Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Privacy

Intermec Claims RFID is Proprietary 210

Posted by CowboyNeal from the bought-the-right dept.
seeks2know writes "Line56.com reports that Intermec is claiming patents on RFID chips, readers, and tags. They have launched their first lawsuit against Matrics. They seek to sell licenses to all RFID manufacturers. Erik Michielsen of ABI Research states '...this definitely clouds the UHF Generation 2 standards discussions and is fueling considerable animosity in the industry.' Interestingly, the patents that Intermec is claiming were acquired in their acquisition of IBM's RFID laboratory in December, 1997. Another case of a submarine patent strategy?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intermec Claims RFID is Proprietary More

Intermec Claims RFID is Proprietary

Comments Filter:

  • They're using... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:23PM (#9648842)
    the evil of patents for good. Hmm, I think my head might explode.

  • No No No... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:23PM (#9648843)
    That's not the way to handle a submarine patent. Everyone knows what you're SUPPOSED to do is wait until every large and small company is using RFID and become totally dependant on it. THEN you hit them with the licensing and lawsuits. How do you expect to make any money if you stifle this before it gets really big. Bad Intermec! Bad dog!

    • Re:No No No... (Score:4, Funny)

      by NachoDaddy ( 696255 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:28PM (#9648866)
      No, you just have to wait for Walmart to adopt it, which is as good as the whole retail industry

    • Re:No No No... (Score:4, Funny)

      by xOleanderx ( 794187 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:28PM (#9648871)
      That is referred to as pulling a SCO.
      • ..wait, sco is still around?

      • Re:No No No... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by polin8 ( 170866 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @10:19PM (#9649105) Homepage

        "Pulling an SCO" is a flawed variation of the "submarine patent strategy". Your supposed to wait till every company large and small depends on the technology, then start suing the small companies, not the big (IBM sized) ones.

        • Pulling a SCO (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Still missing something. You need to make sure you dont actually have the patent, but have a patent which contains similar words (such as "the" or "and") and sue everyone who infringes the patent as well as the true patent holder. But never, ever show your patent to anyone.

    • Re:No No No... (Score:5, Informative)

      by ICA ( 237194 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @11:23PM (#9649404)
      Okay, first of all I am biased, because I work for Intermec (in wireless LANs, not RFID though).

      Disclaimer aside, you're exactly right, this is not meant to be a submarine patent. We have put a lot of time and money into R&D and want to protect that investment. However, we did not wait until it was late and adopted, and then create some rediculous premise for suing the pants off everybody.

      The strategy the company is trying to take is that of fair licensing to all who wish to use the technology.

      I know the Slashdot crowd will likely rake me over the coals for stating all of this, saying we are just evil and greedy. However, we are a R&D-driven company, and it helps pay my paycheck.

      • Re:No No No... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Java Ape ( 528857 ) <mike,briggs&360,net> on Friday July 09, 2004 @11:25AM (#9652382) Homepage
        Frankly, I have no quarrel with people who have made significant, non-intuitive advancements in technology (usually requiring them to invest time and effort), patenting their work and deriving a profit therefrom. That's what patents are designed to do.

        I don't know enough about Intermec, but it sounds like you folks are playing the game correctly. Kudos!

        The reason many people are rabid about patent enforcement is that the USPTO has been rubberstamping patents on everything from "the wheel" to "breathing", and every two-bit carpetbagger in the world is trying to get rich by patenting some trivial process and suing the world. Software patents, which have tended to be overly broad, are particularly vile. While the courts have proven reasonably sage in deciding the deluge of lawsuits, this remedy requires huge investments of time and money on the part of the accused.

        Like so many other areas, you are paying for the sins of those who have come before you. Guilty by association. If you have patented a valid technology, and your licensing fees are lower than the cost of developing an alternative, you deserver to enjoy the fruits of your labor, for 17 years, so don't mind the trolls!

  • Ladies and Gentlemen... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:24PM (#9648849) Homepage
    A good use for bad patents.

    Let the litigation begin!

    Maybe this will delay RFID rollouts untill some of the privacy issues are fixed?

