Want To Create A Simple App To Tell You Where Someone Is Calling From? You Can't, It's Patented
from the promoting-the-progress-yet-again dept
Someone who prefers to remain anonymous, sent me a story that I hear all the time these days. He was getting annoyed with not knowing who was calling his Blackberry, so he figured he'd write a simple app to do a standard database lookup in order to pull up the info that would at least let you know where the caller was from, based on area code. It's the sort of thing that software programmers do all the time: see a need, write a simple program to solve it.Except for the patents.
As he started to write the app, he figured he should take a quick look around to see if anyone else had done so... when he came across the fact that someone had written that app, but thanks to a patent threat, it had been shut down. In fact, the patent holder, Cequent, has sued a few others who dared to create such a simple database lookup app themselves. The patent itself describes an incredibly simple database lookup... yet, now no one else is allowed to create such an app.
The purpose of the patent system was to create the incentives for inventors to invent products that likely would not have been created otherwise, in order to help "promote the progress." Yet, when it's being used to prevent an engineer from writing a simple app that could have occurred to anyone, based on a simple database lookup, doesn't it seem like there's a pretty big problem?
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: apps, caller id, database lookup, patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Of course
Simple, when you get down to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bogus Patent, Bogus Examiner
Where's the damned EFF? What next, patent looking up a name in a database? Or a price, a UPC, or the name of a patent-troll company?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bogus Patent, Bogus Examiner
It's stupidity at its grandest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bogus Patent, Bogus Examiner
You mean ALL of them? How would the patent system function then? Maybe that's why we should just get rid of the patent system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patented?Write it and post source code.
If it's patented, I'm not going to get any money, but everyone out there can sure benefit from my effort. Microsoft doesn't have a patent on "Operating Systems" so they can't stop UNIX or Linux. Why not post source code of an app that others would find useful?
I say if there's software out there enforced by patent, write an equal or better one and release the source code to all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patented?Write it and post source code.
If you are willing to finance my legal costs when then track me down, I'm happy to write the code and post it to SourceForge or the equivalent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patented?Write it and post source code.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Patented?Write it and post source code.
I thought it was about fat32 and other such nonsense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Patented?Write it and post source code.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are using their big hammer to scare everyone else away. I wouldn't be willing to go to court over what is likely to be a very small market (relative to legal costs, at least). Would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FROM DIRECTORY
WHERE AREA_CODE=NUMBER[1:3];
Did I just violated their patent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously, this patenting of software that is just an extremely basic and obvious and minor code function is ridiculous.
Microsoft would have patented the "blue screen of death" if they thought there was any money in it. I should patent the for-next loop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@TW Burger
Do it, before Microsoft does. Somebody at MIT patented the doubly-linked list not too long ago. Those have been around since memory was addressable.
It should also be noted that part of the latest "patent reform" legislation that is up for review has a clause to allow "first to patent", rather than "first to invent". If that's made into law, prior art will no longer be an infringement defense or be useful for invalidation of currently issued junk patents.
Once that happens, and chances are it will, there will be a gold rush where everything ever done in software with a computer will have a patent applied for. The USPTO's backlog will run out to 100+ years.
Hell, you may be able to patent variable assignments such as:
10 let MyRetirementFund=0
20 let MyImagination=50,000,000,000
30 let MyRetirementFund=MyImagination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @TW Burger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @TW Burger
Sorry, had to jump in to correct this. The "first to patent" rule (aka "first to file" rule) has a couple of advantages over the current "first to invent" rule. First, it will bring the US into conformance with the patent systems of almost every other country in the world. The U.S. system often causes the bad result of one company owning rights to a patent in every country outside of the U.S. and another company owning the U.S. patent. As a prospective licensee of the patented technology, you have to obtain licenses from two companies, either of which may decide NOT to grant a license. Second, the "first to file" rule eliminates the expensive practice of interference litigations at the USPTO, which are used to decide who is the first inventor. For many reasons, interference proceedings are unfair to small inventors and tend to favor large, well-funded corporations.
The "first to file" rule has absolutely no effect on patent infringment or invalidity defenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This guy who "wanted to write a quick app" did so NOT for his own ease of use....but to PROFIT from it.
Sorry...the other guy beat you to it.
