Plaxo Spam Patented... By Someone Else

from the oops dept

Wed, May 24th 2006 2:10am — Mike Masnick

We've had our problems with Plaxo's business model in the past, but to find out that someone else had already patented their business model and is now suing them for it, seems a bit silly. It's yet another case where we have to ask what is the societal benefit here? What was wrong with letting the various competitors in this space simply compete in the market, rather than granting a monopoly to one of them?

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Bevans, 24 May 2006 @ 2:53am

benefit
"societal'? Do you perhaps mean "social"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2006 @ 3:56am

Re: benefit
societal as in 'society'...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daniel (profile), 24 May 2006 @ 4:31am

But this is a GOOD thing!
If someone else has patented their business model of "spam everyone until they sign up", then they can't keep using it, right? If they have to stop spamming me, I'm happy!

Now, if someone would just patent online drug spam, mortgage spam and a couple of others, I'll no longer need a spam filter!

Yay Patents!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daniel (profile), 24 May 2006 @ 4:46am

Oh and don't forget the fact that Monopolies are I
Also, if you grant a monopoly to one person, they don't have to compete against others to maintain their profitibility. In this case, that means whoever has this patent doesn't have to try very hard (read 'send LOTS of spam') to be competitive. Again, less spam for me! How's THAT for a 'societal benefit'?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
scott, 24 May 2006 @ 5:25am

sure set a extremely stupid precedent for a extremely short run benefit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daniel (profile), 24 May 2006 @ 6:21am

START a precedent?!
The precedent is already there. If I'm already going to be stuck with patent monopolies on stuff that I WANT to see competing on a free market, why shouldn't I enjoy it when a patent restricts something I DON'T want?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scott, 24 May 2006 @ 6:34am

About Plaxo SPAM....
It's annoying to get the plaxo spam messages, but then I finally decided to give it a try. And I have to admit, it's pretty damn useful. I think the US Patent Office should use the same model... When someone signs up for a Patent of a "business process", the Patent office sends an Email to EVERYBODY just letting them know that someone has applied for a patent on something, and then lets you sign up and makes suggestions on things that you could apply for a patent for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2006 @ 6:59am

USPTO Strikes Again
"Method And System For Automatically Updating Information Within A Contact Database"

Wow, this patent was granted in 2004...

I can't imagine there isn't prior art out there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pongidae, 24 May 2006 @ 7:14am

Re: benefit
Off Topic:
On Topic:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ANTIPLAXO, 24 May 2006 @ 7:29am

Plaxo
All I can say is that I hate Plaxo. People like having little nice graphics at the bottom of their email, but uploading your entire contact list for the cost of that is in the realm of pure SPAM when you business all of a sudden starts getting email from them asking you to sign up for their service. Then to bundle it in with AOL Triton Instant Messenger is Insane. PLAXO YOU SUCK.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Business Plaxo Hater, 24 May 2006 @ 7:34am

Plaxo
If you don't mind your whole contact lists being stored on some server that you don't own and don't know who has access to it and your company doesn't mind all their email addresses on it and everyone getting spam from them, then feel free to use it but just make sure that every single one of your contacts knows that your going to upload your contacts to them ahead of time and that they will get plaxo spam in the future.

Companies offering things for Free raises big question marks in my mind. Nothing is free. Free to me means that I will get adware or Spam for compensation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous of Course, 24 May 2006 @ 10:28am

Re: Plaxo
There is plenty of free software available
without the risk of spam, adware or other
noxious content.

It's sad that in the end the nice people get
lumped in with the jerks and everyone is under
suspicion.

I don't know which I despise more, companies that
spam or people that buy from companies that spam.

There must be a lot of overweight, dysfunctional,
midget penises in need of a low interest rate
mortgage and cut-rate prescription drugs in this
world
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeffrey Tinsley, 24 May 2006 @ 8:23pm

Re: USPTO Strikes Again
Even though the patent was awarded in 2004, it was originally filed all the way back on December 22, 2000.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2006 @ 10:02pm

Re: Re: USPTO Strikes Again
Even in 2000, I find it hard to believe that there isn't a lot of prior art. Much of it is probably propriatery, but the basic idea has been used for a long time in a pretty wide variety of applications.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cindy Little, 29 May 2006 @ 10:37am

Re: Oh and don't forget the fact that Monopolies a
no comment
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phil Dirt, 6 Oct 2007 @ 5:56pm

question
I don't get it....
[ link to this | view in thread ]