Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple, Google, and Others Hit With Patent Lawsuit Over Spam Email Identification
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I hear ya, but this is the quintessential difference between invention/idea and innovation. I'm no patent attorney by any means. However, I'm aware that this is a slippery-slope subject matter. But I wonder if technology patents (the inventions/ideas) should have some sort of law that requires a rolling clock for the development/bettering (the innovation) of an idea. If said patent expires, within a given window of time, then it's reasonable to assume that it be fair game to others to explore the patent as a way of progress for all to enjoy/experience, no?
Personally, I think the way to go is through the damage phase. No serious negotiations through the years? No attempts to exploit on your own? OK, you win the case, but your damages is $1, because obviously you thought the patent was worth that much.
These ideas are not stolen. The ideas are original and just happen to be the same solution someone else had. Yes, if someone steals an idea and all the work it took to develop a solution that has been patented, it makes sense. But what if you just come up with the same solution to a problem without stealing it? Imagine if you invested millions in solving a problem only to find out some guy thought of it first and wrote it down. That's where the patent problem is.
I'm going to sue these guys because their so-called anti-spam patent doesn't ******** work! I still get ********* of spam!
Hi,
Words like "hit" and "slapped", along with Patent Troll really shows Eric Slivka's bias in this article.
s.
It's my understanding that patents have to be non-obvious. The notion of maintaining a database that tracks information about the sender isn't really in the same league as inventing an algorithm that can efficiently compress/decompress audio (just an example). The biggest problem with the patent system is that patents are being awarded for things that shouldn't be.
There's a fairly recent ruling in the US that might kill off software patents: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100713173032257
Anyway, storing context information based on the email is not a good idea. First of all, emails can be faked. Secondly, unless you use whitelisting, people still have to make a decision regarding whatever spam they get (the decision is usually delete) and email addresses are rarely, if ever, repeated.
Modern spam filters use machine learning heavily AFAIK. That means that the email client is trained to recognize common traits in spam. Also, some use greylisting (although only a few. It has some serious drawbacks).
This seems to be blacklisting in essence. Not really that inventive.
Anyway, storing context information based on the email is not a good idea. First of all, emails can be faked. Secondly, unless you use whitelisting, people still have to make a decision regarding whatever spam they get (the decision is usually delete) and email addresses are rarely, if ever, repeated.
Modern spam filters use machine learning heavily AFAIK. That means that the email client is trained to recognize common traits in spam. Also, some use greylisting (although only a few. It has some serious drawbacks).
This seems to be blacklisting in essence. Not really that inventive.
that's a very good point, but in an industry where the trade secrets are sold like biscuits, it's very tough to have that *truly* happening, ie a discovery coincidental to someone else's discovery isn't probably a coincidence.
No it won't. The Supreme Court backed off the Fed. Circuit's tougher rule, which means they made software patents easier to get. The link above is to a case where the claim was very poorly drafted. To get around the Supreme Court's ruling (which is actually just them saying that their old rulings apply, and the Fed. Circuit went too far), all you have to do is claim: "A computer-readable medium containing instructions controlling the operation of a processor, wherein if executed, said instructions direct the processor to...."
Serously how the hell can a company get away with waiting 15 years for the entire market to adopt something like a spam filter... and then claim its their $$$ for the picking 
Something is VERY broken with the system .. there should be a time limit from patent being granted to filing... at least its a "heads up" to other companies.
In my mind trolling is waiting until a big enough fish infringes on your patent and sues, where it should be a case of
Idea > patent > sell rights to use said patent or lose the rights
OR
Idea > Patent > Use and sell idea based on said patent or lose the rights.
However in a courtroom it should be noted if the patent is currently a development or sales stage e.g. patent holder has been trying to market it or is simply "waiting" for someone else to come to the same concept and market it for them at which stage they sue (being a troll).
There should be a patent section on MR .. its not really front page news.
Something is VERY broken with the system .. there should be a time limit from patent being granted to filing... at least its a "heads up" to other companies.
In my mind trolling is waiting until a big enough fish infringes on your patent and sues, where it should be a case of
Idea > patent > sell rights to use said patent or lose the rights
OR
Idea > Patent > Use and sell idea based on said patent or lose the rights.
However in a courtroom it should be noted if the patent is currently a development or sales stage e.g. patent holder has been trying to market it or is simply "waiting" for someone else to come to the same concept and market it for them at which stage they sue (being a troll).
There should be a patent section on MR .. its not really front page news.
Have you read the patent? The fact that it was even GRANTED is an indication that the patent system is terribly, terribly broken. The entire "invention" consists of using an incoming mail's From: address to look up additional info about the sender in "a database". FFS, they even try to include "putting contact info in a signature block at the end of the message" as an embodiment of the invention - which a quick archive search of alt.fan.warlords will show was substantially common practice WAAAAAY before the patent was filed in 1996.
A couple things should be noted here.
1) They're playing with fire. Big fire. You don't sue ~40 major companies and hope to get away unscathed; they'll make "InNova" pay in court costs, by dragging this out for as long as possible. That is, of course, if the patent holds at all in the first place.
2) The website. Anyone check it out? It looks like a 5 year old made it. For starters, it was made with a template, which means he probably made it himself. He didn't even change the comments/remove the from the source. Did I mention it looks like crap? Yeah, it does. Appears to have been made this year. Sketchy.
