I can see how Cisco, Motorola, or any of the 802.11 equipment providers could be infringing on this patent. It doesn't make much sense to not be suing them... Oh, wait. Motorola and Cisco are suing these bastards.
I'm also not sure why they're not suing McDonalds, since they also provide free WiFi, and are located in Oak Brook. Probably because McDonalds would crush them in court.
That's exactly the point. They pick "victims" that would potentially be able to fight off the lawsuits in court but to do so would cost more than to just settle.
A company like McDonalds keeps lawyers on retainer and are paying them regardless of whether they're battling patent trolls at the time or not so they'd be guaranteed to meet in court.
Having the "loser" of a frivolous suit in court pay the other's fees would resolve this issue in a hurry.
Here I thought patents applied to physical products or manufacturing techniques, not services. So, theoretically, if someone had a patent for "transporting goods or people from one location to another, geographically different location", they could pretty much sue every driver? What I find strangest about this is that they bought this technology off the shelf, using it for its intended (only) purpose.
> Here I thought patents applied to physical products or manufacturing techniques, not services.
Nothing wrong with patenting a method.
> So, theoretically, if someone had a patent for "transporting goods or people from one location to another, geographically different location", they could pretty much sue every driver?
