable tape recorders available at the time.

TNG came out after the market had already been flooded with credit card sized devices and was now seeing slightly more bulky versions of those devices that were probably the insperation for the smaller tricorder.

What the patent is actually trying to claim...

[Anonymous Coward]

> The 1994 patent describes a "multifunction, credit card-sized computer that allows users to securely store a multitude of account numbers, PIN codes, access information and other data from multiple credit cards, check cards, identification cards and similar personal documents."

However, any computer is "multifunction", and "allows users to securely store a multitude of account numbers, PIN codes, access information and other data from multiple credit cards, check cards, identification cards and similar personal documents."

Therefore, this is actually a patent for:

>>> A small ("credit card-sized") computer.

Gee. I'll bet nobody else thought of that.

Look for prior art on Star Trek.

Yep.

[danila]

Hello, indeed! I guess, if the "credit-sizedness" requirement is lifted, then the IBM PC computer, introduced in 1981, would also qualify. :) And we can go even further in history, to the mainframes and even further still...

patent ?

[korgull]

If this patent is not about size, than probably every computer infringes this patent.
Even though you can debate about wether this patent should have been granted, I think the law made a mistake here.

Re:patent ?

[Dun Malg]

If this patent is not about size, than probably every computer infringes this patent. Even though you can debate about wether this patent should have been granted, I think the law made a mistake here.

I think the judge was trying to correct a mistake here by throwing it back to the lower court and saying relative size, particularly when you can't patent something based on size alone, is not a legitimate reason to rule "no infringement". Essentially, the judge was ruling that the previous judge was off his rocker law-wise and that, while the patent my be totally inapplicable to a Palm device, the size is not a legally acceptable factor to base such a ruling on. Remember, the judge isn't saying "patent is good; palm must pay morons $$$". He's saying "previous judge moron; send back for legally acceptable judgement".

Re:patent ?

[ATMAvatar]

It would appear we now have legal precedent that size doesn't matter. I can breathe easy now :)

Sue Apple then...

[fuqqer]

This sounds like it opens the door for e-pass to sue Apple for the Newton. The Newton was obviously a precursor/prior art for the Palm. Granted, if it says any storage medium that's larger than a credit card, maybe they could sue laptop makers.

They could be like the company in the Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy that sends the guide back in time to win a copyright infringement suit off the prior art/info they copied to create the guide.

Well, with a name like e-pass(e). Could you expect the patent office to not award them this crap patent. They hopefully will become passe.

Enough ranting, time to manually craft a new sig outside of the sig field so you all have to read it...BWAhahahahaA!

Re:Sue Apple then...

[runenfool]

The Newton was first released a year (1993) before e pass got its patent - so no lawsuit there. The Palm was simply a smaller, less powerful version of a Newton.

Case closed.

Remember, this just means that the judge says to look at it - it doesn't mean they won anything. If size doesn't matter, maybe Apple can sue epass :)

Re:Sue Apple then...

[maroberts]

No, but if anyone stored credit card data on their Newton the patent can be shown to be generally invalid.

Paper and pen included?

[adilsonoliveira]

"multifunction, credit card-sized computer that allows users to securely store a multitude of account numbers, PIN codes, access information and other data from multiple credit cards, check cards, identification cards and similar personal documents" Well, maybe we should pay a fee for buying a notebook (the paper one!). After all, aren't paper and pen a computer too? :)

Re:Paper and pen included?

[servoled]

Read the claims. Paper and pen don't include any authentication system of any kind and therefore do not count as prior art.

Re:Paper and pen included?

[adilsonoliveira]

Hey I was kidding! You know what it is don't you? BTW, what about hand writting signature as an authentication system? :)

Re:Paper and pen included?

[servoled]

There are so many misconceptions about patents and prior art here that it is nearly impossible to tell.

real credit card sized stuff ...

[Anonymous Coward]

like the Xircom rex family, but unfortunately they ar not available anymore afaik. www.rex6000.com : Says something about (maybe) the first credit card sized pda, he bought it 7 years ago, the page was last updated October 2001. I also remember that i had a Casio watch with a phonebook, and it was smaller then a credit card :-) i guess it was 1986 ... Secure storage? well, is a PIN code enough for this? I guess not ...

All prior art aside....

[ArchAngelQ]

One important distinction. Which pda stores things securely? I haven't seen one that comes with built in encryption.

Yikes!

[joelsanda]

Imagine the poor slob running a version of Linux on his PalmOS with a pirated MP3 file. SCO, RIAA, and E-Pass should coordinate their efforts.

"May you litigate in interesting times".

Re:Yikes!

[ZvlvLord]

Did you not mean to say "a pirated MP3 version of PalmOS on Linux"... ? Nevermind...

Re:Too broad--not really

[mabhatter654]

The problem is it's not to broad a patent. I read this over at the Register friday, and the patent is really for a "magic" credit card. Like the American Express Blue card with a smart chip. The claims use "credit-card sized" so many times it's monotonous! Also, like with a smartcard, there is no allowance for entering information "on the card" that is supposedly done thru various readers/writers at your house, store, atm, etc. It looks like they added a bunch of claims later [toward the end] that have nothing to do with a credit-card size "computer" just to cover all the different posible small-computer options. It's supposed to be a secure card that stored numbers and Pins, but then they give a whole list of "other" storage options [floppies, HDD, ram chip, etc] that's what they're probably using to sue. It's nuts, and the first court was right on to shoot it down.

Confused...

