| Subject: Re: Granting of Patent to CAT |
Author:
Steve Bonkers.
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06:43:26 02/17/02 Sun
In reply to:
Steve Bonkers
's message, "Granting of Patent to CAT reported in the AFR 8/2/2002.(impotant dates 14th of Feb and 25/Feb 2002.)" on 22:37:23 02/10/02 Sun
Start of topic by Walt
Message CAT patently a good idea. (read 87 times; 2 replies)
Conference ASX
Posted Sun 17-Feb-02 13:02
Member Walt
Email Address conwal10@senet.com.au
Member Since 1-Oct-98
No. Connections 3224
No. Posts 238
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recent application by CAT for patent for it’s existing software application regarding loyalty provisions has opened a pandoras box.
Firstly the USA and the European Union practice differing interpretations of patent.
Also patent specifications differ from online to offline.
The obvious question for Ergites is who owns or developed the software loyalty points application used in Hong Kong for example. Also is the architecture of Proton protected by patent? Is it necessary to do so?
We will come to that later.
Receiving a patent on a new, software implemented business model in the European Union is not as easy as in the USA.
According to Art. 52.I of the European Patent Convention (EPC) patents are granted to inventions which are new, involves an inventive step and has an industrial application.
Art. 52 II (c) EPC excludes, among others, computer programs and methods of doing business from being patentable.
However in the USA there is a tendency to protect software applications implementing a certain method of doing business in a new environment (such as the internet) by patent law.
Smartcards can be subject to patent protection in the EPC if, the patent claimed is new ( that is the question) involves an inventive step and further is susceptible of industrial application.
The question of whether or not patents are granted in relation to the smartcard technology itself is of a rather technical nature and unfortunately was not covered in the paper.
The point is that there will be hundreds of applications that already have a patent number and conditions assigned to them.
Loyalty programs are interesting because they will fascilitate commercialisation of the smartcard which is a primary issue.
According to Art. I sec. 2 of the Software Directive, copyright protection for computer programs generally applies to any form of expression of the computer program while underlying ideas and principles are not subject to protection but remain in the public domain.
Method and System for Tracking Smartcard Loyalty Points EPA 009101600.7.
The utilisation of smartcards for consumer transactions has resulted in a demand for loyalty programs associated with these transactions which award loyalty points to consumers.
The introduction of loyalty programs of earlier types requires significant investments in equipment, as all merchant terminals have to be modified to accomplish the necessary function of putting loyalty points for a consumer’s purchase on the card.
The invention allows for an inexpensive off-line loyalty program, as loyalty updates are performed as an automatic function of the smartcard itself at the merchant terminal, including tracking and redeeming of smartcard loyalty points. Such a system could inexpensively be integrated and controlled by local merchants.
Numerous flow charts in the patent application provide detailed information about the flow of information between the key componenets of the system.
The application seeks to protect both the system and the specific methods used in each necessary process. As a result, the patent would entitle the right holder to license his invention to every company which is interested in implementing components of the smartcard based off-line loyalty program.
With regard to many opportunities of loyalty programs in general and the economic advantages of low implementation costs of an off-line loyalty points system, the patent application could be of strong economic significance.
It is clear that if CAT is successful then it will reap the rewards for many years to come.
Loyalty programs with ID, CEPS, EMV are the pillars set on the foundations of Protons platform for example. The multi-modal interoperable component will speed up the commercial applications.
CAT’s recent announcement is just the beginning. There are so many patentable applications from Health, Food, Security, Transport, etc with patents open.
Very, very interesting times ahead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER:From time to time comments aimed at manipulating other investors may appear on these forums. Posters may post overly optimistic or pessimistic comments on particular stocks, in an attempt to influence other investors. While every effort is made by the moderators to remove these, some may still appear on these forums. Unless specifically stated persons posting on this site are NOT investment advisors and do NOT hold the necessary licence, or have any formal training, to give investment advice. Before acting on any of the information you read and making any financial or investment decisions, you should always consult your advisor(s) or other relevant professional experts.
