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.'"
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.
lysergically yours
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.
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?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
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?
...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
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
Breakfast served all day!
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?
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...
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Wasn't the Apple Newton introduced in '93? I've seen many a program for keeping credit card numbers on my trusty MP2100..
Then: Inventor creates something, secures patent, sues copycats.
.. but doesn't that count towards Godwin's law?? Discussion over? :-)
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
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
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.
I don't actually exist.
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.