OMG! IBM Patented LOL! ROTFLMAO!
from the omg dept
theodp writes "The USPTO has granted IBM a patent covering the Resolution of Abbreviated Text in an Electronic Communications System, lawyer-speak for translating "IMHO" to "In My Humble Opinion" and vice versa. From the patent: "One particularly useful application of the invention is to interpret the meaning of shorthand terms...For example, one database may define the shorthand term 'LOL' to mean 'laughing out loud.'" So much for Big Blue's professed aim of stopping "bad behavior" by companies who seek patents for unoriginal work!"
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: abbreviations, patents
Companies: ibm
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
patenting translating code to langauge
old samual morse must be rolling in his grave
... --- ...
I know this type of translation has never been done before
ES&DMF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: patenting translating code to langauge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: patenting translating code to langauge
A bunch of old OSS agents that had joined the CIA had this sort of attack on their RADAR and prepared a dozen IBMs to get the blue menace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IBM = Idiots Being Morons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who Gnu?
Aka: RSPBLSBSS
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ZOMGWTFBBQ?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ZOMGWTFBBQ?!
LMFAO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't we already have those?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read the Patent
OMGDIAFBBQIBM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It makes no difference. Big corporations always get their way.
While the Internet is generally good I think one problem with it (and I'm guilty of it too) is that it makes people lazy. People think that they can encourage the government to act in their interest by simply making a comment on a blog. Lobbyists, on the other hand, actually GO TO congress and congressmen and demands. Back in the days people would actually MARCH TO congress and overwhelm it with people until congress gave in. They would actually go out and protest and they would overwhelm the streets, etc... Now they think that posting on a blog is a protest and of course congress favors the lobbyists, who are at congress and talking with the congressmen in person, over some comments from people who can't be bothered to go to congress. Also going to congress is something that costs the economy, people deviate from their work to protest congress and that causes economic harm (ie: less tax revenue for the government for one thing), so congress is much more likely to listen. Whereas posting on the Internet is often done on peoples spare time, no economic harm so congress could care less.
Same thing, people now send E - Mails, which cost virtually nothing whereas people used to send actual letters, which costs resources that could better be used for something else and so it's a waste of economic resources for people to send letters (though it's minor). Also E - Mails are much easier to delete and ignore whereas physical letters clog up our postal service and must be disposed of physically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I'd like to see
FBI
CIA
NSA
DOD
ONI
NCIS
DoHD
....Sic 'em, bitches!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMGWTFLOLROFLMAOIANALIMHOI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMGWTFLOLROFLMAOIANALIMHOI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already Done and USED long long ago.
I know I put many many short hand items in the AutoCorrect's dictionary. I have even worked at clients that had a custom dictionary full of their internal abbreviations. About 7 years ago we also used there internal abbreviations in the Database to automatically expand out short hand writing.
It seems to me this idea has already been out in the market for at least the last 10 years. And if I go back to the Automatic decoding Morse code machines into English or even the ticker tape machine translator. All these systems used Electronic Communications System and translated the abbreviation (be it Morse code, or every). You could even classify a compression algorithm like ZIP, Kermit, TAR, etc as a way of Resolution abbreviation in a Electronic Communications System.
The USPTO must just stamp things approved and then have the courts waste time and money for the eventual challenges that will occur. In the mean time IBM can sue the crap out of small companies that can not afford a court fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already Done and USED long long ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already Done and USED long long ago.
Another, more likely possibility is that they are so swamped with junk patents they just rubber stamp them to get them out of the way. Only somebody needs to swap the "Approved" and the "Denied" stamps. ;-)
Has anybody patented emoticons yet? :-0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I should point out that while I know the basics (LOL, ROFL, LMAO), I often have to look these things up (FUD, WYSIWYG) when people use them, so it kind of defeats the purpose of simplifying anything for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior Art: Unreal Tournament 2003
Just to throw one more example onto the stack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior art - from the 1880's
Have a look at
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Commercial_code
and compare with the patent.
