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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.