Stupid Patent Tricks

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.e-pass.com/news/news20.htm">http://www.e-pass.com/news/news20.htm</a><br /><br />"On August 20, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Washington, issued a precedential opinion reversing the judgment of non-infringement that had been previously entered in the E-Pass v. Palm and 3Com patent litigation. The Federal Circuit’s decision, binding on all U.S. District Courts in the United States, held that the E-pass patent is not limited to a credit-card sized device, as Judge Jensen of the California District Court erroneously concluded in the Palm litigation. The Federal Circuit further held that Palm sized PDA’s could literally, as well as under the doctrine of equivalents, infringe the E-pass patent. <br /><br />"A similar litigation against Microsoft and Compaq (now Hewlett Packard) in the U.S. District Court in Texas had been stayed pending the Federal Circuit decision. The basis for the stay is now over, the decision being binding upon the Texas court, and it is expected that both the Palm/3Com and Microsoft/Compaq litigations will resume sometime within the next four to six weeks."<br /><br />You can read the full decision at the E-Pass site.

[dartman]

I guess I'm having a little trouble understanding this. What exactly was Palm doing that supposedly infringed on the patent?

How was a PDA going to act like a multi-provider credit card?

What were Microsoft and HP doing or proposing?

I read the entire decision and still don't understand.

dart

[Sven Johannsen]

Seems to me the heart of the matter would be how you can employ said storage device. If you could swip it through a normal credit card reader after having selected one of the particular cards stored and have it appear to the reader as that card, it is a neat idea, I expect worthy of a patent, and Palms, PPC, etc. don't infringe. They cannot be used as a credit card. I'm not even sure I could hold my PPC up displaying my E-Wallet copy of my MasterCard and have a clerk accept it.

If they think that any method of storing the information constitutes what the patent covers, such as having the credit card number, CID, expiration date, name on the card stored, etc., AND, the judgment is now that size doesn't matter (which we all know it does;) ), then they have missed some people to sue. Casio data watches can do this, my desktop PC can do this. REX can do it. An electronic etch-a-sketch could do it.

[targetdrone]

The link provides a link to the appeal decision full text. All this did was argue over the definition of 'card'.

3Com had a summary judgement because the lower court decided a Palm was too big to be a card and then the higher court failed to pull their heads out and decided a card doesn't have to be the size of a credit card. I could see this arguement if it also said 'Get Well Soon'. This whole thing is a waste of taxpayer money and court time. I hope it goes away soon.

To me, it seems that E-Pass is trying the 'better living through litigation' way of life. I hope they go down in flames.

[Jason Dunn]

To me, it seems that E-Pass is trying the 'better living through litigation' way of life. I hope they go down in flames.

I have nothing but contempt for these companies who, rather than trying to bring a technology to market or improve our lives in some fashion, decide it's better to sue other companies instead.

[CTSLICK]

The link provides a link to the appeal decision full text. All this did was argue over the definition of 'card'.

3Com had a summary judgement because the lower court decided a Palm was too big to be a card and then the higher court failed to pull their heads out and decided a card doesn't have to be the size of a credit card. I could see this arguement if it also said 'Get Well Soon'. This whole thing is a waste of taxpayer money and court time. I hope it goes away soon.

To me, it seems that E-Pass is trying the 'better living through litigation' way of life. I hope they go down in flames.

I agree. It appears this does nothing to validate their claim of patent infringement it just overturns the previous decision due to the way it was argued and decided.

I truly don't understand what the basis of the patent infringement claim is...seems like a stretch that this will actually end up as patent infringement once its all said and done.

[CTSLICK]

To me, it seems that E-Pass is trying the 'better living through litigation' way of life. I hope they go down in flames.

I have nothing but contempt for these companies who, rather than trying to bring a technology to market or improve our lives in some fashion, decide it's better to sue other companies instead.

Anybody wanna bet they got spurned by Palm, Handspring, HP/Compaq, Dell, Casio etc to implement the idea so they decided this was the next best thing? I noticed on their webpages that they use a device that looks remarkably similar to an HP 5xx series device to demonstrate the ideas for implementation.

[guinness]

To me, it seems that E-Pass is trying the 'better living through litigation' way of life. I hope they go down in flames.

