So... they only paid for a single instance of the lawsuit, then unfairly duplicated it, when they should have paid for each individual instance of the lawsuit?

That's lawsuit piracy! Think of all the lawyers who could have been employed had they filed individuals lawsuits.

There are a lot of big name companies opposing this treaty, including ones you wouldn't expect. The "Intellectual property owners association", which is headed up by representatives from Exxon Mobil, GE, and Johnson & Johnson wrote a letter opposing the treaty. Their concern is that they think it sets a bad precedent... get this.. for PATENT law:

Source.

Let's ignore the massive expansion of copyright without any mention of fair use through free trade agreements, and complain that the one real attempt to clarify limitations and exceptions is "imbalanced." Also from the letter:

That's true, but not for the reasons they think.

Basically, they are saying they would rather blind people have fewer things to read than to even HINT that copyright protection is currently too strong, since that might possibly induce people to question other areas of IP law, like patents. They ought to be ashamed.

About the author:

So, basically, you think it's time for someone else to conduct your on-the-job training at no cost or risk to you.

That's Pop-Tarts®. You'll be hearing from our lawyers shortly.

Sincerely,

Kellogg Company Special Counsel for Intellectual Property Issues

Don't know where you shop, but I frequently observe employees asking for the card, then keying in the last four digits by reading them from the card, and this after swiping.

I know, but the vast majority of cards still have it, which means that cards without it get more scrutiny... so if your cloned card with fake printing doesn't have raised lettering, it might get a second look, at which point the person swiping it might notice that something's a bit off.

Chip-pin is standard in Europe (and maybe elsewhere too) but practically non-existent in the U.S. Everywhere here is still swipe with the magstripe. Sometimes you swipe on your own, but just as often you hand the card to someone else for them to swipe (or at restaurants, for them to take away to the terminal, swipe there, and bring back).

At which point, they face the same hurdles of using credit card information fraudulently that every other fraudster does.

I'm not saying this doesn't make it easier to get the information - it clearly does. However, you typically need to put in more effort than just getting that information before you can perpetrate the fraud, which the article ignores. I also don't care for the insinuation that Google should ban NFC apps.

They probably shouldn't put NFC chips in cards - there's little benefit to be had from tapping your wallet versus swiping a card. NFC payment via phone makes more sense, since you could toggle availability of the information. And NFC for automation of other tasks is great.

The point is not that it cannot be done - I have cloned magstripe cards myself. The point is that there are hurdles to jump before you have a card you can actually use in person, and other hurdles for card not present transactions.

If you are willing to print on the card face and do the raised lettering for each card's information, good for you - what is the time and cost involved in doing that, versus the value of the fraudulent purchase you can make, versus the risk of the fraud being traced back to you?

Are you also going to fake the look and design of a bank card, including, possibly, raised numbering/lettering? Or are you just going to clone it on an old library card?

All this is is a slightly easier way to obtain credit card information from a limited number of NFC enabled cards... but getting that information wasn't particularly hard in the first place...

If it's a card not present transaction, the security code should be required, and presumably that isn't being transmitted as well.

I've got a hot news story for you - everyone person you hand your credit card to is able to access your card number, name, and expiration date!

You mean, why are apps capable of using the NFC capabilities of your phone available on Google Play? You might as well ask why eBay sells magnetic card readers.

Yeah, I read the claim (there's only one):

So... if I take an acoustic coupler, amplify its volume, and put it near two handsets, then use the connection to access a URL, I'd be violating this patent. If this is granted, it will be (another) sad day for the USPTO.