E-Pass Allowed to Re-open Microsoft, HP Patent Lawsuits

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://theregister.co.uk/content/68/33952.html' target='_blank'>http://theregister.co.uk/content/68/33952.html</a><br /><br /></div>"Intellectual property company E-Pass has been allowed to re-commence its litigation against Microsoft and HP. The company began legal action against the software giant and Compaq early last year. E-Pass claimed that both companies infringe a patent it administers, number 5,276,311 which 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". E-Pass claims that Windows Mobile-based Pocket PCs are in violation of its patent as they can deliver those functions."<br /><br />I'm all for having patents protect the "little guy" from the "big guy" coming along and stealing his idea, but this is ridiculous! I'm amazed at the type of patents that are granted sometimes...

[Jimmy Dodd]

a multifunction, credit card-sized computer

I wish my PPC could be credit card size! :roll:

[Steven Cedrone]

a multifunction, credit card-sized computer

Sounds like the REX...

Steve

[MasterOfMoo]

I think it's time I patent my general purpose device that can be used by consumers.

Nice general, open-ended patent that would let me sue anyone for anything they manufacture.

:P

[Rob Borek]

Due to the expansion of size, thanks to the Appeals Court decision, this now includes those nice, handy handheld organizers (you know, the ones with a keyboard and like 32KB) that pre-date the patent application date. Sheesh.

[Jonathan1]

:2gunfire: E-Pass :takethat:
______ :iamwithstupid:

[Duncan]

This is one situation where Palm, HP, MS, Sony etc. should put aside differences and use their combined might to sit on E-Pass - hard...

[cptpoland]

On E-Pass website the predominantly feature pictures of HP Jornada..... made by the company that they are suing...... very very interesting...

CP

[Pat Logsdon]

They're even suing VISA?!? :roll:

Yet another "profit through litigation" company. I hope they get nailed to the wall with the "Prior Art" provision.

[Kati Compton]

Interesting. Well, if the judges aren't going to hold them to the "credit-card sized" aspect, then I believe programmable calculators might be considered prior art. I mean, I had a TI-85 way-back-when before the date of the patent, and I could certainly store credit card numbers in there if I wanted to...

I'm interested to see how this goes. I mean, the hardware itself isn't designed specifically to hold credit card information. I suppose you could store this info in a plain text file, and lock the device with a PIN... But really, the sensitive data like this is stored generally in an encrypted file or encrypted using a wallet program. Since these are 3rd party, couldn't Compaq say "Well, we didn't design the devices for this, so if they are used for it with 3rd party software, we can't control that..."

[lombard0]

Well, has anyone here actually read the patent? I have not, but I have many patents and can tell you the lawyers try to make as broad a claim(s) as possible. So, I could see the size not really being part of the claim, or may have only been on one of many claims.

What usually prevails is the item called "Prior Art". If you can show that you did some new or different than what has been done before then that is one of the major gates to getting a grant.

So, my point is; unless you read the claims you have no idea what this is all about.

[PetiteFlower]

Hey nobody said they were going to WIN. I can't possibly imagine them winning this suit, and they will pay for it over and over and over--they'll have to pay MS's legal costs too!

[szamot]

only in America, I am disgusted.

[sullivanpt]

If form factor isn't important, does that mean my old Osborne computer could be used to "infringe" on the patent?

The truly sad thing is, it's not just Microsoft and 3Com that are wasting their money fighting these things in court. My tax dollars are paying for the judges and jurors and court-rooms! It's time for court reform in the US.

Maybe we should eliminate the current judicial system and replace it with an instantaneous popular vote? The consistutional right to a trial by one's peers would still be protected, we just redefine peers to mean everyone rather than a hand-selected set of jurors who aren't too busy to sit in court for weeks on end and listen to one sided falsifications of the truth presented by highly paid actors. Each side would publish their official arguments via a single URL (thus advertising dollars spent will support both sides more easily). One month later, everybody who cares votes. Unlimited appeals but the cost to the appealing party doubles with each submission. Fees collected are split 50% to the winner and 50% added directly to the federal, state, or local budget. Very cheap, very fast, always good for the public.

