131 Companies Sued Over Global Text Messaging Patent
from the couldn't-find-anyone-else? dept
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh and
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Retards !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just venting out, nothing personal, Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, come on.
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 chronology ]
Re: Mike, come on.
IMHO (regardless of timeperiod):
(wireless power || airborne agriculture) >> text messaging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike, come on.
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 chronology ]
Re: Mike, come on.
Can't get much more obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike, come on.
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 chronology ]
That's it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just sayin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The 1996 date is irrelevant in an obviousness test
"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 chronology ]
Interestingly enough...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More appropriate if...
"ZOMG! U infrngeing! S3nd $$$ now or els!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Text Messaging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Texting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Texting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
--
TX CHL Instructor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SMS text messages started in 1992
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Been around for years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DUH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]