UAV systems infringing in US 6370629

Folks - meet "Controlling Access to Stored Information" - US 6,370,629, and a snapshot of my brain in 1999 when I filed it originally. It is the culmination in a process which produces non-repudiated controls as digital evidence of some motion-object's actions in a real-virtual or ephemeral context.

Here is the patent storm link or use PEAR at the PTO for a copy...

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6370629.html

We are now enforcing this against a number of cellphone, surveillance, weapons and UAV vendors and you should be hearing about this patent in the next few months allot. Dont worry the Brits were furious to review and find it covers the use and operations of BSFM (Ballistic Sensor Fused Munitions) which means their AF90 155mm GPS guided appliances infringe too.

Anyway - I know its probably unnerving to hear about this here but hey it is what it is - and we are licensing our rights to use this IP to others.

Contact me offlist for our lawyers' contact information if you are interested in this IP

Todd Glassey

He claims that "non-repudiated controls as digital evidence of some motion-object's actions in a real-virtual or ephemeral context. "

But in
http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/gps/showArticle.j...

he claims
"Todd Glassey, chief scientist of Certichron, a time data trust service, and founder of the U.S. Time Server Foundation, argues that GPS devices can be easily jammed and that their data can be spoofed, particularly when tied to cellular systems -- as offender tracking bracelets may be."
Futher on....
"But constitutional considerations aside, Glassey maintains that L1 GPS data should not be admissible in court without some other form of corroborating evidence. He contends that the reliability claims made to the court by manufacturers of GPS tracking devices are misrepresentations."

So using L1 GPS by his own admission can be repudiated ,so his patent cannot apply to using it.

Replies

Steve Joyce February 4, 2010 at 5:49am

I read the claims in the patent. It is about controlling access to information based on geographic position. So a moving vehicle could only gain access to information authorized for its current location for example.

Glassey came up with the BRILLIANT idea that you could use the GPS POSITION as part of an ENCRYPTION KEY to access a DATABASE thereby only allowing access to data for its current POSITION. WOW I bet nobody else could have thought of that. I wish him the best of luck selling this valuable IP. :-)

How this claim can be applied in any general way to UAV operations is beyond me.
Mike Bakula February 4, 2010 at 3:41am

Hmm, looks like a patent troll cruising to scare people into paying. This works quite often with businesses, but even if he had a claim, there's no-one to sue in an open-source project. I mean, who's getting paid for selling the IP?
agmatthews February 4, 2010 at 12:33am

All your base are belong to us.....
Moderator

Gary Mortimer February 3, 2010 at 11:45pm

Well I had no idea what it meant, but interesting choices of phrase he uses. Also wondered if this is the first application of a dodgy patent in the UAV field. I guess not. Currently interested in patents cos we have just entered into sorting one out, no I'm not telling you what for and its never been mentioned anywhere online so don't try looking! i realise it will be copied by China!
Joe Jackson February 3, 2010 at 3:01pm

He claims that "non-repudiated controls as digital evidence of some motion-object's actions in a real-virtual or ephemeral context. "

But in
http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/gps/showArticle.j...

he claims
"Todd Glassey, chief scientist of Certichron, a time data trust service, and founder of the U.S. Time Server Foundation, argues that GPS devices can be easily jammed and that their data can be spoofed, particularly when tied to cellular systems -- as offender tracking bracelets may be."
Futher on....
"But constitutional considerations aside, Glassey maintains that L1 GPS data should not be admissible in court without some other form of corroborating evidence. He contends that the reliability claims made to the court by manufacturers of GPS tracking devices are misrepresentations."

So using L1 GPS by his own admission can be repudiated ,so his patent cannot apply to using it.
Ken February 3, 2010 at 2:47pm

Hard to believe that a person who doesn't know the meaning of the word "allot" can come up with the string "culmination in a process which produces non-repudiated controls as digital evidence of some motion-object's actions in a real-virtual or ephemeral context."

Don't get me started on "Don't worry the Brits..."
3D Robotics

Chris Anderson February 3, 2010 at 12:28pm

I have no idea what that means. Can you explain how "a process which produces non-repudiated controls as digital evidence of some motion-object's actions in a real-virtual or ephemeral context" applies to what people here do?

This reply was deleted.

Discussions

Is this a worry or not ?.... UAV systems infringing in US 6370629

UAV systems infringing in US 6370629

Replies

Activity