Heck, I'll even allow the supreme court to continue to exist in its' present form to take on appeals of issues that affect the constition.
:wink:

[Kati Compton]

Well, has anyone here actually read the patent?
I have now skimmed the beginning. I didn't see anythng about credit-card sized--that might be later in the patent. Our comments along those lines were from the news article reporting it. However, it is strongly implied - look at my first quote from the patent.

Glancing at the patent makes me think this frankly has no chance. Not even a snowball's. At least, if the people deciding this READ it. Here's a couple excerpts that make me say this:


2. The method according to claim 1 further comprising the steps of storing a personal signature of the user on the multi-function card and verifying the personal signature signed by the user at the moment when he uses the card with said stored personal signature.
You're supposed to stick this multi-card device into a reader where you're using it, and your signature will be verified against the one stored in the multi-card. AFAIK, you can't stick an Ipaq into anything resembling a cash register to buy anything. ;)

And if you even read the summary of the patent at the beginning....

In connection with a system for simplifying the use of a plurality of credit cards, check cards, customer cards, or the like, it is proposed to provide an electronic multi-function card comprising a storage accommodating a plurality of individual data sets representing individual single-purpose cards, and comprising at least two display boxes in which data can be displayed by electronic activation, and further contact means accessible from the outside which enable the data sets stored at any time to be paged through successively and the individual data of each single-purpose card to be displayed in the display boxes, and permitting further the entry of a secret code and, finally, the data sets and/or individual parts thereof to be entered and read out, respectively.
PPCs don't have 2 displays.

I think they were very specific about what the device would have to look like and how it would have to be used, and a number of key items in this description doesn't fit PDAs as we know them. So to me, it sounds like they patented something that can do all the things they specified, and PDAs do some of the things they specified.

I'm no lawyer, though.

[Pat Logsdon]

I agree with Kati. I read most of the patent as well, and it looks like the only real similarities are the storage of credit card information in an electronic format.

Everything else seems to describe the actual physical design of the item being proposed, how the information would be accessed, and how it would be transmitted at a point of purchase. As far as I know, there isn't a handheld that does all of this by itself. You'd need additional equipment for reading an actual credit card and even more equipment to transmit that information.

It looks to me like this guy had an actual idea for a device the size of a credit card that you could store signatures in, with a display and a keyboard. He probably couldn't get it made, waited a while to see if somebody made something similar, and then sued them.

If he really wanted to have a good case, he should have waited a few years until miniaturization made something like his device physically possible. :roll:

[Mitch D]

"Intellectual property company E-Pass has been allowed to re-commence its litigation against Microsoft and HP. The company began legal action against the software giant and Compaq early last year. E-Pass claimed that both companies infringe a patent it administers, number 5,276,311 which 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". E-Pass claims that Windows Mobile-based Pocket PCs are in violation of its patent as they can deliver those functions."



Hmmm... I wonder if they'll go after T.I. next? My duaghter's calculator can store data like that as well. Talk about someone wanting to get rich off of someone elses hard work. :bad-words:

[safelder]

You need to read the claims, not the description, to see what E-Pass claims as its invention. The claims define the invention--they're like saying "I own all the property bounded by Main Street on the east, Broadway on the west, 1st on the north, and 2d on the south."

Courts have come up with a set of rules for claim construction--figuring out what the claims mean. The court will look at things like ordinary meanings of words, the meanings given to words in the description, and the prosecution history of the patent (things the patentee said to the patent office in an effort to get the patent issued). This happens during something called a Markman hearing.

A device that includes each and every element of a claim, literally or equivalently (a term of art in patent law), infringes. Usually, however, the defendant will also assert that the patent is invalid. There are many grounds for invalidity--anticipation (a single prior art reference teaches each and every element of a claim), obviousness (a valid combination of prior art references teaches each and every element of a claim), inequitable conduct (the patentee did nasty things during prosecution), and a whole slew of technical and procedural grounds (wrong inventorship, failure to disclose best mode, non-enablement, etc.). The patent laws, contained in Title 35 of the United States Code, provide these grounds and determine what constitutes valid prior art.

That's a (very) brief summary of the sorts of things a court will look at during a patent trial. For this particular patent, without looking at the prosecution history, it's tough to tell anything with any certainty.

