131 Companies Sued Over Global Text Messaging Patent

from the couldn't-find-anyone-else? dept

Tue, Nov 13th 2007 9:09am — Mike Masnick

The anonymous Patent Troll Tracker points us to a new patent case that appears to involve an astounding 131 defendants, including T-Mobile, Vodafone, China Resources Peoples Telephone Company Ltd, AT&T, Samsung, Palm, Microsoft, and Yahoo!, all concerning patents related to sending text messages internationally, using the internet for part of the trip. Not surprisingly, the patent in question is a continuation patent, which even the USPTO is trying to cut back on, after seeing them abused too often. The patent was just granted last month. Shouldn't it make someone scratch their head to wonder how 131 different companies could all be infringing on a patent just issued? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the idea is fairly obvious and never should have received a patent. Now, obviously, you can go back to 1996, when the original patent was filed, but again, the concept seems like the natural progression of the space, which is perhaps why so many companies use it in some way or another.

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

Filed Under: patents, sms, text messaging

28 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Boris, 13 Nov 2007 @ 9:37am

Although it seems like "the natural progression of the space" or to put it simply: obvious, in this time and age, I don't recall many companies offering this service back in '96.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Boris, 13 Nov 2007 @ 9:37am

oh and
First post
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2007 @ 9:37am

With technology and computers and time everything is obvious so .... perhaps it is time to
A. Fix the system by shortening the time allowed on patents for any Communications medium.
B. automatically grandfather any and all systems in place before granting of patent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
angry dude, 13 Nov 2007 @ 9:43am

Retards !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Morons, Idiots, cretins, imbeciles...
Just venting out, nothing personal, Mike
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sean, 13 Nov 2007 @ 9:50am

Re:
"place before granting" I think that should be before the patent was filed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shohat, 13 Nov 2007 @ 9:50am

Mike, come on.
With all due respect, in 1996, such a patent is FAR beyond obvious, it's even far beyond innovation.

Just because the system is slow, does not mean that the patent is the problem. Today's equivalent to that patent would be something like practical implementation of wireless power, or airborne agriculture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheDock22, 13 Nov 2007 @ 9:54am

That's it...
I'm hopping on the patent bandwagon and getting a patent for texting to other celestial bodies including the moon and any space stations. I'll be rich in the future!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tempest, 13 Nov 2007 @ 10:02am

Here's an idea. If it takes them 11 YEARS to grant a patent... maybe it shouldn't be granted?

Just sayin.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2007 @ 10:02am

Re: Mike, come on.
uhh, what???

IMHO (regardless of timeperiod):

(wireless power || airborne agriculture) >> text messaging
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vincent Clement, 13 Nov 2007 @ 10:10am

Re:
Perhaps it is time to stop granting patents on computer code and business processes?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin, 13 Nov 2007 @ 10:12am

The 1996 date is irrelevant in an obviousness test
The key sentence is:

"the patent in question is a continuation patent"

From Wikipedia:

"A 'continuation application' is a patent application filed by an applicant who wants to pursue additional claims to an invention disclosed in an earlier application of the applicant (the 'parent' application) that has not yet been issued or abandoned. The continuation uses the same specification as the pending parent application, claims filing date priority of the parent, and must name at least one of the same inventors as in the parent."

These continuation patents are frequently abused by patent trolls. They usually find an older patent that might be somehow related to the thing that they want to patent now, and then file the patent for the new tech as a continuation claim to the original patent. This way they get the newer tech covered by the old patent, with the old patent date. Which is a nice way to do an end-run around prior art and obviousness tests. Which is why the patent trolls love them so much. Which is also why the USPTO is trying to cut back on them.

It would be nice if people could actually read and understand the blog posts before they comment on them...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 13 Nov 2007 @ 10:12am

Re: Mike, come on.
With all due respect, in 1996, such a patent is FAR beyond obvious, it's even far beyond innovation.

Compare the '96 patent to the '07 patent. The recent patent made changes to fit with what was actually happening now (the continuation). The '96 patent doesn't really cover what's happening now at all.

