Never even heard of this patent issue. I followed all the links and nothing really told me why I shouldn't like this thingamajig they're doing. So....tell me...what are people protesting against?
Economists decry
the proposed directive as bad economic policy.
I particularly recommend this lengthy
critique
which fully explains the situation, complete with many links to economic studies and DOJ testimony.
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.'
It looks like the text in (single) quotes is directly from the patent. That is not the case at all.
dtolton wrote:
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!!
The phrase "credit card sized" does not appear even once in the patent. The "Advantages of the Invention" section does say "[p]articular advantages are provided by the simple form of the electronic multi-function card which has the outer dimensions of usual credit or check cards." The appeals court decision
noted that "[i]nterpretation of descriptive statements in a patent's written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment." So it is clear that the basis of the appeals court's ruling is not "credit card sized" doesn't really mean "credit card sized".
Also of interest, the appeals court refers to definitions of the word "card" from two different dictionaries.
I have read both the patent and the decision, and frankly I find them both unreasonable.
It is sad that this decision is only available in a proprietary format like Microsoft Word when there are so many better options.
Slashdot Mirror
Flingles wrote:
Economists decry the proposed directive as bad economic policy. I particularly recommend this lengthy critique which fully explains the situation, complete with many links to economic studies and DOJ testimony.
kisrael wrote:
It looks like the text in (single) quotes is directly from the patent. That is not the case at all.
dtolton wrote:
The phrase "credit card sized" does not appear even once in the patent. The "Advantages of the Invention" section does say "[p]articular advantages are provided by the simple form of the electronic multi-function card which has the outer dimensions of usual credit or check cards." The appeals court decision noted that "[i]nterpretation of descriptive statements in a patent's written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment." So it is clear that the basis of the appeals court's ruling is not "credit card sized" doesn't really mean "credit card sized".
Also of interest, the appeals court refers to definitions of the word "card" from two different dictionaries.
I have read both the patent and the decision, and frankly I find them both unreasonable.
It is sad that this decision is only available in a proprietary format like Microsoft Word when there are so many better options.