Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Charles Walton, the Father of RFID 169

Posted by simoniker from the rtfm-on-rfid dept.
Roland Piquepaille writes "In a very interesting article, the San Jose Mercury News tells us about Charles Walton, the man behind the radio frequency identification technology (RFID). Since his first patent about it in 1973, Walton, now 83 years old, collected about $3 million from royalties coming from his patents. Unfortunately for him, his latest patent about RFID expired in the mid-1990s. So he will not make any money from the billions of RFID tags that will appear in the years to come. But he continues to invent and his latest patent about a proximity card with incorporated PIN code protection was granted in June 2004. Maybe he'll be luckier with this one. This overview contains some excerpts of the original article. It also contains tips to search for Walton's patents and an image of the front page of his first patent."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Charles Walton, the Father of RFID More

Charles Walton, the Father of RFID

Comments Filter:

  • Patents and Privacy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Webmoth ( 75878 ) on Monday June 14, 2004 @03:18PM (#9423251) Homepage
    Frankly, this is one patent that wouldn't bother me had it not expired.

    Were licensing fees prohibitive for mass-scale introduction of RFID tags, personal privacy would be safer.

    • Re:Patents and Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by guido1 ( 108876 ) on Monday June 14, 2004 @03:33PM (#9423360)
      Were licensing fees prohibitive for mass-scale introduction of RFID tags, personal privacy would be safer.

      What would the patent holder have gained by making them prohibitive? Had his patent not expired, the only difference is he would have been richer. I'm sure the technology would still have been used... (Unless this guy is truly altruistic.)
      • You can look at this whole process in another way also.

        If one argues that the patent (and the licensing fees) was a major factor in the delay of RFID technology, I wonder how many other techs are out there that COULD DO great good for mankind, but isn't because of patent restrictions. Cures/Medicines, new engines/combustion tech, IT infrastructure/security/privacy boosting tech etc.

        Your assumption that RFIDs suck doesn't really adress the issue, that patents are working as a deccellerator on human progres

    • wouldn't make a difference (Score:5, Informative)

      by John Harrison ( 223649 ) <johnharrison@@@gmail...com> on Monday June 14, 2004 @03:37PM (#9423388) Homepage Journal
      The cost of making the antenna is the largest factor in the price of the simplest RFID tags. The industry is pretty close to the elusive 5 cent tag, which has been the holy grail for some time. It is improved technology (as opposed to expiring patents) that has lead to the reduction in cost over time.

      Were the patent still in force he could charge less than a penny per tag and he would still get rich (there will be billions and billions of tags) and the cost wouldn't be prohibitive.

      If he insisted on a high fee, such as a dollar per tag that would certainly slow the adoption of the technology, but why would he do that?

      In the end the market would have dictated the price and it would be low in order to allow adoption of the technology and maximize his profit. In that case, what you are saying would not be any more applicable than it is today.

    • Re:Patents and Privacy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The retard parade marches on.

      There are serious economic advantages to be had using RFID chips in many applications that are not end-user related. Get over yourself, no one cares about your pathetic little life posting a +5 karma whoring on Slashdot with its tired privacy rhetoric, even if you did have an RFID tag in your keyboard.
    • " personal privacy would be safer.'

      No it wouldn't. It's not an invention to tear away privacy, it's an invention to solve a need. If it goes, something takes its place.

    • "Were licensing fees prohibitive for mass-scale introduction of RFID tags, personal privacy would be safer."

      ROTFLMFAO

      Because licensing would prevent what exactly? Identity theift? The fact that credit card companies and banks collect information on me? Would it stop websites from cookie-ing my browser? People spying through my windows? Eliminate the need for my tinfoil hat?

      Have you any clue about the signal strength of passive rfid tags, which i'm assuming you're talking about? They are powered b

    • Get real, there are a few good things that come with rfids:
      - lower cost of manufacturing / transport,
      - greater safety in medical processes (including surgery and drugs dispensing),
      - lower maintenance costs of complex systems and installations,
      - better safety on the road (signs can carry a message that displays in your car the moment you pass it),
      - more acurate navigation,
      etc.
      Can rfid tags be used for bad things? Yes. But so can things we love: knives, dynamite and box cutters. Have fun.