  • IBM was this stupid? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IpsissimusMarr ( 672940 ) * on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:26PM (#9648854) Journal
    It is quite difficult to believe that IBM, the warehouse of over 10,000 patents sells a new industry in a sell-off. If they have the patents for RFID, I doubt they swindled it from IBM.

    • IBM was this stupid?-YES (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      DOS, OS/2, PC Jr.
    • When you grow up perhaps you will learn which company gave a small corp from Washington state is't start because they didn't think the PC would take off.

    • Re:IBM was this stupid? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 08, 2004 @10:56PM (#9649247)
      As someone pointed out, IBM is no stranger to 'being stupid.' However, without knowing the sums involved, this sale seems to have worked out well for them -- they got some revenue, and avoided hanging on to a conflict of interest themselves.

      Given their Linux strategy (which admittedly wasn't very thought-out in 1997, so this was probably just serendipity), and the fallout from the holocaust revelations, hanging on to an RFID card would've made the company's image uncomfortably 'evil.' Plus, IBM is simply too big to easily swing a patent like this -- people know how to do patent searches, and if there were even a chance IBM would try to collect revenue on it, a new consortium would've appeared to push a freer standard. Like Microsoft, they're often stuck filing more for their own protection than for actual profit. The smaller fish, in turn, *can* slip under the "sonar," so they're going to try to extract value from it IBM couldn't have leveraged, and hopefully paid well enough for the privilege.

      Ironically, I'm typing this on an IBM M-Pro from around 1998 or so, which includes a RFID 'asset tag' in its construction. Thankfully, the BIOS does allow disabling it; it was more to ease the 'Where's the machine on this pallet supposed to go?/What's this machine have in it, and who spilled coffee in the CD-ROM before we gave it to Bob?' questions than to actively prevent or track theft.
    • what they thought they bought..

      "Here buy our company including ALL copyrights it ownz!"
      "Ah sure that cool!"

      "(But we are keeping the patents gnagnagna)"

      Somehow this rings a bell..

      "/Dread"

  • It will be very interesting to see (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Clockwurk ( 577966 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:28PM (#9648864) Homepage
    how various luminaries react to this. I'd like to hear Stallman's take on this.

  • Win-Win (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hawkeyeMI ( 412577 ) <brock&brocktice,com> on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:28PM (#9648865) Homepage
    This is great. Even though submarine patents are not a good thing (my opinion) here we win either way. Many companies are annoyed by the patent on something they thought was an open standard, and RFID tag adoption is hindered.

    • Re:Win-Win (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 )
      " Many companies are annoyed by the patent on something they thought was an open standard, and RFID tag adoption is hindered." ... and evolved.

  • But you forget... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nametaken ( 610866 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:28PM (#9648867)
    ...Walmart is interested. They should license/resolve this pretty quickly. They can afford to. Then, it doesn't matter what the outcome of litigation is. The largest retailer in the world will be using them.

    • OT: Replying to sig... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NotQuiteReal ( 608241 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:33PM (#9648896) Journal
      We ought to track our elected representatives with RFID tags.

      I am pretty sure I didn't get to wander away from work as much as our public servants do, when I had a "real" job [Now that I work for myself, hey, If I run the kid down to the pool for an hour, who cares?].

    • licensing (Score:3, Interesting)

      by SuperBanana ( 662181 )
      They should license/resolve this pretty quickly. They can afford to. Then, it doesn't matter what the outcome of litigation is. The largest retailer in the world will be using them.

      Saying "oh, it'll be a drop in the bucket for walmart because they're so big" is not terribly insightful- in fact, it's downright asinine.

      Funny thing about licensing fees- they're often per-item, or based on the size(er, wealth) of the victim(er, licensee). It could very well cost Walmart hundreds of millions of dollars ove

    • Walmart doesn't like spending 0.01 USD more than it has too.

      Bush fact of the day: Supports abortion, just not in this country. When it happens in MFN china, it's OK.

  • Unfortunate news. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:28PM (#9648869) Homepage Journal
    Part of the useful quality of RFID tags are that, aside from being small enough to embed in just about everything you'd want to manage in an inventory system, they're also extremely inexpensive. Walmart was going to make this an industry, but patents may very well sink the whole ship.