3) InNova LLC. The LLC is what has me curious here; besides the fact that this "company" has no products, its worth mentioning that he probably made this LLC simply for the lawsuit, so he wouldn't get burned if he lost. Characteristic patent troll.
4) More on "the company." If you look at the website, you'll notice they on'y have one product/solution. Can someone say patent troll? ONE "invention," listed as Patent #6,018,761. "This invention involves a system for adding to electronic mail messages information obtained from sources external to the electronic mail transport process. Applications include spam filtering for e-mail and news." If this doesn't point it out as what it is, then I don't know what does.
5) Why did he wait 15 years to file a case? Why didn't he file back when Gmail launched? If he really cared about the patent infringement aspect, then he would have filed immediately, circa his patent release, not 15 years down the road when anti-spam filters are very well established. He's clearly only in this for the money, not for his IP.
6) The patent itself. I don't like it. I'm not a patent lawyer though, but I personally find it a bit broad. He never explains how to pull off the context clues and analysis, or how/where to compare to lists/filters in a specific method, etc. It just seems really broad in its claims, which unfortunately is how these things roll. If he described a specific method, with code or something of the like, then I'd be more okay with the claims. However it just seems like he's generally covering the basics, without much detail at all. Anyone can claim that if you connect to ISP 22 and download messages to ISP 20, then compare to a list on Internet 18, that you can filter spam; the devils in the details.
Alas though, our patent system doesn't allow for such things, and while its generally pretty good in most areas, technology is where it really seems to stink. There's too many general, broad concepts, not enough specific details and methods.
EDIT: Also, yes, there's another problem. This "method" describes blacklisting and databases and context clues, etc... nowadays most spam filtering doesn't use the same methods contained within this patent... making it also questionable. There's no central database anymore that stores blacklisted context clues and whatnot, or email or organization addresses, at least in modern, self-learning spam filters.
1) They're playing with fire. Big fire. You don't sue ~40 major companies and hope to get away unscathed; they'll make "InNova" pay in court costs, by dragging this out for as long as possible. That is, of course, if the patent holds at all in the first place.
2) The website. Anyone check it out? It looks like a 5 year old made it. For starters, it was made with a template, which means he probably made it himself. He didn't even change the comments/remove the from the source. Did I mention it looks like crap? Yeah, it does. Appears to have been made this year. Sketchy.
3) InNova LLC. The LLC is what has me curious here; besides the fact that this "company" has no products, its worth mentioning that he probably made this LLC simply for the lawsuit, so he wouldn't get burned if he lost. Characteristic patent troll.
4) More on "the company." If you look at the website, you'll notice they on'y have one product/solution. Can someone say patent troll? ONE "invention," listed as Patent #6,018,761. "This invention involves a system for adding to electronic mail messages information obtained from sources external to the electronic mail transport process. Applications include spam filtering for e-mail and news." If this doesn't point it out as what it is, then I don't know what does.
5) Why did he wait 15 years to file a case? Why didn't he file back when Gmail launched? If he really cared about the patent infringement aspect, then he would have filed immediately, circa his patent release, not 15 years down the road when anti-spam filters are very well established. He's clearly only in this for the money, not for his IP.
6) The patent itself. I don't like it. I'm not a patent lawyer though, but I personally find it a bit broad. He never explains how to pull off the context clues and analysis, or how/where to compare to lists/filters in a specific method, etc. It just seems really broad in its claims, which unfortunately is how these things roll. If he described a specific method, with code or something of the like, then I'd be more okay with the claims. However it just seems like he's generally covering the basics, without much detail at all. Anyone can claim that if you connect to ISP 22 and download messages to ISP 20, then compare to a list on Internet 18, that you can filter spam; the devils in the details.
Alas though, our patent system doesn't allow for such things, and while its generally pretty good in most areas, technology is where it really seems to stink. There's too many general, broad concepts, not enough specific details and methods.
EDIT: Also, yes, there's another problem. This "method" describes blacklisting and databases and context clues, etc... nowadays most spam filtering doesn't use the same methods contained within this patent... making it also questionable. There's no central database anymore that stores blacklisted context clues and whatnot, or email or organization addresses, at least in modern, self-learning spam filters.
In this case it is obvious. People don't want junk mail so you write programs and come up with ideas to block it. It's such a massive problem that probably hundreds if not thousands of people come up with the same ideas and try them. Anyone with a real solution to this should donate it to open source anyway. Why not make it easier to fight spammers instead of getting sued for it.
Now imagine you spent these millions to create a spam filter that actually works and makes your users happy, and you find that someone got a patent for some vague idea, deliberately described in a way that as many applications as possible should fall under it, and starts suing you. Someone who was clever enough to get a patent, but didn't meet the much higher level of cleverness needed to create a product that actually works.
Maybe everyone should sue InNova for their invention not working... I receive far to much spam
+1
still all the viagra emails go to my spam box. Gotta love google spam filtering. I get the "you won a 1,000,000,000 inheritance check from a dead relative in South Africa, send us all your bank information" come through every once in a while. 
Perhaps you could contact the legal teams of these respective companies and see if they'd be willing compensate you for presenting your prior art..