[VCAGuy]

When I first saw this article, I thought "E-Pass" was in reference our very own Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority electronic toll payment system (nothing like going through a tollbooth at 35MPH knowing you're not going to get a ticket for it).

Wait, doesn't this mean E-Pass could sue OOCEA for trademark dilution?

Re:Confused...

[Lionel Hutts]

No, because the "E-Pass" mark is not "famous" (under the original use, anyway). That just leaves trademark infringement, but they can't make that out because there's no likelihood of confusion.

Re:Apple can sue for a cut!

[mabhatter654]

Sounds like if they win apple can sue them for a cut of their winnings...I'm sure Apple has patents on the newton!

Patents, then and now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then: Inventor creates something, secures patent, sues copycats.

Now: Inventor creates something, copycat secures patent, sues inventor.

When will the madness stop!!

PS: I know the movie you get "Springtime for Hitler" from .. but doesn't that count towards Godwin's law?? Discussion over? :-)

Prior Art

[thelizman]

I can demonstrate prior art on behalf of Texas Instruments in the form of my TI-85, which will store any number or image, and recall it at the touch of a button.

ITS A LOSS JUST THE SAME

[Crashmarik]

Anytime you have to go to court to fend off rediculous claims by people that only have greed on their side its a loss. I have no love of palm or 3com in general but for anyone to be dragged in to court to defend such rediculous and idiotic a suit is a loss. To have the appeals court throw out what was apparently an eminently sensible decision of a lower court is a greater loss. The fact that the USPTO grants these ludicrous patents in the first place is the greatest loss of all.

Prior Art?

[Lord_Dweomer]

K, just a question here that's probably simple, but IANAIPL (I am not an IP lawyer). On Slashdot, we tend to cite numerous examples of prior art for these ridiculous patents.....so why does nothing ever get done about that? If there's prior art, doesn't that destroy the patent? Is it simply because nobody ever takes these things to court because its cheaper to license? What has to be done to get rid of these stupid patents in cases where there is prior art?

Re:Prior Art?

[servoled]

Most of the prior art cited here doesn't even come close to meeting the invention as described in the claims. Most people here read the abstract (which is nothing more than a summary of the invention) and then use a summary of the abstract to cite examples of prior art.

A lot of the prior art cited around here also seems to be based on the date that the patent was issued, instead of the filing date (or priority date) or the patent. In order for something to be prior art it must meet the requirements as set forth in the claims and have been publicly known before the filing (or priority) date of the patent in question.

Re:Prior Art?

[axxackall]

Nothing can be done until US education will be improved. Those goverment workers are so stupid. All they do is checking the patent application papers are ok: signatures and so on. As for the text of the patent itself... well, I doubt they can even read, b/c a reading skill require a thinking skill and that is exactly what they lack of.

Re:Prior Art?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with Slashdot's citing of "prior art" is that no one here knows what "prior art" means, or how to use it effectively.

"Prior art" is just that -- it is "art," that is "prior." What do you think the references listed on the face of most patents are?

"Prior art" by itself does not destroy a patent unless it meets certain conditions. In particular, the art has to predate the filing of the patent application, usually by at least a year in the U.S., because the U.S. is a "first to invent" rather than a "first to file" jurisdiction.

"Material" prior art is, in a slightly over-simplified definition, non-cumulative prior art that tends to show that the *claimed* invention (notice the word between the asterisks -- it is important), as interpreted in a manner consistent with the detailed description of the invention, is either:

(1) completely shown in a single piece of prior art, or

(2) one in which *ALL* the claimed elements are shown in more than one reference, AND that there is a motivation, in the references themselves, for combining the teachings of the references to arrive at the *CLAIMED* invention.

What most Slashdot IANAL types fail to understand are the following points:

(1) Obviousness is measured at a relevant time in the past, not right now;

(2) Obviousness is NOT measured by how much the invention advances the state of the art, but rather by whether the invention itself is shown in the prior art, or whether there is motivation in the prior art itself to combine references to arrive at the references;

(3) Obviousness is NOT measured by whether some nerd thinks he could have arrived at the invention himself;

(4) The invention is NOT the broad statement in the abstract, but rather is as defined in the claims;

(5) Dependent claims do not stand on their own, but recursively include all of the elements recited in the claims referred to, thereby increasing the number of elements you have to find in the prior art to invalidate the patent;

(6) Correlary to (5): you do not invalidate a patent by invalidating any one claim -- each claim stands on its own; and

(7) The filing date of a patent isn't always as recent as commentators on Slashdot think it is, because they ignore and do not understand the "continuation" data on the patent.

All of the above remarks oversimplify the complexities of patent law, but serve to illustrate my point.

Misconceptions about patents have been dealt with before by patent lawyers on Slashdot before, but the "institutional memory" of Slashdot is essentially nonexistent. (Example: there are sometimes reposts of articles hours after the original post!) Moreover, it debunks many of the innumerable posts of the type "I am going to patent breathing and profit!" These people simply do not understand anything about the patent process and have never seen how difficult it actually is to get something patented. Moreover, the moderation of posts relating to patent matters is also quite poor because of the bias of the moderators.

Without offering an opinion on the subject of the present controversy, however, I can say that in general, the signal-to-noise level of posts on Slashdot regarding patents is extremely low.

Re:Prior Art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta love our legal system... all this boils down to one thing: patents are a gigantic spider web waiting to trap anyone who tries to "invent" something.

Whenever I read/hear a lawyer lamenting how folks "don't understand" such and such, it makes me wonder, why on earth are laws passed that can't be understood by the people they apply to??