Reply by fra to Walt (1 of 2)
Message CAT -The Catuity Patent (read 49 times; 1 reply)
Conference ASX
Posted Sun 17-Feb-02 17:08
Member fra
Email Address withheld
Member Since 13-Nov-00
No. Connections 1170
No. Posts 35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt
Enjoyed your thoughtful(as usual)post.
Do you happen to know how I can or if I can access the Catuity patent specification?Do you know the application number in the States?
Interested to hear your views of the significance of the patent.Perhaps the best test of that is commercial success-Visa's endorsement of the software which embodies the method disclosed in the patent as its smart card architecture for loyalty programs.State of the art stuff.
What you say about patentability of business methods is correct.Indeed CAT may be arguing in the WRT case that they are unpatentable,which if correct would probably block their obtaining the same patent here as they have obtained in the States.But then they would win the WRT appeal-though there are other grounds they may win it on anyway.
My view of the US patent is it is extremely important not only from an "offensive" POV but also the defensive POV.There are many patent holders/claimants throwing their weight around in the States at present re smartcards to obtain licensing deals-but no-one has the killer application patent which covers all situations and it may be the only solution will be a cross licensing deal on an industry wide basis,maybe even a self agreed royalty tribunal-something along those lines.Obviously this issue will have a life of its own for a while.
The Fra
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER:From time to time comments aimed at manipulating other investors may appear on these forums. Posters may post overly optimistic or pessimistic comments on particular stocks, in an attempt to influence other investors. While every effort is made by the moderators to remove these, some may still appear on these forums. Unless specifically stated persons posting on this site are NOT investment advisors and do NOT hold the necessary licence, or have any formal training, to give investment advice. Before acting on any of the information you read and making any financial or investment decisions, you should always consult your advisor(s) or other relevant professional experts.
Reply by Walt to fra (2 of 2)
Message CAT -The Catuity Patent (read 38 times; 0 replies)
Conference ASX
Posted Sun 17-Feb-02 21:19
Member Walt
Email Address conwal10@senet.com.au
Member Since 1-Oct-98
No. Connections 3224
No. Posts 238
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Fra,
I don't know the US Patent number.I've had a long day but will check it out next weekend.
I agree that CAT has a huge market worldwide.The waters are muddied however. Loyalty schemes have imo no author.
CAT has applied loyalty schemes to the s/card but that in itself does not give them the right to monopolise the practice.
At the end of the day I don't think that it matters. CAT can still market the technology as it's own and companies like Visa and Amex will buy it.
That CAT has chosen to apply for patent is great.It will open up the industry for all to see. We will be able to now guage just who are the genuine players. Very exciting development.
As for the smartcard and multi-applications it is becoming increasingly evident that we will not see one card with 1,000 applications.
We will buy cards that suite our particular needs.The problem is if a number of companies wish to offer a service on one card the question of card ownership then rears it's head.
How a company profits from each application then becomes complicated. The card issuer Telstra for example may roll out 7 million cards but could profit from just 5 applications. The other companies on the card could find their solutions are being utilised at a greater percentage but receive less revenue than if they issued the card themselves.
It is becoming clear now that we will have a telecommunications Telstra/ANZ/ERG. A transit card ERG/NRMA/E-card eventually with CEPS.
A Visa or Mastercard or Amex, ID and Debit and Credit card(CEPS).
A Health card that includes your prescriptions and cholestorol readings etc.Vehicle card, I know it sounds absurd.
All cards may have a purse but the card that is the most consumer friendly will be utilised the most.
Just a bit more on patent specs....
The European Patent Office (EPO) require a further technical effect other than the normal interaction between hardware and software.
With regard to inventions relating to computer implemented business methods a mere contribution in the business field is not sufficient.
The EU Commission launched a public consultation process on this matter. Of the 1,400 comments, 1,300 were against patents for software related inventions.
On the 21st Dec 2000 US patent practices were rejected by a large majority of EU Member States.
In the EU, patentable subject matter must show a technical contribution to state of the art. The invention must provide a technical solution to a problem while in the US patent protection is afforded to any new and non obvious practicable application of an invention.
Both the US and EU however wish to prevent any company monopolising a computer application per se.
We are just at the foot of the mountain now.
It is going to be very interesting because if CAT is successful the floodgates will open.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 