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.'"
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
Someone should put a patent on numbers entered sequentially. They'd make a fortune.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
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.
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
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.
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
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."
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
...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???
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.
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
Breakfast served all day!
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]
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.
/me starts mumbling.
/me reaches into the shed.
/me slaps E-Pass execs and appellate judges with a 2x4 of Enlightenment.
/me wakes up.
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?
> 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.
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.
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!
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 ...
One important distinction. Which pda stores things securely? I haven't seen one that comes with built in encryption.
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".
The Luddites were ahead of their time.
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.
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."
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
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.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Patent "Utilizing the Bathroom in a Manner Such that Feces is Deposited." Pooping is profitable!
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
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.
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?
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
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.
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.
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.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
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]