I have nothing but contempt for these companies who, rather than trying to bring a technology to market or improve our lives in some fashion, decide it's better to sue other companies instead.

Anybody wanna bet they got spurned by Palm, Handspring, HP/Compaq, Dell, Casio etc to implement the idea so they decided this was the next best thing? I noticed on their webpages that they use a device that looks remarkably similar to an HP 5xx series device to demonstrate the ideas for implementation.

Look at SCO, sounds like they're trying to do the same thing with IBM and Unix/Linux. Create some broad patent/technology, sit on it until somebody comes out with a product vaguely similar. And have enough money to hire high-priced lawyers when you do sue.

[makic]

Here is the press release from E-Pass when they first filed suit against 3Com.

http://www.e-pass.com/news/news5.htm

It seems that the folks at E-Pass have a very broad interpretation of their patent. The fact that "[t]he Palm Pilot it (sic) used to select data from a plurality of sources such as phonebook, address book, datebook, to do list, memo pad, expense" is apparently covered in the patent for "A device for selecting data from a plurality of data sources such as credit cards, check cards, customer cards, identity cards, documents, keys, access information and master keys comprising."

Just because the Motion for Summary Judgment was overturned does not mean that there is any finding of patent violation. Such a motion is only allowed if "there is no triable issue of material fact" that the judgment should be in 3Com's favor. Ultimately the Court of Appeals felt that there was a factual dispute as to whether the Palm could be considered a "card." As such, the matter was sent back to the District Court for further handling of the case.

[shindullin]

A motion for summary judgement is just a motion to throw the whole case out because it's patently stupid.
Losing it just means that there are things that the court (and perhaps ultimately a jury) will have to decide. The appellate court also wants the district court to tackle a few issues such as the definition of a card. They're (the appeals court) is not saying that a PPC or Palm is a card, just that the district court has to resolve the legal definition of a card for patent purposes.

[othell]

Look at SCO, sounds like they're trying to do the same thing with IBM and Unix/Linux. Create some broad patent/technology, sit on it until somebody comes out with a product vaguely similar. And have enough money to hire high-priced lawyers when you do sue.

That's not true. That's not what SCO has said at all. SCO has said that certain portions of the code in Linux was either copied exactly or redone so that it does not appear to be the same.

It has nothing to do with something being vaguely similar, it has to do with an exact copy in many instances.

Now what the facts are in the case I do not know... That we will see once it goes to trial. I really don't care one way or the other... But the SCO vs Linux situation is no where near similar to this.

This case is just absurd.

[dh]

Didn't Al Gore invent the PDA and Linux?

[mcsouth]

LOL on the Al Gore comment!!! :lol:


It seems that the folks at E-Pass have a very broad interpretation of their patent. The fact that "[t]he Palm Pilot it (sic) used to select data from a plurality of sources such as phonebook, address book, datebook, to do list, memo pad, expense" is apparently covered in the patent for "A device for selecting data from a plurality of data sources such as credit cards, check cards, customer cards, identity cards, documents, keys, access information and master keys comprising."

Gee, does this make wallet and purse manufacturers in violation of the patent? Last time I checked, my wallet contained most of the items that the "device" can hold.

I can't believe that a patent could be issued with such broad terms that are easily manipulated to the holder's desire......

[Prevost]

To me, it seems that E-Pass is trying the 'better living through litigation' way of life. I hope they go down in flames.Buddy, NEVER before did I heard or read this truth expressed in a better or clearer way obout some people's attitude.

And do not worry, this kind DO go down in flames someday.

It just bring to my mind the sad incident turning Palm's Graffiti into Graffiti 2. Now ask, where is Xerox today???

[PetiteFlower]

Not ALL patent infringement lawsuits are bad or frivolous. Patents are there to protect people's inventions from being stolen; anyone who has ever invented something should appreciate that! Of course sometimes it's abused but that doesn't mean it ALWAYS is.

I don't know the details of the Graffiti case very well but I have a strong suspicion that the lawsuit in that case was justified.

[dh]

I don't know the details of the Graffiti case very well but I have a strong suspicion that the lawsuit in that case was justified.

Xerox had patented a text input method that I believe was called Unistroke (or very similer).

The actual alphabet they used was more symbol looking than Graffiti, where most of the strokes do at least look like the characters they represent. I think the key part of the patent was concerned with making one character with each stroke of the stylus, which of course is the case with Graffiti (apart from the X). From this point of view the case could well have been justified.

