Patent on Wireless Transfer of Pupil Data 27
hjayres writes: "London based Company Bromcom has a patent on 'wireless pupil data transfer' and is suing companies they feel have broken this patent. If a school wants to use the government grants available to reduce truancy by wireless linking pupil attendance records on PDAs and handhelds have to first pay Bromcom for the licence. Is this potentially more damaging than BT's Hyperlink scam? This also includes open source Learning Management Systems that are used over Wireless. The Patent applies in the USA."
Greedy Corp Bully Robbing Schools of Grant$ (Score:1)
Re:Greedy Corp Bully Robbing Schools of Grant$ (Score:2)
Re:Greedy Corp Bully Robbing Schools of Grant$ (Score:2, Insightful)
This is another scam. IMHO, the new BT.
Re:Greedy Corp Bully Robbing Schools of Grant$ (Score:1)
Most of the patent system is absurd.
BTW, was that pun intentional?
Re:Greedy Corp Bully Robbing Schools of Grant$ (Score:1)
They did not patent "wireless data transfer" of any specific type of data, they patented a set of steps invovled in reporting student attendance data using RF frequencies. In order to infringe their patent, you would have to actually fulfill each and every element of their claims. Their claims are not nearly as broad as you would think. Here is their first claim. Remember you would have to fulfill each and every element in order to infringe.
1. A method of electronically registering student attendance data comprising:
(a) storing a plurality of student names in a central collection station;
(b) downloading at least one set of student names from said plurality of student names stored in said central data collection station to at least one portable data collection device using a wireless radio-frequency link and storing the downloaded set of student names in said at least one portable data collection device;
(c) accessing said set of student names stored in said portable data collection device;
(d) displaying one select student name from said set of student names on a visual display of said portable data collection device;
(e) prompting an operator of said portable data collection device to input attendance data for said select student name into said portable data collection device, said input attendance data including one of a first input indicating that the student having the select displayed name is present, a second input indicating that the student having the select displayed name is absent, and a third input indicating that the student having the select displayed name is tardy;
(f) storing said input attendance data for each select student name in said at least one portable data collection device;
(g) repeating steps (d)-(f) for each student name in said downloaded set of student names;
(h) uploading said input student attendance data from said portable data collection device to said central data collection station using said wireless radio-frequency link;
(i) storing said input attendance data in said central data collection station; and,
(j) generating a student attendance report using said attendance data stored in said central data collection station.
It doesn't look so bad now, does it?
ROFL! (Score:1)
(Leastwise ain't nobody stickin' any wires in my pupils!)
Airport (Score:2)
This is potentially a direct attack on Apple since they have the greatest marketshare in schools and certainly pioneered 802.11b in the classroom.
SQL - sequel? (Score:1)
I always thought that the spiffy
</sarcasm>
Re:SQL - sequel? (Score:1)
Re:SQL - sequel? (Score:1)
Sequel != SQL!
(dang, it won't let me use the angle bracket not equal notation!)
When I first saw the headline... (Score:2)
And I though...I have to pay if I want wireless transmission of pupil data? So if I don't pay, what, do I have to jam fiber optics into both eyes?
Thoughts... (Score:2)
This patent is very much of the latter sort.
.
Re:Thoughts... (Score:2)
It's a matter of inovativeness. I should be able to patent, say, transmission of text data within a TV signal, but not using said data to, say, transmit tv listings for that channel.
This patent is roughly equivalant to patenting transmission of medical imagery over the internet.
Re:Thoughts... (Score:2)
I think patents should be about protecting the work involved in researching and implementing a solution to a problem. You shouldn't be able to patent every solution to a problem. EG: you can patent your new photocopier that does this and this, but you can't patent the idea of making copies of paper documents. You can patent your compression algorithm. You can't patent "compressing video data using an algorithm".
Likely there's problems with this idea of patent law, I'd be obliged to hear anyone's thoughts...
.
Re:Thoughts... (Score:2)
Re:Thoughts... (Score:1)
You have basically pegged the way patent law actually is in the US. Their claims don't claim "transferring student data via RF", they claim something much narrower, namely their particular method of collecting and reporting student attendance data. Your examples of how it should be are actually the way the system is intended to work. Occasionally overbroad claims are patented, but that is why we have infringement suits and invalidation proceedings--to filter out the bad ones that make it through. If people want a better filter (i.e., better PTO), then give'em more money. Then they can hire PhDs and give them enough time to actually search the art carefully.
Re:Thoughts... (Score:2)
Sounds great - us Canadians just assume the US patent office must have dumb rules, as all we hear about are the dumb ones that get through.
I guess it's probably a harder job than we give them credit for, given the breadth of patentable work. Perhaps, as you say, more funding (or perhaps management reform?) is the answer.
Thanks.
.
Routing (Score:2)
Not exactly PDAs (Score:1)
Re:Not exactly PDAs (Score:2)
The only diffrence between the 2 is wavelength and frequency (which is only one thing since ethier one can be used to find the other). It's all just elecrtomagnetic radition.
Re:Not exactly PDAs (Score:1)
Re:Not exactly PDAs (Score:1)
The claims themselves (there were 2 independent claims) state "radio" frequency, which should technically limit the device to what is commonly understood as RF to those of skill in this art (i.e., telecom).
In their specification, they say that although they refer to RF as the way to do it, other ways can be used. However, this is in conflict with their claims, which specifically say RF, and which would probably be interpreted to limiting the scope of the claims to using actual RF frequencies. The problem: You won't really know for sure what the scope is until you go to court and ask the judge.
The claims in the patent look pretty narrow anyway, and there are several steps one would have to fulfill in order to actually infringe on their patent.
Prior Art Reference (Score:1)
BTW, this patent really sucks.
Patants on frequency's?? (Score:1)
Re:Patants on frequency's?? (Score:1)