Re:Prior Art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not that the laws in question can't be understood by the people, the people just don't put any effort into understanding the laws. I would guess that maybe 1% of people that post here have actually read 35 USC 102 and 103 which cover the requirements for prior art, although 99% of people here would be able to understand them on the first or second reading.

Re:Prior Art?

[Fnkmaster]

Yes, but your interpretation of patent law is a relatively sane one, whereas some judges seem to have a less than sane interpretation. I agree - dependent claims are supposed to be cumulative. So how the hell does a Palm Pilot possibly meet all of the claims in this patent, which describe a VERY specific, single purpose device, not a general purpose handheld or handheld OS?

The patent system is fucked up because of the way it is practiced, by lawyers who practice patent barratry, by judges who issue stupid rulings, and by patent clerks and examiners who don't think very hard before they stamp a patent (by the way, I've been through the process before as well - in some areas it seems remarkably hard to get a patent on even a fairly novel device or application, but then you see some of the truly absurd patents that DO get through...). Sure, in theory, the legal basis for much of the system is sound, and there is a legal standard for "obviousness to a practitioner of the art", and sure, there are specific circumstances in which a patent can be held to be invalid on the basis of the existence of prior art. None of this changes the fact that in its practice, many parts of the system are quite broken.

Re:Prior Art?

[Anonymous Coward]

The way to get rid of ridiculous patents is not simply to call the PTO a joke in a comment on /. Parts of the system are clearly broken. But, parts also work. Patents create powerful, multi-billion dollar incentives for companies to invent new drugs. New drugs don't invent themselves. Fortunately, patents fall into the public domain after just 20 years, unlike copyrights. Look at your choices for pain relievers-- aspirin, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen. All originally patented, now public domain. You might not have any of these choices, without patents. Next time you or your child has a headache, and you safely cure it for pennies, thank the patent system.

So, the patent system shouldn't be merely tossed out. But, the patent system, especially in the electronic areas, is badly broken. The problem is congress and the president are running the show, and the general public isn't paying much attention. When you vote, write letters, or send money to politicians, do you know what their voting record and stance is on the patent system? No, unless you're an active member of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the Intellectual Property Owners association (IPO), the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association (AIPLA), the American Bar Association or possibly one or two other smaller fringe groups like NIPRA or FSF. Every year, at least, the leaders of the large groups give campaign contributions, visit, and write letters to the members of the House Subcommittee on the Courts, Internet, and Intellectual Property. They go to the subcommittee hearings. They write, call or visit James Rogan, the Director of USPTO. But, their concerns are often ignored because a) the PTO is a backwater agency b) when the budget for PTO goes up, something else in the Commerce, State, and Justice Departments must go down and c) other popular and corporate concerns win out over PTO. USPTO isn't even allowed to spend the money it collects in patent fees each year on hiring new and better patent examiners. Even among the most informed of lobbyists and congressional aides, the basic understanding of the structural problems at USPTO is often lacking.

When you look at it that way, it seems pretty hopeless to try to do anything about it. I think I need a new job.

Re:Prior Art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you will read the article referenced in the Slashdot news item, it says:

"Of course, Judge Jensen's ruling merely states the original judge's grounds for dismissing the action were at fault, and not that Palm's devices do infringe the patent. Palm can no longer claim that its devices do not infringe the patent on the basis of size, but they may yet prevail against E-Pass using other arguments to show a clear gap between the device described in the patent and its own products."

In other words, the article says that the appellate court did NOT say that the Palm Pilot infringes the patent. It merely says that the grant of summary judgment was incorrect because the judge in the original case didn't interpret the claims correctly. Because the case was decided on summary judgement, not enough of the facts of the case were brought out to support a decision one way or another as to whether the Palm Pilot infringed the claims. Because the appellate court reviews the correctness of the legal ruling rather than the correctness of the facts of a case, and is not the forum in which to litigate the facts of the case, the appellate court sent the case back to the proper court to hear and decide the facts and the correct interpretation of the claims. This time, maybe they will get it right.

You are right in one sense, the judge who decided it did not infringe issued an incorrect ruling, at least according to the appellate court, whose job it is to review and overturn such things. But all the appellate court did, and all it can do, is to send the case back with instructions to make the judge do it right this time. That is the way our legal system works.

In fact, if you dig deeply enough, you can find out what the appellate court actually said at:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl ?c ourt=Fed&navby=case&no=021593

In particular, the only issue they decided was this:

"The sole question presented here is whether the district court's construction of the claim term 'electronic multi-function card' requiring specific industry standard size dimensions is correct. We hold that it is not, and that summary judgment of noninfringement should not have been granted."

Basically, the appellate court found that the judge who originally decided the case read more requirements into the claims than were actually there. He read into the claims that the term "card" meant the ANSI standard size for credit cards. However, there is no mention in the claims that the "card" be the standard ANSI size.

The appellate court continued:

"Thus, the ordinary meaning of the word 'card' here, as used in the phrase 'electronic multi-function card,' is the proper construction. Because the grant of summary judgment of no literal infringement was based upon an incorrect construction, the grant of summary judgment was not proper. We note that under the correct construction of 'card' in this context -- a flat rectangular piece of stiff material -- it may be or may not be that the accused Palm Pilot devices literally infringe. At this stage in the proceedings, however, we need not address and do not decide this issue."

It is proper for the lower court to redecide the case, because the appellate court doesn't decide facts:

"Thus, the grant of summary judgment of noninfringement both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents is vacated. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

So there has been no decision yet as to whether a Palm Pilot infringes the claims.

