You really need to keep with the electronics theme of this group.
At least on the '510 patent, it seems Maxim's case is pretty weak.
Independent Claim 1 probably doesn't adequately anticipate a portable,
general-purpose, wireless appliance, such as an iPhone.
Also as to Claim 1, if Starbucks system doesn't use a "math co-
processor", then arguably it does not infringe '510, for Claim 1
REQUIRES it as part of the system all the dependent claims rest upon.
Dependent Claim 4 kills them dead - as I don't see any way the
Starbucks program communicates as a one-wire device.
The '013 patent reads on the '510 too closely (I believe) for Maxim to
argue against the notion that the '510 patent anticpates a physical
electrical connection (over a one-wire network topology) to
accommodate the transaction. This is not the same as a visual
scanning of an iPhone touchscreen via a non-contact optical camera.
(...though the two approaches do enable "transfer of valuable
information"). But then, so do semaphore flags.
No doubt Starbuck's attorney's will show a button-cell one-wire
memory, like those used on watchmen security systems where you have to
physically touch the coin cell memory to an appropriate reader, and
then plead with courts that that's a far cry from flashing a barcode
coupon with an iPhone - even when the iPhone has a non-volatile memory
in which to store a cash equivalent value. If the '510 patent #
appears on Maxim's (Dallas Semi) coin cell button memory (and it
surely does!), they're screwed.
I would be amazed if Maxim prevails in their complaint.
Perhaps they don't care, thinking the potential payoff justifies even
an enormous legal fee if they can just get a District Court to rule
any portion of this in their favor.
Maxim could then use that decision to "shake down" all manner of
electronic commerce gadgets that exchange valuable information,
particularly remote cash registers.
As a side note, I've seen microprocessors embedded on credit cards?
Wouldn't these infringe, or is the difference there that the cash
equivalent is not actually stored ON THE CARD, and instead relies upon
a database lookup of some sort?? If so, all Starbucks has to do it
back-end database the transaction and problem solved. Such an easy
work-around. In fact, one could argue the "secure transaction" taught
by '510 Claim 1 REQIURES this same back-end database in order to be
secure, since by it's own reading, Claim 1 allows the connection of
the portable module reader to multiple other devices.
Aside #2, is a coupon a cash equivalent? For if it is, then is it
useful anywhere cash is accepted?
If the answer to this is "No", then Maxim may face the additional
hurdle of having to explain that the term "cash equivalent" only
applies inside Starbuck stores.
Then, they'll have to explain how other "coupons" stored on the same
iPhone, and substantially similar in character and form, encryption,
uniqueness, etc.., are NOT cash equivalents inside Starbucks.
-mpm
At least on the '510 patent, it seems Maxim's case is pretty weak.
Independent Claim 1 probably doesn't adequately anticipate a portable,
general-purpose, wireless appliance, such as an iPhone.
Also as to Claim 1, if Starbucks system doesn't use a "math co-
processor", then arguably it does not infringe '510, for Claim 1
REQUIRES it as part of the system all the dependent claims rest upon.
Dependent Claim 4 kills them dead - as I don't see any way the
Starbucks program communicates as a one-wire device.
The '013 patent reads on the '510 too closely (I believe) for Maxim to
argue against the notion that the '510 patent anticpates a physical
electrical connection (over a one-wire network topology) to
accommodate the transaction. This is not the same as a visual
scanning of an iPhone touchscreen via a non-contact optical camera.
(...though the two approaches do enable "transfer of valuable
information"). But then, so do semaphore flags.
No doubt Starbuck's attorney's will show a button-cell one-wire
memory, like those used on watchmen security systems where you have to
physically touch the coin cell memory to an appropriate reader, and
then plead with courts that that's a far cry from flashing a barcode
coupon with an iPhone - even when the iPhone has a non-volatile memory
in which to store a cash equivalent value. If the '510 patent #
appears on Maxim's (Dallas Semi) coin cell button memory (and it
surely does!), they're screwed.
I would be amazed if Maxim prevails in their complaint.
Perhaps they don't care, thinking the potential payoff justifies even
an enormous legal fee if they can just get a District Court to rule
any portion of this in their favor.
Maxim could then use that decision to "shake down" all manner of
electronic commerce gadgets that exchange valuable information,
particularly remote cash registers.
As a side note, I've seen microprocessors embedded on credit cards?
Wouldn't these infringe, or is the difference there that the cash
equivalent is not actually stored ON THE CARD, and instead relies upon
a database lookup of some sort?? If so, all Starbucks has to do it
back-end database the transaction and problem solved. Such an easy
work-around. In fact, one could argue the "secure transaction" taught
by '510 Claim 1 REQIURES this same back-end database in order to be
secure, since by it's own reading, Claim 1 allows the connection of
the portable module reader to multiple other devices.
Aside #2, is a coupon a cash equivalent? For if it is, then is it
useful anywhere cash is accepted?
If the answer to this is "No", then Maxim may face the additional
hurdle of having to explain that the term "cash equivalent" only
applies inside Starbuck stores.
Then, they'll have to explain how other "coupons" stored on the same
iPhone, and substantially similar in character and form, encryption,
uniqueness, etc.., are NOT cash equivalents inside Starbucks.
-mpm