If he REALLY wants to write this app to make HIS life easier, he's more than welcome to do it. He just can't sell it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I say, that if you just go around suing people for creating something you just sit on, then you should loose that patent. Create something dang it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If I were to guess....I'm guessing it was TO MAKE MONEY...not to make HIS life easier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This patent is clearly invalidated by prior art, anyway, but the legal force of the company is too costly for an average at-home programmer to stand up against. Plus, the timeframe and process for challenging a patent is ridiculous. The lawsuit could drag on for years and cost many thousands of dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How's that? It would still be patent infringement. There is no exemption for non-commercial use in patent law.
You really don't seem to know much about patent law. Maybe you should read up on it before making ignorant comments about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
it is done privately and for purposes which are not commercial
it is done for experimental purposes relating to the subject matter of the invention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
it is done privately and for purposes which are not commercial
it is done for experimental purposes relating to the subject matter of the invention.
UK law doesn't apply in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. AKAIF, patents don't have exceptions for non-commercial use. It's unlikely he would have been tracked if he wrote it and kept it to himself, but even if he gave it away for free, it would still be a patent violation (which is why Microsoft keeps threatening Linux distros, among others, though they're yet to act on their threats). Besides which, I see nothing in the article about intending to sell it, just some due diligence from a patent-aware programmer.
2. The patent rules are meant to exclude ideas that are "obvious to a practitioner skilled in the art", or whatever the wording is. Put bluntly, this is an incredibly obvious tool that should never have had a patent granted in the first place.
3. Has the patent owner made such a tool? It doesn't look like it. The only thing that the patent holder seems to have done so far is to sue anyone tries to make a similar product, not to make a product themselves, which has led to the need for such a tool in the first place.
"If he REALLY wants to write this app to make HIS life easier, he's more than welcome to do it. He just can't sell it."
Sadly, this sentence shows you up as being a fool with an all too common attitude in the proprietary software world. In their minds, there are only two reasons make software - for profit or to keep to yourself. The open source attitude of "scratching your own itch" then sharing your solution with anyone else who might need it is utterly alien to these people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is that what you do?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's the way the law works in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So I'm clueless, huh??
READ THIS...1953 RULING on Patent Law:
Doubtless experimentation will usually have an ultimate commercial objective; where it ends and infringement begins must often be a matter of degree. If the person concerned keeps his activities to himself, and does no more than further his own knowledge or skill, even though commercial advantage may be his final goal, he does not infringe. But if he goes beyond that, and uses the invention or makes it available to others, in a way that serves to advance in the actual market place, then he infringes.
Your little rant: I vote FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's the main point. There is nothing to suggest he was going to use the tool commercially. He may well have intended to give the tool away, free of charge, possibly as open source. Whether that would advance him in the marketplace or not is highly debatable but, if so, I'm somewhat dismayed that a ruling from 1953 can be used against free software... it's a world that the judge in that case could not possibly have conceived of.
However, that doesn't change the facts that this patent should never have been granted in the first place, and that it's being used to attack those who actually created the tools rather than open up the marketplace for an actual invention or product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you think that New Zealand patent rulings apply in the US, then yes, you are indeed clueless.
Your little rant: I vote FAIL.
Fail, you absolutely did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Explain how looking up an area code should be patented in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any App for sale?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Any App for sale?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
purpose of patent system
And anyone is free to write source code and post it publicly. The source code itself is protected by copyright law, not patent. As long as you don't copy the patent owner's source code (copyright violation), you are free to independently create your own code. You cannot, however, compile it and sell the resulting program (patent violation).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: purpose of patent system
I see two differences. One, he said "products" and you said "technology". Two, he specified products that would not have otherwise been invented and you did not. So are you splitting a very fine hair, or are you saying the patent system is intended in part to incite inventors to invent things that they would have invented anyway even with a patent system?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: purpose of patent system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior Art
The original use was that, when lots of people replied using a comment form, their requests were automatically routed to the geographically-closest office.
It's so obvious that probably hundreds of people have written similar programs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see how an obvious program such as this can be patentable.
Since I had Caller ID and since most people calling me had their phone numbers in my database (running on MySQL) -- before even picking-up the phone -- I was able to quickly enter that person's phone number into a PHP form and have it return results of what state they were calling from, who they were if they already made a purchase and were possibly calling regarding that purchase.
This would save time for me since I could tell if they were calling regarding an order on file or if they were calling because they just had general questions.
I don't see how an obvious program such as this can be patentable.