  • Time to get lucky (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lockefire ( 691775 ) on Monday June 14, 2004 @03:18PM (#9423253)
    Maybe he'll be luckier with this one.

    At 83, I don't think he is really that interested in the monetary aspects of the invention process.

  • Maybe that's WHY they are in widespread use... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by greenfly ( 40953 ) on Monday June 14, 2004 @03:23PM (#9423278)
    It seems to me that maybe one of the reasons RFID tags are in such widespread use now is the fact that the patent did expire so other companies were free to implement their own uses for it. He got $3 million, which isn't bad, and now it goes into the public domain, as it should.

    This is why we have patents, everyone is just so used to predatory patents nowadays that someone not making money hand-over-fist from a patent seems strange.

    • Re:Maybe that's WHY they are in widespread use... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Monday June 14, 2004 @03:27PM (#9423317)
      It seems to me that maybe one of the reasons RFID tags are in such widespread use now is the fact that the patent did expire so other companies were free to implement their own uses for it.

      Nah, they are in widespread use because there is now more technology to read them. People are less aware and disgusted by intrusive technology (some even think it's fucking good for them -- ooh, but the ones inbedded in tires will make our roads safer w/o us having to actually have real police out there patroling!)

      The only way that the public will revolt against instrusive technologies is if it somehow keeps them from watching Survivor.

      • Re:Maybe that's WHY they are in widespread use... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by metlin ( 258108 ) * on Monday June 14, 2004 @03:39PM (#9423412) Journal
        Heh! How true.

        Ironic, isn't it? People do not seem to notice or care when their privacy or rights are being violated.

        However, they do not hesitate to show their pretentious moral indignation at the slightest opportunity of things that should not even bother them (ah, a certain nipple incident comes to mind).

        RFIDs maybe good for some applications, but down the line, when you have a quintillion things tracking you you can kiss whatever little privacy you have goodbye.

        As it is, our habits are being tracked, our browsing habits are being tracked and we have cams everywhere. RFID is only going to make it easier for the powers-that-be to watch us and control.

        And honestly, I would not be surprised when RFIDs are in place, some act will be passed that will make simply take advantage of this to exploit whatever little rights we have.

        And when they do pass a law that says

        "Henceforth, all humans should walk around with an embedded trackable microchip.

        people will not bat an eyelid and obey it. Trust me, it will happen.

    • Re:Maybe that's WHY they are in widespread use... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by metlin ( 258108 ) * on Monday June 14, 2004 @03:29PM (#9423333) Journal
      Exactly!

      And this is how patents should be, IMHO.

      The inventor gets a fair benefit out of his invention, while the rest can explore and make use of it to everyone else's (and their) benefit down the line.

      These days, patents seem to exhibit the idea that the inventor should get a cut for every penny that's been made out of his/her invention. If this were the case, civilization would have long stalled.

      The ideal patent would be one where the inventor gets a fair benefit, and others can have a free go at the invention so that they can improvise and better it for everyone else.

      I do not see why he should be worried, especially since he's made enough already.

    • Re:Maybe that's WHY they are in widespread use... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It seems to me that maybe one of the reasons RFID tags are in such widespread use now is the fact that the patent did expire so other companies were free to implement their own uses for it.

      You realize that all patents expire, including whatever the current "If we can't copy this for free this second civilization will come to an end!" bogeyman today, right?

    • So what you're saying is this guy held up a multi billion dollar industry for twenty years for the sake of 3 million in royalities. If anything, this is a great example of why patents are so evil.

      By delaying 20 years, I would bet the guy has easially lost more than 3 million in opportunity costs anyhow - and does he deserve that amount if someone else would have invented the same thing anyhow a month after he did?
      • So what you're saying is this guy held up a multi billion dollar industry for twenty years for the sake of 3 million in royalities. If anything, this is a great example of why patents are so evil.

        RFID is coming into use now because
        • manufacturing costs are down
        • Microchip technology has improved, making them smaller
        • Computer technology has improved, making them more useful.

        Those seem to be mor pressing reasons than royalties for why RFID is just starting to come into use. Besides, wouldn't we have seen a

    • I have to wonder just how much of normal/not normal is due to the fact that we have a single inventor, someone whose revenue can be tracked pretty easily, and whose "development expenses" are similarly simpler, as opposed to a large corporation(say Microsoft). Would we be saying the same thing if a corporate juggernaut only got 3 million from a patent, and contrasted it with their investment?