    (Unwarranted?) privacy concerns aside, RFID will make goods cheaper by reducing shrinkage and the time taken from employees to hunt for a barcode. Now the money will go into someone else's pocket instead of staying in your own.

  • I'm not opposed to patents in general (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt AT nerdflat DOT com> on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:30PM (#9648877) Journal
    But things like this make me think that patents should be treated like trademarks, and if there is sufficient prior cases in which you did not defend your patent when you rightly should have, you lose the rights to the exclusivity that the patent would have otherwise offered.

    If you go and patent something, get on the ball and stop people from copying your ideas from the get go, rather than waiting 7 years, until apparently the tech has caught on, and then trying to make all your real money through litigation!!

    Assholes.

    • But things like this make me think that patents should be treated like trademarks, and if there is sufficient prior cases in which you did not defend your patent when you rightly should have, you lose the rights to the exclusivity that the patent would have otherwise offered.

      A nice idea, but not without flaws. For example, what if you make a really great new type of microchip which allows for ten times the current density of circuits. Are you going to have to purchase every electronic product and put it under a microscope to determine whether or not it's infringing so that you don't lose your rights?
      • True. THe real problme is too many patents.

        Just consider: if all patents vanished, how would we, the consumer and general public, be hurt? What products would we cease to have? Which companies or individuals would go bankrupt? Would innovation stop?

        • Re:I'm not opposed to patents in general (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Nasarius ( 593729 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @11:46PM (#9649524)
          Which companies or individuals would go bankrupt?

          All pharmaceutical companies. The cost to develop a single drug, from initial research through final FDA testing, averages slightly under $1 billion. Those costs simply cannot be recouped if you're immediately competing against generics from companies that didn't have to pay for the research or testing.

          • Re:I'm not opposed to patents in general (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward
            the generics would still have to reverse engineer it, and it would be a lot harder without the patent details. Not impossible, but certainly harder. innovations without a patent going into production would have to rely on obscurity for security, and society would adjust to it. Demand for the products in general terms would dictate it. Look at what is still produced that is out of patent now.

            There's no good solution to this patenting problem. Our society has let it get too complex, and allows patents for in
            • the generics would still have to reverse engineer it, and it would be a lot harder without the patent details. Not impossible, but certainly harder.

              Yes and no. They'll still know the "active ingredient" in a drug; it's just a matter of coming up with a cost-effective synthesis process. They already have to develop their own filler, which is the only thing that distinguishes generics from the brand-name drug. That's only a tiny fraction of what goes into the original drug development.

        • There are professional inventors and invention companies. They invent something, then sell the rights to it to another company to actually produce. You'd lose them.
        • It's not that innovation would stop. Rather, all innovation would become trade secrets, and everything would get hidden behind closed doors. The way it is now, things may take a long time to come into the public domain, but at least they do eventually. It seems like the better solution would be to reduce the length of (some) patents to bring them more in line with the speed at which technology and industry move these days.
      • Sure, but one wonders if one could have a patent abuse law passed whereby one could have an affirmative defence of "You should have known that all these products violated your precious patent. you did not prosecute them, therefore you are abusing your patent by not being up-front about it, and therefore I maintain that it should be voided."

        This does not mean that they have to go looking for the violations, but, like the GIF patents, when it is obvious that there are issues, that they MUST be prosecuted or
      • A nice idea, but not without flaws. For example, what if you make a really great new type of microchip which allows for ten times the current density of circuits. Are you going to have to purchase every electronic product and put it under a microscope to determine whether or not it's infringing so that you don't lose your rights?
        I don't think that's how trademarks work, if you invent some superduper comic book character do you now have to read every single comic, every single magazine, and every single w
        • I don't think that's how trademarks work, if you invent some superduper comic book character do you now have to read every single comic, every single magazine, and every single webcomic to be sure they aren't infringing so you don't lose your rights?

          No, I meant something else. With trademarks you can go and look for infringing uses of your mark with relative ease since trademarks are meant to be seen, whether it's a word or logo. If you trademarked GrokMan and you find someone else promoting their GrokM
      • While I agree you can't crack open everything and find if it infringes, there should be obviousness involved too. Here we have a company that's waiting until a standard is formed before going after anybody about it. That's plain abusive.

