Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Your Rights Online

Boeing Granted Patent On Mobile Wireless Lan 41

Posted by Hemos from the yay dept.
xoip writes "Boeing Corporation has been granted Patent number 6,990,338 Mobile Wireless Local Area Network and Related Methods. The Luddite Lounge questions the wisdom of granting a patent that leverages existing technology and grants protection based on the application of this technology."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Boeing Granted Patent On Mobile Wireless Lan More

Boeing Granted Patent On Mobile Wireless Lan

Comments Filter:

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @03:36PM (#14601180)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Actually this might not be so bad (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30, 2006 @03:52PM (#14601345)
      "The RF characteristics of this wireless network are specifically tailored to meet applicable standards for electromagnetic compatibility with aircraft systems and RF exposure levels for passengers and flight crews."

      Then they go on to suggest that such a network operate in the 2.4Ghz range.

      Even a bit later they suggest that it follow a current standard for interoperation (802.11b).

      Their later calculations show that at standard levels, 802.11b does not currently interfere with equipment currently in use on planes.

      Basically, this is just a patent of standard WiFi on a moving object, despite their claim that it is "optimized for airplanes."

      I'd think the patent office would have noticed that -- but then again, I must assume too much.
    • With a patent on wireless networks in moving vehicles in general, they can screw over other companies. The patent system is utterly useless if people are going to start patenting all of this...

      Maybe I should apply for a patent on leaves and start sueing plant owners. It's just as logical as recent patents...
    • The patent says 'specifically tailored to meet applicable standards for electromagnetic compatibility with aircraft systems and RF exposure levels for passengers and flight crews'.

      It doesn't say it has to be on a plane - only that it has been designed such that it would be acceptable to put on a plane. So to avoid infringing the patent you need to make sure that your system would not meet applicable EMC standards...

      And as for it applying to moving platforms - since when is the Earth not a moving platfor

  • The real question is ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by terrymr ( 316118 ) <terrymr@gmail.POLLOCKcom minus painter> on Monday January 30, 2006 @03:37PM (#14601187)
    Who has a patent on installing wireless networks in non-moving objects ... like buildings and such?
    • See patent #6,990,339 for non-moving platforms ;) But seriously, haven't they heard of prior art or is there something revolutionary in the abstract I'm missing? Especially this sentence surprises me:

      The RF characteristics of this wireless network are specifically tailored to meet applicable standards for electromagnetic compatibility with aircraft systems and RF exposure levels for passengers and flight crews.

      Is there any device being used in airplanes (not taking gadgets of passengers in account), wh

    • If you had an earthquake in California, would all of the roofnets there violate the patent? They are, after all, moving.

      Since the Earth is, itself, a moving vehicle (albeit travelling through space), all buildings on it are moving along with it. That reduces to the same situation as a wireless LAN inside an aircraft, where all components are stationary relative to each other, but moving relative to an outside body.

      Actually, it's worse than that, as most buildings are built over continental plates which are

  • Subject (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Mobile wireless local area network and related methods

    Abstract

    A wireless local area network adapted for use by users traveling on a mobile platform such as an aircraft. The network includes a network server located on the mobile platform, and at least one network access point connected to the server and accessible wirelessly by at least one user portable electronic device over one of a plurality of non-overlapping network frequency channels. The RF characteristics of this wireless network are specific

  • Prior Art (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @03:42PM (#14601230) Journal
    Back in 1997, several companies that know did wifi for car travel. Basically, it was being funded by some saudi prince so that the cars would remain in communication. Likewise, a company that worked with in 1998 approached Denver RTD to do wifi on buses. Showed them it, but did not land the contract due to the costs of putting wifi on the light poles. But both of these were prior art.

  • Rats! (Score:2)

    by Scoth ( 879800 )
    I stuck an old wireless router in my car hooked up to an inverter and an old laptop and used it both for updating mp3s and a few vids from home and accessing my music from work/remotely on my main laptop and other stuff. Should have patented it! I'd be rich! :)

  • the Dr. Seuss answer (Score:5, Funny)

    by nekoniku ( 183821 ) <justicekNO@SPAMinfosource.info> on Monday January 30, 2006 @03:52PM (#14601355) Homepage
    You patent wifi on a plane?
    I'll patent wifi on a train!
    I'll patent wifi in a box.
    I'll patent wifi with a fox!
    Plane, train, box, fox!
    Can I patent wifi socks?

    • Retaliation (Score:3, Funny)

      by jd ( 1658 )
      I am LAN. LAN I am. Do you ping GREEN QoS [psu.edu] and spam?


      That wireless LAN! That wireless LAN! I do not like that wireless LAN!


      Would you, could you, ping a plane? Would you, could you, ping a train?


      I will! I will! I will patent them on a plane, I will patent them on a train. I will patent LANs here and there, I will patent wireless everywhere!

  • I claim prior art by previously creating a "mobile" network of wi-fi users. My buddies and I were on a road trip while one of us dialed up via a cellphone and shared the connection via wifi with everyone else in the car that had a laptop (minus the drive of course). While not documented anywhere, I'm sure there are quite a few claims out there of prior art to shoot it down.
    • You want to shoot planes down? Using prior art?! That's clearly terrorist talk!

      I must contact the glorious President Bush of the United States of America at once to make the use of prior art illegal to protect the children from those patent terrorists.
  • ... i imagine the dod may have a thing or two to say about this, since wireless networks are a perennial favorite sbir / sttr topic. in fact, i could see some really nasty fallout for boeing from this if they use their patent to stifle small business innovation in the areas that the dod cares about.
  • i'm currently reading up on patents and one of the many reasons for a patent to be rejected is "obviousness" or the combination of multiple ideas to form another idea where a logical person could deduce a result of said existing technologies.

    someone with more experience should help articulate/clarify my commant, but i hope it gets the idea across.
    • where a logical person could deduce a result of said existing technologies

      In the U.S., the standard used is a "practitioner having ordinary skill in the art", (US Code Title 35, Section 103) not a "logical person".

      To counter the other usual nonsense propagated by Slashdot headlines, claims may be dependent, in that some claims state what is conventional or known, and then a later claim describes a (novel and non-obvious) extension or improvement that constitues the grounds for novelty and non-obviousness. T
      • Wrong. Claims stand and fall on their own. An independent claim must be novel and non-obvious. A dependent claim, dependent on that independent claim, must also be nonvel and non-obvious. Patent claims are analyzed individually for invalidity and the limitations of dependent claims are not read into the parent independent claim.

        Many rejections from an examiner will reject the independent claim and will object to the dependent claim, stating that the dependent claim, which is narrower than the indepent claim
      • There is absolutely nothing non-obvious or novel involved in neither claim 6 nor claim 9 in this patent, or any of the other claims for that matter. The stated claims in this patent are standard practice for terrestrial wireless lan deployment, just applied to a mobile platform, which for all intents and purposes is a fixed deployment because the network and the users move congruently. So, relativistically speaking, this is not a mobile network because the users move with it and are stationary relative to t
  • I have one in my car.... does that count?

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close