As to your assertion about describing a very specific device, that may or may not be true in this case. I've glanced at the claims, but do not offer any opinion on that or any other matter.

However, while it is true that dependent claims are cumulative, it is the case that you only have to meet all of the elements of any ONE valid claim of a patent to infringe the patent. That claim doesn't

Re:Prior Art?

[slash.dt]

How many /.er's complain to their Congressperson or Senate representative when they see an example of Prior Art? It's all very well complaining that the Patent System is broken but if you don't (repeatedly) bring it to the attention of the Law Makers then nothing will change.

Even a letter to the editor of your local newspaper is better than nothing.

Re:Prior Art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical /. anti IP article where bad patent is ruining innovation.

Typically, again, truth is hidden in an AC post beneath the reactionist fog.

Judge's ruling was based upon lower court's claim construction based upon ANSI standard card dimensions.

Judge said this is wrong, redo, you may decide patent only covers near credit card size, but don't rule it only covers ANSI standard credit card size.

Mod parent up to 5.

(I know this mod up would never happen because the bright light of reality would burn too many of moderators' brain cells).

improving a patent

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

Yeah, a Palm can be used to store credit card information and other "personal documents". It also plays games, music, videos, browses the web, etc.

Sorry, E-Pass, Palm improved upon your patent even if your patent applied.

dude

[sydlexic]

you should see the size of my credit card.

Note to self:

[cliffy2000]

Patent "Utilizing the Bathroom in a Manner Such that Feces is Deposited." Pooping is profitable!

Applications can be secure

[Rich Dougherty]

I use Keyring to store most of my passwords. It encrypts all the passwords with 3DES using a key derived from a passphrase I supply.

I expect this makes it secure against snooping on the wire during a hotsync. I think the passphrase would be needed to cause any harm.

Rich

bullshit

[SHEENmaster]

Different schematic, different patent.

Did the patent in question use a dragonball processor? I think not.

did the patent in question allow for user programmability and expansion of memory? I think not.

Should the issue go to cout? Yes; just to dismiss it once and for all.

When Microsoft offers your $10 million for an unenforcable patent, take it.

I'm sorry, but...

[Transcendent]

...that patent is just bull shit.

Initial patents and the today patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents are good, they allow anybody here to make a fortune by finding a good idea. Now with the new patents, the thing is that rich people can make patents too. They don't have to work hard to make an invention, all they have to do is to keep track of the technology and find new ways to do something (and in many cases you don't have to find a new thing at all). So the new situation looks to me as if these patent laws are changed so that, rich people can make more money. That is my conclusion, because patents are not cheap and so far it looks like a stock market. You invest your money into various patents and when the time comes you sue everybody. For example, British Telecom's link patent lawsuit. Only after web become so useful that British Telecom sued. Rambus is another good case. Also the plugin patent against Microsoft. SCO's suit is another case which illustrates the same basic principle.

With these weird patent rules, innovation is also quite hard. If you want to improve your site by implementing 1-click shopping then you are in trouble. Or if you want to develop a browser with plugin, you can't distribute the browser for free.

I know some people who patent some basic things just because they know that in the future they can sue companies on these basic ideas. They can afford to that because they are rich, on the other hand it is impossible for me to do the same, because even though my ideas are more complex, trying to make money out of those ideas are extremely resource intensive.

Lots of Prior Art

[linuxtelephony]

There is so much prior art in this that I can't see them winning.

In the mid 80's I had a Radio Shack pocket computer that could be used to store important information, programmed in BASIC with various applications, and more. It was about the same size as a palm height and depth, but was just a bit longer. It also only had one or two line LCD display.

Then in 1990/1991 there was the Casio B.O.S.S. and the Sharp OZ-9500 (and lower models) data organizers. These were much more like Palms in that they had multiple applications that could be run. The Sharp had cards that could be slid in to give extra functionality. Plus, both had "secret" or "private" storage areas for information you didn't want displayed unless you entered a password. My wife had the Casio while I had the Sharp.

The closest PDA to have something like e-pass describes is the Rex. It appears to have been first made in 1997.

Around the same time was the Motorola clip-on PDA for the StarTac.

The reason I bring up the later models is patent protection. Did e-pass target them to get them to license that e-pass patent? If not, why not? Because the Rex was actually closer to what the e-pass patent describes.

I can't imagine (well actually, I can, this is the American legal system we're talking about) they are going to prevail. From what I've seen, their patent is fairly specific. And, at the very least, any patent they have for a "small" general computing device would seem to violate somebody else's patent for a general computing device. Let's hope the judge is smart enough to use real legal reasons to throw this out in round 2.

Re:Lots of Prior Art

[servoled]

I can immediately invalidate most of your cited prior art: The patent in question has a foreign priority filing date of Mar 01, 1989.

For something to qualify as prior art it must have been publicly known before that date. The radio shack pocket computer may qualify, but I am guessing it doesn't meet the password authentication requirement.

Re:Lots of Prior Art

[linuxtelephony]

From Casio Chronology of Major Products:

May 1983 PF-3000 First Digital Diary

The reference to the Sharp and Casio from 1991 included the product line that predated those products. It should be possible to identify something that could meet the requirements of prior art prior to 1989.

As for the password authentication requirement, that is a matter of debate. If a storage program was made that prompted for a password before revealing data, would that count? That was possible with the Radio Shack using BASIC. Don't know about the 1983 "personal diary", but the term diary leads one to believe that something should be able to be kept hidden. Odds are, somewhere between 1983 and 1989 someone would have put a password on something storing this data.

