Guy Who Makes Simple Caller ID App For Android Forced To Shut Down Due To Patent Threat

from the promoting-the-progress dept

Thu, Feb 25th 2010 9:05am — Mike Masnick

You may recall that, a couple years ago, Apple was sued over its implementation of caller ID technology on the iPhone. Some company claimed to hold a patent on the basic caller ID display technology from 1990. So, when Alimas wrote in to let us know about a guy who created a really simple caller ID app for Android called (simply enough) City Caller ID, who had to shut the project down after getting sued for patent infringement, I thought maybe it was the same patent (though, you would think the 1990 patent should have expired or be close to expiring by now). But, it turns out these are totally different patents on Caller ID technology. The patents are held by a company called Cequint (6,353,664 and 7,200,212) and were granted in 2002 and 2007. Yes, for caller ID functionality. It's a database lookup. How the hell do you patent that? In this case, all the app did was take the phone number of the caller, and do a database lookup to figure out what city the call was coming from:

Seriously, can any patent supporter explain with a straight face how patents like this promote progress? What kind of incentive does a patent create in this case? Can you honestly claim that this kind of monopoly was necessary to "invent" a way to match a phone number to a city?

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: android, caller id, patents
Companies: cequint

68 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

:Lobo Santo (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 9:14am

I have that app
It's a good app. Works well.
The fellow put a note on the last update about this.

Seriously, it's an effing shakedown, like "you're gonna cut us (Cequint) in for 50% of your take, and we'll let you keep doing business; also, we'll let you live."

Corporate thugs demanding payment, a goddamn shakedown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dotBen, 25 Feb 2010 @ 12:56pm
  
  Re: I have that app
  Seriously, it's an effing shakedown, like "you're gonna cut us (Cequint) in for 50% of your take, and we'll let you keep doing business; also, we'll let you live."
  
  It's a free app. To make a point out of this, I'd cut them in on the 'take' and give the 50% of nothing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 9:22am

Huh? My corded phone does the same thing, how the hell did this get patented IN THE 21ST CENTURY? This functionality has been around for decades....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
6 (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 9:25am

If you read the patent claims it appears to be impossible for anyone simply writing an app to infringe the claims directly.

Fact is he probably doesn't infringe, but doesn't have the time/money/knowledge to fight the suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Mighty Bard, 25 Feb 2010 @ 9:44am
  
  Re:
  which is the only real problem, as 99% of the patents out there would get laughed out of court. It costs 20-100m to have that happen though. go figure...
  
  America->land of opportunity!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    I would love to see your authority for the 99% of patents. Now, if you said that 99% of asserted patents, that might be closer, but even that seems ridiculously high.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - HawaiiMuskrat, 24 Aug 2010 @ 7:56am
    
    Re: Re: (patents)
    Quoting The Mighty Bard 2-25-10: "would get laughed out of court. It costs 20-100m to have that happen though. go figure..."
    ---
    OK, so I know I'm 6 months late but can't resist a comment. So, the real problem is LAWYERS. As Shakespeare's Henry VI said, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- redwall_hp (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:14am
  
  Re:
  Remind you of anybody? http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100222/1816398260.shtml
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
diabolic, 25 Feb 2010 @ 9:36am

patent supporter
Seriously, can any patent supporter explain with a straight face how patents like this promote progress?

Being a patent supporter does not mean that one supports ALL patents. Being a patent supporter does not mean that there are not problems with the system. It is possible to be a patent supporter and at the same time be an advocate of patent reform. I don't think you will find anyone that will support the patent you are asking about here. Some things are just obvious and not deserving of a patent at all. 20 years is a mighty long time given the pace of progress that we enjoy today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brian (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 9:48am
  
  Re: patent supporter
  He is more referring to the people who support the patent system the way it is and come to the site saying that any reform is unneeded, wanting reform is wrong, and everything is in near perfect working order with the system. They are mostly trolls who pop up every now and then.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 9:55am
    
    Re: Re: patent supporter
    Apparently you missed my point. Ronald aside, no, patent supporters cannot support this patent.
    