      I'm a lot more sympathetic with the single inventor case than with the corporate patent owner, and I'm sure I'm not
  • I want to say I feel bad that he won't be collecting the billions to come. But then he already made millions.

  • His famous quote from when RFID was first used (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 14, 2004 @03:24PM (#9423290)
    "I am become death, the tracker of products."

    We can't put the genie back in the bottle.

  • Luckier!? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by the_mad_poster ( 640772 ) <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Monday June 14, 2004 @03:24PM (#9423291) Homepage Journal

    He made three million dollars. I should be 1/2 as lucky as him..... sheesh

  • He has a patent for it, after all. And we all know that the US Parent Office only grants patents when there are clear examples of existing prior art, right? Think about it!
    • A patent all depends on how broad you make the claims, but the first thing I thought of is the aircraft IFF [dean-boys.com] (identification friend or foe) transponder which dates back to WWar II. A radio signal is sent out to an aircraft and an identification is returned - definitely 'rfid' on an airspace scale.
      • A patent all depends on how broad you make the claims, but the first thing I thought of is the aircraft IFF [dean-boys.com] (identification friend or foe) transponder which dates back to WWar II. A radio signal is sent out to an aircraft and an identification is returned - definitely 'rfid' on an airspace scale.

        What's unique about RFID is that the responding device (ie, the RFID tag on your clothes, or your Mobil Speedpass keychain, or your FreedomPay tag) isn't self-powered. Most RFID chips have no internal power source; they get their power from the RF waves broadcast from the RFID reader. The power from the RF waves powers the RFID chip long enough for the chip to power up, and broadcast a reply to the RFID reader's query.

        Now that's cool. And it's also what makes them so low-cost and useful (for good and bad). You can literally print those RFID tags; no need to include a battery.
    • In most countries, an idea has to be "not obvious to anyone appropriately skilled in the relevant art or technology" to be patentable - Does America not have such a clause, or do they not have anyone skilled in any art or technology?

      Most of the patents that upset /.ers so much are obvious - can you say "one click?" - I knew you could!

      I cannot see how RFID should be patentable in the first place. It didn't require any invention - just waiting for components to shrink in size and reading a few datasheets.

      • In most countries, an idea has to be "not obvious to anyone appropriately skilled in the relevant art or technology" to be patentable - Does America not have such a clause, or do they not have anyone skilled in any art or technology?

        The current procedure in the USPTO is to grant the patent and let someone else prove its invalid.

  • privacy, schmivacy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by surreal-maitland ( 711954 ) on Monday June 14, 2004 @03:25PM (#9423302) Journal
    i don't understand the big fear of lack of privacy due to RFID tags. capitalism just takes care of it. if enough people don't want their location known, there will be a market for clothing, etc that does not have RFID tags embedded in it. the government's never going to say (knock on wood) that all clothes or shoes or whatever must have RFID tags, so it's really not something to worry about.
    • the government's never going to say (knock on wood) that all clothes or shoes or whatever must have RFID tags, so it's really not something to worry about.

      Perhaps you should see this [slashdot.org] then. Maybe that will open your eyes.

      Speeding tickets in the mail, realtime tracking of all vehicles, and no privacy.

      But, but, driving is a priviledge! Sorry but the government was never meant to be my parent no matter how much they would like. But, but, our roads will be safe from escaping terrorism suspects and speeders
      • i have seen that, but perhaps i haven't clearly explained my point. if there is a market, that is, if people care, someone will produce tires that don't have RFID tags in them. if enough people care, nobody will put RFID tags in them. i would be surprised if not enough people found it worth it to them to pay $5 more for that privacy that someone would rise to fill that niche. that's the wonderful thing about a somewhat free market economy.

        also, not a lawyer, but i'm pretty sure that you can't get a sp

        • i have seen that, but perhaps i haven't clearly explained my point. if there is a market, that is, if people care, someone will produce tires that don't have RFID tags in them. if enough people care, nobody will put RFID tags in them.

          Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough for you... The government feels it is a priviledge for us to ride on "their" roads. Thus they will mandate the RFID tags be tied to our VINs.
          • Thus they will mandate the RFID tags be tied to our VINs.

            That's a scary thought. The pathetic part is they'll bill it as a counter terrorism measure but those same terrorists are the ones who would have no qualms about "overriding" the RFID signatures or simply jamming them. So, they're just about 100% ineffective for their "stated" goal but man they'd sure bring in a nice steady flow of speeding fine money.
      • To balance things out a little, RFID tags in vehicles could virtually wipe out vehicle theft and make investigating hit and runs nearly trivial. What privacy are you giving up? Where you drive? Unless you're piloting a stealth car, that's public info anyway. All someone has to do is to write down your license plate number, along with a time and place. Are the privacy advocates going to get worked up over that?

        RFID has turned into one of those issues that produces a great amount of hand-wringing whenever it
    • i have no problem with an RFID tag on a product if it

      1) displays a label saying "this product has an RFID tag", prior to purchasing
      and
      2a) is removed at the time of purchasing -or-
      2b) is easily removable after purchasing and doesn't void a warranty. (by easily, i mean no tools needed, just my two hands, or even no hands. hell if i can remove it with my toes, then it's easily removeable)
      3) I can find out what information it is carrying.
      4) no information is tied to me or my financial accounts.

      if they want to
      • Actually, #3 isn't too big of a concern.

        The RFID contains NO information other than its own ID. Anything that obtains/reads that ID still has to hook into some database that contains the list of previous actions using that ID.

        So, really, the privacy issue in that regard isn't that bad.
      • Well, #4 is just as possible with barcodes. What if you buy a gatorade or soda at a store with your credit card and someone shoots a laser across the street and views the barcode on your gaterade or soda?

        RFID == barcodes.

        The only difference is you can read the tag using radio waves instead of a laser. Have you any idea of the ranges involved with reading these tags? They are usually measured in feet not yards to put it in perspective. Maybe someday they will each be battery powered so they can tra

    • Re:privacy, schmivacy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by molarmass192 ( 608071 ) on Monday June 14, 2004 @03:40PM (#9423418) Homepage Journal
      Ahhh ... that's where you're neglecting a key piece of information. For capitalism to work as per the definition of capitalism, consumers must be "perfectly informed". Companies have a vested interest in keeping the consumer under-informed when it comes to RFID. The solution is for the government to mandate a warning tag like the warnings on cigarette boxes. Then capitalism would decide if RFID lives or dies. Something like, "WARNING: This product contains an chip that publically broadcasts your private usage of this product.". Anyhow, I've got a microwave, nothing 15 seconds in there won't fix.
      • perhaps your last comment about the microwave is the best reason not to be worried about RFID. granted, you can't stick your tires in there . . .

        to address your other point, though, about being informed: it can go both ways. look for example at the organic foods market. consumers are uninformed about what goes into their food so they say, 'aha! i want to know exactly what's in my food and i want to be able to pronounce it!' thus a whole new aisle at the grocery store appears. same thing applies here

        • companies can advertise 'absolutely NO electronics in our clothes, just pure hemp.' and the crowd goes wild!

          Dude, that was damned funny! Phew. I expect that we'll find schematics for reprogramming these little suckers worse comes to worst and their use becomes widespread. It wouldn't be a huge deal for clothes and beer cans but it might be against the law to reprogram your tires. I'll admit I'm not real familiar with how their "flash" is implemented, might be time to start doing some research on it.
      • Anyhow, I've got a microwave, nothing 15 seconds in there won't fix.

        An RFID coil will get extremely hot when exposed to microwaves. If it is embedded in a flammable item, such as a garment, that garment will almost certainly catch fire, destroying the garment, quite probably the microwave, and possibly your house as well.

        Do not attempt the above as a method of neutralizing an RFID device.

    • Quoth the poster:

      i don't understand the big fear of lack of privacy due to RFID tags.

