Slashdot Mirror
Boingo Awarded a Patent For Hotspot Access
Boingo has scored a patent for accessing a Wi-Fi hotspot by a mobile device. The patent, no. 7,483,984, was issued in January, but Boingo only started talking about it recently. The patent application was filed in December 2002. According to the company, the methods covered by the patent include: "...accessing wireless carrier networks by mobile computing devices, where a client software application hosted by the device accesses carrier networks using wireless access points. For example, when a computer — or netbook, smartphone or any other Wi-Fi-enabled device — is in a location where there are multiple signals, the patented technology looks at each signal and alerts the user which signal will work, showing the signal as an understandable name and ID for the user.The patent covers all wireless technologies and spectrums, as well as any mobile device that access wireless hotspots." The company is not saying anything about whether or how they will attempt to wield this patent.
I thought Halliburton patented this tactic back in 2008: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/10/1651236&from=rss
Boingo is infringing another corporation's intellectual property!
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20080270152&OS=20080270152&RS=20080270152
Patent Acquisition and Assertion by a (Non-Inventor) First Party Against a Second Party
Abstract
Methods for a first party to acquire and assert a patent property against a second party are disclosed. The methods include obtaining an equity interest in the patent property. The methods further include writing a claim within the scope of the patent property. The claim is written to cover a product of the second party where the product includes a secret aspect. The methods further include filing the claim with a patent office. The methods sometimes include offering a license of the patent property to the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim. The methods sometimes include asserting infringement of the claim by the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim. The methods sometimes include negotiating a cross-license with the second party based on the assertion of infringement of the claim, where under the cross-license the first party obtains a license to an intellectual property right from the second party. The methods sometime include attempting to obtain a monetary settlement from the second party based on the assertion of infringement of the claim.
This patent is beyond the Patent Office's usual idiocy and right up there with "method for playing with a cat with a laser". I mean really, displaying a list of accessible networks using perfectly standard techniques?
Since they mention Wi-Fi in their patent doesn't the patent invalidate itself by itself referring to prior art?
--
Job Frenzy
wherein two or more carrier network identifiers associated with a common carrier network system are aggregated to generate a carrier network system identifier that is included in the user selectable list
so if you see multiple Starbucks SSIDS, you just display one on the list to pick from.
it would seem, therefore, that if you do not perform this step of aggregating the two or more network identifiers associated with a common network system, you've avoided this patent.
HINT: show 'em all, even if it means showing multiple Starbucks.
My favourite carrier when I'm on the road? LINKSYS
Can I just point out that a mobile phone is in itself a mobile computing device (even without the ability to "run" your app of choice or a command shell. Even the "bricks" that people carried around circa 1985 had more CPU power than most computers. This patent is invalid right from the get go.
Pinky against corner of mouth, "I want one million dollars for accessing WiFi hotspots". Clue evil laugh.
The patent seems to be related to the mobile device specifically accessing a "hot-spot". Just how the heck are they supposed to license this and make money?
Any mobile device can connect up to wireless that does not necessarily qualify as a hotspot. So how can you force a mobile phone manufacturer, a netbook manufacturer, a laptop manufacturer, etc. to pay royalties when there is no guarantee that the device will ever be used to access a hotspot? I understand they have a patent, but I don't find that reasonable.
To me it would be the same as getting a patent on the act of juicing oranges and then asking royalties from every single juice machine manufacturer with the claim, "well it could be used to juice oranges".
They could go after the people hosting wireless hotspots that the devices would be accessing or the access point manufacturers, but the claim is on the client device......
otherwise this won't last for very long.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Wow, you went to all that effort, but you couldn't even skim the summary? Boingo didn't patent the hotspot, they patented a method to have a single signon for multiple wifi (or other spectra) carriers.
Not that this is a sustainable patent (it seems pretty obvious to anyone skilled in the art).