[daS]

Safelder,

From the tone of your post, I assume you are a patent attorney, so I will try to be as respectful as possible. Your statement that one needs to read the specific claims to know if this patent has merit is of course true. However, what you are seeing in this thread is the opinion shared by most of the general public that the patent process is being abused by companies big and small.

Big companies like IBM flood the patent office with literally thousands of patents based on the idea that if the company infringes on someone else's patent, chances are good they can find a few of their own patents that the other company also infringes on. Then they can trade licenses so that both legitimize their claims AND force others to pay to get access to the licenses.

Small companies are using the patent office to create legalized extortion. They get unenforceable patents then have their lawyers send letters to companies that provide real products and threaten suit if they don't get paid a license fee. Of course the license fee turns out to cost just slightly less than it would cost the defendant to fight the patent - so they just pay off the extortionists.

The patent system was intended to encourage innovation, but it's being abused and the public loses. (But at least the lawyers are getting rich.) :evil:

[davidm]

daS:

I am a patent attorney who is battling in the trenches everyday litigating, prosecuting, licenses, and opinion upon patents. I don't see any general public opinion of the sort you mention. I do see a lot of companies and individuals protecting new ideas (some great, some good, some too old). The reasons these companines/indivuals seek patents is as varied as they are: ego, pride, market share protection, trading fodor, asset creation. Start ups are especially keen to protect their niche until they can become large enough to withstand some competition.

A little history might help here.

In 1982, Congress created the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This provided a single court to which all patent cases are appealed with the goal of providing uniformity in the application of US patent laws. The court successfully validated the worth of patents, and along the way created a great incentive for a lot of the creative effort we have seen since then. But, like all areas of the law, and life, there is a pendulum swing back and forth between too much and not enough of a good thing. Patents became so strong, or at least the perception of them being strong became so great, that patent enforcement entities were formed. Their efforts though have in their own way helped shape our laws, in some ways for the good, and in some wayws for the bad. I think the pendulum swung a little away from a pro patent emphasis for a few years ago two years ago. Now the pendulum is swinging back ever so slightly.

What I read in this thread is a reaction to annecdotes and a few celebrated cases.

That said, there is something to be said about a plaintiff who can bring a claim knowing that a defendant is likely to settle for some amount short of the $1 million or so minimum it takes to defend a suit through trial. But don't think plaintiffs can proceed unchallenged. A lawsuit brougt in bad faith, for an improper purspose, or advancing an unreasonable extension of the law (or a patent claim) is sanctionable. Further, the patents will go through a very thorough scrunity under the rules and principles discussed above. All in all, we have a pretty good system.

By the way, I just attended a panel discussion where a CAFC judge stated that several countries in concluded that they need to adopt some of our court practices to enhance their patents systems and competitiveness. The weapon of choice: The ability to go to court and obtain preliminary injunctions and the like.



Cheers.

DVM

[sullivanpt]

Is it not amusing that the only people defending the patent system are those lawyers who financially benefit from it's complexity?

In the USA the rule is steal someones's idea, pay thousands to legitimize the theft by acquiring a patent, overcharge, sue, extort, sue, sue and therbey prevent new inovation for 20 years.

In countries without strong IP laws new product development exceeds that of the USA. The rules are simple, inovate, inovate, inovate.

End the madness. Let the public decide what's good for the public.

[daS]

I am a patent attorney who is battling in the trenches everyday litigating, prosecuting, licenses, and opinion upon patents. I don't see any general public opinion of the sort you mention.
Have you considered that you might not have seen the anger from the outside of the system because you are inside it?

What I read in this thread is a reaction to annecdotes and a few celebrated cases.
Forbes magazine, as well as many others, have discussed the wide-spread abuse of the patent system of the types I described. This is not a few celebrated cases. :roll:

That said, there is something to be said about a plaintiff who can bring a claim knowing that a defendant is likely to settle for some amount short of the $1 million or so minimum it takes to defend a suit through trial. But don't think plaintiffs can proceed unchallenged. A lawsuit brougt in bad faith, for an improper purspose, or advancing an unreasonable extension of the law (or a patent claim) is sanctionable.
And if a defendant can't afford to pay the lawyer fees it takes to challenge an unreasonable claim? And what is the burden of proof when it comes to showing bad faith? Out of curiosity, how many small businesses have you helped to successfully prove that they were victims of bogus patent claims? Did any such small companies survive the distraction? :|

Further, the patents will go through a very thorough scrunity under the rules and principles discussed above.

