Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

E-Pass Can Resue Patent Case Against Palm

Posted by timothy on from the springtime-for-hitler-as-a-patent-case dept.

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.'"

9 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Umm...hello? by Surak · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

    --
    My journal has hot /. gossip.
    1. Re:Umm...hello? by servoled · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
  2. Infringement? by Jasin+Natael · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    --Jasin Natael

    --
    True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
  3. Don't read too much into this by Glassbear · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    [insert randomly selected declaration of absolutist meta-moderation philosophy here]
  4. real credit card sized stuff ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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 ...

  5. Confused... by VCAGuy · · Score: 2, Informative
    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?

    --
    Q: "Why do sound techs say 'check 1, 2'?"
    A: "Cause if they could count any higher they'd be lighting techs."
  6. Prior Art by thelizman · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  7. Applications can be secure by Rich+Dougherty · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  8. Re:"famous"? by Lionel+Hutts · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.