From the Orlando Sentinel
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-disney-magic-band-lawsuit-20150423-story.html
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-disney-magic-band-lawsuit-20150423-story.html
I don't know if Disney actually has patents for the technology that Incom is claiming. The MagicBand is just an RFID Chip in a silicone band linked to a database. I know Disney does have some patents on the software they are using for the Magicband, guess they will have to work that out in court.Technology evolves at similar paces around the globe, it's been shown time and time again. No communication between or stealing from one to the other needs to be involved for two individuals to have similar ideas at similar times.
It shouldn't be too hard for Disney to show that their patents are different than their product and/or are too generic.
Software is code is copyrightable, which is functionally the same thing. Regardless, the exact thing they're going after is the process/function, not the code itself.You cannot patent software. You can patent the process the software performs, but software code itself it not patentable.
I'd agree, but I'd like to see the 3 patents in question before going further. On second reading, it seems the company might be laying claim to the electronics within the rfid chip and not the software.Software is code is copyrightable, which is functionally the same thing. Regardless, the exact thing they're going after is the process/function, not the code itself.
Shame on the patent office for issuing this in the first place. I can't see how it meets the requisite tests for being novel or non-obvious.
This one is about the container. Not too much here. Silly thing to sue upon, Disney's design is very different. Weight in case: minimalComplaint is here:
https://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/cacdce-616303
Here are the three Incom patents in question...
https://www.google.com/patents/US73...&sa=X&ei=SE46VYCxOImXNsWCgegH&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA
https://www.google.com/patents/US8353705?dq=8,353,705&hl=en&sa=X&ei=K046VYyGE4WwggTG-4DYBw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA
This seems to pertain to the chip placement within the above container and antenna design, in order to keep the human body from interfering with signals. I can see there being some issues here, but there will be only so many ways to place the chip and a substrate to focus the signals. They do mention two materials in particular being used to create the shield, if they are fused together in a certain manner that Disney has copied both materials and approach then I can see this one holding significant weight, otherwise, again, two parties came up with the same idea around the same time. Weight in case: Moderate, to Heavy depending on that shield design.https://www.google.com/patents/US7812779?dq=7,812,779&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Xk46VZvNIMSkNpjpgIgI&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA
Yes.My memory is a bit hazy but wasn't the key to the world card using RFID before the magic bands were introduced?
My memory is a bit hazy but wasn't the key to the world card using RFID before the magic bands were introduced?
I guess Incom's revenue from X-Wing sales isn't what it used to be.![]()
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.My memory is a bit hazy but wasn't the key to the world card using RFID before the magic bands were introduced?
They never were quite the same once several of the designers split off after the battle of Endor and formed FreiTex.I guess Incom's revenue from X-Wing sales isn't what it used to be.![]()
Shame on the patent office for issuing this in the first place. I can't see how it meets the requisite tests for being novel or non-obvious.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.