Ah yes, this is the very thorough scrutiny given to the patent for swinging sideways on a swing! Or for the patent for a lossless compression algorithm that clams to guarantee a minimum compression for any data? (Which means that you could recursively compress a file down to nothing and then get it back again.) Yes, I know these are the type of celebrated cases you are talking about, but there are plenty of others.

So sorry. No, I don't buy that one at all. The patent office has been so flooded with stupid business process patents and has so few examiners that understand computer science that they often issue patents with the attitude that the courts will sort out their mess. Of course, the courts don't necessarily get a chance to fix the mess because so many claims never go through the $1M process. Patents were originally intended for inventions, not business concepts. (And yes, I know that the Government is making it a little harder to get business process patents - but the they shouldn't be issued at all.)

All in all, we have a pretty good system.
Especially for those of you that profit so handsomely from it. :wink:

On the other hand, as I'm sure you have guessed, my experiences have been considerably different: I have twice been involved with promissing companies that became victims of companies with bogus patents that made ridiculously broad claims that couldn't possibly be enforceable. But since we couldn't afford a half million dollar defense, we ended up in one case paying the "protection money" and in the other, canceling a product and laying off a number of very good people. So if I sound a little bitter about the process, I admit that it's because the system hasn't been as profitable for me as it has for you. It has touched me twice and twice it failed miserably.

[daS]

In countries without strong IP laws new product development exceeds that of the USA. The rules are simple, inovate, inovate, inovate.

End the madness. Let the public decide what's good for the public.

I wouldn't go that far. I think we certanly need IP laws. I just think that we need to reform the system to protect inventions and not simply business methods.

[safelder]

I don't think that our defense of the patent system has anything to do with how much we profit by it as patent attorneys. I, for one, am an active duty Judge Advocate, so anyone can look up exactly what I make each year, and see that I'm probably not being driven by a profit motive.

I was simply trying to shed some light on how the patent system works, which I thought might help clear up some of the debate on how broad the E-Pass patent is. In other words, it may not be as broad as it appears on its face.

However, since it appears that folks in this forum would much rather rant about how mean companies are to one another (a concept, by the way, that extends far beyond the world of patent law) than have an understanding of how the US patent system works...

[Kati Compton]

However, since it appears that folks in this forum would much rather rant about how mean companies are to one another ...
Not all of us.

[safelder]

Overbroad generalization. Just a little ticked that an effort to educate was twisted into a defense of the almighty dollar.

[sullivanpt]

However, since it appears that folks in this forum would much rather rant about how mean companies are to one another (a concept, by the way, that extends far beyond the world of patent law) than have an understanding of how the US patent system works...

My aopolgies. Yes, my ideas are radical. Yes, my ideas threaten your job security. But I don't intend to offend.

Au contraire, I enjoy and appreciate your presence in this forum. We all benefit: learning from your experience, viewing the litigation world from the inside, and maybe even making friends who can help us in the future, when we inevitably run afoul of laws we don't understand. :wink:

If it's any consolation, as a computer programmer, I too face the prospect of becoming unemployed by a changing world. My jobs are being outsourced to cheap foreign labor at a rate that alarms me!

However, rather than resting on my laurels and asking my government to protect my income and thereby force consumers to pay higher prices for obsolete products, I choose a different approach. I read, read, read and constantly improve my skills; hopefully diffentiating myself from the cheap labor market. Sure I have to work harder, but everybody wins!

I say it again, the patent system needs to be phased out, or at least radically changed.

Minimally, reducing to a 5 year expiration date would be welcomed by me.

[davidm]

The way I see it, the underlying impetus for the comments and associated feelings is the increased litigiousness in our lifetimes. The courts seemingly have become the first choice for recourse. This is true in patent law as well as other areas of the law.

There was a great piece in the Wall Street Journal about how our courts have failed misrably at their gate keeping role (keeping out frivilous cases). The piece opined that the reason for this was the change in the judicial system toward a less strict interpretation and application of the laws, toward a looser interpretation and application of the laws. I tend to agree.

Yes there will always be a few overzealous plaintiffs. But in general, the system still works very well.