      Well, to start with, there have already been cases of lawyers subpoena-ing "EZ-Tag" records from toll road authorities in divorce cases, and at least ONE case I'm aware of where a criminal defendant was convicted primarily on the basis of toll-road records resulting from the RFID toll payment system (proved the defendant was in the right part of town at the right time, circumstantial evidence was sufficient from that po

  • Until after he dies or the patent does, and more likely the later. Which is sad- because proximity cards (a special case of RFID) with pin numbers is one kinda neat access system. Not half as neat as a proximity card with voice recognition password, but still close.
    • Which is why all the previous posts say "oh, it sucks he wont be making anymore money off RFID", "hes so unlucky".
      • The patent for the proximity card was just issued. It isn't expired. Which is why all the previous posts are addressing the story submitter's hopes for better luck with the new patent.
      • There are two patents. The patent for RFID expired in 1994. The patent for the proximity card+pin was issued in 2004, and will not expire until 2021, or when the good doctor is at least 100...I can't imagine him caring much for that long, but as George Burns always used to say "If you make it to 100, you've got it made, because very few people die over 100".
  • This guy came up with RFIDs... You'd think he'd be a lifelong enemy of the slashdot tin-foil hat crowd.

  • Patents, copyrights, and money. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Slightly off topics, but the poor ($ and luck) bastard invents something useful and the patent expires, Disney makes some cartoons, bribes some congressmen, and gets to keep the things in copyright forever.

  • Disc Golf (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Squareball ( 523165 ) on Monday June 14, 2004 @03:27PM (#9423318)
    I want these tags on me Disc Golf [pdga.com] discs! I lose to many and at $10 a pop it gets expensive. Just wonder if they are small enought to be embedded in the discs. Then we just need a hand held locator to find them with.
    • I thought the same thing last time I went golfing (the kind with the balls) and we spend so much time wandering around in the woods looking for our balls.
      But then I came home from the course with 5 more balls than a went with and I realized that I couldn't do that if they rfid in the balls.

    • Re:Disc Golf (Score:2, Insightful)

      by MogwaiJeeper ( 777972 )
      There are lots of things like this that RFID would be good for... imagine being able to tell the position of you golf ball without having to go looking around for it, or a way to go to a driving range with your OWN balls and get them all back at the end of the day...

      Bowling alleys do their get a strike when the head (#1) pin is a different color... they could use RFID so they can accurately track it and set off some reminder so the person knows to collect on their free game and so people don't try to sca

  • another one gets past the PTO (Score:4, Insightful)

    by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Monday June 14, 2004 @03:27PM (#9423326)
    his latest patent about a proximity card with incorporated PIN code protection was granted in June 2004

    OK, RFID is an invention, I'll grant that. And I'll not get into the endless debate over the good and evil of it. But given the RFID is over 20 years old, what part of a proximity card with incorporated PIN code isn't so obvious and apparent to the average engineer that it should qualify for a patent? And isn't there plenty of prior art?

    • I don't know about prior art, but the idea isn't half-bad. The patent describes a card that has an actual keypad on it, with the hash of the PIN number stored inside the card. You then input the PIN number on the card itself, and the hashes are compared. This enables data on the card to be read for some amount of time. It would be preferable to having to PIN/password on the reader for two reasons, the first is that you would only need one universal password for it to work everywhere, and the second is that
    • "what part of a proximity card with incorporated PIN code isn't so obvious and apparent to the average engineer that it should qualify for a patent?"

      The implementation.

    • I don't know. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Erris ( 531066 )
      what part of a proximity card with incorporated PIN code isn't so obvious and apparent to the average engineer that it should qualify for a patent?

      You tell me. The idea is obvious but the implementation might not be.

  • just maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mobiux ( 118006 ) on Monday June 14, 2004 @03:30PM (#9423344)
    this should be used as a perfect example of how patents are supposed to work?

    You make your money off it, then it is released to the public domain for the common good? (although that "good" part may be questioned by some in this case)

  • RSA made little money, as well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GPLDAN ( 732269 ) on Monday June 14, 2004 @03:31PM (#9423351)
    Go ask Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Leonard Adleman about making money from patents. they hardly cashed in on what was one of the net's most successful algorithms. Multiplying large primes was an important breakthrough in cryptography, I think Schnier states this in one of his diatribes.

    The point is, if society doesn't use your invention en masse until after the patent expires, it's not a reason to extend patents any further than they already are.