Looks pretty much the same to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just one question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just one question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just one question
Not so. IBM has been known to be offensive on patents as well. Remember when they sued Amazon for a patent on "e-commerce":
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061023/105908.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just one question
Again, not claiming IBM Is altruistic. Not claiming IBM doesn't sue over patents. Just saying that IBM, for a big giant corporation with a metric shit-ton of patents does not abuse the system like our favorite East-Texas patent trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One or More
Predictive text is already patented. Automatic substitution is already common. Is there a system that uses more than one data base for substitutions and has to deal with ambiguity? Is there anything else in this description that could be described as patentable? They claim one database, they claim more than one database. They claim application on mobile phones, PDAs, and computers. They claim database locations on local machines, on the internet, and on service providers transmission systems. Wow, broad patents suck.
One final question: Did they patent a program, or a programming project assignment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
don't blame IBM, hold the patent office to the flame
If we can put any pressure on our government to stop and retract "common sense" patents we need to do it. For gods sake they are letting companies patent seeds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: don't blame IBM, hold the patent office to the flame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait wait wait...
Ok, its over, a lotta people look pissed. Kill the patent system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Morning Vietnam!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Morning Vietnam!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good Morning Vietnam!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Knee-jerk reaction? Check
Look - IBM frequently patents things not because it wants to monetize them, instead because it wants others NOT to. They are very experienced at getting things patented, and they actively encourage employees to patent things that are fairly obvious so as to insure that they won't be restricted in doing the obvious thing in the future by someone who patented it and was litigious.
As a couple of people have noted above, the issue shouldn't be with IBM here, but with a patent system that thinks it's ok to patent really obvious things. Fix the system ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USPTO is now a branch of IBM
What is good for IBM should be good for you punks...
No ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: USPTO is now a branch of IBM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: USPTO is now a branch of IBM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, whether or not the original application should have ever been filed is an entirely different issue. Of course, I am not privy to the reasoning behind its filing. Maybe people had too much time on their hands and said "What the heck. I/we need something for my/our 'ego wall'." Then again, maybe something is lurking around in IBM's labs to which this may have utility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USPTO Worked With IBM to Make This Patent Happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: USPTO Worked With IBM to Make This Patent Happen
What typically happens, by the way, is that an initial set of claims is presented, the USPTO conducts a search of prior art and almost invariably rejects all of the claims, whereupon the applicant amends the claims by narrowing their scope so that the claims now define an invention that meets all statutory criteria.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, that is because you happen to be a patent attorney who always likes to give the benefit of the doubt to the USPTO, despite whatever evidence may be presented to you.
Occupational hazard, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The application's description of the invention is relatively straightforward, the claims are not fraught with ambiguous terms, and the technology area is not so difficult that the applicants could "pull a fast one".
I will admit I am puzzled a bit by the fact the claims are limited as they are given that the description of the invention is broader in scope. Of course, this could mean that a restriction requirement was given and that another application is pending that covers other aspects of the invention.
I will also admit I have seen instances where an examiner is not fully conversant in certain areas of technology. However, this does not appear to be such an instance, and all the more so given that the application was considered by both a primary and supervisory examiner.
Perhaps I may be proven wrong, but based upon what information is available I have no reason to conclude that the system has somehow failed.
HNY and wishing U a prosperous 2K10.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am sure you have heard this one before:
- Sir Arthur Charles Clarke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rolling On Floor Laughing My Queer A** Off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior Art
I've used programs that do this very thing.
I guess IBM doesn't do any searching for prior art before wasting their money on a dumb patent.
What's worse, the USPTO granted the patent.
More proof the US patent system is corrupt and invalid, and big companies are hypocritical to the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prior Art
You have used programs that:
(1) Determine that an initialism is ambiguous.
(2) Access one or more databases to determine what the initialism could mean.
(3) Prioritize possible interpretations of the initialism considering who sent the message.
What program would that be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ibm and the missing machine intelagence.
its seams to me that if they patent the prosses for an ai in the form of an all incluseve broad spectrum method to interpet the way we talk. They are starting at the ground floor for machine intelgence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's an abbreviation for them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
You had to know this blog was going to produce they funniest collection of crazy ass abbreviations ever seen in the comments section here.
This was entertaining as hell, thanks ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]