        I agree with the statement that if there's obvious or known abuse of a patent it should be go after it or lose it. Maybe then we'd see some of these junk patents dropped quickly, as there's no way they'd hold up to scrutiny and since it's use it or lose it then it'd be insta

    • Well, there is laches (Score:2, Informative)

      by tepples ( 727027 )

      The use it or lose it doctrine in patent case law isn't as strict as it is in trademark law, but it still exists. If a patent holder learns of an infringement but delays legal action long enough to harm the alleged infringer, then the doctrine of laches bars the patent holder from collecting damages for the defendant's past infringements. Courts consider the facts of a case when figuring how long is "long enough to harm," but in general, "long enough to harm" won't be more than six years.

    • But things like this make me think that patents should be treated like trademarks, and if there is sufficient prior cases in which you did not defend your patent when you rightly should have, you lose the rights to the exclusivity that the patent would have otherwise offered.

      I think that in may cases, trademarks are a very public thing, and infingements are likely to be noticed. On the other hand, a patent used as a non-promoted building block for a product is likely to go unnoticed, despite how many i

  • Not surprinsing really (Score:3, Insightful)

    by eamacnaghten ( 695001 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:32PM (#9648887) Homepage Journal
    This behaviour is not really surprising now.

    If it were possible for someone to legally place a toll boothe at the bottom of your driveway and charge you a dollar every time you want to drive anywhere regardless of the fact they do not contribute to the road, the driveway or yourself how long before someone would do so?

    The answer is less than a New York minute.

    Now someone can place a toll boothe for the use of an international standard, and despite the fact they probably did not contribute to that, then do you blame them for doing so?

    It is blatantly obvious that some laws need changing, however, as long as the toll booth owners have the ears of the legislators the problem needs to be passed to the voters.

    Things do not look good.

    • Re:Not surprinsing really (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MourningBlade ( 182180 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @10:01PM (#9649022) Homepage

      Now someone can place a toll boothe for the use of an international standard, and despite the fact they probably did not contribute to that, then do you blame them for doing so?

      Okay, this is just a hobby horse of mine, so excuse me while I gallop around for a while. Please note that I'm not accusing you of making this mistake, it's just one possible reading of your statement. I've seen this problem before on /., and you brought it up, so....

      When a portfolio company purchases patents from an R&D company they are contributing. In a very similar vein to putting up cash for research.

      See, you do research and it costs money. One of the ways you can defray the cost of research that doesn't lead to where you're going (dead end for your purposes) is to sell what you've got. Hopefully it will cover your expenses, and you'll be no worse for wear, and can continue your research.

      If there was no one willing to buy your dead end, you would have to eat the cost - ie lose the investment. This makes people who would invest in you nervous, and makes them stick to mainstream research. It also makes it a much bigger risk to sink your own money into your research, as you can get stuck halfway, and that sucks.

      Now, these patent portfolio groups buy these patents in the hope that some of them will be useful or salable in turn, just like investing in real estate. These houses often drive further development, in fact, as they want people to use their tech so they try to introduce people to it.

      Many ideas and well-developed inventions would go completely unknown if not for people pushing them.

      As for the law suit part of things...if they're filing a patent suit, then things are serious. I happen to know that patent lawsuits start in the $0.5 million range to prosecute, and then they start getting expensive. And it may be years before you see anything.

      Now, caveat: when the patent is over something that was obvious when it was invented, or is on an idea rather than an implementation, I'm with you: it's stupid, and it should be invalidated.

      My point is that purchasing a patent is contributing to it.

      • The real story (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dachshund ( 300733 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @10:39PM (#9649178)
        As for the law suit part of things...if they're filing a patent suit, then things are serious. I happen to know that patent lawsuits start in the $0.5 million range to prosecute, and then they start getting expensive. And it may be years before you see anything.

        Yes, but this overlooks the real reason that Intermec is suing now: the desire to influence the standards process. You see, at the moment there are two competing standards candidates for the next generation of RFID chips. One comes from Intermec/Philips/TI, and the other from Matrics/Alien Technologies. The side that wins will profit hugely (many millions) because they'll have a faster time to market with their products. Big stuff.