I tend to even remember calling the Television Cable Company several years back, and if you were calling from a telephone number that you setup your account with, they would instantly transfer you to an account services department, instead of giving you the (unknown number) new account services run-around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Work Around
A generic Macro/API interface to the phone that the user can easily control. ie. write generic code that could achieve the desired outcome, but leave it up to the phone owner to plug the components of the process together. Surely that way the coder cannot be sued and only the phone owner will know if they have violated the patent.
eg.
Component 1 Phone call attribute trigger
- have an incoming call trigger that can run a thread.
Component 2 customisable database lookup thread that will display the result of a query on one phone call attribute - make this a selectable number of characters from the attribute.
Component 3 the database table a list of area codes to names - or phone numbers to tunes.... etc.
Allow the user to "connect" the parts together to make their own app.
Phone call attributes selectable could be Incoming call time, current call duration, incoming phone number, GPS position at time of call.
Thread actions could be to display the query, play a tune based on the query etc.
So the end user plugs it together and builds the application to suit.
If the user wants to violate patent, its not the developer's problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Work Around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Work Around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patent idea
It's so obvious it would work!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
F*** the Patent
This is a work of fiction maybe an idea and is not promoting the execution of any illegal actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it is done privately and for purposes which are not commercial
it is done for experimental purposes relating to the subject matter of the invention.
What is this guy bitching about? Make his app...use it on HIS phone....and move on....nothing to see here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already Been done
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who ultimately gets screwed is anyone who wants this functionality because:
1) no telcos are buying the server based system
2) no independent developers can step in and provide the functionality at a lower price point (at least one implementation was freeware)
3) if some telco does ever pick this up, subscribers will end up paying a monthly fee for the privilege
All because of a patent that shouldn't have been granted in the first place because the technology IS obvious and it most definitely had been done before. And, the patent would very likely be thrown out if someone were to challenge it, but since there's so little money that could be made from making the challenge (remember, there's a freeware app that would be available if not for the lawyers) nobody is going to challenge.
And that leaves everyone poorer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oy.
Yes, being fraking obvious should make a patent a non-starter. But the people interested in having silly patents granted is still a larger pool than all of you, so they (usually) win.
Finally, you're a butt-munching peon, and your stellar idea is not going to be allowed by the powers-that-be to be catapulted by the patent system into Bill Gates/Steve Jobs territory. Especially since you don't want to do any actual work.
Get used to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all just 'ones' and 'zeroes'
1011
Every time that comes up in a program ANYWHERE, I will demand payment every time it's used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's all just 'ones' and 'zeroes'
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there's no such patent.
but you really believed it, didn't you?
because the patent office has done so many stupid things,
it's not outside the realm of possibility that they did this too.
it's the patent office that is the big joke these days.
and i think they know it, too. they're just rubberstamping
all the applications as approved, until we have no choice
but to turn the whole system upside down and throw it out.
-bowerbird
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
much to do about little
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: much to do about little
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, it would also help if someone actually provided links to all relevant correspondence and prior lawsuits. The former is notably absent, and the later at Justia can only be accessed via Pacer.
Facts matter, and at this point in time they are largely missing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But, if you are a FREEWARE author releasing this to the public, where, exactly, do you get the revenue stream to fight this?
They have a patent (applicable or not) that they are using as a club to beat on individual developers to ensure that no alternate solutions to their carrier based product are offered to the general public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Does that change the fact that people are getting sued?
Of course, it would also help if someone actually provided links to all relevant correspondence and prior lawsuits. The former is notably absent, and the later at Justia can only be accessed via Pacer.
Considering the clear chilling effects that were created by the patent holder, I don't see why that would matter at all.
Facts matter, and at this point in time they are largely missing.
Consequences matter. And I like how you just love to ignore them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As for your comment responding to "facts matter", it is logically impossible to ascertain the pros/cons of this situation without a factual predicate, and to the extent such a factual predicate is available, it is hidden behind the Pacer wall (which is all the more reason to provide free and unfettered access to public documents).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NPA location DB's are older than dirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For friendship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patenting simple apps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
techdirt.com at sweebs.com
Please add your site at http://www.sweebs.com. Sweebs.com is a place where other people can find you among the best sites on the internet!
Its just started and we are collecting the best found on the net! We will be delighted to have you in the sweebs listings.
Regards
Kris
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]