This guy seems to claim to have invented parsing SMTP to create a contact list.
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
This guy seems to claim to have invented parsing SMTP to create a contact list.
Actually, this patent does have a serious 35 USC 101 issue as it seems to claim an abstract idea. The claims are very poorly drafted.
Maybe everyone should sue InNova for their invention not working... I receive far to much spam
score!
+1
That's what I've been trying say
Broad claims that can only be loosely tied to todays spam filtration.
As a disclaimer, I'm not a patent lawyer, nor will I pretend to be.
Furthermore, the claims are so broad that they apply to pretty much all post-email processing, which is why this patent will get shot down. In the patent it claims receiving context clues from the email, then throwing them on a database for reference, and then claims to patent the general reading of email's context clues, the aforementioned communication with a database, and then reading that database for reference. Unfortunately, this applies to pretty much everything, not just spam filtration, and the methods for obtaining the context clues are not really defined.
No one uses vCards, and while whois organization lookups can occur, no one does this to fill out contact information in the user database, which really seems to apply more to this than anything. While it was applied to initial spam filtration through context clues provided in the mail versus checking against a compiled blacklist database, it really isn't entirely used in this context today. This patent could apply both to old spam checking and old spam filter creation, as both methods require reading context clues and either checking them against a database or including them in said database, and then processing said mail accordingly.
The problem with this claim, however, is that in today's processing context clues are still used; but not necessarily the ones listed in the patent. Databases will always be accessed upon checking context clues, and the patent is overly broad and doesn't a) Define what database, b) Define what type of database, c) Doesn't define the connection to said database, and d) Simply lists any database or list outside of the email, even within the program, as within its claims. That pretty much nails any content/context clue services, as they all contact/communicate outside of the individual email. That's too broad in my opinion. This means aggregating contact information or email addresses from an email, both automatically and manually, would therefore be in violation of this patent, as they are context clues, and you're connecting to sources outside of the email.
Furthermore, current generation spam filters don't use blacklists, and instead use adaptive filtering. This goes beyond the traditional access to a database; while it uses context clues, these go outside the scope of the patent in so far as they farm data beyond address, phone numbers, etc, as defined as "context clues" within the patent. To this end they have a defense, as a lot of the data collected for adaptive filtering isn't listed as context clues, however since they also collect said context clues, and communicate outside of the email, it still falls underneath the patent, despite having a different approach. As far as I'm aware these modern day "context clues" are still complied for spam lists, as similarities between dinged emails are recorded for spam filtration. The difference, essentially, is that you're not making your own blacklist (per the old definition of banned emails, companies, etc), but rather that the filter is adaptive based on similarities the program finds between the emails, making a better, stronger, and more accurate filter that goes beyond the context clues and into text fragments, names, format, etc. This new filter, while not the same as an old blacklist filter as it carries a different format, still falls under the broad, overreaching claim of connections to sources outside of the email.
Basically, the patent claim is too broad in my opinion because of the database communication claim, as well as the context clues. If he defined a better method for communicating outside the email or farming the context clues it might hold true, but current spam filtration methods still infringe because they still collect traditional context clues as defined in this patent. To that end I think its out of line; context clues are too general and too common to be patented in a method; we're talking names, addresses, and numbers here; people's personal information. Furthermore, stating any communication to an outside source is far too broad; this means any data farmed from emails, whether it be for blacklists, graylists, adaptive filtering, or contacts falls within the scope of this patent, rendering it in violation of said claims.
To be honest this patent really seems more applicable towards auto-adding contact information based on the collected context clues in the aforementioned email, but that's just me. To this end it would make more sense in today's systems, but again, it's far too broad and can also encompass both new and old spam filtration techniques. That's just my opinion though, I'm sure those with law degrees will disagree.
This also doesn't include the argument of previous art, which can explored.
That's what I've been trying to say, there's no specific, defined methods, its just general, overreaching claims about an idea, but little to no implementation. But again, you're the lawyer, not me
These aren't even ideas being patented, they're just vague ideas. I say, if you don't have a working model of something, or detailed plans, you can't patent it. I've even been involved in patent litigation before, but I had a working, if crude at the time, model of my idea, so the other guy was cooked.
Profits?
I fail to see how any company is profiting from this... email is a necessary money loser for almost every company that offers it...
I fail to see how any company is profiting from this... email is a necessary money loser for almost every company that offers it...