        I have no idea if Intermec plans to ride this lawsuit to the end, or if they're just using it as leverage to get their way in the standards process. It's possible that a graceful concession by the other side will see this thing go away, and Intermec graciously agree not to prosecute the suit. Or they may be in it for the long haul. Either way, they've decided to break out the big guns and they obviously think it will be worth it in the end.

      • Re:Not surprinsing really (Score:5, Insightful)

        by eamacnaghten ( 695001 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @10:44PM (#9649204) Homepage Journal
        When a portfolio company purchases patents from an R&D company they are contributing. In a very similar vein to putting up cash for research.

        I would agree with you with that and most of what you say.

        However, where it goes wrong is where these types of patents are submarine patents, and the owners (or purchasers) keep quiet and allow international standards to build around the concepts, and then attack companies complying to those standards.

        In those cases, the research and development has been done by others as well as the patent holders (or the guys who the holders purchased it from), and all that is happening there is pure profiteering.

        I do not know enough about RFID if the scenario here is like that, so maybe my post was over the top, but as they seem to have patented a standard, so it would not surprise me if it were.

  • Time for Wal-mart to crack heads? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:34PM (#9648899)
    I wonder when Wal-Mart wil step into this fray and slap the combatants until all they can see is little yellow smiley faces. Wal-Mart seems pretty serious about RFID and won't be happy if the vendors start squabbling over IP rights.

  • 2 wrongs? (Score:5, Funny)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:38PM (#9648914) Homepage
    Hey, 2 wrongs really DO make a right.

  • What the... (Score:4, Funny)

    by SsShane ( 754647 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:40PM (#9648922)
    The government agency I work at uses RFID for security! These guys are terrorists.

  • bombshell (Score:5, Interesting)

    by oliphaunt ( 124016 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:41PM (#9648927) Homepage
    If this patent is valid, and Intermec raises the license fees high enough, it could kill RFID before the technology has really come into its own. What side will CASPIAN [nocards.org] come down on? Will IBM stand idly by and let this happen? Will other tinfoil-hat-wearing consumer groups [www.spychips] seize on this patent, or try to buy it outright to effectively halt the implementation of RFID?

    This has the potential to fracture EFF and PubPat too, seeing as the privacy nuts will be all for anything that makes it harder or more expensive for RFID to become ubiquitous, but this sounds like a job for PubPat (or some other private entitiy) to investigate, to protect the very real benefits that RFID will bring to supply chain management.

    or will this be a case where the Feds stand up to fight against a technology patent, now that the DOD has declared [dod.mil] that all if its suppliers must use RFID by Jan 1 2005? Can the government claim eminent domain over patents or other IP? This page [about.com] seems to address the question, but doesn't give me a clear enough picture of the consequences for suppliers when government takes an "eminent domain" license... and it kind of leaves me thinking that if Intermec sues the goverment, and the patent isn't invalidated, taxpayers will be left holding the bag twice.
    • Duh. That's consumer groups [spychips.com]. Sorry.

    • Re:bombshell (Score:5, Informative)

      by silentbozo ( 542534 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:52PM (#9648980) Journal
      Can the government claim eminent domain over patents or other IP?

      They did it with the airplane in order to make use of it during WWI. [pbs.org] Must have pissed off the Wright brothers something fierce when their patents were rendered useless during that time, but it contributed to the birth of the commercial aircraft industry.

      • Must have pissed off the Wright brothers something fierce when their patents were rendered useless during that time

        Useless? The fifth article of amendment [cornell.edu] to the Constitution for the united States of America provides that "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Weren't the Wrights rolling in dough from the royalties under such "just compensation"?

        • Re:Just compensation under the 5th Amendment (Score:4, Interesting)

          by oliphaunt ( 124016 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @11:21PM (#9649392) Homepage
          rolling in dough from the royalties under such "just compensation"?

          exactly. but this isn't about gaining a decisive tactical advantage used to win a freaking war, it's about shiny new inventory managment software packages and logistics systems. Do you really want your tax dollars to make Intermec rich, just so Don Rumsfeld can pull up a database and tell you EXACTLY how many bullets are in the munitions bunker at Fort Bragg at any given time, and where each of those bullets came from, and when they were manufactured, and which truck delievered them, and which shelf they are sitting on now?