    Seems to me that Mike lumps all 'patent supporters' together. Honestly, I find it kind of offensive. This is the same crap that the *IAA pulls when they call just about everyone 'pirates', 'thieves' and 'criminals'.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - :Lobo Santo (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re: patent supporter
      "This is the same crap that the *IAA pulls when they call just about everyone 'pirates', 'thieves' and 'criminals'."
      Oh please. We are all criminals. I, for one, steal my every breath--and who gets paid for it? Nobody! That's who.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re: patent supporter
      "Apparently you missed my point. Ronald aside, no, patent supporters cannot support this patent."
      
      You forgot about Angry Dude.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chill, 25 Feb 2010 @ 11:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: patent supporter
        hell, what about Weird Harold?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 9:50am
  
  Re: patent supporter
  I think he might have meant those who support patent law in its current form and oppose patent reform. Like Ronald Riley, for example. Unfortunately, even those people will always say "sure there is bound to be a bad patent here and there, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater." And they will say that no matter how many examples of bad patents are presented.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 9:54pm
    
    Re: Re: patent supporter
    and despite the fact that they can't really provide examples of good patents and demonstrate that they do anything to promote the progress.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 9:52am
  
  Re: patent supporter
  The patent supporters Mike is referring to in this context, are those that support the current system without reform. Unfortunately they are the resounding voice at this point, including the current presidential administration.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard Corsale (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:02am
  
  Re: patent supporter
  See, the problem is.. Monopolies are like death sentences. You have to weigh the cost:benefit against the implementation. What I'm trying to say is that if you hand out death sentences all willy nilly, then you have become a vehicle for grave injustice. With patents, the point is the same, though the result may not be a single corpse at the end of a rope. Ethical questions aside, how would you remedy the injustice of patents like this?
  
  I mean.. really.. I'm sincerely asking for ideas, I've come to the conclusion that there must be 1 in 100 patents that deserve to exist at this point in time. Everything is a derivative and we have gone entirely the wrong direction on IP as a whole... In all of my studies (hundreds of patents top to bottom, some taken to trial others not) I find with few exceptions, little more than obvious, uninspired, re-worded standards and legal dribble.
  
  I'm all for rewarding truly innovative inventions, I'm just not convinced that a 20+ year monopoly is the remedy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - diabolic, 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:12am
    
    Re: Re: patent supporter
    Did not say that I have all of the answers. It should be harder to get a patent. Also, patent applications should be handled in a more expeidient manner. It should not take 3 or 4 years before someone even looks at an application. I agree that 20 years is way too long for monopoly protections - I said as much in my post. I'm for removing time from the entire process. I'm for rejecting a lot more applications. Perhaps we need a new process to deal with existing bad patents but that needs to come along with bigger hurdles for obtaining a patent in the first place. Again, I don't have all of the answers but that does not mean we should simply flush everything and move to no system at all.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 11:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re: patent supporter
      I think you will find that Mike himself, and many commenters here, are reasonably agnostic about having a patent system - we don't necessarily want to abolish it completely.
      
      However I think there is a consensus here that any new system must be:
      
      1) Clear about what its purpose is (is it to "promote the progress" as in the US constitution or is it there to level the playing field between individuals/small companies and the big boys ).
      
      2) Be evidence based rather than faith based.
      
      3) Be subject to review if the evidence shows it to be failing relative to its declared purpose.
      
      I think this community will not react badly to anyone who argues from these premises.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 11:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: patent supporter
        Fair enough. Then Mike falls into the 'any patent supporter' group too. That must mean his question was rhetorical. I missed that he did not mean me AND I missed that the question did not deserve an answer. Nice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 11:11am
    
    Re: Re: patent supporter
    "if you hand out death sentences all willy nilly, then you have become a vehicle for grave injustice. With patents, the point is the same, though the result may not be a single corpse at the end of a rope. Ethical questions aside, how would you remedy the injustice of patents like this?"
    
