E-Pass Can Resue Patent Case Against Palm 190
kisrael writes "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that a patent held by
E-Pass may have been infringed by Palm and other PDA makers even though their devices are larger than 'credit-card sized.' 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.'"
Umm...hello? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Umm...hello? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Umm...hello? (Score:3, Interesting)
The patent is for the device consept of a credit card sized device that holds credit card data.
In other words you picked the grand prize of prior art that fits the patent description so long as you disguard the fact that this is just one application of a brouder device.
The palm however defys the patent as it's not a credit card sized d
Yep. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Umm...hello? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Umm...hello? (Score:2, Informative)
I can do better than that (Score:2)
I should know because in 1993 I was developing smartcard applications to do exactly what their patent covers (multiple accounts, PIN's, credit card info, etc.). And there were many more companies doing it years before that.
In case you didn't know, smartcards are credit card sized computers and I imagine the E-pass patent is for a smartcard or smartcard-like device. The problem is people were doing what the patent covers well before this E-pass garbage came along.
This is
Re:Umm...hello? (Score:2)
Re:Umm...hello? (Score:2)
Or see one of those stupid Casio calculator/phone # storing watch circa 1980s... smaller than a credit card.
Re:Umm...hello? (Score:2)
(I had one of those too...;)
Re:Umm...hello? (Score:2)
I thought I remembered having something like that in high school... {hmmm}... maybe it was just the calculator version.
I've got one too. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I've got one too. (Score:2)
2. Sue Everyone.
3. Profit
Infringement? (Score:5, Informative)
--Jasin Natael
Applications can be secure (Score:2, Informative)
I use Keyring [sourceforge.net] to store most of my passwords. It encrypts all the passwords with 3DES using a key derived from a passphrase I supply.
I expect this makes it secure against snooping on the wire during a hotsync. I think the passphrase would be needed to cause any harm.
Rich
That judge needs a dictionary (Score:5, Insightful)
concept of allowing patents on a concept is crazy. Whatever happened
to the american dream of building a better mouse trap? In this day
an age it seems someone could patent the idea of catching mice, and
if you attempt to build a better one, you better watch out.
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!!
Somehow, the country needs to be mobilized against this more
expansive more generic term of patents. It used to be that your
device had to be 20% different than a patented device. It seems now
though, it just has to be vaguely the same as the concept patented,
and you could be infringing. Of course the judge didn't specifically
rule in favor of E-Pass, rather he just said the District judge was
incorrect when he threw out the case based on size. So it seems like
now there is caselaw that allows you to argue that a very specific
wording in your patent like "credit card sized" can instead be
applied generically to small.
More fun times with the legal system.
Re:That judge needs a dictionary (Score:5, Insightful)
Patent cases without exact blueprints or without real product should never be considered as proof. So if someone registers a "something car-sized used for transportation, but using nature friendly material, that works something like a common fuel" he can sue anybody that would try to make a progress on car technologies.
In my opinion patents should have exact blueprints and timeline as obligate in order to make possible to differentiate that 20%.
Re:That judge needs a dictionary (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1994 the only possibly interesting thing about a "credit-card sized computer that can store [data] and access [data]" is that it is credit-card sized. Take that away, as the judge did, and the rest is just a computer.
By 1994 I already owned an Apple Newton which could store and access data. My major complaint at the time was that it was too big. I knew eventually it could be made smaller, since that's just how computers go (better, faster, smaller). Based on that I say "credit-card sized" doesn't make this patentable, since that's just a matter of time making that possible. E-Pass didn't come up with the idea of making things smaller, and making a smaller computer has always been an insanely obvious thing to do.
I think by expanding this patent by removing the "credit card sized" restriction, they're simply exposing it as something that can and should be easily defeated by abundant prior art, as others have said, in the multitude of computers that had been created before 1994.
Re:That judge needs a dictionary (Score:2, Insightful)
dude (Score:2)
Re:That judge needs a dictionary (Score:2)
Oh, I expect they gave him a lot more than just a dictionary to bu... er... obtain this decision. But if he had wanted a dictionary they would have likely given him that too.
Re:That judge needs a dictionary (Score:2)
the opposite of over-general patents (Score:5, Interesting)
What we have here is a patent on a extremely specific type of device for a single, specific purpose. It so happens that palmtop PCs are general Turing machines and are capable of reproducing this behavior as well as MANY MANY others. Can the the patent holders of a piece of software now go after the manufacturers of any programming language which would be capable of instantiating that program?
