InCom Federal lawsuit against Disney MagicBands

Disney6166

Member
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.
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.
 

NelsonRD

Well-Known Member
A few comments on patents...

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

Second, there is no such thing as a provisional patent. There are provisional applications, but a provisional patent doesn't exist.
 

CaptainAmerica

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

note2001

Well-Known Member
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.
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.
 

NelsonRD

Well-Known Member
Another thing to consider. Software is rarely sold. It is owned by the company that produced it, and licensed to who requested it. Similar to music, the artist owns it, and allows you to listen to it. So, the contractors that Disney hired to help with the software, still actually 'own' it, unless otherwise agreed.
 

note2001

Well-Known Member
I am not a patent lawyer, but do have substantial knowledge of circuit design, signal processing and software. I took a very quick scan of the documents (thanks Danlb_2000!) and noted some starting points for discussion:

This one is about the container. Not too much here. Silly thing to sue upon, Disney's design is very different. Weight in case: minimal

https://www.google.com/patents/US8353705?dq=8,353,705&hl=en&sa=X&ei=K046VYyGE4WwggTG-4DYBw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA

This is in regards to the software. As stated before, patenting software process is allowable, however the patented software method is designed for tracking students and attendance. Quick scan: I did not see mention made about ticketing and venue tracking. As you can imagine Disney's software is much more complicated. Again, similar idea... different people with different approaches. Weight in case: minimal.

https://www.google.com/patents/US7812779?dq=7,812,779&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Xk46VZvNIMSkNpjpgIgI&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA
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.

Let me know how the rest of you interpret the patents & complaint. It's probable I've missed some information in there too (trying to split my attention three ways here)
 
Last edited:

note2001

Well-Known Member
My memory is a bit hazy but wasn't the key to the world card using RFID before the magic bands were introduced?
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.
 

Rasvar

Well-Known Member
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.

That part of the system has been broken a long time. The PTO doesn't really have the staff or funding to fully check these things and unless someone else protests when a patent is filed. the issues usually doesn't get fleshed out unless a lawsuit is filed. InCom is kind of betting the patent house on this lawsuit. Either they win big and get strong precedent on their patent or Disney decides to try to kill it. I'm kind of surprised they went after the big dog first. Although, maybe they have gone after some smaller companies and built some legal credibility to the patent and feel like they can go bigger now. I'm not familiar with their history on this.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom