Patent Hoarding Firm Sues Google, Yahoo, Amazon, AOL, IAC & Borders For Automating Email Responses
from the because-no-one-would-have-done-that-without-the-patent dept
It's time for yet another patent lawsuit filed in Marshall, Texas by a firm that appears to do nothing other than buy up patents and sue big companies. This time, the patent hoarding firm is called Polaris IP, and it's apparently one of a bunch of patent hoarding firms associated with a single patent attorney. He's suing Amazon, Google, Yahoo, Borders, AOL and IAC for using a rules-based system to process emails. The patent, as you might expect is extremely broad and seems to cover the obvious idea of setting up some rules by which an email is automatically sorted, or even a reply is selected. Lots of companies use such systems -- and while the concept may not have been widespread in 1998 when the patent was filed, does anyone really believe that it wasn't where the industry would have naturally (obviously) headed? Does anyone really believe that without this patent, no one would be using such rule-based sorting of emails?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh please ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh please ...
Chris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh please ...
http://www.penguin-soft.com/penguin/man/1/vacation.sendmail.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/BSD#4.3BSD
Chris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh please ...
I wonder if I should send it to the USPTO, the mostly incompetent judge in Marshall, TX and the patent troll..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you're missing an integral part of that sentence...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
counter sue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior Art
In this case I think that the various services noted above should band together and countersue this parasite out of business. But someone will settle instead of fighting and again the broken patent system will let the trolls win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1998 patent, meet 1990 program
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nine years??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nine years??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nine years??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Broad patent post dates technology
This technology was sold by a number of vendors well before 1998. I used it myself in the early 1990s.
How on earth does a totally non-specific patent get on the books years after everyone has the technology. Let's hope they all counter claim enough to put this guy out of business for good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Broad patent post dates technology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Broad patent post dates technology
I personally blame the patent system, not firms taking advantage of its archaic rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What an idiot, actually people who claim to have a patent on something, who are clearly lying should face penalties..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Penalties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patents are about claims, not titles
Patents are all about claims.
In this particular case claim 1 is this:
1. A method for automatically processing a non-interactive electronic message using a computer, comprising the steps of:
(a) receiving the electronic message from a source;
(b) interpreting the electronic message using a rule base and case base knowledge engine; and
(c) classifying the electronic message as at least one of (i) being able to be responded to automatically; and (ii) requiring assistance from a human operator.
Such claim would not go past patent examiner today ...
It is one of those patents filed back in 90s when everybody and his dog was scrambling to get on the Internet/e-commerce train one way or another
Current problems with the patent system (not ALL patents BTW, just some portion of them mostly dealing with anything Internet, e-commerce etc.) are the direct consequnces of the lax patent examination back in 90s.
But now US Congress wants to throw the baby out with the bath water
Why should the rest of us, real inventors with valid technical patents which DO promote scientific and technological progress (not e-commerce related) be deprived of our constitutional right to exclude others from making and selling our inventions for a limited period of time ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: patents are about claims, not titles
Why should the rest of us, real inventors with valid technical patents which DO promote scientific and technological progress (not e-commerce related) be deprived of our constitutional right to exclude others from making and selling our inventions for a limited period of time ?
Real inventors and innovators should not be deprived with they do promote progress. And I would go as far as to say that there may be some e-commerce related patents that would be just fine as well. The problem is with patents like this one in which someone is just trying to game the system for a little cash. I get the feeling that if this patent was granted back before 1990 (which would predate nearly all the prior art mentioned here) then no one would be complaining. But to start a lawsuit in 2007 over technology that has ben common for almost 10 years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: patents are about claims, not titles
Prior art relevant to the claims;
(a) receiving an electronic message;
See any patent dealing with a packet which is simply a message
(b) intrepreting
Uhh fella how do you think that electronic data winds up in your inbox? And rejection emssage ggo out for no existant addressees ?
(c) See (b)
This patent is bull$#@% Nothing to see here move along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Win
The assignee (Brightware, Inc.) has received a lot of recognition for their software. If that's the case, I'd have to assume that it's something more revolutionary then an auto-reply system, but the patent is so vague anyway, it really doesn't matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patent law set this precident already...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's called "prior art"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sendmail...
Rules based processing of messages is nothing new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
china patent
Many investors want to apply for a china patent, but they are not familiar with the application procedure. Let’s show you in detail:
⑴ Patent Application and Documents Required
A china patent application requires the following documents:
Each application for invention or utility model must include the following documents:
- Power of Attorney, signed by the applicant (Notarization or legalization is not required);
- Specification with claims and abstract;
- Drawings, if any (two sets of formal drawings);
- Certified copy of the prior application, if a priority is claimed;
- Assignment of priority right, if the applicant in China differs from that of the prior application.
Each application for design must include the following documents：
- Power of Attorney, signed by the applicant (Notarization or legalization is not required);
- Drawings or photographs of the design, in triplicate;
- Certified copy of the prior application, if a priority is claimed;
- Assignment of priority right, if the applicant in China differs from that of the prior application.
⑵ Approval Procedures
Approval of patent for invention -- after the China Patent Office receives an application for a patent for invention and finds it to be in conformity with the requirements of the law upon preliminary examination, it will publish the application after 18 months from the date of filing. Upon the request of the applicant, the China Patent Office may publish the application earlier. Upon the request of the applicant for a patent for invention, made at any time within three years from the date of filing, the China Patent Office will proceed to examine the application as to substance. If without any justified reason, the applicant fails to meet the time limit for requesting examination as to substance, the application will be deemed to have been withdrawn. The China Patent Office may, on its own initiative, proceed to examine any application for a patent for invention as to substance when deemed necessary.
If no cause for rejection of the application for a patent for invention is found after examination as to substance, the China Patent Office will make a decision to grant the patent right for invention, issue the certificate of patent for invention, and register and publish it. The patent right for invention comes into effect on the date of the publication.
Approval of patent for utility model and design -- if no cause for rejection of the application for a patent for utility model or design is found after preliminary examination, the China Patent Office will make a decision to grant the patent right for utility model or the patent right for design, issue the relevant patent certificate, and register and publish it. The patent right for utility model or design comes into effect on the date of the publication.
News from IPsoon Global Agency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greeting,
Abidjan,Cote d'ivoire
Greeting,
I know that this proposal may come to you as a surprise.
I got your contact address from the Internet while I was searching for a partner.
I am Charles Adams the son of late Chief Mike Adams and my sister Lilian.
Our father was a very wealthy cocoa merchant in Abidjan,
the economic capital of Ivory Coast before he was poisoned
to death by his business associates on one of their outing
to discuss on a business deal abroad.
We are contacting you to seek your good assistance to
transfer and invest the sum of US$9.5M belonging to my
late father which he deposited in a Finace Company.
When our mother died ,in 1998 our father took me and my junior sister special because we are motherless.
Before the death of our father He secretly called us on his beside and told us that he has a sum of $9,500.000
(Nine Million Five Hundred united states dollar) Which he
deposited in a Finace Company on his name.
He also explained to us that it was because of this wealth and some huge amount of money his business associates supposed to balance him from the deal they had that he was poisoned by his business associates,
We are honourably seeking your assistance in the following ways.
1) To act as the foreign partner of our father by claiming
this fund from the Finace Company for further transfer and investment to your designated bank account abroad.
2) To serve as the guardian of this since I am a young man
of 21 years and my younger sister just 19 years.
Moreover , we are willing to offer you 10% of the sum as
compensation for effort input after the successful transfer
of this fund to your designated account in your country.
Anticipating to hear from you soon.
Thanks and God Bless.
Best regards
Charles and Lilian Adams.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]