There is one key element of the claims that no OS or device that I'm familiar with implements. Specifically, the list of wireless networks presented to the user must include "getting carrier network information from an access point database by the access client using the plurality of carrier network identifiers, wherein the carrier network information includes information indicating whether the access client is authorized to access a carrier network..." In short, the list of networks must include whether or not the client is authorized to access each network.
To my knowledge, no OS or device does this inherently. They may show that the network is encrypted or that it requires a username and password, but those say nothing about whether the client is authorized (i.e., allowed or permitted) to access the network. Even software that shows that a user is currently connected to a network that requires authentication only implies authorization and then only to that network, not any others.
So, as I read the patent, most existing software does not seem to infringe. One possible infringer might be the Easy Wi-Fi app for the iPhone, but it has been made obsolete by iPhone OS 3, which auto-authenticates with AT&T hotspots.
Doesn't the fact that WiFi hot spots exist in the first place count as prima facia evidence that there are already in existence methods of selecting and connecting to them? There would be no mobile hot spots if clients couldn't connect!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"whether or how they will attempt to wield this patent."
And I hope they don't have a "Remove Curse" scroll either.
The US Patent Office should be eliminated. It doesn't serve its intended purpose, and the way patents are reviewed indicates that the people examining them either don't often have a clue on what is obvious or non-obvious, or that there is massive corruption and the finances of the examiners need forensic investigation.
I think there are way to many lawsuits out there, usually motivated by greed, but is it possible for people to launch a class action lawsuit to simply stop an entity from operating?
It seems like the concept of free market economy and all-encompassing corporate patents are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Even if no one had thought of this before (which is not really true), this is the kind of thing that once a need presents itself, hundreds or thousands of people would think up how to do this. This is nowhere near the kind of thing that justifies the patent system concepts (of taking the rights away from possible other inventors because it is a concept that was not likely to have other inventors). The patent system is supposed to reward the inventor for creating something that we would otherwise have not had. But this is a case of something we most certainly would have almost as soon as the need is first experienced. The only advantage of a prior-to-the-need invention in this case is a few weeks lead time on the initial development, at most.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Poster Child for PATHETIC!!!! Speechless, simply speechless.
Hope is the currency of fools
So basically Boingo can file patent infringement lawsuits against any company that makes Wi-Fi products which show a list of access points within range.
After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
This reminds me of McDonald's "how to make a sandwich" patent.
Boingo is a company that was founded by the founder of Earthlink, Sky Dayton, back in 2001. His idea was to create a nationwide (and later global) network of hotspots, much like Wayport provides. It never took off. The USPTO is slow. Big deal, this isn't a patent troll company. It's a legitimate business that provides a very large network of hotspots. But of course this is Slashdot where nobody actually reads the article or researches what is being talked about and just jumps to conclusions.
Hell, he rented a house from my family out in California when he was starting this company and we got free Internet access from him in exchange for beta testing his service. Wayport has been around longer than Boingo, but didn't get into the wireless hotspot business until 2004. I really don't know what to make of this patent though.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
This is patent trolling at the worst. While they may have a product that actually uses the technology covered by the patent, the patent will end up serving them more by allowing them to squeeze others for existing products. Patent_troll
Sad enough to use a frowny. :-( (TM)
Boingo Inc. vs. 35:42:11:AA:EA:03, 432 US. 666.
Lawyer: You connected to a wireless network in Starbucks?
Defendant: Yes, that's correct.
Lawyer: No further questions.
promise to be more responsible. This patent is ridiculous. It doesn't pass the obviousness test.
Yes I know, this is /. and no one read the article, let alone the actual patent - however the article (and the /. excerpt) are very misleading about what was patented. Reading the actual patent, it appears that the patent was granted on a method for the user to create an account with the patent-holder and then use the patent-holders software to access any number of various for-pay and other wifi hotspots without having to manage the individual credentialing, network configuration and associated billing.
I am not a lawyer, or a patent attorney -- and I'm not a big fan of software patents in general -- but this doesn't sound anything like: "patenting wifi hotspot access". More like: "patenting an integrated, account-managed, token passing, billing system for accessing multiple diverse wifi-hotspot vendor systems". I.e. Much narrower and a based on a product built on basic wifi access.
