Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Chris Anderson on February 3, 2010 at 1:28pm

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?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Krzysztof Bosak on February 3, 2010 at 1:51pm

It doesn't matter. All the following IP we are gong to pay royalties for are written in Chinese anyway.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ken on February 3, 2010 at 3:47pm

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..."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Jackson on February 3, 2010 at 4:01pm

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary Mortimer on February 4, 2010 at 12:45am

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!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by agmatthews on February 4, 2010 at 1:33am

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

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Bakula on February 4, 2010 at 4:41am

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?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Joyce on February 4, 2010 at 6:49am

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gregg "Cabe" Bond on February 4, 2010 at 11:01am

You have to wonder if there is any basic checks done by patent offices.

"yeah right.....and inside a server room this will work how?"

I barely get any cell reception in most data centers let alone GPS.

I wonder what would happen if every patent needed a prototype to be filed. Or at least said "you have 5 years to produce a prototype or this goes back into PD for someone else to make use of it" Should shut down alot of these crack pot patent trolls.

• ▶ Reply