No one has pointed out a flaw/hole in the patent, since no one has yet even referred to the patent's claims. (I'm not saying it isn't full of holes, but I am saying that the techniques everyone is using to evaluate it are legally irrelevant).
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
No one has pointed out a flaw/hole in the patent, since no one has yet even referred to the patent's claims. (I'm not saying it isn't full of holes, but I am saying that the techniques everyone is using to evaluate it are legally irrelevant).
That is the issue I am trying to get across. No one is saying they are lawyers and what they are saying is 100% accurate. Its a discussion forum for crying out load. We are supposed to discuss our opinions, not yell at people when they don't agree with us.
Exactly. If this guy had been working on this since the patent was filed in 96, then I could see a reason for him to sue. He did nothing with this and, as many people have said already, the procedures companies use to block spam now-a-days is very different from the patent.
Maybe you should stop visiting porn sites.Maybe everyone should sue InNova for their invention not working... I receive far to much spam
And by the way - I've just patented this idea. I will sue anyone who does not visit porn sites.
+1
Reminds me I haven't won any money in the Dutch lottery for a while. Mind you, I never played in it, but I've got a letter that I won 600,000 once and then I got another letter that I won 800,000. Plus a BMW. It's such a shame that all the spammers are also scammers, or I would be rich today.
no, you can't choose to do nothing or you'll lose it. the only way to keep your patent (and profits) is you either use it, or.. sue anyone who uses it.
thank God Sir Tim-Berners Lee invented www!
The United States of America:
Where it's legal to send spam e-mail but not legal to use the centuries-old Bayes Theorem to block e-mail.
Where it's legal to send spam e-mail but not legal to use the centuries-old Bayes Theorem to block e-mail.
Let's suppose Kearns chose not to market his invention but instead chose to sit on it, use it on his personal automobile, and not make it available to anyone else... Of course, that doesn't matter. HE COULD LOCK IT AWAY IF HE WISHED, ITS STILL NOT YOURS!
By the reasoning here, anyone should of been able to use his invention as they wished at this point because he "wasn't doing anything with it"...
Of course on the other hand, "I hope APPLE'S Legal Bankrupts HTC" It doesn't matter, WOOO HOO Steve! WE LOVE YOU!!!!! (These kind of post are rampant on this site)...
Seems the only "patent trolls" are anyone who's company name isn't "Apple, Inc."
Good!
He should be paid for his patent. That's what patents are for. It doesn't matter if it's is a billion dollar company or Joe Shmo. We all know that these companies know that they are breaking the law and withholding money but it is worth the risk of a lawsuit a lawsuit to them because their profit margin will continue to climb.
He should be paid for his patent. That's what patents are for. It doesn't matter if it's is a billion dollar company or Joe Shmo. We all know that these companies know that they are breaking the law and withholding money but it is worth the risk of a lawsuit a lawsuit to them because their profit margin will continue to climb.
No, my spam filter was very simple and was freeware. And I doubt that the patent in question would concern me.
Your logic is flawed. This guy/company did not make a product based on his patent.
Also, just in-case you hadn't noticed: You are trolling as bad as those Apple lovers you seem to hate so much. Accept other people don't agreewith you and move on. Not saying you should stop posting stuff, but stop targeting people. Like yourself, I do not like Apple apologists, but I do not label everyone here as one.
Where did you read that the companies knew they were infringing on his patent? It seems NO ONE knew about this patent until the case was filed.
If you think "big business is evil" why do you support them (Apple) by buying their products?
This is what sucks so bad - 17 YEARS.
It would be one thing if one company got past the radar but to have dozens slip by for years is highly questionable.
I don't know about the validity of the patent as it seems fairly obvious from what is trotted here. The thing is should a patent be considered valid if it has been uninforced for more that a decade or even five years.
As a side note I'm not against patents but I fail to see how any piece of software that stores an retrieves information from a database could be patentable. That is what databases are built for so by definition it is fairly obvious. It is what databases are marketed for. The second issue is the concept of sorting mail based on people you know, which in effect is what is described here. That again is pretty obvious and a direct extension of the physical mail process.
I have to think that this patent would be held unenforceable by reasonable people.
Dave
And it's taken them this long to notice it...
It would be one thing if one company got past the radar but to have dozens slip by for years is highly questionable.
I don't know about the validity of the patent as it seems fairly obvious from what is trotted here. The thing is should a patent be considered valid if it has been uninforced for more that a decade or even five years.
As a side note I'm not against patents but I fail to see how any piece of software that stores an retrieves information from a database could be patentable. That is what databases are built for so by definition it is fairly obvious. It is what databases are marketed for. The second issue is the concept of sorting mail based on people you know, which in effect is what is described here. That again is pretty obvious and a direct extension of the physical mail process.
I have to think that this patent would be held unenforceable by reasonable people.
Dave
Thanks for posting this; I only checked on the record date not the company. As I said, yes, the website was created recently, probably for the sole purpose of the lawsuit. Furthermore, Fractals was the company that made/registered the site, except Fractals is owned by the site's owner, none other than Uomini himself. Fractals.com looks to be of the same ilk, home made by Mr. Uomini just like the InNova site; it appears that it runs out in October '10, and furthermore, hasn't been updated in some time. It appears to simply be holding old ads at this point in time. Furthermore the company address matches the InNova address and Mr. Uomini's address, so its the same source. Some "company," if this isn't indicative of a patent-squatter I don't know what is.
