Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Your Rights Online

Patent on Wireless Transfer of Pupil Data 27

Posted by timothy from the cybiko-is-in-trouble dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Patent on Wireless Transfer of Pupil Data More

Patent on Wireless Transfer of Pupil Data

Comments Filter:
  • How can wireless data transfer of any specific type of data be patentable when we've had wireless digital transmission for decades? Perhaps starting with Aloha wireless ethernet in Hawaii done with university, state and federal cooperation? This seems patently absurd!
    • I think morse code kind of predates ethernet!

    • This seems patently absurd
      Most of the patent system is absurd.
      BTW, was that pun intentional?
    • How can wireless data transfer of any specific type of data be patentable when we've had wireless digital transmission for decades? Perhaps starting with Aloha wireless ethernet in Hawaii done with university, state and federal cooperation? This seems patently absurd!

      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?

  • Isn't all pupil data transferred wireless?

    (Leastwise ain't nobody stickin' any wires in my pupils!)
  • Since my one of my schools has been using 3 airport base stations and numerous airport cards to exctend the lan into portable classrooms, I guess we are in violation of this patent. All the airport equipment cost under $3000 compared to over $10000 for the lowest bid to cable these classrooms that will be moved or ripped out by next summer because of permenant construction. Frankly, this company can go fork themselves.

    This is potentially a direct attack on Apple since they have the greatest marketshare in schools and certainly pioneered 802.11b in the classroom.
  • What's a sequel server?
    I always thought that the spiffy .NET technologies incorporated a Structured Query Language server - I've never heard of Sequel server. Maybe this /is/ an innovative product.

    </sarcasm>
    • Actually, wasn't it called sequel originally? (As in Structured English QUEry Language)....
    • Sequel was a database "language" that existed before SQL was standardized. I do know beyond a shadow of a doubt that people who refer to SQL as Sequel are quite incorrect.

      Sequel != SQL!
      (dang, it won't let me use the angle bracket not equal notation!)
  • When I first saw the headline, I thought it meant "pupil" as in "eye"...

    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?
  • I think patents should be about protecting specific ways of doing something. For example, you should be able to patent a "fork" but not "using a tool to get food to your mouth".

    This patent is very much of the latter sort.

    .

    • I think patents should be about protecting specific ways of doing something. For example, you should be able to patent a "fork" but not "using a tool to get food to your mouth".



      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.

      • I don't think you should be able to patent "transmission of text data within a TV signal", but you should be able to patent the way you did it (and the specifics should be fairly narrow).

        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...

        .
        • Hmm, I aggree with you. I wish I'd thought of that.
        • I don't think you should be able to patent "transmission of text data within a TV signal", but you should be able to patent the way you did it (and the specifics should be fairly narrow).

          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.

          • 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.


            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.
            .

  • Dont send them over the internet, it might get routed via 801.11b, or even IP over Avian Carrier!
  • 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.
    Umm... not quite. You didn't read the press release fully. It says:
    its patent [delphion.com] relating to the transfer of pupil data in education by radio
    PDAs and handhelds primarily use infrared which is different. It seems more likely it would apply to a laptop which uses 802.11 (or a handheld with wireless ethernet). This seems extremely obvious, though. But I suppose if the patent office will grant a patent for using a laser pointer to exercise a cat, they'll grant just about anything.
    • its patent [delphion.com] relating to the transfer of pupil data in education by radio


      PDAs and handhelds primarily use infrared which is different.



      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.

      • 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.
        You are correct, but it has been my impression that most people make a distinction between transmissions in the radio range and transmissions in the "light" range, at least enough of a distinction that a case could be made that it is different enough to cause the patent to not be applicable when using infrared.
        • You are correct, but it has been my impression that most people make a distinction between transmissions in the radio range and transmissions in the "light" range, at least enough of a distinction that a case could be made that it is different enough to cause the patent to not be applicable when using infrared.

          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.

  • For anyone considering fighting this, student information was being transferred over wireless connections at the University of Illinois on the PLATO system before 1992. While the wireless endpoints were not portable, this would invalidate most of the patent (IMHO).

    BTW, this patent really sucks.

  • Is it possible for the governemnt or FCC to actually put pandents and ownership on spcific frequncys? It would be understandable if the company who "owns" this frequency to claim rights to it, but it's local and in the air, floating around out there. Which considerably is part of the world, and no one owns the world, not even Microsoft... yet. I suppose I have no point into writing this, but feed back on the essentials own frequency clams would be great. --Drake
    • Because the range of useable frequencies is limited, they are parsed out by the government who grants licenses to use a given frequency band. If there were infinite bandwidth out there for all to use, I would agree with you. But if there were no regulations, then whoever had the most powerful transmitter could just take over all the airwaves. Which would be MUCH worse than it is now, where whoever has the most MONEY takes over....

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close