    Look, almost everyone on Slashdot and the technical media agree, the patent system is horribly broken and corrupted. For every story on the guy who ONLY made $3M on RFID, there are many more stories of bullshit patents on spellcheckers or the use of cookies in browsers to shop (the Bezos debacle) and a million other reasons not to hear the sob story and say "damn, he should be rich(er) but he's not!"

    • Uh, hate to break it to you but the cryptography "breakthroughs" by Rivest, Shamir and Adleman weren't breakthroughs at all. The people who first discovered how to multiply large primes, etc were the scientists at Bletchley Park during World War Two.

      Unfortunately, the British government classified all of their work and, after the war, destroyed virtually every record of what went on at Bletchley. However, it's clear from recent (last twenty years) interviews with some of the cryptographers who worked there
      • Quoth the poster:

        So, in RSA's case, there was prior art but that prior art was kept a secret because of national security concerns.

        So you have a problem with RSA getting a patent on something that was discovered earlier and not only not disclosed, but actively hidden by the British government?? I don't ...

        I have a problem with the fact that RSA got a patent for technology that they developed while conducting cryptographic research under a government contract! Not RSA's fault ... they acted rationally

      • The people who first discovered how to multiply large primes, etc were the scientists at Bletchley Park during World War Two.

        That's not true. You're right about the British Government getting there first but it wasn't Bletchley Park but GCHQ and it wasn't WWII but the 1970s. Clifford Cocks was the first person to realise that the public key scheme later discovered independently by RSA, would be useful for cryptography and it was perfected by Cocks along with James Ellis and Malcolm Williamson.

  • Walton (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ianmalcm ( 591345 ) on Monday June 14, 2004 @03:35PM (#9423378)
    A Walton patented RFID, another Walton wants to require all distributors to use the technology.

    Coincidence?

    Side note: maybe Disney and the entertainment industry could take a hint and continuously invent new stuff like Charles Walton, rather than lobby to extend the copyright timeframe every few years.

    • I agree (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mz6 ( 741941 ) *
      What's the use of extending patents beyond their current lifespan? If the invention is great enough it will make the inventor enough money from it's licensing.
  • I wonder if he shops at Walmart...
  • Yeah, so if patents are supposed to be so good for the field/economy/humanity, how is it that most technology is not fully explored/exploited until after the patent expired?

    • My thoughts exactly. A multibillion dollar industry is held up for twenty years with a technology that likely would have been invented anyhow - and I'm supposed to think patents are good for humanity? Sheesh, even the inventor has likley lost more than 3mil in opportunity costs.
    • Well, firstly: there are a lot of stupid inventions [totallyabsurd.com] (e.g.: hat that spreads into an umbrella).
      Secondly: there are a lot of inventions that are developed based on previous ideas and are fully exploited (e.g.: paperclips [about.com] - there are many designs, quite a few still being used).
      Thirdly: many inventions are innovative, but just not quite good enough [tripod.com] to use (e.g.: the development of the zipper [askandyaboutclothes.com] took several tries).
      Fourthly: The technology is often not good/economical enough in practice (e.g. Lilienfeld's invention [huji.ac.il]
  • Looks like my search time limit has expired. Damn shame, I was just getting started. Too bad search time limits aren't like copyrights.
  • Time to get inventing and patenting permutations on tracking, personal preferences, identity, etc.

    Then, when some company wants to implement your idea, you can

    1. Sell it to them for big bucks, or
    2. Preserve freedom for everyone else by refusing to license it.

  • RFID Patents...current happenings (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ChromDome ( 323252 ) on Monday June 14, 2004 @04:01PM (#9423568)
    Last week, Intermec filed suit against Matrics over RFID Patent Infringment. Intermec owns a WIDE variety of patents in the RFID space that are very general in nature.

    For those of you who don't live in the RFID world...Matrics is the vendor who's hardware is being put into WalMart. Many insiders believe that Intermec's lawsuit was designed to poision the water around a possible acquistion of Matrics by one of Intermec's competitors. There is also a general train of thought that Intermec tactically blundered by moving too soon, they should have waited 6 more months for the RFID initiative within WalMart to really catch on before they hit the industry with royalties.

    http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile /t echnology/story/0,10801,93744,00.html

  • Patents. (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by starvo ( 33598 )
    Good, and very informative article. Can't help but thinking that the guy had his heart and mind in the right place when he invented this. I don't think he envisioned big-brother style monitoring as a use. ..and I also liked the advertising on the side of the blog ("Reach Technologically savvy people"), and how it has anti Bush-Cheney books listed. Apparently those of us who are techno-literate are also anti-Bush...

