InCom Federal lawsuit against Disney MagicBands

flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
note2001 said:
Correct, however the issue seems to be with the focus of the signal from the unit. Unshielded RFIDcards disperse the signal in every which way, which is why we've always had to touch our credit cards to terminals up until now. By adding a container and a method to focus it along with an antenna (and worth mentioning: decent sized battery) it then becomes readable from a distance.
Click to expand...

Remember.. the usable range of an antenna is itself a design element.

The short range of 'near contact systems' is because they want the short range :) The antenna design is so it will be short range - not that it's some unfocused element. Frequency and the antenna design are the huge factors in range. That's also you see the default range expectations for the different frequency designs for RFID. Some are intrinsictly near-contact, while others are at a distance.

The long range element of the band is powered with an antenna design so it can transmit. It's a radio, not a RFID chip. The band has two RFID tags, and a 3rd radio.
 
Rasvar

Rasvar

Well-Known Member
I think Ft Wilderness is the only location currently using the longer range RFID for the comfort stations and entrance gates. I'm pretty sure they will probably convert the entrance gates at the other resorts to this over time so you don't have to open the window to get that gate to raise. Based on what InCom uses, this is actually the probable portion that they are claiming infringes.
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
So I just read the patents... not a lawyer, but I am in product development. My .02 this thing goes no where.

Disney isn't touching any of the key novelties of the 'attendance tracking system' patent because the novel portion is the reporting back and validating the report by the handheld device. They can't claim the idea of reading RFID tags is the patentable concept.

The 'focusing system' patent - I can only see them being in trouble if they are using the kind of blades (plastic+alum coating) the patent calls for. They can't patent the idea of EM shielding and focusing... long established. I can't believe they even got this patent through.. I would expect it to be thrown out if challenged.

The 'combination tag' patent - it's too specific in its claims to be applicable to the Magicband IMO. It calls out the use of these two pouches... neither of which apply to Magicband.. with the only element being an airgap. But I think Disney could claim they achieved similar results with far different approach. In this case, I think their patent is too narrowly defined to be applicable here.

On top of all that, if Disney can prove prior work... it all goes down too. My armchair analysis.. this goes no where and Disney gets it thrown out pretty easy. I can't see Disney settling any such case that would include licensing/royalties on something so core to it's going forward future. No way.
 
AEfx

AEfx

Well-Known Member
bethymouse said:
Don't understand a thing, but I do know people are always looking for ways to sue Disney it seems.:(
Click to expand...

Which is true, but it doesn't preclude any of them from being valid, of course.

It's very likely that Disney just throws a few million at this as a settlement. It would cost that much and more should it come to an actual in-court litigation, and Disney would have to basically share all the "secrets" of the system publicly, and divulge a lot of information they would rather not have as public knowledge.

The path of least resistance is just to reach a settlement, the whole thing will be sealed, and everyone will move on - this happens all the time, really.
 
G

gsimpson

Well-Known Member
Sadly our patent, copyright, and trademark system have devolved into welfare for lawyers. In days of yore, the patent examiners actually had the technical chops to understand what they were reading, today they pretty much just approve it after one or two passes and let the lawyers fight it out. As an example of their laziness - the laws surrounding copyrights specifically mention "stylistic variations of the alphabet" as something that explicitly cannot be copyrighted yet they granted copyrights to Adobe and others for their fonts, which by definition are stylistic variations on the alphabet.
 
NelsonRD

NelsonRD

Well-Known Member
Businesses do not buy patents, they buy other companies if they want that patent. InCom may be in the position for Disney to 'buy them out' as a whole, then expand upon what Disney does, to include the other uses defined in the patent.
 
Slowjack

Slowjack

Well-Known Member
NelsonRD said:
A few comments on patents...

You cannot patent software. You can patent the process the software performs, but software code itself it not patentable.

...
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, the "process" in a software patent should be defined in terms of the particular method (algorithm) used. Patents are granted for novel solutions, not for problems; e.g., you can patent a particular mousetrap design, but not the idea of a mousetrap. Unfortunately, the patent office has routinely awarded software patents that are effectively defined around ideas rather than methods, employing no novel algorithms. Even if someone else previously designed a hardware/software solution that was similar to how "MyMagic" works, the previous system's patentable elements should be limited to novel design elements, if any, and not to the concept as a whole.

Personally, I'm opposed to software patents altogether, at least until much stricter guidelines are in place. As it stands, software patents seem to mainly benefit the legal industry.
 
sporadic

sporadic

Well-Known Member
The first and last ones are nonsense in regards to magic bands. The RFID stuff is only near field on the bands and long range stuff is in the 2.4ghz ISM band using Nordic nRF24LE1 radios.
 
H

Hula Popper

Well-Known Member
AEfx said:
It's very likely that Disney just throws a few million at this as a settlement. It would cost that much and more should it come to an actual in-court litigation, and Disney would have to basically share all the "secrets" of the system publicly, and divulge a lot of information they would rather not have as public knowledge.

The path of least resistance is just to reach a settlement, the whole thing will be sealed, and everyone will move on - this happens all the time, really.
Click to expand...

It's extraordinarily presumptuous at this stage to say Disney is "very likely" going to throw a few million at this as a settlement. Companies don't throw millions out to settle patent suits all the time. Most settlements are for far less, and the value of a settlement, not surprisingly, depends in large part on the perceived strength of the case and the likely financial risk.

Also, protective orders that prevent public disclosure of "secrets", i.e., confidential or proprietary business information that is exchanged between the parties in patent litigation is common place. If this the plaintiff is actually a technology company and not a patent troll, they'll have their own incentive to agree to a protective order.
 
AEfx

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Hula Popper said:
It's extraordinarily presumptuous at this stage to say Disney is "very likely" going to throw a few million at this as a settlement. Companies don't throw millions out to settle patent suits all the time. Most settlements are for far less, and the value of a settlement, not surprisingly, depends in large part on the perceived strength of the case and the likely financial risk.

Also, protective orders that prevent public disclosure of "secrets", i.e., confidential or proprietary business information that is exchanged between the parties in patent litigation is common place. If this the plaintiff is actually a technology company and not a patent troll, they'll have their own incentive to agree to a protective order.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm aware of how these things work - I've followed quite a few similar cases.

You are talking about the lynchpin of a project that they have already reportedly spent nearly 2B on. I wouldn't be surprised if part of that budget was actually allocated for something like this, as it was bound to happen from somewhere with the technology they are using.

A few million bucks to make this go away is completely possible, and I think probable - they would spend that much just lawyer-ing up and everything that goes along with defending such a thing.

And while yes, protective orders happen - it's a PITA, and Disney would have to lobby for that to happen, to prove that it would have an impact, etc...again, back to the risk/reward scenario here - it's just a whole lot less trouble and likely cheaper to just make it go away.

I could be wrong, we won't know until this develops further - but as this isn't a really a commercial product they could lose control over, I really don't see Disney feeling it worth making a big fight over. It's not like Apple vs. Samsung, where vast product lines and billions of consumer spending are at stake.

The more you've made me think about it, the more you've made me realize that yes, this will be settled - Disney does NOT want the details of what is among the biggest infrastructure money pits ever attempted being discussed and disclosed in court. That's a can of worms they just aren't going to want to have to go over in detail in a court record.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom