Re: [Fsfe-uk] Govt: WiFi does not now infringe Bromcom patent

[Ralph Janke]

James Heald wrote:

> The Government has issued new guidance on the Bromcom patent.
>
> Although claim 7 of the patent was upheld (regarding use of Bromcom's 
> wireless protocol), the Government is advising that WiFi does not 
> infringe, regardless of the software package.
>
> See word file at
> http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/tools/ims/patent/
Unfortunately, they do not go into details, however I have come to the 
same conclusion. In studying claim 7 that

1) It is more closely a CSMA/CD (Collision Detection) than CSMA/CA 
(Collision Avoidance) protocol
2) It has a very specific structure with the central node allowing 
"free" spaces for the slaves to send
3) There is a very specific topology described around a central node 
using almost like a hub-star topology
4) Claim 7 only regards attendance data for the collision protocol, no 
other data is of concern.

In constrast especially when 802.11 is used, I see it very far streched 
that this could infringe claim 7.

1) 802.11 uses CSMA/CA (Collision Avoidance) which does not seem to fit 
claim 7
2) In most cases there wouldn't be a central node itself, since the 
W_Lan is part of the network, not really part of the server
3) There are often  total differences in topologies.If i.e someone wants 
to use W_LAN solely to bridge the network to buildings that aren't 
connected with cable to the main network, it would be a total different 
topology than described in claim 7.
4) Most application will have a lot more non-attendance data using the 
channel than attendance data. None of this data is in any way mentioned 
in claim 7.  How would  claim 7 help to stop collisions between such data?

However, saying this, I still do not understand how claim 7 can be 
upheld in the first place. As more as I look at it, it should be thrown 
out because of lack of novelty, since it basically describes a 10Base2 
protocol. without using a cable. 10Base2 existed already at the time of 
the patent application, and the protocol itself did not limit itself to 
a cable. Mostly in such days it the protocols would be described in from 
of a data channel which can be a lot of things.

Ralph Janke