Thanks for pointing out that Mar 01 1989 date. I missed it when I was reading.

Display boxes

[yerricde]

comprising at least two display boxes in which data can be displayed by electronic activation

The Palm OS supports windowing. This creates virtual "display boxes."

The Palm OS supports synchronization with PC-side PIM software. The Palm device has a "display box"; the PC has another.

Pouah

[moinefou]

Do they have any working machine or even a proto ? or they're just specialized in "Microsoft-Paint-state-of-the-art" drawings ?

Software patents

[Elektroschock]

Patents on software are crap. Help us to prevent European softweare Patents Vote will be Sept 1st in the EU Parliament. Anti-swpat-activists

The Cher Patent Act

[yerricde]

In the Netherlands, there was a patent case once about the idea of salvaging sunk ships by filling them with air-filled ping-pong balls; the patent was denied because the idea had been used before in a Donald Duck comic.

On the other hand, think of what would have hit the proverbial fan had the patent been upheld. The government would have recognized a Disney writer as the inventor, and the assignee would have been (obviously) The Walt Disney Company. In that case, Disney would have sought out a Cher Patent Term Harmonization Act for sure.

Sweet!

[macshune]

Thanks for all the ideas!!!!
*runs* to the patent office...

Yeah, I agree with you. The system is totally broken. The patent system is running on flat tyres and eventually the rims will start to grind against the pavement and shatter.

On a related note, I think the broken-ness of the patent system would be more obvious if members of the hard drive industry and other oligopolous industries didn't collude and cross-license patents with each other.

If this failure (and others) of the patent system was more apparent, then people might start to ask questions...

pure commie bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

this is pure commie bullshit. e-pass (or whoever the hell they are) couldn't sell a product. boo hoo hoo. so now they claim a patent on a concept?

please. let me see one of those engineers take spare parts and create something totally unique.

E-Pass - it's for casinos, music, and drugs

[linuxtelephony]

From the patent:

An additional advantage of this single multi-function card represents its use as key, master key or any other an access to e.g. buildings, cars enabling system or means.

and from their website:

Presented here are just some of the applications that will benefit from the e-pass concept... e-Casino e-Music e-Pharmaceuticals e-Entertai nment
and others

Are they based in Vegas or something?

"famous"?

[axxackall]

No, because the "E-Pass" mark is not "famous"

What's the formal definition of famous?

Re:"famous"?

[Lionel Hutts]

There happens not to be a "formal" definition. A court is to decide whether a mark is famous by considering "factors such as, but not limited to" these.

Largely, though, they amount to whether it is "famous" in the ordinary sense of being well-known and widely identified in the target market with the senior user's goods or services, which E-Pass obviously is not.

What about patent reform?

[kramer2718]

Okay, so we all can agree that the patent process is fucked up in the extreme, but do any slashdotters out there have any ideas as to how to fix it?

I'll start off. I don't think software patents should be granted. Is that a reasonable first step? What other ideas
I'm actually drafting a document on general problems with IP laws in this country (to give to various elected officials who despite popular belief actually do pay attention), and I would love to incorporate some good thoughts.

Re:What about patent reform?

[ozzee]

Okay, so we all can agree that the patent process is fucked up in the extreme, but do any slashdotters out there have any ideas as to how to fix it?

Let's see:

Abolish software patents.

Patent only implementations - not ideas (like it should be and was until recently).

Make it so that patent holders can't extort infringers.

Define "obvious" a little more clearly. Many of these patents are "clearly" obvious but still make it through the courts.

If 2 or more people invent essentially the same thing without knowledge of the other, allow all of them to hold a valid patent. (sort of goes with obvious).

I can go on and on with different alternatives. The point is that patents are there to FOSTER innovation and now their used mainly for extortion. I would vote strongly to elimitate software patents altogether and push "open source" concepts as the method of fostering innovation. However there are certain large corps with huge monopolies and well paid lobby to prevent such a thing.

patenting dreams in US?

[axxackall]

Hold on. If there is no such a device yet, then how is it possible they've got a patent from the first place? I thought it's impossible to patent a dream, no?

Date Required for Prior Art

[servoled]

Everyone please note that in order for something to qualify as prior art for this patent it must have been publicly known before Mar 01, 1989!!

Please check your dates before posting.

Final analysis.

[ratfynk]

Companies that try to create a device then market that device could get a good old pat pending. That made alot of sense. Now a company that does a proto can get a rediculous broad definition. After their device bombs, because of shitty manufacturing, design, marketing, and or business plan stupidity the company or patent holder instantly becomes a lawyer's dream shell company. This is rediculous. It will cripple American enterprise in the long run.

I think I will go get a ticket to the bar, there finally is an easy way to become richer than Gates. Just become a patent ambulance chasing whore! You don't even need to advertise you can hunt down clients on the net for peanuts, gotta love those Republicans! Old Abe's body is a rolling in his grave, rolling in his grave....etc

typo on headline, sorry

[kisrael]

Sorry, the headline should be "resume" not "resue", though by a happy chance either works.

Star trek tricorder prior art?

[geekee]

Does the Star Trek tricorder count as prior art? E-pass's vaporware is just as fictional.

Re:Star trek tricorder prior art?

[anubi]

I hope the trial lawyers read /.

You just neatly encapsulated what I see as the most massive flaw in our patenting system.

If someone toils by the sweat of his brow to bring something into existence, he should get some sort of protection for *that* implementation. - I thought that was what our patent system was for - so others couldn't see what he had done and go directly into production neatly skipping all the research and failed attempts.