          'Cos I don't. Seems like a huge waste of money to me in the first place, but then I'm not trying to run the DoD. My point is, DoD is going to do this, and they're going to spend money contributed by you and me in our taxes to make it happen. From this perspective, Intermec is making a shameless bid to steal money out of my pocket, and we should hope that their claims don't stand up in the interest of federal fiscal responsibility (now there's an oxymoron for you).

        • Re:Just compensation under the 5th Amendment (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          tell it to the 6,000 farmers in klamath falls oregon who had 300 million taken from them by the feds without any compensation in 2000 and 2001. They even demanded the farmers pony up a useage tax fee for services they never got, after first denying them their farm land irrigation water that THEY own, bought and paid for decades previously. The fifth amendment didn't apply at all. Well it did,obviously, I can read it, you can read it and remembered it to make a point, which I agree with, but in real life, no

      • Re:bombshell (Score:2, Interesting)

        by DeICQLady ( 150809 )
        add to that Hedy Lamarr and George Antheil [wikipedia.org] who invented the spread spectrum comm system.

    • Re:bombshell (Score:4, Interesting)

      by GileadGreene ( 539584 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @10:04PM (#9649037) Homepage
      This has the potential to fracture EFF and PubPat too...

      I'd like to think that the folks at EFF understand that the long-term damage accrued by going against their principles in order to stop RFID will far outweigh the short-term gains that may occur if they are actually able to prevent RFID from being adopted. The ends do not justify the means - especially when there's a very strong likelihood that the same means will come back to bite you at a later date.

  • they crazy... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:47PM (#9648953)
    should wait until RFID is in use everywhere up to and including imbedded under the skin of all citizens...

    then, and only then is the time right to make the ultimate claim...

    "All your rfid are belong to us"

    think of the shareholder value...
  • It seems Matrics has been having more success lately, so of course, file a patent so everyone (including Matrics) has to pay you. Of course this will affect others as well I presume, like Alien. Don't know though, but I'll be following this and if I find something good from one of our research project's contacts I'll try to post it. I should see some interesting arguments and discussions going on now. haha.

    Guaranteed this won't slow RFID down any, it'll just put back the progress because it will increas
  • This is the best news I've heard all day.

    I can't believe it, here on Slashdot everyone (myself included) is applauding the predatory use of patents because for once it can help advance the common good.

    Mark this day on your calandars, it's one to remember.

    LK

  • There you go (Score:2, Funny)

    by melted ( 227442 )
    One problem (Patents) cancels another problem (RFID). Everyone's happy.

  • Intermec's RFID patents (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:53PM (#9648986)
    If anyone is interested, here is a list of the Intermec's patents that contain the term "RFID" [uspto.gov]. Posted anonymously to not seem to much like a karma whore. Enjoy.

  • I'm confused (Score:2, Funny)

    by Yo Grark ( 465041 ) *
    How is microsft connected to this again?

    Yo Grark

  • This isn't wht a submarine patent is. (Score:5, Informative)

    by sharkb8 ( 723587 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @10:16PM (#9649089)
    A submarine patent is where you keep the patent in it's application phase, then at some later point, after being rejected several times and requesting re-examininations, adding specifics based on the current state of the market. Then you get to see how an industry shapes up, but you still get the benefit of the early patent applicaiton date.

    Patents are good for 20 years from the date of applcation now, an attempt to keep submarine patents from getting too out of hand.

    One other FYI, you generally only have about 6 years after you find out someone is infringing on your patent to begin litigation over the infringment. To just sit on it for more than 6 years exposes you to defenses of laches.

  • Prior art (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There have been RF devices that identify themselves using a unique code for a long time. An example would be a reader that security guards carry on their rounds. As they go on their route they read wall mounted tags. That way you can prove that the guards covered their route. For sure this predates 1997. Some of my students built one in that year.

    My guess is that the patent is quite narrow (and therefore easy to get around) or it is unenforcable.

  • Finally, the patent mess does some good... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Theovon ( 109752 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @10:29PM (#9649140)
    It just so happens that this one company's back-stabbing greed might just result in improved privacy.