    I think you've answered your own question already. A death sentence for the examiner who approved this patent would be highly appropriate.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:07am
  
  Re: patent supporter
  I understand your point, and agree. People like you shouldn't be lumped together with the patent extremists. However, people like you also need to be as vocal as the extremists, lest people forget you exist. In our defense, rarely do we get a pro-patent-system point-of-view here that isn't absurd beyond measure. It would be nice to hear a sane supporter's ideas on the matter.
  
  I don't think you will find anyone that will support the patent you are asking about here.
  
  I bet I can find at least one. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:23am
    
    Re: Re: patent supporter
    Trouble is that just about any opinion that is not in line with Mike's post gets a bunch of crap. I got 3 responses, quickly, telling me that basically I did not read between the lines, that Mike did not mean me but he meant folks like Ronald. It does not encourage me to post here when I know I'm just going to get lambasted.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re: patent supporter
      I don't think you know what "lambasted" means.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: patent supporter
        Apparently You are the one who does not know the meaning, he used it correctly. To wit: lambaste - to attack verbally : censure
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        m3mnoch (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 11:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: patent supporter
        he was probably just reading between the lines and saw "turkey basted" instead...
        
        m3mnoch.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 12:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: patent supporter
        Please point out where he was "attacked verbally." Then again, when you point out how I'm wrong, you might be attacking me! Oh no.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        diabolic, 25 Feb 2010 @ 3:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: patent supporter
        Whatever. Perhaps 'lambasted' was too strong of a word. When 3 or 4 people all jump to correct me then it does feel like I'm being scolded/lambasted. As Infamous Joe said, maybe I need thicker skin. And maybe Mike does not need a bunch of his readers jumping to his defense. Mike can speak for himself. There is nothing wrong with me taking Mike's words at face value, nothing wrong about taking the literal meaning.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 4:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: patent supporter
        Well, good thing we didn't just have to have a pointless discussion nitpicking over your word choice. I mean, that would just be silly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 7:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: patent supporter
        In the words of DH...
        
        "Dude, you totally win this won."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re: patent supporter
      Well, any regular reader knew what he meant, and maybe Mike will take more care to single out just the crazies in the future. (I can't speak for Mike). Mike has even said before that patents as an idea aren't bad, but they are no longer used as they were intended. That, I'd say, put him more in your camp than in those wishing to scrap the entire system.
      
      Also, and I mean no disrespect, but this is the internet; grow thicker skin and things will work out smoother. :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - diabolic, 25 Feb 2010 @ 11:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: patent supporter
        I am a regular reader. I also fall into the 'any patent supporter' group. Perhaps you are all correct, that Mike meant can Ronald, Angry Dude and/or other folks like them. I did not get that, I got 'any patent supporter'.
        
        Thick skin is one thing. Its easy to ignore a couple of comments. I find it harder to ignore 3 or 4 comments that say the same thing, especially when they are from 'regular readers' like yourself. If I cannot get a couple of you to understand where I am coming from then I have not accomplished anything and I am just wasting my time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:40am
  
  Re: patent supporter
  Amen, brother.
  
  It does seem like the second patent (I did not read the first) is simply a way to automate what someone already does manually when they look up what city an area code, or even a prefix, matches. With any luck, the Supreme Court will squelch these sorts of patents when the Bilski ruling comes out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 11:12am
    
    Re: Re: patent supporter
    "It does seem like the second patent (I did not read the first) is simply a way to automate what someone already does manually when they look up what city an area code, or even a prefix, matches." I read the first patent and it seems to say exactly the same thing...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Danny (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 12:08pm
  
  Re: patent supporter
  "20 years is a mighty long time given the pace of progress that we enjoy today"
  
  In my world of patent reform, the life-span of a patent would be much shorter. Say somewhere in the neighborhood of five years.
  
