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

[Ian Lynch]

On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 17:03, Ralph Janke wrote:
> 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.

Yes, that school was Kingshurst CTC and where I helped devise and set up
the E-reg system which was what I gave evidence about in the trial.

> 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.  

Certainly in use in 1976 by Hawaii University to my knowledge.

> 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.

Just use thin client since the terminals are then effectively on the
server itself.

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fsfe-uk mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
-- 
Ian Lynch <address@hidden>
ZMS Ltd