Re: [Fsfe-uk] Judgment in the patent dispute of the "Bromcom" case

[Ralph Janke]

James Heald wrote:

> IP Kat has more information here (though their slant sticks in the 
> throat!)
>
> http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2004/06/truancy-patent-goes-missing-in-part.html 
Thanks for the link, interesting to see another opinion ...

> Now *IMPORTANT* : I haven't seen the full text of the judgement; but 
> given that claim 1 and claim 2 were considered obvious, presumably the 
> steps of - (a) downloading the class lists (b) filling in the 
> attendence and (c) the central unit then requesting an upload - 
> presumably this sequence is also obvious, and claim 7 is being upheld 
> on the basis of the random delays to prevent collisions.
I have seen it (since I study for an LLB I have acces to the legal 
databases ;-) ) It is a 42 page long judgment going very tediously into 
all kinds of issues.

I haven't had the time to analyse the whole text and all the impacts of 
it, however, my first read is, that the judge made a distinction between 
claim 1,2 in contrast to claim 7. I believe the judge finds claim 1 and 
2 to broad and only an application of already known principles. He 
refers a lot to another system that already existed in another school at 
the time the patent application was made. While this system did not use 
a wireless network, it used a tokenring network (which uses a form of 
slotted Aloha protocoll btw.). As I understand he think the step of 
using another network technology for it was quite obvious and not 
inventive step.

Claim 7 in contrast was examined against a couple of schools that were 
delivered an experimental network of the kind from the patent applicant. 
It was looked at if the patent examination was filed before the public 
experts had access to especially the RTUs and their protocol (basically 
using slotted aloha). This is a technicality in patent law, since if 
something has been published already, no patent application can be filed 
afterwoods. At the end the transfer of ownership (because the invoices 
were paid after the filing date) seem to have given the sway to uphold 
the claim. Also there is some talk taht originately the RTUs in the 
experimental system were "dumm" RTUs that did not contain the smartness 
of the Aloha protocol, as I understand the argument.

> This is ironic, because of course that is exactly how Ethernet deals 
> with data collisions... which (see eg Wikipedia) was in turn inspired 
> by   it having been the method invented to maintain throughput against 
> data collisions on AlohaNet at the University of Hawaii in 1970 -- 
> AlohaNet being a cross-campus academic **wireless** network!!!
Exactly, it was originately used in a wireless campus network (a 
University in Hawaii, hence the name "Aloha"), and was developed for the 
**wireless** use with satellites. I guess there should be a requirement 
for patent judges to have a technical degree, not only a law degree. 
Then they may be able to understand and know the history of technology,


> Now, as I say, I haven't read the full judgment.  It's very important 
> to know (i) whether Ethernet was cited as prior art; and (ii) whether 
> AlohaNet was cited as prior art; and what the judge said about them.
I would have to look it up again, however, I am very sure the Aloha, and 
slotted Aloha protocols were published long time before 1993 the year 
the patent was filed.  However, the aloha protocol  may not have been 
used for the transmission of student registration data before ;-). 
However, I still beg to differ that this is an inventive step....

I believe, it is not only the aloha protocol, but the whole aspect of 
how the data server is sending the request and how the clients are 
responding. Especially the point of the resolution of the simultaneously 
transmission of the data seemed to be the important point in the judgment.

> As it stands, Claim 7 appears to rule out Register collection over 
> WiFi -- *if* a central server is used to initiate an upload from each 
> terminal.
As you can see Frontline Technology Ltd. 
http://www.frontline-technology.com/faq.html, does not see an 
infringement in using WiFi hat your home when transmitting attendance 
data (the question is, which pupils are attending at home anyway ;-) )

However, they want to check your network configuration if you use 
wireless networks at school. I think the judgment making claim 1 and 2 
invlalid gives them a very difficult position in that. One would have to 
use the very particular netwrok configuration and data flow in order and 
the slotted aloha protocol for resolution of simultaneous transmission 
of the particular attendance data in order to call an infringement on 
claim 7. A mere resolution of simultaneous transmission between 
registration data and other data (like filesharing etc) would imho not 
infringe claim 7.

> But it would be very interesting to know if AlohaNet was explicitly 
> cited as Prior Art for avoiding data collisions on *radio* networks -- 
> if (as I suspect) this time it wasn't, then it is very likely that 
> citing it in future would blow away any subsequent attempt by Bromcom 
> to litigate based on Claim 7.

The AlohaNet was not mentioned. However, the slotted aloha protocol is 
(even the Tanenbaum book is refered to) However, the judges opinion is 
saying that a normal IT technician in a school would not have been 
knowledgeable of the Aloha protocol and therefore it would not have been 
an obvious thing to do. He  said, that you would have had to have an RF 
expert or computer science expert in order to do this, and therefore it 
was inventive. I am not sure how narrow the judge is seeing prior art. 
Would registration data have to be part of the prior art ?

The really interesting has not happended yet. What impact has this 
judgment on the schools. Can Frontline Technology Ltd. still ask for 
patent license because schools use wireless networks and also use some 
software on those networks that allow teacher to enter registration 
information?

I believe, they currently think they can still do this. However, claim 7 
states:

/   c) detecting periodic wireless radio-frequency access control signals
  transmitted from said central computer to each of the plurality of
  portable units;

/If someone uses a wireless bridge or a wireless network, those devices 
are not really part of the "/said central computer"/. Therefore i guess 
one could argue, the usage of stand wireless netwrok devices would not 
infringe claim 7 if the data server is connected via to a "cabled" 
network, and this netwrok is somewhere connected to a wireless network....

Oh, wait, I am a computer professional and have know made an inventive 
step.... A "normal" IT technician hired by a school would not have the 
knowledge to do this .... let me fast file a patent application before 
this email is published, then I have a patent and can extort money from 
taxpayers via the schools ...  ;-)

Hope some of my comments are taken in humour and not too seriously...

Ralph Janke