Sarcasm does not suit you well. For one, yes, while a site's looks does not immediately corroborate to a "patent troll," it can undoubtedly be indicative of one. Hence the multi-point post. Furthermore, yes, in my opinion, it is broad, however as I said I'm not a patent lawyer, nor will I ever pretended to be one. Generally there is a strong link between broad, overreaching patents with undefined (or loosely defined) methodology and purported "patent trolls," this is due to the nature of these parties seeking damages for a patent that shouldn't be in place in the first place, typically due to overreaching claims. Thus that is what defines a "patent troll," a party that seeks to receive damage claims or licensing from a questionable patent, especially if said party does not produce, maintain, or develop that application stated in the patent any further. It's not always whether or not that party pursues development of that IP though, its more-so the questionable claims and methods stated within the patent that constitute the basis of a "patent troll."
The evidence provided in my previous post only further attenuates the basis for said party being a "patent troll" though, since the provided site, company's IP, and the patent in question are all suspect, especially given the nature of the monetary damages sought. Individually they are not the basis for such a claim, but together they form a stronger argument for InNova to be viewed as a purported "patent troll."
As for the broadness, I suggest you read the patent. It's a pretty easy read; as I said the methods are not well defined. As such, yes, I find it broad. I think you would too if you read it, but as I said, yes, I'm not a patent lawyer.
Furthermore, for you to conclude that I am an Apple zealot simply based upon that singular post is both ridiculous and baseless. Just because someone has a viewpoint opposing your own does not automatically make them an opponent or someone who is a "fanboy," in my case my argument was rather laid out as to why I personally view InNova as a "patent troll." As such, I invite you to read my previous posts, if you have the desired curiosity and intellect to comprehend them. For the record, I'm also non-religious, so assuming that someone would be praying at all can be highly pretentious, let alone being to a singular, non-important man. Also, multiple exclamation points do not further your point, in fact they make you seem less credible and more erratic.
The point I was trying to make is that in today's e-mail realm, there is probably little to no patent infringement remaining. In other words, he's probably suing over past damages, not current damages, and probably won't be able to attain a license fee for future spam filtration. That was simply my point, albeit not clearly worded. It should be noted however that I am not an expert in email or the current generation spam filtration systems, so take that conjecturing with a grain of salt.
Please. Spam was rare 15 years ago. A lot of us have been using Email since before the 90s and Spam didn't get to be a problem until around 2000.
Ahhh Eudora...I used that for a years...then switched to Netscape Mail around 1999 and still, to this day, use Netscape as my email reader for my ISP email. It's simple, solid, flexible, and just plain rocks.
-Eric
This not just anyone. This is a person with a patent approved invention. He entitled money if that patent was used. Clearly these companies have used the patent for years and it has been a useful instrument for their consumers. Look, I just paid $299 for an iPhone and $2000 for a MacBook Pro not to mention the annual fee i pay to use mobile me's service. That is a crap load of money Apple just made. Not just Apple, but all the companies should pay the people responsible for the software or products they use.
why can't everyone sue everyone? seriously, this is getting ridiculous. and with apple exposing other smartphone antennae faults? what has the world come to?
You are missing the point. And apparently missing the topic.
No one likes patent trolls/patent squatters. They killed ideas and technologies (for just their own benefits and no one else). Not producing a single thing to others.
Remember EOLAS vs browsers for embedded object, Anascape vs Nintendo over wiimote implementation, <can't remember the name> vs Microsoft over XML in Word, etc, etc..
It's not about Apple. And hey, at least Apple/Google/Microsoft/Nintendo come up with something for anyone, right?
What a waste of time...
What a waste of time. Seriously. Just have a look at U.S. Patent No. 6,018,761 and see for yourself.
This won't hurt Apple, nor any of the other defendants, simply because it doesn't do anything related to the so called patent infringement.
What a waste of time. Seriously. Just have a look at U.S. Patent No. 6,018,761 and see for yourself.
This won't hurt Apple, nor any of the other defendants, simply because it doesn't do anything related to the so called patent infringement.
Oh, absolutely not. I've lived in Marshall, Texas for 8 years and met, talked to and worked with those lawyers. It's not all Apple, not even all electronic either. There was a case regarding some utterly mundane detail about backyard pools, for instance, and many other super trivial "patent violations" in many industries. Patent trolls go there because the cases are whipped through comparably fast, and the jury pool is a bunch of damn morons to whom you in general only have to blert about some small bootstrappy American business standing up to the big guy, and you've pretty much won your case already.
Reading the patent, it seems to have nothing to do with SPAM. It simply is a way to take information from headers (the From address perhaps) and look it up in a database (an address book) to find the actual name of the person that sent the email. That way the recipient can identify who sent the email when it is otherwise ambiguous.
Perhaps in 1996 someone thought that might be a good way to prevent SPAM, but not today. And only reading about half of the patent word for word, I didn't see any mention of it being used for SPAM, just a way to identify who the email came from.
It will be interesting, and probably fail due to the huge money the defendents have. It is easy to say that what the patent proposes is common use/common sense etc., but in 1996 it was a new idea.
Perhaps in 1996 someone thought that might be a good way to prevent SPAM, but not today. And only reading about half of the patent word for word, I didn't see any mention of it being used for SPAM, just a way to identify who the email came from.
It will be interesting, and probably fail due to the huge money the defendents have. It is easy to say that what the patent proposes is common use/common sense etc., but in 1996 it was a new idea.
If you really believe that it is only because your ISP implemeted Anti-spam software without you knowing it, or you very rarely used email on a small ISP that didn't get targeted.
I was getting spam messages every day prior to '95. At that time my ISP reported that 90% of incomming email was spam and they were working hard to combat it.