I mean come on, I would like to see anyone make an argument that the MAIN purpose of PDAs is strooing credit card information.
Re:the opposite of over-general patents (Score:1, Interesting)
Since a general TM has an infinite amount of memory, can you explain how I can make my palm reproduce the behavior of an identical palm with 200 gig of memory? Of course adding more hardware isn't an option because it's already got infinite memory in its turing machine.
While we're at it, the non-deterministic turning machine is no more powerful than the standard TM (and ca
Re:the opposite of over-general patents (Score:2)
Re:the opposite of over-general patents (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, why not just patent software? Then anything anyone did with modern technology would be yours...
It seems that US Patent office is an international joke. How can you patent a concept? In some cases, it's not even a concept, it seems that people are out there patenting their brainstorms. They provide few or no implementation details or defining characteristics for the device or process they propose to patent; instead they simply state a broad type of functionality and are granted a patent on it.
Think about it... People are essentially patenting any problem they can think of. Somebody may someday need to get water to higher ground but won't have room for any extra pipe in their installation. So we'll patent "method for distributing large amounts of low viscosity liquied to higher elevations without the use of piping or tubing." Someone else may need a heart monitor that can run while the power is out, so we'll patent "method for measuring consistent bodily function in the absence of availability of electricity" and so on and so on.
Anyone else happens to actually solve one of these problems with their hard work, and *boom*, they get sued for having actually produced something, for actually having solved the problem! Instead if them being rewarded in any way by a grateful society, the patent owner alone gets rich, because they already patented the solution to that problem in general terms, whatever it may be.
And of course who has the time and resources to file patent after patent after patent? Large companies and concerns supported by venture capitalists. The rich get richer in essence because there is a government agency through which they can pre-emptively say "All your base are belong to us!"
Sweet! (Score:2)
*runs* to the patent office...
Yeah, I agree with you. The system is totally broken. The patent system is running on flat tyres and eventually the rims will start to grind against the pavement and shatter.
On a related note, I think the broken-ness of the patent system would be more obvious if members of the hard drive industry and other oligopolous industries didn't collude and cross-license patents with each other.
If this failure (and others) of the patent system was
Casio (Score:5, Interesting)
Man, talk about vague... (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, the human brain is a "computer" that allows its user 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".
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The USPTO is a joke.
Re:Man, talk about vague... (Score:5, Funny)
And in the case of E-Pass executives, the human brain is credit card sized as well.
Re:Man, talk about vague... (Score:1)
What I would like to see is a super card or meta card where all of your credit card info are entered into it and the user can select which card they want to use. No more carrying around a dozen different credit cards, store cards, etc. - one card does it all!
By the way, I'd strongly advise against losing that card!
Patent wars... (Score:5, Interesting)
Two years later, in 2002, E-Pass extended its action by filing similar suits against Compaq and Microsoft. It alleged Microsoft had actually tried to buy the patent for $10 million. E-Pass said if refused to sell, and claimed that Microsoft subsequently behaved as if it had never heard of the patent.
I wonder if we are getting to a point where patents are being used not to protect products a company makes, but to force others to pay for what they make? Can I patent every idea I have, and then sue others who have the same idea and make something of it?
Re:Patent wars... (Score:1)
Yes
Re:Patent wars... (Score:2)
You can patent, or at least attempt to patent, every idea you have. You can sue others who implement that idea. Making something of it depends on how things go.
Patents aren't free. Lawsuits aren't free. So unless you have lots of money, you're probably better off patenting your concept, then selling the patent to one of those companies that buys patents for lawsuit purposes. (I don't recall any nam
Re:Patent wars... (Score:1)
And to make a living by suing someone else who is making a usefull product is wrong. Society is shooting itself in the foot.
Re:Patent wars... (Score:2)
Because patents get published. Theoretically, you'd only get a patent if your invention was unobvious; giving you a patent (which you can then use to extort money from other people) is better than having your invention remain unpublished because you're not interested in doing anything with it.
The patent system fails where it gives patents for inventions which would be rediscovered and published anyway.
Really.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Too broad (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Too broad--not really (Score:4, Insightful)
bullshit (Score:2)
Did the patent in question use a dragonball processor? I think not.
did the patent in question allow for user programmability and expansion of memory? I think not.
Should the issue go to cout? Yes; just to dismiss it once and for all.
When Microsoft offers your $10 million for an unenforcable patent, take it.
