Replies

Smartflash was essentially a dongle that authenticated access to content; the content could ride aboard the dongle, aboard chipped cards, or be pulled remotely. They attracted some ‘name’ clients, but the magic didn’t last...

You've got the wrong SmartFlash patent, IncPen.

These that were just invalidated by the courts were patents for the idea of PAYING for access to music and other content stored on-line which you'd then either get to listen to or download.

The inventor, Patrick Racz, never really described HOW he would accomplish this. He just had the idea that one could pay for songs or other content online, and then get it by downloading it. He was award several patents for the various things one could do by paying for things online and then getting them, but never described exactly HOW to do it. You can't just patent an idea.

For example, you cannot patent the idea of walking into a room and saying LIGHT ON, and the light turns on. You have to describe HOW you will accomplish that task. You can't get a patent on the IDEA of walking into a room and being able to say light on and having the light come on in some way.

That's essentially what Patrick Racz did with the SmartFlash patent. Pay for something and get it on line. Whoop-de-do. . . He claimed that iTunes, the Apple App Store, Google Play Store, paid software updates, etc., ANYTHING one paid for on-line and which could be immediately downloaded was in violation of one of more of his patents. . . even if he had no clue how that was to be accomplished.

Patrick Racz claimed he talked about his idea to an unnamed man he called a "technologist" who later got a job at Apple as a "senior director". . . and then Apple came up with the idea of iTunes Music Store and later the App Stores all because he talked to this guy who later got the job at Apple. This, of course, ignores the fact that many people were already paying for access to files on line by paying for memberships in websites with downloadable files. i.e. a working, viable although crude system for doing what Patrick Racz could not describe in his "patents."

Apple argued at every step in the jury trial that the patents were not technical at all, but merely an idea and appealed the validity to the US Patent appeals board. The first appeal ruled they were invalid and SmartFlash appealed to the US District Court that is designated for patent appeals. They lost again. The only recourse now is the US Supreme Court. They usually do not accept patent cases.

The SmartFlash cards you were referring to came later when the ability to place data chips in credit card sized packages was developed. Those were to be used with a SmartFlash card reader that would be plugged into your computer's USB port whose only purpose was to read these chipped SmartFLash cards. A user would insert the SmartFlash card into the reader to unlock specific websites that required the code that only existed on that card. That was the dongle approach to website security. The only problem was that people had to buy the credit card sized readers to use the cards and no one did. No readers, no interest in the FlashCards.