Either way, the point of the patent system is to encourage what wouldn't be invented otherwise. Clearly, this service became an obvious and normal progression of the work, and the patent had nothing to do with it.

So why reward this guy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin, 13 Nov 2007 @ 10:15am

Interestingly enough...
The patent was granted last month. The new rules for continuation patents went into effect on the first of this month. Coincidence?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2007 @ 10:16am

Re: Mike, come on.
Certainly it was obvious. There was e-mail and ICQ in 1996, both of which involve sending text messages. And certainly, such messages were sent internationally.

Can't get much more obvious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Justin G, 13 Nov 2007 @ 10:16am

A lot of people seem to be arguing that such a patent was non obvious back in 1996, but I think there are 2 critical points here. First, the patent's abstract describes the use of the internet to implement a paging system. It was probably not uncommon at the time to send such messages over a packet switched network. Second, the patent is a continuation patent meaning that some of the claims in the granted patent were probably not covered by the original filing and were added to broaden the patent to cover text messaging as it rose in popularity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WarOtter (profile), 13 Nov 2007 @ 10:26am

More appropriate if...
I would have liked to have seen the lawsuits get files via text messaging:

"ZOMG! U infrngeing! S3nd $$$ now or els!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2007 @ 10:45am

Re:
Although it seems like "the natural progression of the space" or to put it simply: obvious, in this time and age, I don't recall many companies offering this service back in '96.
So what's your point?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2007 @ 10:53am

Re: Mike, come on.
With all due respect, in 1996, such a patent is FAR beyond obvious, it's even far beyond innovation.
On course it was, and is, obvious to "one practiced in the art". The fact that so many came up with it is testament to that fact.

You seem to be forgetting the purpose of patents: to promote invention. Clearly no patent was needed to promote this so-called "invention" considering its prevalence even before the issuance of the patent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I like Mike, 13 Nov 2007 @ 11:10am

Text Messaging
Relay chat had messaging and paging as far back as 1986. While in the military from '82 - '86 we had international text communication over then internet as well. Seems like prior art to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I Text and Drive, 13 Nov 2007 @ 12:32pm

Texting
I think just the mere fact that 131 companies have been doing this for so long with out filing for patents on this makes it obvious or natural progression. As far as obvious and natural progressions go, has anyone filed a patent on attaching more than one wheel on a common plain? If not i can sue every car manufacturer!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aaron *Brother Head* Moss, 13 Nov 2007 @ 12:47pm

Re: Texting
As far as obvious and natural progressions go, has anyone filed a patent on attaching more than one wheel on a common plain? If not i can sue every car manufacturer! Wouldn't this cover bikes, motorcycles, etc? You could be a rich man Text and Drive. 8)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TX CHL Instructor (profile), 13 Nov 2007 @ 5:42pm

What?
Not in Marshall, TX?
--
TX CHL Instructor
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave Newman, 14 Nov 2007 @ 4:45am

SMS text messages started in 1992
Although the ideas in the patent might have been new in the USA in 1996, they were not new in Europe. GSM was defined in 1990, the first commercial services started in 1991, the first SMS text message was sent in 1992, GSM Phase 2 data/fax services were launched in 1994, and FAX/data/SMS roaming started in 1995.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben Robinson, 14 Nov 2007 @ 1:21pm

Been around for years
I used to work in the telecomms industry and exchanging text messages via the internet is simply how it is done. SMPP has been around for years and is how one smc (think mail server for text messages) communicates with another. It is a network based protocol that usually uses TCP or X25. Carriers tend to communicate with each other via IPSEC based VPNs, this is just how text messaging works and to patent it is just silly. The only other way is to use an actual private network like MPLS or a straight forward leased line connection with every carrier in the world. When you think about it like that, using a VPN over the internet is incredibly obvious and the only really practicle solution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben Robinson, 14 Nov 2007 @ 1:22pm

In the above comment I meant SMSC not SMC
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Obama, 29 Nov 2007 @ 6:01am

ha
haha!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
George Bush, 29 Nov 2007 @ 6:02am

Obama
You will never win
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hil Clint, 29 Nov 2007 @ 6:30am

DUH
He wont win BUT I WILL!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]