  Separate conversation, but I'd also make copyright much shorter as well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ComputerAddict (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 9:39am

Of course these patents are necessary!
How else can we get someone to come up with a new radical idea to replace databases lookups all together!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dan, 25 Feb 2010 @ 9:57am
  
  Re: Of course these patents are necessary!
  The problem isn't having patents, but that the current patents allowed are too vague. It's limiting the innovative attempts to stumble onto that radical new idea. Not to mention it being the IP equivalent of saturation bombing of the tech industry.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
HymieS (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:00am

The big Mistake was:
He should have filed a design copyright on his own program. Design copyrights do not infringe on patents, and last 75 to 150 years.
The patents on 'caller id' only cover displaying the callers name and/or number. Neither patent describes the methodology of getting that information.
If he had 'designed' a new method of just obtaining the city that the call originated in, he would have a valid copyright.
Now if my phone is based in NYC and I am traveling to LA, and his program can show where the call is coming from and not the base city of the phone, I believe he has a valid case.
Most existing caller id's, that I have seen and used, only display the name and number of the caller, not the city of origin, unless the callers name is hidden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:08am
  
  Re: The big Mistake was:
  I'm sorry, but your post doesn't appear to make sense. There is no way a "design copyright" would have protected him from a patent infringement lawsuit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JerryAtrick (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:01am

Just drop a deuce
This is why I would like to drop trow on the USPTO...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HymieS (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:05am

I think I'll patent the use of looking in the phone book to get someone's number. Or maybe using a reverse directory to get someone's name and address. Aren't these considered a 'database search'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:47am
  
  Re:
  Just patent querying a database and then sue EVERYONE.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
simon, 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:09am

patents vs land of opportunity
next to patent is stepping in dog poo on street, pressing a button to enable an electrical appliance, crossing the street on unmarked place, pushing a buggy , using a wheel, the bottom of any drinking cup/glass, whistling for a cab, drinking beer on a couch and yeah, wiping your feet on a mat before entering the house... cause someone took already the caller ID ...

nah, this are not yet too obvious ... so, race to patent office ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:32am

Is it wise to publish a non-555 phone number on a web page like this? The person is probably getting spammed now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 11:26am
  
  Re:
  I think the Tommy Tutone hit in 1982 probably exposed this number much further than techdirt has ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
milrtime83 (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:36am

This same company also sued someone who made a similar app for Blackberries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
drkkgt (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:44am

I love these kinds of lines in these patent:
While the invention has been described in accordance 5 with what is presently considered to be the most practical and preferred embodiment, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited to the disclosed embodiment, but on the contrary, is intended to cover various modifications and equivalent arrangements included within the spirit and scope :o of the appended claims.

So basically this is saying: "If we didn't write the specifics broad enough to cover all possibilities of us getting paid, then we want to make sure we cover any loopholes that mights in any way have anything to do with the possibility of what we are discussing, so that we get paid."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Earl Cooley III, 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:47am

busted
Sounds like a great candidate for the EFF's Patent Busting Project.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:48am

In the early 90s BellSouth (and probably other telcos) enhanced their caller id services with a feature to lookup city and state if their database did not have a name for the calling number. I think this constitutes prior art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- diabolic, 25 Feb 2010 @ 11:30am
  
  Re:
  As long as you can convince the patent examiner that your 'invention' is somehow ever so slightly different than the prior art then the prior art does not matter, its no longer prior art. Apparently, what is obvious to you and me is not always obvious to our patent examiners.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2010 @ 11:30am

first patent-
Claims
What is claimed is:

1. A method of identifying a calling party to a called party, comprising:

receiving through an analog telephone line interface a telephone number of an incoming telephone call;

Is a cell phone classified as an 'analog telephone line interface' ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the Heck!!!, 25 Feb 2010 @ 11:53am

Zipcode look up
I made an app to let you look up Zipcodes (if you know the zipcode - it'll tell you the City/State or city/state will give you the zipcode)... can I patent that???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
6 (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 11:57am

"Is a cell phone classified as an 'analog telephone line interface' ?"

