Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
Doug Tolton
"The destruction of a value which is, will not bring value to that which isn't." -John Galt
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.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Since when can you pantent somthing, and just because someone makes somthing that performs one of your fucntions, you can take them to court.
Tragek
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.
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.
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"
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.
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!
One important distinction. Which pda stores things securely? I haven't seen one that comes with built in encryption.
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!"
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
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.
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.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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.
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
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.
I don't actually exist.
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.
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
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.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
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.