More patent nonsense

Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:45 am   

I guess when you no longer have delivery issues and the stock price is
soaring, you waste you time on silly patent wars.

> http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/patent-lawsuits/texas-eastern-district-court/87696/maxim-integrated-products-inc-v-starbucks-corporation/summary/

Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:43 am   

"miso"


** You sent us to a site where you have to PAY to get the info.

FUCK OFF !!



.... Phil

Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:40 am   

On 1/7/2012 10:43 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

For any sane person, I would apologize and provide a link. A decent
person would simply ask for a link. But we are dealing with Phil.

For Phil:
Stick a fucking soldering iron up your ass shithead. Since your brain is
in your ass, it may relieve some pressure.

For normal people, you can read about it here:
> http://patents.justia.com/1999/05940510.html

Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:43 am   

miso wrote:

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?

Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:46 am   

miso wrote:

What is the fuss about?

Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:53 am   

"miso = kiddie fucking cunthead "



** YOU are a slimy pile of sub human garbage.

An autistic, fuckwit psychopath of the worst kind.

Get cancer and die a vile death.

Soon.

Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:13 pm   

"miso" wrote in message news:jebkr4$u0f$1_at_speranza.aioe.org...


That's just the patent. The lawsuit details are here (free):

http://news.priorsmart.com/maxim-integrated-products-v-starbucks-l5d3/

Paul

Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:21 pm   

On Jan 8, 11:43 am, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:

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

Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:39 pm   

On Jan 9, 9:21 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

The DS patent was a little bit more than just an idea. They have
Starbucks under the Doctrine of Equivalents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents
..

Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:06 am   

On 1/8/2012 2:53 AM, Phil Allison wrote:


I take back shoving a soldering iron up your ass. No, I think you should
have a ferric chloride high colonic while simultaneously have your
testicles zapped with a high voltage flyback supply.

Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:11 am   

On 1/8/2012 2:43 AM, Robert Baer wrote:

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.

Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:23 am   

Bill Sloman wrote:

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.

Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:20 am   

On Jan 9, 10:23 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:

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

Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:23 am   

On Jan 9, 10:23 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:

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.

Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:47 am   

mpm wrote:

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