A personal view here:

Several things have impacted the patent procurement system, some for the good and some for the bad.

It used to be there was a slow plodding rhythm during which time patent applications were given greater scrutiny. Patents then enjoyed a life of 17 years from issuance. However, due to demands for faster turn around time, measures were put into place that make the process work much faster, and penalize USPTO examaners and the applicants for for exceeding certain time limits. Patents now only enjoy a life of 20 years from first filing. The result is rushed patent examinations. The demands for these changes came from the very companies that are defendants as often as they are plaintiffs. The changes also came (and still come) from demands for greater efficiency and productivity (more for less, etc.).

If you want to see victimization, you should be a respondant in an investigation by our International Trade Commission. The system is geared to rush to "justice" those "ne'er do well" importers. My experience is that it always is a rush to injustice. That said, there will always be a tension between the "Justice delayed is justice denied" view and the feeling that one is subjected to a "String 'em up now, and ask questions later" process.

Cheers

DVM

[bjornkeizers]

It's pretty obvious these *******s aren't going to court to "protect their patent" - they smell money. Greedy bastards.

They're not only wasting microsoft's time, the court's time, and a big chunk of change, but we as the consumer ultimately get shafted big time because of bogus lawsuits like this.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: they should take these guys outside and publicly hang them.

[daS]

I don't think that our defense of the patent system has anything to do with how much we profit by it as patent attorneys. I, for one, am an active duty Judge Advocate, so anyone can look up exactly what I make each year, and see that I'm probably not being driven by a profit motive.

Please accept my apologies for making assumptions regarding your motive. I was obviously out of line. :oops:

However, I still maintain that as someone deeply involved in the system, you may not appreciate how the general public perceives it. I think that the views you are reading here are quite representative. Have you considered that, given your position, people may not always tell you their true feelings due to the power that you hold as well as out of respect for the office? (Just as I am toning down my own rhetoric here? :wink: )

I was simply trying to shed some light on how the patent system works, which I thought might help clear up some of the debate on how broad the E-Pass patent is. In other words, it may not be as broad as it appears on its face.
I guess what set me off, as it were, was that in doing so you seemed to discount the abuses built into the system and implied that it's just great the way it is. While I don't claim to have the answers, (and, no I don't agree with others here that think we should scrap the whole system) I do think that the first step toward fixing these problems is acknowledging that they exist.

Small companies that try to bring innovative products to market are now operating in a minefield of patents - many just for computerizing existing processes. For example, a well known company that makes map data for GPS systems just announced that they received their 100th US patient. While I'm sure that some are for legitimate inventions, I find it hard to believe that they really invented 100 new ways to make or use a map. :roll: Are they an anomaly? I don't think so.

However, since it appears that folks in this forum would much rather rant about how mean companies are to one another (a concept, by the way, that extends far beyond the world of patent law) than have an understanding of how the US patent system works...
I think that's a little condescending considering you have not shown how the system works for the small company defendants. You stated that there are penalties for bogus patents, but when I asked about how often such penalties are imposed, you didn't answer. I, for one, always value the insight of someone with the depth of knowledge on a subject that you obviously have, given your position. But please don't treat us like Civics 101 students. There's more to how the system is operating than just how it's supposed to work.

Of course I understand that the capitalistic system can get ugly at times, and that any law can be used by unscrupulous people as a weapon for unfair competition. However, I do think that the patent system (especially the "business process" patent) is being abused more than you might realize. Since you only see cases that make it to court, have you considered how many small companies fold to the pressures of the mere threat of a $1M battle and pay off some bogus patent holder well before the case ever makes it to your court?

Yes, I agree that there are other ways that companies abuse each other. But to me that's not an excuse to ignore the problems with this one.

[davidm]

daS:

This is a thought triggered by your comment and not an argument . a point , or counterpoint :D :

While I'm sure that some are for legitimate inventions, I find it hard to believe that they really invented 100 new ways to make or use a map. Are they an anomaly? I don't think so

There are different ways of looking at "invention." A great way to look at it to understand the patent system is to substitute the word "disclosure." The patent system will award a patent to someone who provides a disclosure that is not otherwise disclosed or suggested in the prior art. The claim contain limitations (i.e, wording, subject matter) that somewhere meets this criteria. Thus the patent system encourages "disclosure" so that we all can benefit from the teaches, and penalizes those who do not disclose.