I doubt it, and many other problems would arise in successfully accusing someone who merely wrote an App for ANDROID of infringment.

However, like I said, the guy that was writing the App probably doesn't know his arse from his elbow in patent matters, or in patent litigation. And he probably can't afford to pay someone who does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chucklebutte (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 12:30pm

Balls
People need to grow them. People need to realize only one person in this world can tell them what to do, and that is themselves. The longer we get bullied by what is considered right and wrong by people out of touch with reality the longer we will have to endure this kind of shit. People remember that there is more citizens than government or corporations, people really need to tell corporations and the government to go fuck themselves!

I say write whatever software you want!
Pirate what you want!
Take any picture, story, movie, anything you can think of and manipulate it in any way you wish!

No one can do anything to you, let them sue you what can they really do? Take your money? Only if you let them!

This kind of BS should fall under "cyber-bullying" ITS TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN!!! Well protect their future from a closed off society where only the richest of the rich is allowed access to knowledge while the rest of us pile up in the streets! Yay!...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 1:41pm
  
  Re: Balls
  I hate the patent system (and IP rules in general) as much as the next guy, but you're giving out horrible advice.
  
  No one can do anything to you, let them sue you what can they really do? Take your money? Only if you let them!
  
  No, not only if you let them.
  
  Friendly reminder: Just because 'they' have lost all sense of reason does not mean you should.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jamie Carl (profile), 25 Feb 2010 @ 6:36pm

"It's a free app. To make a point out of this, I'd cut them in on the 'take' and give the 50% of nothing." How about giving them 50% of development costs? Hell, give them 100%!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Williams, 26 Feb 2010 @ 12:22am

Cequint = Garbage Patents
Looks like Cequint is profiting from garbage patents. Shame on them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sandeep Choudhary, 28 Feb 2010 @ 7:56am

It is panic....
In these patents are innovation killer.... If you innovate something ...you don't know that it is already patented or you have to search for this information by giving your valuable time to this rather than to innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sandeep Choudhary, 28 Feb 2010 @ 7:56am

It is panic....
In these patents are innovation killer.... If you innovate something ...you don't know that it is already patented or you have to search for this information by giving your valuable time to this rather than to innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amby, 9 Mar 2010 @ 4:08pm

Open source it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dakine, 20 Mar 2010 @ 4:42pm

Ok lets move forward. Newb here, how can I get this app anywhere else? torrent style.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
William Fields, 20 Mar 2010 @ 11:07pm

Patent Troll
Cequint is just a patent troll. They have no technology and their apps are pathetic. They claim to have a lot of downloads but they don't tell that they've been selling that app on Handango for 9 years. Hopefully the carriers or Google will implement some real ANI and put scammers like this out of business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whatever, 24 Mar 2010 @ 12:28pm

I would like to patent the obvious
Is there a patent on how to wipe your butt?

Patents are worthless. Please support any legislation which limits, abolishes or changes the transferability of patents.

Since the US Patent Office can't seem to make reasonable decisions on anything, its probably time to just get rid of patents altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patrick Young-YES Telecom, 24 Mar 2010 @ 9:00pm

Patent Prior Art, Proof
I am the owner of YES Telecom. I have been manufacturing multi-line caller id units for computers since 1993. What they have patented, aside from being technically incorrect, I was doing back in 1993. I developed so many database applications using caller id technology before Cequint ever existed. If any knows Christopher Chenoweth, let him know I will put his product back on the market, take all the legal risk, and get 100% of the proceds to him!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2011 @ 5:53pm

"Yes, for caller ID functionality. It's a database lookup. How the hell do you patent that?"

The same way you patent any other type of software, you do a song and dance for a patent clueless clerk and ya gets a patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2011 @ 2:42pm

I patented taking a crap doggy style. Be 20 years before anybody can take a crap like me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aptoide, 8 Nov 2017 @ 3:12pm

If you've read the news properly the same company had sued a similar caller id app for Blackberry as well. Poor developers :/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]