Boingo Awarded a Patent For Hotspot Access 105
Posted
by
kdawson
from the pay-up-everyone dept.
from the pay-up-everyone dept.
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.
Can we bring back real patent examiners now? (Score:4, Insightful)
The key element of the claims (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Impossible (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Or going after the recordable media manufacturers and demanding royalties because "it could be used to record copyrighted media." I have complete faith that such things would never come to pass.
This is not innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dead on arrival... (Score:3, Insightful)
No no no, this isn't an editor this is kdawson. kdawson is to $COMPETENTEDITOR as Ed Wood is to $COMPETENTDIRECTOR.
One day he'll pass into internets mythology like Biff.
Re:Dead on arrival... (Score:3, Insightful)
What people who claim to know something about patents "point out" is contradicted by the actual prosecution of patent violations, where the claims are construed rather more broadly than patent fans would imply.
In any case, that limitation is not significant. You could argue that aggregating multiple access points within the same ESSID covers it. But even if it doesn't, there's nothing patent-worthy about abstracting carrier information to present a higher-level summary to the user. Even if it hasn't been done in exactly this scenario (which is apparently what the patent office thinks is "novel"), similar things have been done often enough that it's certainly not patent-worthy... that is, it's obvious.
Re:Dead on arrival... (Score:2, Insightful)
I couldn't agree more. *flame on* Most of the slashdotters just wave their hands and say "oh this is SOOOO obvious..blah blah blah" but hardly any try to actually find something that teaches the "obvious" invention (that published before the filing date). It's always "oh everyone knows that". Well, if everyone knows it then it shouldn't take but a few seconds on google, should it?
I'm all for the patent statutes being amended and the system being overhauled, but geez, don't bash the examining corp for following the current law. If you think a patent is invalid and is threatening your business or innovation FILE A REEXAM OF THE PATENT. It's cheaper than litigation and if you think the patent is "bad" then supply the art and invalidate the thing. Geez. *flame off*.