Charles Walton, the Father of RFID
Roland Piquepaille writes "In a very interesting article, the San Jose Mercury News tells us about Charles Walton, the man behind the radio frequency identification technology (RFID). Since his first patent about it in 1973, Walton, now 83 years old, collected about $3 million from royalties coming from his patents. Unfortunately for him, his latest patent about RFID expired in the mid-1990s. So he will not make any money from the billions of RFID tags that will appear in the years to come. But he continues to invent and his latest patent about a proximity card with incorporated PIN code protection was granted in June 2004. Maybe he'll be luckier with this one. This overview contains some excerpts of the original article. It also contains tips to search for Walton's patents and an image of the front page of his first patent."
Frankly, this is one patent that wouldn't bother me had it not expired.
Were licensing fees prohibitive for mass-scale introduction of RFID tags, personal privacy would be safer.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
Maybe he'll be luckier with this one.
At 83, I don't think he is really that interested in the monetary aspects of the invention process.
This is why we have patents, everyone is just so used to predatory patents nowadays that someone not making money hand-over-fist from a patent seems strange.
"I am become death, the tracker of products."
We can't put the genie back in the bottle.
He made three million dollars. I should be 1/2 as lucky as him..... sheesh
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
nbsp; John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
He has a patent for it, after all. And we all know that the US Parent Office only grants patents when there are clear examples of existing prior art, right? Think about it!
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
i don't understand the big fear of lack of privacy due to RFID tags. capitalism just takes care of it. if enough people don't want their location known, there will be a market for clothing, etc that does not have RFID tags embedded in it. the government's never going to say (knock on wood) that all clothes or shoes or whatever must have RFID tags, so it's really not something to worry about.
-ninjaneer
I want these tags on me Disc Golf discs! I lose to many and at $10 a pop it gets expensive. Just wonder if they are small enought to be embedded in the discs. Then we just need a hand held locator to find them with.
OK, RFID is an invention, I'll grant that. And I'll not get into the endless debate over the good and evil of it. But given the RFID is over 20 years old, what part of a proximity card with incorporated PIN code isn't so obvious and apparent to the average engineer that it should qualify for a patent? And isn't there plenty of prior art?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
this should be used as a perfect example of how patents are supposed to work?
You make your money off it, then it is released to the public domain for the common good? (although that "good" part may be questioned by some in this case)
Go ask Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Leonard Adleman about making money from patents. they hardly cashed in on what was one of the net's most successful algorithms. Multiplying large primes was an important breakthrough in cryptography, I think Schnier states this in one of his diatribes.
The point is, if society doesn't use your invention en masse until after the patent expires, it's not a reason to extend patents any further than they already are.
Look, almost everyone on Slashdot and the technical media agree, the patent system is horribly broken and corrupted. For every story on the guy who ONLY made $3M on RFID, there are many more stories of bullshit patents on spellcheckers or the use of cookies in browsers to shop (the Bezos debacle) and a million other reasons not to hear the sob story and say "damn, he should be rich(er) but he's not!"
Were the patent still in force he could charge less than a penny per tag and he would still get rich (there will be billions and billions of tags) and the cost wouldn't be prohibitive.
If he insisted on a high fee, such as a dollar per tag that would certainly slow the adoption of the technology, but why would he do that?
In the end the market would have dictated the price and it would be low in order to allow adoption of the technology and maximize his profit. In that case, what you are saying would not be any more applicable than it is today.
Lasers Controlled Games!
Last week, Intermec filed suit against Matrics over RFID Patent Infringment. Intermec owns a WIDE variety of patents in the RFID space that are very general in nature.
e /t echnology/story/0,10801,93744,00.html
For those of you who don't live in the RFID world...Matrics is the vendor who's hardware is being put into WalMart. Many insiders believe that Intermec's lawsuit was designed to poision the water around a possible acquistion of Matrics by one of Intermec's competitors. There is also a general train of thought that Intermec tactically blundered by moving too soon, they should have waited 6 more months for the RFID initiative within WalMart to really catch on before they hit the industry with royalties.
http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobil
We are but the sum of our experiances
I get so sick of people talking about how technology is bad.
Technology is technology... it is not good or bad. OK?
Men can use technology in good or bad ways. For example, an axe can chop down a tree or cut someone's head off. It's simply a piece of technology. Scissors can cut paper, they can also be jammed into someone's jugular vein. Nuclear energy provides power for business es and residents everywhere, it also can be used to blow up countries.
Nothing personal, it's just technology. It's inanimate. It has no feelings. It doesn't care how it might be used. It's just there for use.
Umpteen morons have posted so far claiming, without benefit of evidence, that RFID has only recently begun to be widely implemented because the patent expired. Baloney!
Even the briefist of Google searches will show you that RFID implementation has been bogged down by 2 factors: sufficiently cheap manufacturing techniques and industry-wide standards for implementation / data encoding / frequency usage. It took bar codes decades to become ubiquitous, in part because of the same need for standard data dsecriptions that allow every product by every manufacturer to be given a unique bar code.
See Frontline, and CSEMag.com, just to pick 2.
The fact that this was patented had nothing to do with its lack of widespread use. Get a grip, people!