    Ironic, isn't it.

  • Musings... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stienman ( 51024 ) <adavis&ubasics,com> on Thursday July 08, 2004 @10:33PM (#9649154) Homepage Journal
    I doubt they have a patent covering the basic RFID technology. Chances are good that what they have are dozens of patents on how to use the technology - manufacturing techniques, various uses, perhaps some algorithms on more esoteric reader/tag interactions, etc.

    Chances are good it'll have a chilling effect, but it won't hinder the industry at all. All that will happen is about $0.001 will go to this company for each tag, perhaps a few dollars for each reader, and the consumers will be left holding the bag.

    The only real issue is all the lawyering that's going to have to go on to get the deals made - this is what's going to take time. If Walmart wants quick adoption, they'll either find a way around most of the patents, or they'll pay up. They won't try to discredit the patents - it'll be tied up for years, and the cost savings is still greater than the outlay.

    -Adam
    • Intermec's first patent (1999) that mentions RFID (thanks to AC above for the link) is a general plan for using the tags for ID purposes, but it provides a detailed description with the obligatory (PP)"covers all modifications that are in keeping with the basic invention".

      What I wonder is, does such a detailed patent cover the general RFID technology or is the patent so narrow (as appied for) that it limits the patent.

      Either way, they knew they owned it, and they cannot claim that they did not know the de

  • They bought the patents in 1997?? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by classicvw ( 743849 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @10:34PM (#9649159)
    We have been using RFID at work for parts tracking in production since 1994. Would this be "Prior art"???

  • First $50,000 wasted... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jjohnson ( 62583 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @10:35PM (#9649163) Homepage
    I had a meeting today with reps from NCR, who hope to be a big reseller/implementer of RFID solutions, and the salesman basically said that, yes, the first $50,000 you spend will be wasted.

    The (economic) reason for this is that the technology is seriously underdeveloped and encumbered by IP claims just like this. But that's not stopping Walmart, Target, and a host of others from requiring manufacturers to participate in pilot programs to force manufacturers and retailers to implement the technology and work out the bugs. Walmart is requiring its top 10 vendors to ship all product to one of its DCs with RFID labels on cases and pallets this January; Target is requiring the same thing for selected vendors by July 2005.

    So companies like my employer will have to spend $5-10,000/printer, and $0.50/label (on products we sell for $10), which is pure expense for us, for printers that will need to be replaced in a year to handle new standards, and labels that fail 20% of the time. Oh, and the fastest printing rate they've got is 2-4 inches/minute, which is half what we print at now.

    The only way we can hope to recover these expenses (since retailers laugh at us when we say that we need to raise prices to cover expenses they're forcing us to incur) is to start transitioning our own inventory management system to RFID in order to improve efficiency and save money.

    Was it this bad when Walmart forced the adoption of UPCs on everyone?
  • I could have sworn there was already an article on an RFID patent, some old guy had it, and only when his patent ran out did they take off.

    So what's the deal with this?
  • ...Unocal [google.com]. I find it hard to believe that they'd be doing anything dodgy like this.

    Sheesh.

    It's not like they're The Carlyle Group [internet.com] or anything.

  • It begs the question (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OBeardedOne ( 700849 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @11:03PM (#9649276) Homepage
    Why didn't the RFID industry do a thorough patent search BEFORE they put so much effort into commercialising the technology? If the patent in question so obviously covers the majority of inventive steps involved in the RFID process then a search would have warned them of potential patent breach. If the patent is quite obscure and not directly relevant to the RFID process then applications should have been made on behalf of the indsutry group to cover this simply as a means to stop any one company from trying to claim ownership.

    If only companies and such industries learned from such obvious mistakes made in the past then there wouldn't be all this whinging about how the patent system is broken. I am an inventor myself. I always do thorough patent searches before even contemplating filing. I know how difficult it is to get a great idea to commercialisation even if deep pockets are available. Because of this, I don't think it is fair to blame people that own the IP for wanting to get their dues when that invention makes it to market, whether it be by their own hand or not. Although, I do agree that the issue gets quite contentious when large companies, as opposed to the little guys, do this with submarine patents. But then again, the groups commercialising the tech should have done a thorough SEARCH!

