[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Judge dismisses Palm patent case win

On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 11:04, Dean Sanchez wrote:
> After reading this article at the Register and following the link to and reviewing the patent documents, I'm frustrated, angry, and bemused at the US patent system.  I know I shouldn't be, but I am.  The patent holder made some drawings and wrote up some ideas about what a product should look like and do.  It doesn't provide a tangible product design.  It's just a vague, pie-in-the-sky wish-list.  You can't take the patent drawing and documents and produce a working device.  Yet the patent holding company claims that Palm is infringing its patent.  Could someone explain how its possible to patent an 'idea" without doing the work to make it tangible?  This sure isn't an invention or "technology". And it definitely doesn't promote progress. 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/68/32471.html
> This patent 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".   It doesn't describe how to design the circuitry to make the computer. It doesn't describe how to create the software to run it; it just describes what it should do and roughly look like.  It's a dream.
> A hand-held computer - what a novel idea.  It's amazing that in the last fifty years or so, no one has every thought about creating something like this device.

I read about this myself this morning. I read the patent. It basically
describes a Smart Card that has different memory store for each credit
card. The claims and his verbal descriptions bring my to this

I've owned every module of Palm/Palm Pilot device from the 1000 to the
i705. Not one of thoe device as shipped could do what the patent claims
entail. I could write and install a program to make the a handheld
device that now infringes onm the patent.

Based on the Judge's ruling, I though of an absurd example. My device
has all of the requisite details, keyboard input device, display
screens, connectivity via wires or light waves, able to stored mulitple
card card information or similar documents, etc. And I have made a
number of design improvements.  And I've also designed a terminal
station which my device can interface with. Although it does have some
portablility issues, I do have a specially designed wallet for it. And
it requires a really big pocket...

My "device" is my laptop computer. It can inteface via wires and using
lightwave (IrDA port). Run a special program that can store all of the
credit card and related information. And like I said you need to have a
rather large pocket to cary it around.

My terminal device is my PDA. Hooked it up to a network to be able to
communiate with the central computer. It can inteface with numerous
"devices" via wired or lightwave connections.

With judges make stupid ruling as in this case, any hope we had for
reform is lost.

Stephen L Johnson <sjohnson@monsters.org>