Since Palm do not seem to compete with Xerox at all, I was surprised that a licensing deal was never worked out. I know it annoyed a lot of Palm users when forced to change to Graffiti 2, which is basically Jot. I personally always liked Graffiti but never got on with Jot.

The irony of it all is that to get proper Graffiti now, you have to buy a PPC since MS licensed the technology behind Block Recognizer from Xerox. I would have thought that having Palm as a licensee as well would have provided them with some nice additional revenue from their technology. Stopping Palm from using it, certainly did not help with the sale of any additional Xerox products.

[Coordinator]

Look at SCO, sounds like they're trying to do the same thing with IBM and Unix/Linux. Create some broad patent/technology, sit on it until somebody comes out with a product vaguely similar. And have enough money to hire high-priced lawyers when you do sue.

That's not true. That's not what SCO has said at all. SCO has said that certain portions of the code in Linux was either copied exactly or redone so that it does not appear to be the same.

It has nothing to do with something being vaguely similar, it has to do with an exact copy in many instances.

Now what the facts are in the case I do not know... That we will see once it goes to trial. I really don't care one way or the other... But the SCO vs Linux situation is no where near similar to this.

This case is just absurd.

"othell", you have to forgive "guinness", he/she is obviously not familiar with the audience of this site. We consider outrageous claims ridiculous only when Microsoft is on a receiving end. When Microsoft is buying a smear campaign (like is the case with SCO) we are all for it, and we want to see those pirates and thieves (linux lovers) executed publicly.

[Steven Cedrone]

"othell", you have to forgive "guinness", he/she is obviously not familiar with the audience of this site. We consider outrageous claims ridiculous only when Microsoft is on a receiving end. When Microsoft is buying a smear campaign (like is the case with SCO) we are all for it, and we want to see those pirates and thieves (linux lovers) executed publicly.

I think we need a "dripping with sarcasm" emoticon... :twisted:

Steve

[dh]

To me, it seems that E-Pass is trying the 'better living through litigation' way of life. I hope they go down in flames.

If you have to pop over to Philly or it's rush hour (any hour) on the Turnpike, EZ-Pass is the best invention ever!

Ooops, my mistake, not quite the same thing :lol:

[Jason Dunn]

I would have thought that having Palm as a licensee as well would have provided them with some nice additional revenue from their technology.

Sure, it would have, if Palm would have licensed it. Instead, my understanding is that they just took it and hoped that no one would notice. Palm is to blame for stealing a technology rather than licensing it, not Xerox for defending something unique that they legitimately invented. Xerox used to do some serious R&D, so it's not surprising that they came up with it.

[Steven Cedrone]

Xerox used to do some serious R&D, so it's not surprising that they came up with it.

The world would be a different place had Xerox patented the technologies they invented...

Steve

[dh]

Xerox used to do some serious R&D, so it's not surprising that they came up with it.
What makes it seem odd to me is that this went to court and the two companies never agreed a licence deal.
Do you think MS might have put pressure on Xerox not to offer additional licenses? Maybe the MS one is exclusive?

[felixdd]

I can't believe that a patent could be issued with such broad terms that are easily manipulated to the holder's desire......

Wholeheartedly agree. A patent should be specific and concrete. Nothing should be left for interpretation.

[bjornkeizers]

This reminds me of that whole Hyperlink patent thing a while back. I agree that a patent should be very specific: stuff like this could mean anything. Hell, it could apply to my wallet, or a scrap of paper for crying out loud!

Idiots like this should be shot, not only for wasting valuable court time, but also annoying legit businesses, shareholders, and consumers, who ultimately pay the price for this.

[ellisjr]

Actually, although I see your point, any patent that is TOO specific is worthless, as any minor change can get around it.

Just to amuse you, I will tell you that a friend and I put in a provisional patent in the UK on the Personal Organiser, back in 1976.

We tried to get interest in developing it for commercial release. Many companies, like Casio, did not reply. Texas Instuments did, but their agreement (according to the University lawyers) left us no rights.

However, the best reply was from Clive Sinclair (UK people will know him - brought us pocket calculators, pocket tv etc) and he said that he had already thought of it and no one would want one... seems he might have got that slightly wrong :D