While there may not be 100 great earth shaking advances in the situation noted above, the patent systems around the world will see inventions if the claims contain at least one limitation that was not exactly disclosed in the prior art or was not obvious to those of skill/ordinary skill (US) in the art in view of the prior art.

Another thought:

The patent offices are handicapped in how they can evaluated claims. Although there can be some level of scrutiny, there is no scrutiny like a court case where any number of experts can be consulted, experiments counducted, and well, the validity of a patent thoroughly tested. I can't think of any system that can provide this type of review at a cost that anyone can afford, or would be willling to pay for each patent application.

In the end, the patent system is a compromise, just like everything else.

(Please excuse in advance any typos!)

Cheers.

Dave

[daS]

A great way to look at it to understand the patent system is to substitute the word "disclosure." The patent system will award a patent to someone who provides a disclosure that is not otherwise disclosed or suggested in the prior art. The claim contain limitations (i.e, wording, subject matter) that somewhere meets this criteria. Thus the patent system encourages "disclosure" so that we all can benefit from the teaches, and penalizes those who do not disclose.
I do understand your point, but discloser is only a side affect of the process, not its primary goal. As I understand it, the requirement for discloser is obviously so that others can't be broadsided with violating a patent of which they have no way of knowing the details.

Does society benefit more from the discloser of ideas than from the implementation of them? If this is the goal of the system, then copyright is more appropriate than patent.

The patent offices are handicapped in how they can evaluated claims. Although there can be some level of scrutiny, there is no scrutiny like a court case where any number of experts can be consulted, experiments counducted, and well, the validity of a patent thoroughly tested. I can't think of any system that can provide this type of review at a cost that anyone can afford, or would be willling to pay for each patent application.
True. But here's a thought: Get rid of the business process patents that are a recent invention (pun intended) and there will be more time to evaluate the legitimacy of real patent applications.

The current system seems to be all about quantity and not at all about quality. :(

[davidm]

DAS:

I agree that patents for methods of doing business are problematic. These are a recent "phenomemum" that arose in view of a Supreme Court decision interpretating the law to allow patenting of same. If patentability of business methods is to be addressed, it is now up to Congress to do so. If it is some consolation, Congress did provide protection for those who began use of a business method prior to issuance of the asserted patent. It is only later adopters who have a problem.

Cheers

Dave

[Ketsugi]

So. I have this little credit-card sized device. I like to call it a notepad. It's got multiple disposable displays and can store almost any kind of visual information I want it to: credit card numbers, addresses, phone numbers, maps, pictures, sketches, etc. It needs a reader to interpret the information (my eyes :roll:). Does this violate their patent? :?

On the topic of litigation, I must admit that as an outsider the perception is that litigation in America is brought to a level of extremes. One of the running jokes here (in Singapore) is that "I'll sue you for that!", only it really is a joke because we simply don't sue each other over trivial little matters like "the Americans do" (stereotype, yes, and part of the joke; not an attempt to generalise and insult).

Just my foreigner's point of view ;)

[Mitch D]

Having reading all the comments here I decided to take a look at E-Pass's website to look at this technology. One of the things I find strange is E-Pass shows a SmartCard reader attached to a PDA in particular a PPC unit.

Well reading the site I came across this comment about the proposed concept.

"The e-pass Concept brings to the market a new kind of smart card and a new way of applying its attributes. Combined with a PDA, smart phone or computer -- whether desk-top, lap-top or palm-top -- e-pass opens a whole new world to the user and the businesses that takes advantage of all that the e-pass Concept offers. "

Now here is what I am trying to get at, E-Pass has brought legal action against Microsoft as well as Compaq (HP). Is this action in true faith or is it response to Microsoft & Compaq's unwillingness to play ball with E-Pass? This is the question I am most interested in seeing an answer too.

You can talk about legal issues till you blue in the face (and I am sure we will) but this is about the perception that E-Pass is trying to use a patent they filed for a product that they have made no attempt (I most likely am wrong about this) to manufacture on their own.

It is just strange that it takes companies years to figure out that there might be a patent infringment. E-Pass with this technology, SCO with Open Source Software.

I might be in left field with this, but it wouldn't be the first time.

:soapbox: