Sidebar Sidebar
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

macsmurf said:
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.
Click to expand...

But how will patent trolls feed their families??
 
darkplanets said:
A couple things should be noted here.

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.
Click to expand...

http://whois.domaintools.com/innovapatentlicensing.com:

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
The Fractal Images Company
(more at http://whois.domaintools.com/fractals.com on them)

ATTN INNOVAPATENTLICENSING.COM
PO Box 459
Drums, PA 18222
US
570-708-8780

Record created on 26-May-2010.
Record expires on 26-May-2013.
 
I knew I liked Dr. Pepper for a reason.

Who knew Dr. Pepper was so into e-mail patent infringement. That completely rocks!
 
madrag said:
a patent is a patent, and if these aren't protected, then its anarchy...
It doesn't really matter much if it was tech or non-tech companies that (may) have infringed the patent.

I know it helps the progress, or as you said "pursuit of Better Stuff™", but put yourself in the shoes of the patent holders, they had the idea/developed it, and now are behing stolen. Of course it has to be proven first.
Click to expand...

So do you think Snapple infringed on this patent when they were writing their popular email client?
 
nwcs said:
Believe me, it was a problem 15 years ago. I was getting spam years before that. My first big "hit" as a developer was a simple Eudora spam filter I wrote in 1994.
Click to expand...

Are you a defendent too? Or do you have evidence of prior art that Apple and Google might be interested in?

From the article it appears the invention was really an address book to fill in the missing info based on the sender email address that you *could* use to try to control SPAM. Not really anything to do with SPAM. I admit that the article isn't very in-depth so there might be more to this but I have my doubts.
 
NetScheduler said:
... Here, anyone who dares to protect their patent is a "Patent Troll".. Well, except Apple, they should be able to sue (and run out of business) anyone who infringes on their intellectual property...
Click to expand...

I would agree if you revise that to say: "anyone who dares to protect their patent is a "Patent Troll".. Well, except a company that actually applies their patents to real products, they should be able to sue".

In a very old patent case in England (1766, involving a telescope lens design), a judge said: "It was not the person who locked up his invention in his serutoire that ought to profit by a patent for such invention, but he who brought it forth for the benefit of the public."

(FYI - "Serutoire" - a case or hidden drawer for papers)

If only we had such common sense today.
 
darkplanets said:
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.
Click to expand...

Great Post.. If their site looks "Crappy", then that proves that they're trolls (Not to mention that you find it broad)!!!!

Thanks again for posting. I'll just wanted to thank you, you can now go back to saying your morning prayers to Steve!!!!
 
darkplanets said:
6) The patent itself. I don't like it. I'm not a patent lawyer though, but I personally find it a bit broad.
Click to expand...
Well, this only makes finding prior art easier.

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.
Click to expand...
Nowadays.

The patent was filed on 11 December 1996.
 
Ugh!

I really, really hate Patent Trolls! :mad::mad::mad:

I wish we'd change our laws so this can't happen. Costs us as consumers and is a huge waste of time!
 
Matt-M said:
I would agree if you revise that to say: "anyone who dares to protect their patent is a "Patent Troll".. Well, except a company that actually applies their patents to real products, they should be able to sue".
Click to expand...

Who the hell are you or anyone else to tell me how I may use intellectual property that I own??? I can do whatever I wish with patents that I own, or I may choose to do nothing. That doesn't mean that you (or any other person or entity on this planet) has a right use the technology as you see fit...

It's people like you who would of gotten in line to screw people like Robert Kearns.
 
The system has failed again.

Of course inventors should be given what they deserve, however I believe it needs to be on a sliding percentage scale. 15 years later you should only be entitled to a certain percentage.
 
On the positive side if they win they can buy their logo the rest of his body, or at the very least some eyes.
 
madrag said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree with this, I think most innovation isn't revolutionary, but quite evolutionary. Someone comes up with a new communications medium, then another party works to make it more efficient, then another works to make it more secure; etc.

Hence, if developers are just making minor, evolutionary changes to existing systems, it's inevitable there is going to be a lot of coincidental development.
 
I hate to break it to this troll, but it is unlikely his patent is applicable to anything people are doing to deal with spam these days. Spam was not even an issue in any significant way back when he patented this idea, and the idea itself has nothing to do with preventing spam, so I am not sure any of these companies he names are even in violation.
 
NetScheduler said:
Who the hell are you or anyone else to tell me how I may use intellectual property that I own??? I can do whatever I wish with patents that I own, or I may choose to do nothing.
Click to expand...

I merely espouse a belief, commonly held outside the U.S. Patent System, that the ultimate purpose of patent law, indeed all law, is the greatest good to the greatest number.

Therefore, he who actually implements an invention, makes it available to use, is deserving of patent protection. He who locks an invention away for personal gain and no public benefit, is not.

FYI - The Kearns reference is not applicable. He attempted to make his invention available to all the major auto manufacturers. They refused and stole his idea. He did not lock it away in secret, waiting for others to hit upon the same idea so he could sue them.
 
Rogue. said:
Maybe everyone should sue InNova for their invention not working... I receive far to much spam :p
Click to expand...

I like this idea. IF InNova wants to take a claim for blocking spam, I want a class action lawsuit, filed in East Texas of course, brought against them for everu piece of spam anyone has received in the last 15 years that involves any of the companies they are suing.

If they get paid for their "work" they should also be responsible for it.
 
OrangeSVTguy said:
+1 :D 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. :p
Click to expand...

Huahahahah LOL ROFL :D

Viagra, Air Jordan Shoes, failed Email Delivery Status, and so on bla-bla bla.
Damn you spammers! F U Patent Trolls!
sorry, couldn't resist it. next time I'll watch my language.
 
NetScheduler said:
Who the hell are you or anyone else to tell me how I may use intellectual property that I own??? I can do whatever I wish with patents that I own, or I may choose to do nothing. That doesn't mean that you (or any other person or entity on this planet) has a right use the technology as you see fit...

It's people like you who would of gotten in line to screw people like Robert Kearns.
Click to expand...

NetScheduler, why are you so adamant to defend this case? People are stating that this might not be a valid case and all you do is bash them and call them Apple supporters.

Beyond the idea that patents should be protected (which I do agree with), what evidence do you have to prove this company/guy is in the right? You only seem to bash the people who are pointing out flaws/holes in this patent and case. Wouldn't your "Apple supporter" argument work better against people who have no reasons to back up their claim/option?

Also, this is a completely different case then Robert Kearns's. This company/guy did not bring this to the attention of any company included in the suit. This suit is more akin to someone suing Coke and Pepsi for making their own brand of Cola. He might have the patent on it, but the formula used by the companies is not the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back