RE: Questions Reagrding ThinkMagicLou, there is no way of telling unless one pulls the ThinkMagic reader apart. Remember, one doesn't patent functionality; that is, one doesn't patent the ability of a reader to do MF/MP reading. What one patents is a way of achieving the function. By way of analogy, if patented contraption "A" produces electricity through windpower, then contraption "B" doesn't violate the patent if it produces electricity through a fuel cell mechanism. Of course, this an example of an "easy case". What is the situation when we have patented fuel cell "A" and unpatented fuel cell "B"? Does the company that owns the latter fuel cell require a licence from the Company that owns fuel cell "A". The answer is "it depends"! If the technologies in the fuelcells are entirely different, for example fuel cell "A" is a PEM fuel cell (such as Ballard's) and fuel cell "B" is a hot burning fuel cell such as FCEL's fuel cell, then no licence is required. If the two fuel cells are PEM fuel cells, a licence may be required if the design of fuel cell "B" is based, in whole or in part, on the patented design of fuelcell A.
So, if the mechanics of ThinkMagic's reader's are the same or overlap in any significant way with the patneted portion of SMY's reader, then there would be an infringement. If ThinkMagic's mechanism is entirely different, then there is no infringement. There is no way of knowing at this point. The issue has to play out. No doubt ThinkMagic and its potential customers have been or will be recipients of letters from SMY notifying them of SMY's patent and inviting them to discuss licencing. It is standard practice of this kind of notification to be sent out.