And now we patent dreams? Without substantiation? This just rewards paper pushers who don't do a friggen thing to bring ANYTHING into existence.

This system is just rewarding litigation, using law as a bludgeon to extort the mental effort, construction investments, and intellectual property FROM the artist that actually makes something work.

I know what I am saying is redundant - I don't know of any technical artist who isn't saying the same thing I am saying now.

But, its like hooting and hollering about proprietary code which contains executable scripts and unverifiable intentions.

We don't make a lot of stuff over here in the USA anymore. From what I see, we won't be designing much either. Honestly, I don't know what we are going to do to support our economy, as our law is killing off our breadwinners. Although corporate interests may be able to tie up any conceivable ways to mechanize products, even they don't have the research budgets to bring these products into existence. And by killing off the motivation of the little guy who knows how to do it in his garage, these ideas, 'protected by Patent Law', will likely never see the light of day.

Sorry for the pessimism, but as an artist myself, I consider the laws of man, not the laws of physics, as being the major barrier to my own innovation.

Example: I have all sorts of ideas for using the Atmel AVR series microcontrollers in many security and robotics applications... but after I spend several months debugging the code, designing the interface cirucits, circuit boards, etc, and getting it to work, will I get a letter in the mail from some lawyer representing some corporation who has been sitting on blanket patent just waiting to extort the implementation plans from me after I put forth the effort and knowledge to implement it? This smacks of the same kind of economic help provided by the Professional Domain Name Squatter businesses.

If this patent law is going to perform the intention our founding fathers intended, its going to have to protect the interests of the artists and creators, not the interests of the squatters who merely use this law to extort the efforts from the artists.

MODERATORS - Mod Parent Up!

[servoled]

Congratulations on a very well written desciption of what is wrong with most patent discussions here. Hopefully the parent will be modded up as it contains some very good information.

why even bother

[tomstdenis]

What the fuck. Why would anyone bother living in the US. You have opression in civil authority [re: dmca, patent up the wazoo, lawsuit lawsuit lawsuit]. You have opression in federal authority [puppet bush at the throne, recalls in california, etc].

It's a fucking third-rate nation and all these patent stories just keep make me happy I don't live there.

Fuck em, I say. Don't fight patents. Let them grow and grow. At one point there will be a patent for every idea on earth and us business will grind to a halt.

Muhahahahaha.

Fuck em.

Tom

Re:why even bother

[Anonymous Coward]

You only say that because you've already secured your patents on CANNING THE MANHAM and BOTTLING THE MANGOO.

"may have been infringed" !?

[AceJohnny]

"he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that a patent held by E-Pass may have been infringed by Palm and other PDA ..."
What the hell? since when do courts rule "maybe" instead of "yes" or "no"!?
okay sure, so what they're saying is that "ok, you can proceed to the next step". nevertheless the idea of a court ruling (ie final decision) "maybe" seems... well, preposterous.

Distrubing trend

[Felinoid]

It is known that for every invention there are many people who had the same idea and did nothing.

In filing your patent your protecting your compleated invention against being copied by others who have not gone through the hard work of making the idea work.

The patent office however dose not require a compleated invention anymore and people are abusing this.

The trend is to file patents and sit on them. In this case the patent was amazingly obveous. There were already a wide range of general purpous devices the size of credit cards. How much brain power dose it take to come up with the idea of a vertual credit card? Science fiction shows called them cread chips.

See Max Headrom a quazi dark future that rehased many of the commen theams in sifi in the 1980s.

All your credit information is recorded on a credit card sized device. But as most sifis don't spell that fact out it could be argued they were something completly diffrent.

So basicly it was a consept that had yet to be clearly defined.
This company files a clearly defined patent and waits for the cred chip to be created.
And waits, and waits.

But the networking world dosen't need cred chips. All your information is recorded in larg central databases all that is needed is a network to access that data. (One more secure than the Internet) such a network exsists.

Now that this device will not manifest itself the company has to try and sue the next closest device. The PDA. But the PDA is a full computer and not credit card sized. It's a generall function device of such recording credit cards is just one possable use.

Now for the typical :File this patent: comment.

Patent a GUI computer that has more ram, speed and disk storage than the current computers.

Then when such computers are made you have a ready made lawsute. Oh yeah with the obveous loophole of Linux based PCs being exempt.

I have an idea. Patent honnest spam. Any spammer who clames to be honnest is sued and must then prove in cort they are in fact lying theafing crooks.

And you know there is no prior art for that.

Re:Distrubing trend

[Idealius]

"The following comment is made completely devoid of any concern for negative moderation."

Normally, I don't care when I see posts riddled with spelling errors, but in your case I'll make an exception. Use a spell checker man, that post is embarassing beyond words -- no pun intended.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be a cock-atrice, but SWEEJUS that's some bad spellin'!

The court used the wrong definition

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the patent, you will see that the device is intended to be a replacement for regular credit cards, so that you only have one thing to carry instead of 16. However, the patent doesn't give a specific size, and uses the term "card" in many ways.

If you read the ruling, you'll see it is simply that the court shouldn't have used the ANSI standard definition of a credit card to rule out the Palm devices from being equivalent.

It is still a possibility that they could argue in the lower court that "flat, stiff piece of material" is a proper definintion, and therefore Palm's devices are not infringing. Or they could rule that the E-Pass device was intended to simplify credit-card use by replacing them, whereas a Palm or other PDA can NOT replace any credit card. At best, the PDAs, being COMPUTERS, can store such information -- but they're useless as credit card replacements.

aQazaQa

HP-75C

[quarterodeon]

The HP-75C, introduced 1982, had a LCD, an alarm clock for appointments, you could create text databases, and activate password protection. And you could attach a second display and almost everything else via HP-IL. It's successor, the HP-71 (1984), had the size of a Palm.

