3 ms·
I am not a patent attorney, but I am aware that a patent is only as good as the claims within it. All of the claims here seem to depend on the portable device
by rlpb 16y ago
I am not a patent attorney, but I am aware that a patent is only as good as the claims within it.
All of the claims here seem to depend on the portable device having a graphical map of the "geofence". The patent isn't relevant at all on a system that doesn't have this property.
So it seems that the patent is pretty limited to me. Any location based system that does not graphically show a boundary on the portable device itself will not fall foul of this patent (as far as I can see).
- ergo98 16y agoAgreed. This patent is not the mother of all geofencing patents: They seemed to have made it specific enough that it is actually not the egregious sort of patent abuse that we so commonly see. A patent can have multiple independent claims, independently enforceable. In this case, however, there are only a few independent claims, each a simple rewrite that only marginally changes scope. The reset are dependent claims that are specializations.