Thisis a... (Score:5, Interesting)
...prime example of patent abuse. It's not like the technology was stolen, or a trade secret was infringed upon. If someone mimics your product and makes it better than yours, you shouldn't be allowed to sue. That would be like the USPTO allowing Ford to sue Honda for "patent infringement". Completely unwise, in a few years, a patent suit isn't going to be too far detached from corporal punishment.
"On the Moon, nerds get their pants pulled down and are spanked with Moon rocks!" "Now drop those sweat pants right now! " - Aqua Teen Hunger Force
Re:Thisis a... (Score:2)
You mean patent infringers will be whacked across the rear end with a cane? I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting.
Doubtful they will succeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doubtful they will succeed (Score:2)
Yeah, I think everyone is reading the point of the judgement wrong here. The ruling is probably more of along the lines of a judge saying:
"The size issue is not a reason this patent infringement claim should be rejected...(cough)Dedicated-vs-GeneralPurpose design(cough)."
Dear E-PASS (Score:5, Funny)
Sincerely,
Bender
patenting dreams in US? (Score:2)
Re:Dear E-PASS (Score:2)
We are unable to comment on the credit-card sized device(tm) at this time.
However, your shiny, credit-card sized ass is in violation of our patent. You have 30 days to either pay us $30-million in licensing fees, or surrender your ass to us.
Sincerely,
E-Pass
What's the infringement claim? (Score:5, Interesting)
Display boxes (Score:3, Insightful)
comprising at least two display boxes in which data can be displayed by electronic activation
The Palm OS supports windowing. This creates virtual "display boxes."
The Palm OS supports synchronization with PC-side PIM software. The Palm device has a "display box"; the PC has another.
Re:What's the infringement claim? (Score:2)
I suspect the inventor imagined a card with 3-4 LED displays, one for cc number, one for exp date, and one for name.
specific words ignored? (Score:2)
If the author had intended to indicate a range of sizes surely a range would have been specified.
Re:specific words ignored? (Score:1)
The above quote totally backs that idea up. How can you be any less generic than to state a specific size of a common object which cannot vary in size? Either this judge is completely daft our he's never tried to put a PDA through a credit-card read
Re:specific words ignored? (Score:2)
I think what Judge Jensen is trying to say is that the patent isn't about the size of the object. Patents are about function. He essentially kiccked it back down to the lower court and told the lower court judge "you have to find a functional reason to reject this patent suit, doofus"
Don't read too much into this (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, the court only posts its decisions in MS Word format, but if you want to read it, here's the link: E-Pass Technologies v. 3Com, Inc. [fedcir.gov]
Don't read too much into this decision. The court hasn't found that there was infringement, only that the lower court nees to take a closer look at the issue. (In legal terms, the court of appeals overturned a grant of summary judgment by the lower court, meaning that the lower court has to hear additional evidence and/or reconsider its application of law before it can render a final judgment.) This is an interim opinion, but the case is not over yet.
ITS A LOSS JUST THE SAME (Score:2)
Re:Don't read too much into this (Score:2)
Hmm... perhaps we can ascertain more information [slashdot.org] than the decision wanted us to know! Gotta love when
Re:Don't read too much into this (Score:2)
pathetic patents (Score:5, Insightful)
"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"
This is a patent on a small computer. And in what way is this innovative enough to warrant a freaking patent? The other day I had to hook up two cables but had two male ends. So I dig in my parts box and get a gender changer - lo and behold there's a freaking patent number on it. Simply put there are very few things that are drastically different now days to typically warrant a patent at all. Most patents now days are simply ridiculous rehashing of things that have existed for years but in different places, with different uses, or merely different sizes and shapes. If anything, the current patent system is just choking modern innovation.
Re:pathetic patents (Score:1)
Solution... (Score:2, Funny)
Prior art in fiction? (Score:2, Interesting)
Would that work? In the Netherlands, there was a patent case once about the idea of salvaging sunk ships by filling them with air-filled ping-pong balls; the patent was denied because the idea had been used before in a Donald Duck comic. Is fiction a valid
Re:Prior art in fiction? (Score:1)
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent
And, if we are going to madly overgeneralize, why not offer up the credit card itself as a prior art? Its credit card sized, it stores credit card data...
Re:Prior art in fiction? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually the idea of credit card sized devices was not forseen in sifi. However the 1980's saw a flood of such devices.
What the patent is actually trying to claim... (Score:3, Funny)
However, any computer is "multifunction", and "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."
Therefore, this is actually a patent for:
>>> A small ("credit card-sized") computer.
Gee. I'll bet nobody else thought of that.