They'll never win.

[Freston Youseff]

The scope of their patent is more specific than the general uses which Palm/Visor/etc can perform. While a Palm can store PIN numbers and all that hubaloo, that is not one of the main purposes of the device.

Obvious advances in technology

[The Revolutionary]

Ok, one more time, if you are a company and believe that a general purpose computer smaller than what we have today is patentable just because it is SMALLER, then why don't you pack up right now, and get the hell out of our country, mmmkay?

MS Word? Free software to the rescue!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, the court only posts its decisions in MS Word format...

AbiWord can read MS Word documents.

Why didn't they go after the makers of the Rex PDA

[Anonymous Coward]

http://gregsearle.tripod.com/rex.html

The patent sounds like a sales pitch and describes it very accurately.

Yep I'm sure there was prior art....

[pbjones]

I have have had several credit card size devices from 1994 or earlier that would hold addresses etc. And every Chip embeded smart card would also be counted here.

Re:Yep I'm sure there was prior art....

[midav]

No, what you describe is not prior art. It is not enough to just hold some personal info in secured form or otherwise.

They patented a device which can emulate behaviour of any credit, pass or any other card or device you are using to get access to any protected by such devices resources or locations. Hence, two display areas on the card, one is displaying info of a particular card (logo, number, exp date, etc. ,) while the other emulates interface to a guarding equipment (Think of the magnetic strip which is rewritable with the selected dataset specific info.)

Anyway, I am not sure that anything described by any of slashdotters is close enough to what they are patenting.

PS. I am neither defending nor uphelding the patent in question but just describing the patented device.

Please cease and desist whatever you are doing

[Anonymous Coward]

You are infringing my intellectual property.

My IP is called "The thing or idea that encompasses anything we can conceive of, yesterday, today and tomorrow." I can't build it just now or describe an actual embodiment that can be built, and I don't know exactly what it will be doing later, but that doesn't mean I can't patent it and then later sue everybody for trying to anything.

Key attributes:

- It can be infinitesimally small, or as large as the Universe;

- It may or may not incorporate various "natural" features such as unmodified DNA sequences, minerals formed untold eons ago deep in the Earth's mantle, or arbitary sequences of digits. All of these are mine, if they are part of the process of "doing anything".

- By challenging my claims, you are "doing something", something that is intellectual property derived from "doing anything". Thus you are further infringing on my claims. It would be best to speak to my lawyers about a license for actualizing anything prior to launching any challenge to my patent.

Palm security?

[eyegone]

I don't see how Palm can possible be infringing this patent. AFAICT, there's no way to store anything securely on my Palm V.

Re:Palm security?

[dsz]

How about Safe? I've been using it for years to store passwords on my Palm.

According to the author's site, there's also a newer app that's been more thoroughly reviewed, though I've never used it. Check out CryptoPad.

I can do better than that

[Cthefuture]

Hell, the whole patent is bogus.

I should know because in 1993 I was developing smartcard applications to do exactly what their patent covers (multiple accounts, PIN's, credit card info, etc.). And there were many more companies doing it years before that.

In case you didn't know, smartcards are credit card sized computers and I imagine the E-pass patent is for a smartcard or smartcard-like device. The problem is people were doing what the patent covers well before this E-pass garbage came along.

This is just a plain case of patent abuse.

Re:I can do better than that

[collinl]

I agree - smartcard wer around much longer than that.
However, how much of the work was in the public domain? If none, then a patent can be applied for, AFAIK.
How much of the internal processes you worked on functioned as described in this patent in question?
If none, then the patent was not infringed by your employer.

lyal

Someone needs to

[Liquidrage]

just patent "a configuration of molecules that does stuff" and be done with it.

M$ won't lose

[phatcat625]

The DOJ couldn't beat microsoft at their own game what makes e-pass think they can? The only thing that is even remotely like this patent is the Xircom Rex which was killed, now the company is owned by Intel.

It is a big win for Palm

[Anonymous Coward]

The first judge dismissed it based on the fact it refered to devices that credit card size and Palm is does not meet that requirement. It means that Palm didn't infringe BUT the patent is still valid. The ruling of the second judge is a big win for Palm since it takes away the restriction of size. Which means there are tons of prior art cases. Now the patent can be ruled INVALID. No more lawsuits can will come from the patent after this which is good for Palm and MS.

Oh, damn...

[SmurfButcher Bob]

my Apple ][ is infringing on this.

Where does it say credit card sized?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am missing sth. The patent, especially the claims part, does not say anything about "credit card-sized". (At least a search on the linked patent does not find a match.)

Read the claims. They are claiming a system to securely store numbers and pins from different sources in a single multifunction card! I do not see anything about the size of that card.

There may still be some prior art but "the size does not matter".

RTFP! (RTF Patent!)

Let's move to India!

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to talk about prior art? What about the Apple Newton? Looked a lot like a Palm to me.

This who patent rubbish has got out of control, yet congress and the prez, fat with bribes from corporate America won't reign it in.

And people wonder why software companies are moving their development to India.

rescue

[h4x0r-3l337]

E-Pass Can Resue Patent Case Against Palm

Shouldn't that be: "Patent Case Against Palm Can Rescue E-Pass" ?

