David,
I agree we don't care if it is watched, but simply displaying it in real time is excluded. The claim requires a material object to be manufactured. Simply looking at a movie as it is transmitted does not result in a manufactured object. A video made of a transmitted movie is the object. If real time display infringes (without a recordation of the movie onto a fixed medium), then the claims are probably invalid over prior art that had movies ordered over cable TV.
For a more complete claim discussion see posts back in April, '97.
In short, the claim says (in part)
FREENY CLAIM 1
"1. A method for reproducing information in material objects
utilizing information manufacturing machines located at point of
sale locations, comprising the steps of:...."
If a material object is not made, i.e. the movie is watched but not recorded, then the claim is not infringed. Even GIFT implicitly acknowledges this in their original claim interpretation filing. Here is an excerpt:
"COMPUSERVE
This Defendant sold software to consumers for reproduction in
their homes, offices, etc. using respective computer systems of
the consumers which reproduce information in material objects:
hard drives, floppy disks."
Notice how they include the material objects - floppies or hard drives (not RAM e.g.). The link to that brief is patents.com
This excerpt was from the section GIFt wrote explaining why CompuServe infringes, although GIFT was very consistent in requiring a material object to be made.
There is another "real time" argument that says the data cannot be transmitted in real time. I agree that argument is wrong. See my post around 8/19 for a detailed discussion.
However, viewing data in real time, without storing the data, is clearly outside the scope of the claims (and fortunately so, lest the claims be invalid)
GRC |