    And actually I am. Go Kerry! Lesser of two evils!

  • It's just a tool (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mslinux ( 570958 ) on Monday June 14, 2004 @04:07PM (#9423627)
    I get so sick of people talking about how technology is bad.

    Technology is technology... it is not good or bad. OK?

    Men can use technology in good or bad ways. For example, an axe can chop down a tree or cut someone's head off. It's simply a piece of technology. Scissors can cut paper, they can also be jammed into someone's jugular vein. Nuclear energy provides power for business es and residents everywhere, it also can be used to blow up countries.

    Nothing personal, it's just technology. It's inanimate. It has no feelings. It doesn't care how it might be used. It's just there for use.
    • correct, *but* the fact that this technology exists, that we or other people use / abuse it, means we should enter into reasoned debate about what we consider appropriate and responsible use. To absolve ourselves of any responsibility for the technology we create, and not enter into moral debates over good and bad usage is foolish at best and dangerous at worst. I am sure most slashdotters will have opinions over who should have 'open source' and 'free' access to nuclear weapons technology, for example (USA
  • Maybe getting lucky in the sense he didn't make a buttload of cash. But RFID is going to be huge within 5 years. And when they can be printed in large quantities, it's going to be a booming industry.

    He was a visionary, perhaps, and like many the result of being way ahead of your time is a rather thin wallet.

  • Delay in RFID NOT due to patent (Score:4, Informative)

    by PatHMV ( 701344 ) <post@patrickmartin.com> on Monday June 14, 2004 @04:22PM (#9423766) Homepage
    Umpteen morons have posted so far claiming, without benefit of evidence, that RFID has only recently begun to be widely implemented because the patent expired. Baloney!

    Even the briefist of Google searches will show you that RFID implementation has been bogged down by 2 factors: sufficiently cheap manufacturing techniques and industry-wide standards for implementation / data encoding / frequency usage. It took bar codes decades to become ubiquitous, in part because of the same need for standard data dsecriptions that allow every product by every manufacturer to be given a unique bar code.

    See Frontline [frontlinetoday.com], and CSEMag.com [csemag.com], just to pick 2.

    The fact that this was patented had nothing to do with its lack of widespread use. Get a grip, people!
  • To the Walton's of Walmart fame? If so, maybe that explains why they're so into the RFID thing?
  • Is there any chance that someone will sell a small and inexpensive gizmo that will let you know if something is tagged?

    I can sort of imagine taking one to the store, so I can avoid buying clothing that's trackable.
  • I'm impressed that he got his first patent when he was 52 years old.

    There's hope for me yet! (And I promise to only use my patents for good.) ;-)
  • Of course I have not read the patent, but the basic idea behind RFID (thump a circuit with RF and it tells you who it is) has been around way longer than that.

    The basic idea is used by IFF (indentify friend or foe) and trnasponder devices used in aircraft. Whack 'em with radar and they output a pattern of radar signals that can be detected and decoded (or even viewed as extra returns on the radr screen)

  • I'd say he had a pretty good run. 3 million from one idea?

  • RFID & Part15 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dlmarti ( 7677 )
    I still don't understand how you can base the life of your company on a device that operates under Part15 of the FCC rules.

    Lets say you run a business using a device that runs under part15. Then Joe Joes Auto Wrecker buys a licensed radio system on the same frequency. Your business is shut down with no recourse (SP?).

    This same thing happens with WIFI networks under part15. One day your network is fine, supporting hundreds of users, then one guy with a license moves in the area and your entire company n
  • Hi, I'm Joe Consumer. This RFID stuff sounds really cool, and could allow me to do some pretty neat things inside my house, like put tags on things I lose easily, or monitor how much of something I have left, even tell me where people are in the house.

    Unfortunately, what I really need to do all this is a kit with say...50 RFID chips with an adhesive backing, scanners that I can place around the house to track them/count them, and software for my Windows computer which lets me easily monitor/setup this whol

Slashdot Top Deals

"Virtual" means never knowing where your next byte is coming from.

Close