  • What this is definately NOT (Score:5, Informative)

    by DeICQLady ( 150809 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @11:17PM (#9649368) Homepage Journal
    This is not a case of using "submarine patent strategy". Submarining requires that the patentee drag out the process over several years by filing continuation after continuation. Then allowing the submarine to surface just before attempting litigation. Although the parent maybe published, it is hard for other inventors to know what is patented because new claims can be introduced in the children (which are unpublished) that automatically claim the priority of the parent patent.

    Thus this is not a case of submarining because:
    1) All continuations filed have been abandoned or published (granted) couple years ago.
    2) All patents involved have been granted within the last 6 or so years. No way to hide any claims.

    The patents invoved are listed in this RFID journal article.
    http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/artic leview/979 /1/1/

    And if you don't believe me you can always look up the status data here:
    http://pair.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/final/home.pl

    My initial instincts says something is fishy, especially since EPC global members agree to certain terms on entering the group (offering reasonable licenses or technology royalty free to promote RFID.) Unfortunately, if you read both articles, you will see this has the potential to screw with the standards (especially UHF Gen 2) that EPC Global and its members have been working hard to come out with.

    Whats even fishier is that Intermec has representatives on the EPC Global HAG. Hmm why does this sound familiar?

  • Does anyone else have a problem with this? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BiggerIsBetter ( 682164 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @11:19PM (#9649375)
    Basically, they're selling rights. You can't do X unless you pay us. Doesn't matter if you came up with it yourself or never even heard of them, you must pay or they'll sue. I really don't like the direction our fundamentally creative tech industry is headed.

  • RFID is not automatically evil! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kevin DeGraaf ( 220791 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @12:32AM (#9649720) Homepage
    RFID is not automatically evil!

    Tools can be used for bad or for good. RFID is a tool. It can be used for bad (privacy invasion) or good: EZ-pass, speedpass, streamlining warehouse/retail operation, and applications we haven't even thought of yet...

    Am I the only one who is sick and tired of automatic rabid bitching anytime this technology is brought up?

  • I used those products (Score:3, Insightful)

    by blackmonday ( 607916 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @12:41AM (#9649747) Homepage
    I used Intermec's RFID products in a semiconductor company that's now long gone. It was pretty cool stuff, actually. They used the tags to track lots of wafers as they rode around the fab in process. Mobil gas stations in Southern California have this thing called "SpeedPass" which is essentially the same thing, but attached to your credit card info on the server. Yes, perhaps Intermec has a good case here, but the courts should take into account when companies sit idle while their IP is being "violated", to make some dough later on.

  • according to mercury news... (Score:3, Informative)

    by wyldeone ( 785673 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @01:16AM (#9649870) Homepage Journal
    Charles Walton holds (or rather held) the patent on RFID. Here [siliconvalley.com] is a mercury news article that lists Charles Walton as the inventor of RFID, and the holder of the RFID patent. From the article:

    "Walton, 83, made about $3 million from patenting RFID technology. But his last royalty-bearing RFID patent expired in the mid-1990s, meaning that he won't share in the potentially gigantic windfall that will be generated as Wal-Mart and the Defense Department begin to require their largest suppliers to put RFID tags millions of warehoused goods."

  • Wait just a goddamn minute. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Puls4r ( 724907 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @03:03AM (#9650151)
    "Submarine Patents"? Keeping them secret?

    It's the PATENT OFFICE's JOB to make sure, when a patent is filed, it's not a copy of another. Likewise, if you intend to try and make something, invent something, or use something as a standard, it's YOUR job to do the research and ensure that you're not infringing on someone's patents! Finally, you must ACTIVELY enforce your patent rights! RFID tags have been used for the last 20 years in manufacturing environments to monitor pallet movements, create build recipes, monitor what goods in the manufacturing line have what parts, have gone into repair bays, etc etc.
  • A story about the inventor of the RFID being cheated out of millions of dollars in compensation or something like that? It would be delicious, delicious irony if the entire technology were tied up in IP lawsuits for the next 20 or so years...

  • Greed created RFID... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @07:20AM (#9650714) Homepage
    Greed killed it. I hope!

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Close