There's a very good doc out there about intellectual property/copyright etc called RIP. It deals primarily on mash-ups & sampling in the music biz but also gets into copyrights & lawsuits like this. Since the beginning of time humanity has progressed only because the sharing & developing of ideas. Only now since corporations lobbied for protectionist laws, patents & the right to sue over them have we seen such battles. Who knows what positive developments have been halted or slowed because of patents & copyrights. It also deals w/ the Mickey Mouse law where Disney sidestepped their main character from becoming public domain by lobbying to have the laws changed & terms extended....several times. Companies like Monsanto patenting life...medicine not making it onto the market because they weren't profitable or the wrong company held the patent. Where would music be today if it couldn't be shared or developed like early blues were...technology is heading down a bizarre corridor where it seems these patent lawsuits are more profitable than the actual product...and definitely more risky. Patent everything then sue like a mofo!
Check it out if you get a chance.
Check it out if you get a chance.
On the other hand, it is people like you that cause thousands of preventable deaths every day through the enforcement of pharmaceutical patents.
And you are quite wrong in the rights in you assert - your "intellectual property" is a privilege, granted by society for the benefit of all, and it will be taken, quite rightly, from you should be incapable of honouring the responsibilities such privilege brings.
"I have a brilliant idea: let's keep this patent on the shelf for say, 15 years, so once it becomes widely used we can sue the hell out of everyone!"
Sometimes I wish somebody had patented the very idea of patent trolling and gave this a****les a spoonful of their own medicine!
Sometimes I wish somebody had patented the very idea of patent trolling and gave this a****les a spoonful of their own medicine!
You do not "own" ideas or their expressions according to either the view of the Founders of the US or the letter of the Constitution of the US. You are merely granted a temporary patent or copy right to reward you for your contribution to the advancement of the sciences or the useful arts.
The concept that a man can "own" an idea merely because he considers himself the first to have thought some portion of it is, of course, absurd.
Sanford Wallace would like you to remember it that way
.You're assuming that the patent holder didn't use it with his email account.
Otherwise, I believe that it's well within his right to take action, even 15 years later. Who is to say he had the means to prosecute at that time? It's bound to be a long drawn out battle, maybe he spent some years provisioning for this. Regardless, the patent was granted, so, those arguing that patents have to be non-obvious, he has the rights to the idea. Whether or not he wins the battle...
Maybe it took them this long to find some obscure connection between their patent and what actually happens in mail programs.
I was recently introduced by this forum to Patently Apple, a log of Apple patenting. I spent a little while concentrating hard enough on a few applications to get past the fluff and the over-complicated language.
There are a lot of very simple and well-known ideas which Apple have managed to patent, and the site gives you an idea of just how original a patent doesn't have to be. What Apple are careful to do is to describe just enough surrounding irrelevance to make a patent. It makes me want to re-submit every single patent with the modifier, "...while wearing a bow tie (fig. xyz)." Dadaist fig. xyz would depict the anthropomorphised product
Read the patent -- never the intent
I've read the patent (it is only 9 pages -- pretty short) and only 4 claims. It is clear to me that this was never the intent of the "inventor" who was trying to automatically construct an address book from emails. This is clearly a case of reading into the claim and drawing a very over-broad conclusion.
Yes, in theory scanning the email could be used to do anything, include detect spam, automatically report certain key-words to the police, or whatever. But the inventor didn't claim that, nor did he actually embody a system that did that. All he did was talk about making an address book using header information from the email, or extended header information that could be added later.
The patent should be invalidated on the basis of over-broad cases.
I've read the patent (it is only 9 pages -- pretty short) and only 4 claims. It is clear to me that this was never the intent of the "inventor" who was trying to automatically construct an address book from emails. This is clearly a case of reading into the claim and drawing a very over-broad conclusion.
Yes, in theory scanning the email could be used to do anything, include detect spam, automatically report certain key-words to the police, or whatever. But the inventor didn't claim that, nor did he actually embody a system that did that. All he did was talk about making an address book using header information from the email, or extended header information that could be added later.
The patent should be invalidated on the basis of over-broad cases.
The over simplyfied explanation is...
This patent is about adding contact details from a given/central location, by reading one or more new header fields: "X-[Primary-/Secondary-]Context-Source:" representing URL's to a file or database/key combination to retrieve/lookup the contact details of the sender.
This way Steve Jobs could point to Steve his LinkedIn page, and very easily. Which of course will never happen.
