08-22-2003, 07:00 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,228
|
|
Stupid Patent Tricks
http://www.e-pass.com/news/news20.htm
"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.
"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."
You can read the full decision at the E-Pass site.
|
| |
|
|
|
08-22-2003, 07:30 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 137
|
|
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
|
| |
|
|
|
08-22-2003, 07:31 PM
|
|
Editorial Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,411
|
|
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.
__________________
Sometimes you are the anteater, sometimes you are the ant.
|
| |
|
|
|
08-22-2003, 07:45 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 83
|
|
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.
__________________
targetdroneIt's free advice and worth every cent. Casio E-100> Dell Axim X5> Dell Axim X3i> HP4155
|
| |
|
|
|
08-22-2003, 08:04 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by targetdrone
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
08-22-2003, 08:05 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 601
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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 - ROCK ON
|
| |
|
|
|
08-22-2003, 08:11 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 601
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by targetdrone
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.
__________________
CTSLICK - ROCK ON
|
| |
|
|
|
08-22-2003, 09:27 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 238
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CTSLICK
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by targetdrone
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
08-22-2003, 10:00 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 65
|
|
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
08-22-2003, 10:29 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 189
|
|
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
