-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
InCom Federal lawsuit against Disney MagicBands
- Thread starter ptaylor
- Start date
flynnibus
Premium Member
Remember, a Patent is not about WHAT you do.. but HOW you do it. Both are systems to track individuals, yes.. both use RFID.. but the similarity in the claims ends about there.
InCom's is about refining the accuracy of counts by using a human confirmed report. Disney's patent app is much more what you are used to seeing... 'grab as much as you can' in your claims by making things very open ended. InCom's on the other hand is very narrowly defined and the real novelty is the idea of the report being sent back to the teacher to confirm the accuracy of the RFID system.
note2001
Well-Known Member
With exception to the actual circuitry, I still find this lawsuit ridiculous. If Disney did indeed take one of their 'tags' apart and duplicate that technology in in their 'tokens' then this former X-wing manufacturer has a basis to sue on. I sincerely doubt Disney did that.
It's as though Auntie Edna decided to sue Kraft for stealing her recipe for Mac n Cheese. Similar concept, different product.
I find it curious that they added the price tag of the magic bands to the claim multiple times without stating how much they're looking for. I believe they also forgot that many of the 'sold' magic bands were actually not sold individually, but rather dispersed as part of booking a Disney hotel or DVC room.
It's as though Auntie Edna decided to sue Kraft for stealing her recipe for Mac n Cheese. Similar concept, different product.
I find it curious that they added the price tag of the magic bands to the claim multiple times without stating how much they're looking for. I believe they also forgot that many of the 'sold' magic bands were actually not sold individually, but rather dispersed as part of booking a Disney hotel or DVC room.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Like it or not, that's not how patents work.
sporadic
Well-Known Member
In regards to the circuitry, the systems (the HOW) are completely different.
Combination ID/tag holder - This all about an combination ID / RFID holder. I see no piece of tech in their claims that relates in any way to a magic band.
Attendance tracking system - This is the one they could possibly be fighting.
RFID transceiver sensitivity focusing system - Has absolutely nothing to do with Disney's magic band implementation. The system described here is to energize RFID tags at a greater distance, which is not how magic bands work. The RFID portion of the magic band is near field only at 13.56MHz - uses a NXP MIFARE DESFire EV1. All long range communication is done via a battery powered nRF24LE1 2.4GHz ISM radio (it listens for beacon packets on 2.482GHz).
BernardandBianca
Well-Known Member
Patent infringement does not require knowledge of the product covered or even of the patent; it is a strict liability tort in that if you do what is present in a valid claim, then you infringe. Previous awareness is not an element.
It can be considered that the price paid for the room includes some pricing for the inclusion of the band, and thus the bands were "sold" as part of the compensation paid for the room.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
True, unless Disney were to successfully make the argument that the reason they infringed without knowledge was because the original patent failed to meet the standard of non-obviousness in the first place.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Because the patents aren't just for "RDIF connected to a database". This is not a patent troll case, the company suing Disney actually has a product that uses their patents.
note2001
Well-Known Member
I believe too many people are screaming Patent Troll here without understanding what one is.
You're not a troll if you actually designed and/or make the product you're saying others are infringing upon. (Which does not exclude them from wanting a piece of the Disney pie.) A Patent troll is simply someone with money going around buying up patents they have neither developed on their own, nor have any intent on developing off. Their entire goal is to wait for the day they might be able to sue the pants off of another company.
In other, mildly related news: Google is buying up patents: http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechcon...ting-with-patent-marketplace-to-combat-trolls
Edited: cleaned up for poor grammar
You're not a troll if you actually designed and/or make the product you're saying others are infringing upon. (Which does not exclude them from wanting a piece of the Disney pie.) A Patent troll is simply someone with money going around buying up patents they have neither developed on their own, nor have any intent on developing off. Their entire goal is to wait for the day they might be able to sue the pants off of another company.
In other, mildly related news: Google is buying up patents: http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechcon...ting-with-patent-marketplace-to-combat-trolls
Edited: cleaned up for poor grammar
Last edited:
flynnibus
Premium Member
I'm going to coin this the 'link bait' generation.
Everything is exaggerated or leading... because that's what draws people in. Instead of just weblinks, people do it in their interactions now too. It's somehow desirable to be brash and exaggerated as the lead-in to anything. Yet they don't actually believe anything the say... and when confronted, just slither away.
One could probably coin something tied to youtube comments too
Everything is exaggerated or leading... because that's what draws people in. Instead of just weblinks, people do it in their interactions now too. It's somehow desirable to be brash and exaggerated as the lead-in to anything. Yet they don't actually believe anything the say... and when confronted, just slither away.
One could probably coin something tied to youtube comments too
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
I don't think that this suit has any real chance of being successful. It is most likely that InCom just wants to get a settlement. It is very difficult to enforce a "process" type patent. It would be like Apple suing Google and saying Google Wallet infringes on Apple Pay patents. They both do the same thing.
For this type of patent to be enforceable, they have to prove that the defendant is doing the same exact thing in the same exact way. Many years ago, I worked for Motorola and there was a patent dispute over assisted GPS (what cell phones use to be able to get location much quicker than standard GPS). In assisted GPS, the network provides some location information based on the tower that the phone is connected to and then the phone uses that information to find and use the GPS satellites.
Qualcomm claimed that Motorola was infringing on a patent because Qualcomm had patented the method of the network telling the phone which of the GPS satellites would be "in view" of the phone at the time of the location request. How did Motorola get around this patent? One of my friends who was a software engineer got a patent for a process where the network would tell the phone which GPS satellites would NOT be "in view" and the phone would use that information to determine which were "in view."
I relayed this story so you can see how a tiny difference can make these things unenforceable.
For this type of patent to be enforceable, they have to prove that the defendant is doing the same exact thing in the same exact way. Many years ago, I worked for Motorola and there was a patent dispute over assisted GPS (what cell phones use to be able to get location much quicker than standard GPS). In assisted GPS, the network provides some location information based on the tower that the phone is connected to and then the phone uses that information to find and use the GPS satellites.
Qualcomm claimed that Motorola was infringing on a patent because Qualcomm had patented the method of the network telling the phone which of the GPS satellites would be "in view" of the phone at the time of the location request. How did Motorola get around this patent? One of my friends who was a software engineer got a patent for a process where the network would tell the phone which GPS satellites would NOT be "in view" and the phone would use that information to determine which were "in view."
I relayed this story so you can see how a tiny difference can make these things unenforceable.
Matt_Black
Well-Known Member
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Only one of the three patents in question is a process patent.
note2001
Well-Known Member
And yet, that seems to be the one patent they are being noisy about Disney infringing upon. My question is, would a judge see an Attendance system as being the same process as a ticketing system? As a developer, I see them as alike as two coins from different countries. Similar ideas, but very different value.
dstrawn9889
Well-Known Member
it was close enoughThat's EnCom, you're thinking of.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Encom makes computers that try to take over the world, Incom makes star fighters with which to fight a rebellion. Keep it straight!
dstrawn9889
Well-Known Member
END OF LINEEncom makes computers that try to take over the world, Incom makes star fighters with which to fight a rebellion. Keep it straight!