Otherwise, when the fields are missing, it will read the senders "From:" field [among others] to determine / lookup his contact details. And thus this patent has nothing to do with blocking and / or marking e-mails as spam. Yet, it appears to be broad, but valid.
This patent is about adding contact details from a given/central location, by reading one or more new header fields: "X-[Primary-/Secondary-]Context-Source:" representing URL's to a file or database/key combination to retrieve/lookup the contact details of the sender.
This way Steve Jobs could point to Steve his LinkedIn page, and very easily. Which of course will never happen.
Otherwise, when the fields are missing, it will read the senders "From:" field [among others] to determine / lookup his contact details. And thus this patent has nothing to do with blocking and / or marking e-mails as spam. Yet, it appears to be broad, but valid.
It's really simple to cease any of these types of suits really fast. It will take a small change in the patent law. Simply make it say that if you patent and idea, software process, etc...then you have a set number of years to market the product or you lose your patent. People like this don't develop their ideas but they sue people who develop similar ideas because they "had them first".
To me, if you have an idea, you should be able to patent it but then you HAVE to make something of it in order to keep it.
To me, if you have an idea, you should be able to patent it but then you HAVE to make something of it in order to keep it.
Yep, it really just claims the idea of context clues, pulling them, and then checking/compiling said clues against or to an external source. No clearly defined methods, no how-to, just an abstract idea that can be applied to multiple areas, but no clear implementation.
Since the patent was granted though, he has the right to these claims trails; however couldn't the judge just invalidate the patent based on 101, or at least nullify future claims while giving back damages? I mean recently the patent office has really up the specificity required for all patents, especially technology patents, so could this be a valid route?
On that note, couldn't 35 USC 102 be brought into play in this case; this really broad, abstract patent is being used for email filters, yet there was prior art for email filters present before the filing. These email filters used parts of the email for filtering that would fall under "context clues" as defined by the patent, and then use an external source to check them. Would that nullify this patent, at least in terms of the email claims and damages? Would that still allow it to function in other areas though? Or would the 102 ruling just invalidate it for everything? Since its so non-specific as to its application the true intent could be hard to ascertain.
Furthermore, what about 35 USC 103? I wouldn't say that this is non-obvious in this day and age; I could see backdated damages being awarded, especially since the patent was granted, but couldn't the judge use this to nullify the patent to prevent any future licensing issues? I mean this patent is so broad that any email program functions or applications (including adaptive filters) infringe upon its claims, since they ALL use context clues. Remember that under the patent context clues are defined as, "Context information might include a full name, address, telephone number, World Wide Web ("Web") page location, geographic location, map showing directions, etc. If a key field is not provided by the sender, the "From:" and "Organization:" header fields can be used." Couldn't context clues and their usage with "outside" sources be ruled as overtly obvious?
Oh stop it. Your idea would bankrupt all the nation's major research universities, among other problems.
The court can invalidate the patent, but couldn't eliminate future damages while giving back damages. The patent analysis will be based on the current state of the law as promulgated by the supreme court and federal circuit court of appeals.
If a product available in the U.S. did the things specified in the claims prior to the priority date of the patent, the patent is invalid under 35 usc 102.
No. It's either always been valid or it hasn't. The court will determine which.
There is a specific legal doctrine that addresses unwarranted delay in asserting legal rights: laches. Under FRCP it is an affirmative defense.
And it's taken them this long to notice it...
hey, it took them several years of research to find out which court is suited the best for such a case.
hey, it took them several years of research to find out which court is suited the best for such a case.
For all you folks know they've been trying to get Apple to negotiate, or have been negotiating, for years. Chill out.
Also Virgina, I think it was. There are two or three courts known for this kinda of stuff.Only in Texas
Killing innovation, technology murderer, for meaningless profits.
It doesn't look crappy, but... immature. Unfinished. For example, the logo facing away from the page in the upper left corner.
You appear to be presuming that once granted, a patent is inviolate. It would hardly be the first time a patent was found to have been granted in error, and revoked.
As a system, it's not a half-bad idea for making a contact book out of a collection of a large amount of old emails, but looking at how it (apparently) works according to the patent filing it is worthless for today's (and even yesterday's) spam with false header info, etc.
I mean, default to a WHOIS of the email's "@domain" if no other valid info is usable?
Go Go mister "Mrs. jones is here to help you with fraud, send us your bank info, from @FBI.GOV!"