More patent nonsense

"miso"

FUCK OFF !!

... Phil

Perhaps with the proper approach, all of those patents could be rendered null and even "illegal" since 1) obvious to anyone and 2) was done before and thus in the public domain.

Also note that $tarbukS is not the only company doing remote cash register operations - so why pick on them?

I was corresponding with Donald Davies at the British National Physical Laboratories in 1982 about this kind of secure information transfer - he wanted to build it into the Teletex communicating word- processor system (intended to replace Telex). We were happily discussing the requirements of public key encryption and key distribution - the banks should have been interested but couldn't see the necessity.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

...

The DS patent was a little bit more than just an idea. They have Starbucks under the Doctrine of Equivalents

I read. I scream. I can't stop this nonsense. Shut down the patent office, or at least get rid of software patents.

This suit is on par with Apple nonsense, but Apple is raking in money. Maxim is trading now at a price lower than a decade ago. You would think the powers that be have something better to do than file lawsuits. Maybe work on delivering parts on time for instance?

Basically, who wants to become the next rambus, making money from sleazy lawsuits rather than engineering a good product.

Lawyers are fine for when somebody did you wrong. You pay for X and get Y, that kind of thing. But patents lawsuits of this type are simply vile.

..like i said, the "patents" talk about things that had been done in the remote past. Also, the idea is OBVIOUS even to those NOT in the field. Verdict on them: _*FAILS*_ each and every test for patent-ability.

...

sh

- Hide quoted text -

At least on the '510 patent, it seems Maxim's case is pretty weak. Independent Claim 1 probably doesn't adequately anticipate a portable, general-purpose, wireless appliance, such as an iPhone. Also as to Claim 1, if Starbucks system doesn't use a "math co- processor", then arguably it does not infringe '510, for Claim 1 REQUIRES it as part of the system all the dependent claims rest upon.

Dependent Claim 4 kills them dead - as I don't see any way the Starbucks program communicates as a one-wire device.

The '013 patent reads on the '510 too closely (I believe) for Maxim to argue against the notion that the '510 patent anticpates a physical electrical connection (over a one-wire network topology) to accommodate the transaction. This is not the same as a visual scanning of an iPhone touchscreen via a non-contact optical camera. (...though the two approaches do enable "transfer of valuable information"). But then, so do semaphore flags. :)

No doubt Starbuck's attorney's will show a button-cell one-wire memory, like those used on watchmen security systems where you have to physically touch the coin cell memory to an appropriate reader, and then plead with courts that that's a far cry from flashing a barcode coupon with an iPhone - even when the iPhone has a non-volatile memory in which to store a cash equivalent value. If the '510 patent # appears on Maxim's (Dallas Semi) coin cell button memory (and it surely does!), they're screwed.

I would be amazed if Maxim prevails in their complaint. Perhaps they don't care, thinking the potential payoff justifies even an enormous legal fee if they can just get a District Court to rule any portion of this in their favor. Maxim could then use that decision to "shake down" all manner of electronic commerce gadgets that exchange valuable information, particularly remote cash registers.

As a side note, I've seen microprocessors embedded on credit cards? Wouldn't these infringe, or is the difference there that the cash equivalent is not actually stored ON THE CARD, and instead relies upon a database lookup of some sort?? If so, all Starbucks has to do it back-end database the transaction and problem solved. Such an easy work-around. In fact, one could argue the "secure transaction" taught by '510 Claim 1 REQIURES this same back-end database in order to be secure, since by it's own reading, Claim 1 allows the connection of the portable module reader to multiple other devices.

Aside #2, is a coupon a cash equivalent? For if it is, then is it useful anywhere cash is accepted? If the answer to this is "No", then Maxim may face the additional hurdle of having to explain that the term "cash equivalent" only applies inside Starbuck stores. Then, they'll have to explain how other "coupons" stored on the same iPhone, and substantially similar in character and form, encryption, uniqueness, etc.., are NOT cash equivalents inside Starbucks.

-mpm

...

sh

- Hide quoted text -

I just had a weird thought....

I wonder if a dowry of chickens or cows would likewise constitute infringement? The value transacted being the eggs or the milk. :)

quoted text -

Encryption method: DNA.. So..if there is a legal linkage the DNA becomes Prior Art and _all_ (other) encryption methods become public domain by default..

The problem with this lawsuit is Starbucks has no patents to trade with Maxim. Most patent lawsuits end up with swaps settled out of court. [Technically settlement is a legal procedure, but you know what I mean.] There are exceptions of course, like RIM getting the shake down for $600 million a few years ago, fortunately for them when money was rolling in, not like today. This lawsuit can only be settled for money.

price is

...

be

was

cash

word-

see

the

patent-ability.- Hide quoted text -

Not to mention that the over twenty year old Digicash experiment clobbers some or most of the claims with prior art.

?-)