In short: Boingo was granted a patent on their software that makes it easier to manage all those wifi accounts you have to set up if you travel a lot and use a bunch of different carriers. Not wifi access in general.
The editors should consider amending the front page summary because its very misleading.
We are agents of the free
"As you may be aware, we have been in litigation with Nomadix for over 18 months, and the financial and operational pressures of continuing that litigation have made it impossible for us to continue to operate. We have done everything in our power to avoid this step, but we have now run out of time, money and any viable alternatives."
Killed by Nomadix's patents: http://www.ip3.com/
...I'm okay with this superfluous patent.
Normally, I'd be outraged (okay, maybe just irritated) with patenting something this silly. But if the end result is the prevention of somebody reproducing Boingo's client, we all win.
The Boingo client is just another resident program that adds nothing useful to the desktop environment. It just delays my boot up time, takes up memory, and occasionally crashes or updates itself. If I wanted that, I'd get Adobe Reader, thanks.
When I rush through an airport and want Wifi, I don't want to have to install a client. Windows may not get everything right, but it has a perfectly good wifi selection system that other hotspot providers are okay with. Maybe this patent will prevent OS's from incorporating this marginally useful feature, and that might be a shame (if anyone really cares). But I don't want hotspot-specific software on my computer, doubtlessly pushing advertising and God knows what else upon me.
Not that this is a sustainable patent (it seems pretty obvious to anyone skilled in the art).
I wish that were true, but it's not those guys we have have to worry about.
You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
Why can't people just find an *honest* way to earn a living any more? F'ing losers...
If you ask me Boingo sucks. I was pissed too, they did the same thing to me and refused to refund the extra charges. I live in FL, but Bogus Boingo Wireless is based in South Santa Monica, California. I wrote the attorney general there and asked him to investigate Boingo business practices. I have also filed a complaint with the FL state attorney and the CA Better Business Bureau. That is not all, I am on a mission. I bought ihateboingoDOTcom I am currently working on the website. Boingo needs to be exposed, they are conducting the same business practices that Blockbuster had attempted and looked where it took Blockbuster. If you do a search online, youâ(TM)ll see people complaining about fraudulent charges from all over the world. They will give you access alright as long as you give them unlimited access to your bank account. Here is my story
I was on vacation flying from ATL (Atlanta) to CDG (France). Since I was going to arrive to France late, I needed to contact my hotel and the car rental agency to let them know that I would arrive late. Unfortunately I had no way to call, my only option was through the Internet. When I fired up my browser, one of the option was Boingo - Bogus. I thought I sign up for just a month â" a month later I was charged for another month. When I called to cancel the service, I was on hold for almost half hour. When I finally reached someone from customer service, she was very unhappy with me because I was canceling the service. The last monthly charge was on 6-15-09. I had sent an email to them instructing them to cancel the account and refund the $9.95. I got an email back saying please call customer service to cancel. To make a long story short customer service failed to refund me the $9.95 even though I have only used their service once. Boingo just made the biggest mistake because I will let the world know how sucks their service is. I enjoy demolishing greedy companies like Boingo. I was a big advocate when Blockbuster decided to sell movies to customers if they didnâ(TM)t return them without making customers aware of the charge beforehand â" that has resulted blockbustervictimsDOTcom . I predict that Boingo will go out of business pretty soon if they continue on this path. The service itself is a mith, they are doing the same greedy things that several companies have tried and continue to do until someone like Math and others say enough is enough. Itâ(TM)s good that they monitor blogs, but I donâ(TM)t think theyâ(TM)ll be able to keep up â" soon the internet will be flooded with hating Boingo Wireless website and Iâ(TM)ll be the first one to put one up and report them. Bogus Boingo, you are in for a fight â" see you on ihateboingoDOTcom and how about Bogusboingo.com GREED MY FRIEND, IT WILL TAKE YOU NOWHERE
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IS NEXT - LOOKING FOR A LAWYER THAT WILL TAKE THE CASE