Atari Portfolio circa 1989

[Pitfall Harry]

http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/portflio.h tm

The Judge is an IDIOT ... candidate for President?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to do with the patent system again, it's the fricken courts again!

huh? tons of prior art

[iamhassi]

What?? 1994?? Tons of tiny devices existed long before 1994 that "allows users to securely store a multitude of account numbers, PIN codes, access information and other data from multiple credit cards, check cards, identification cards and similar personal documents."

In the late 80s I purchased a credit-card calculator that had enough memory to store 50 phone numbers. Not sure about personal documents, but it was the size of a credit card, had password protection, and you didn't have to enter only phone numbers, you could type in pin numbers, etc. Pathetic by today's standards, but it was impressive at the time.

That wasn't the only device either. I'm sure any RadioShack catalog from that time would have a dozen devices that would meet the requirements listed in this patent.

Revolutionaries Unite!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the revolution begin@!#@)$*!@$!)*@$

I think we should let canada invade

Long LIve Canadia!#!#$@#

Hmm.. but do we want a bunch of pot heads running our government? Eh.. fcuk it.. let's just let our society deteriorate into anarchy.

Prior art back to 1990 or so

[hughk]

In Europe, the French have been very active with smartcard technology. Both the French and Germans have had smartcards that were credit-cards and also some form of debit card at the same time. For example a telephone card combined with credit card. These were all of credit card size (not larger like a PDA) and supported multiple uses (as the patent does).

some inside info (very long... sorry)

[Anonymous Coward]

having worked with the government, and my wife currently employed by it (US) I can attest to what you said as true for the most part. I have noticed that much of the difficulties within the government and what it touches (read: everything today) can be attributed to confusion and disorgnization. In a mental sense it is the mind of the bureaucrat that is the problem. Superficial "feel good" measures replace all drive to actually run a tight ship and get the job done well. What turns this into a real lack of work ethic is that many observe the problem and overtly cover it up with institutionalized nonsense that includes buzz compliance, talk of duty and patriotism, and formalization on paper of policies and processes.

At no time however, are the actual internal practices (and processes) improved in action. It is a VERY common occurance to never know what the current policy is since it is unpublished, uncontrolled (think, version control and advertised/made available), and unclear. If you have ever seen a riot, then you can picture the operational organization in action. The truly sad thing is that (at least in DoD circles) many will spout out buzz phrases like "Chain of Command" as a warding gesture against any notice of incompetence and misappropriation or dishonesty. If they really believed in chain of command then they would understand that first and foremost the leaders must be competent and TRUSTWORTHY and that this must rise each subsequent rise in rank. Rank Hath Its Priveledges (RHIP) is something too often excercised while Rank Hath Its Responsibilities (RHIR) is rarely seen and considered amusing idealist rambling.

Specific to the USPTO and their mentality, consider this: A collegue of mine had once worked upon a contract to overhaul their content management and workflow system to not only handle the increasing workload and make use of "modern" technologies and methodologies (thats the key here, read more) but to make it more intuitive, efficient and useful.

The magnitude of the project demanded that it not be handled like the usual goverment/DoD hack jobs, especially considering the maintenance issues. (another contract and thus a different group of people/companies would maintain it later) As is often found in government (and again, specifically in DoD) system upgrade or new implementation plans, the end users were very enthusiastic about improving the existing system. These users were also familiar with other external systems and processes whether within or external to this particular problem domain. What this gave was an opportunity to leverage the user's experience in both system design input as well as in adoption (reducing learning curve and rejection).

With typical government efficiency however, the end users were completely ignored. Multiple government representatives (decision makers and project management movers and shakers) not only ignored end user input but were militant towards the contracting and government system engineers that had the audacity to gather the input in the first place. In a textbook example of using aggression and power displays in an attempt to cover up inept management, the managers decided to bury the input and user spawned requirements.

In the end, the system looked like it was going to utilize a categorization structure that had more than 300,000 categories. No, that was not a typo. Such a user side (user space) categorical structure is not only defeating the purpose but seems to actually push the organization and tracking from the computer onto the user and organization. I guess the computer could relax and just "supervise" by rubberstamping and passing through the work done by the slave workers. (Hmmm, sounds like the dream job for many government and contractor managers)

All of this was because the bureaucrats did not work to improve the environment. They worked to maintain status-quo and micromanage. Even had these particular mental giants were not there, then you would most likely still face the problem of implementing

Re:Umm...hello? IP DONE AWAY WITH? NUTS??

[Anonymous Coward]

bump this good s**t up, I am curious to see a response...very intriguing...

Decade old description of an electronic organizer

[LightSail]

This seems to be a patent of the eletronic organizer with password protection. They existed at least a decade earlier than 1994. Since the inventor never built any actual product, he didn't infringe on any patents for electronic organizers. An electronic organizer is much closer to the credit card size that the patent states than a PDA. A broad reading of the patent could include a calculator with a memory function and printout, though the secure part would be questionable. I still am not sure how I shop or use a payphone by connecting my PDA to it without reading and entering stored information. A connection to a system to pass the data was a part of the function in the patent, wasn't it?

Re:Decade old description of an electronic organiz

[WeBMartians]

Prior Art: I tried to patent "breathing" but discovered that Mad Magazine had already tried too... Just think of the royalties!

Even More Prior Art: Didn't Asimov describe just such a device in the original Foundation story? Middle 1940's, wasn't it? The only glitch: Asimov said the device was worn from long use - today's devices wouldn't last long enough to get that kind of wear.

patent for e-pass?

[lostinchicago]

all you folks from chicago know very well a trademark that is very close, i-pass, wheres the lawsuit from them?