Look for prior art on Star Trek.
patent ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even though you can debate about wether this patent should have been granted, I think the law made a mistake here.
Re:patent ? (Score:2)
I think the judge was trying to correct a mistake here by throwing it back to the lower court and saying relative size, particularly when you can't patent something based on size alone, is not a legitimate reason to rule "no infringement". Essentially, the judge was ruling that the previous judge was off his
Re:patent ? (Score:2)
Sue Apple then... (Score:2, Insightful)
They could be like the company in the Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy that sends the guide back in time to win a copyright infringement suit off the prior art/info they copied to create the guide.
Well, with a name like e-pass(e). Could you expect the patent o
Re:Sue Apple then... (Score:2)
Case closed.
Remember, this just means that the judge says to look at it - it doesn't mean they won anything. If size doesn't matter, maybe Apple can sue epass
Re:Apple can sue for a cut! (Score:2)
Paper and pen included? (Score:1)
real credit card sized stuff ... (Score:3, Informative)
All prior art aside.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yikes! (Score:5, Funny)
"May you litigate in interesting times".
Confused... (Score:3, Informative)
Wait, doesn't this mean E-Pass could sue OOCEA for trademark dilution?
Re:Confused... (Score:2)
"famous"? (Score:2)
What's the formal definition of famous?
Re:"famous"? (Score:3, Informative)
Largely, though, they amount to whether it is "famous" in the ordinary sense of being well-known and widely identified in the target market with the senior user's goods or services, which E-Pass obviously is not.
Patents, then and now... (Score:3, Interesting)
Now: Inventor creates something, copycat secures patent, sues inventor.
When will the madness stop!!
PS: I know the movie you get "Springtime for Hitler" from
Prior Art (Score:3, Informative)
Prior Art? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Prior Art? (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of the prior art cited around here also seems to be based on the date that the patent was issued, instead of the filing date (or priority date) or the patent. In order for something to be prior art it must meet the requirements as set forth in the claims and have been publicly known before the filing (or priority) date of the patent in question.
MODERATORS - Mod Parent Up! (Score:2)
improving a patent (Score:2)
Sorry, E-Pass, Palm improved upon your patent even if your patent applied.
Note to self: (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sorry, but... (Score:2)
Initial patents and the today patents (Score:3, Interesting)
With these weird patent rules, innovation is also quite hard. If you want to improve your site by implementing 1-click shopping then you are in trouble. Or if you want to develop a browser with plugin, you can't distribute the browser for free.
I know some people who patent some basic things just because they know that in the future they can sue companies on these basic ideas. They can afford to that because they are rich, on the other hand it is impossible for me to do the same, because even though my ideas are more complex, trying to make money out of those ideas are extremely resource intensive.
Lots of Prior Art (Score:2)
In the mid 80's I had a Radio Shack pocket computer that could be used to store important information, programmed in BASIC with various applications, and more. It was about the same size as a palm height and depth, but was just a bit longer. It also only had one or two line LCD display.
Then in 1990/1991 there was the Casio B.O.S.S. and the Sharp OZ-9500 (and lower models) data organizers. These were much more like Palms in that they had mult
E-Pass - it's for casinos, music, and drugs (Score:3, Funny)
What about patent reform? (Score:2)
I'll start off. I don't think software patents should be granted. Is that a reasonable first step? What other ideas
I'm actually drafting a document on general problems with IP laws in this country (to give to various elected officials who despite popular belief actually do pay attention), and I would love to incorporate some good thoughts.
Re:What about patent reform? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see:
Abolish software patents.
Patent only implementations - not ideas (like it should be and was until recently).
Make it so that patent holders can't extort infringers.
Define "obvious" a little more clearly. Many of these patents are "clearly" obvious but still make it through the courts.
If 2 or more people invent essentially the same thing without
Final analysis. (Score:2)
I think I will go get a ticket to the bar, there finally i
typo on headline, sorry (Score:2)
Star trek tricorder prior art? (Score:2)
Re:Star trek tricorder prior art? (Score:2, Insightful)
You just neatly encapsulated what I see as the most massive flaw in our patenting system.
If someone toils by the sweat of his brow to bring something into existence, he should get some sort of protection for *that* implementation. - I thought that was what our patent system was for - so others couldn't see what he had done and go directly into production neatly skipping all the research and failed attempts.
And now we patent dreams? Without substantiation? This just rewar
They'll never win. (Score:2)
Obvious advances in technology (Score:2)
Palm security? (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, damn... (Score:2)
Prior art back to 1990 or so (Score:2)