Online Greeting Cards Patented

Trailer Trash writes "According to this story at bizreport.com, Hallmark has given in and licensed Tumbleweed Communication Corp's patent for delivery of online documents with e-mail notification. Will the idiots at the patent office never stop? Jeff Smith of Tumbleweed claims to have been granted three patents last year."

Comments

So what you mean to say

[Safety Cap]

...is that someone can patent the process by which email can be generated which directs the recipient to click some link, which delivers a message on some dad-burn web page?

Yup, the whole world has gone insane. I'm going to go cry now.

Re:So what you mean to say

[Anonymous Coward]

Phew. Another One. Maybe this has been on Slashdot before?

"Method and system for dynamic server document encryption" - 1997

Abstract

A method and system are provided for secure document delivery over a wide area network, such as the Internet. A sender directs a Delivery Server to retrieve an intended recipient's public key. The Delivery Server dynamically queries a certificate authority and retrieves the public key. The public key is transmitted from the Delivery Server to the sender. The sender encrypts the document using a secret key and then encrypts the secret key using the public key. Both encrypted document and encrypted secret key are uploaded to the Delivery Server, and transmitted to the intended recipient. The intended recipient then uses the private key associated with the public key to decrypt the secret key, and uses the secret key to decrypt the document. In an alternative, equally preferred embodiment of the invention, the sender uses the public key to encrypt the document. In yet another embodiment, the server transmits the document to the Delivery Server for encryption.

Thats just PGP isn't it?

Good!

[dangermouse]

I hope this patent stifles the shit out of the email-a-link industry.

Wait A second......

[rveno1]

Isn't Blue Mountain who started the greeting card email craze?

If they would patent spam

[Das Fink]

You know this might be the first _good_ stupid patent.

There are few things I dislike more than having some stupid piece of flash animation sent to me by email, or wore notification of said flash animation.
If this Patent stops webisites from getting my mom to send me anymore dancing hamsters, or singing chiefs I will be only too happy.

Next up I want someone to Patent SPAM

Re:If they would patent spam

[Ron Atkinson]

Naw, it still doesn't beat US Patent Number 5443036, "Method of exercising a cat".

Of course I don't mind Patent 5965809, "Method of bra size determination by direct measurement of the breast". I'm sure a lot of guys are trying to infringe on this one :)

WTF?

[bryan1945]

" will use the technology for all Hallmark.com online offerings that "provide for or facilitate document delivery over the Internet, and those that include the provision for sending an e-mail delivery notification to the recipient." "

Provide document delivery over the 'net- like email?

provision for sending e-mail delivery notification to the recipient- like "return recipts"?

Once again, it looks like patents are getting way, way too broad. Soon the patenet office is going to accidentally give a patent to someone for urls (oh wait, isn't a British company working on this one?), pausing TV (oh wait, isn't Tivo {or someone else} claiming this one?), or even a single click technology (the famous Amazon debacle). Maybe someone can try and patent the "right click" or contextual menus.

Seriously, the whole thing is really getting way out of whack! I wonder if Chesebrough-Ponds has patented the "single stick ear cleaning device"? (Q-tips)

Time to go get a drink, me thinks....

Re:WTF?

[mpe]

Sooner or later, people are going to start ignoring patent protection on software simply because the patents become so broad and ridiculous that no one respects USPTO decisions anymore

You also have plenty of similar problems with "biotechnology" patents. When the concept of patenting was invented the issue of patent applicability to self replicating "invention" wouldn't have come up.

Fix the unworkable or unenforceable portions of IP law to become realistically applicable in a digital world, or watch the whole regime collapse in flames.

Remember that, at least in the US, patents are intended as a means to an end, rather than an end in themselves.

That is the choice facing intellectual property-based corporations and organizations

Similar choices face governments. At least their legislative and judicial arms.
The irony is that most of the problems appear to stem from attemption to extend IP laws in areas they probably shouldn't have been extended into in the first place. e.g. patents into genetics, software and business methods, copyright into "useright", etc, etc.

OH YEAH!?

[Hatechall]

OK well tumbleweed put this in your ass and smoke it. I patented YOUR FACE! I not only patented the patenting process but I also patented the patent process and the patent for patenting patent is patent pending. Patenting the Patent pending patenting process is pathologically pathetic so ill leave that up to the RIAA. Permitting a patent pending processing pricky pears and a peter piper picking pickled patented pickled peppers patent patent patent patent patent......
If you are now desensitized to all meaning of that word you know how I feel after all those damn patending decisions. When will the madness end?
And not to be a flame, but is it really that important? What exactly is the real implications of this besides the obvious??

here's what to do.

[footility]

IAJAM (I Am Just A Monkey), but it just hit me that
I /must/ publish every thought I ever have to
protect myself from this slimy patent system we
have, and slimier patent applicants.

I suggest everyone else do the same. Document
everything you think, whether it seems significant
or not. Document the way you wipe your ass; the
way you lift food to your mouth; the way you pick
your nose. Document the method of transferring
thought to a transportable medium.

Fuck! I'm sick of the software /business/.

Ask and ye shall receive

[JohnA]

The company I helped found in 1995 started doing this in December 1995, with a launch in February 1996. It was an internet greeting card site, and included such AMAZING features as e-mail notification of a new card to a recipient, and an e-mail to the sender when the card was viewed. The Internet Archive has an archive of the page as it was in December 1996 at:

http://web.archive.org/web/19961226182315/http://w ww.cardclub.com/

Anyway, if anyone is challenged by this in court, let me know. I'm sure I can dig out all sorts of documentation that predates the filing dates of the patents in question.

Same as a regular passworded site?

[grahamsz]

How is this different from any password protected site which uses http basic authentication and email based registration.

Say you go to a site and create an account (the details of which are emailled to you)

That then means that the url:

http://username:password@website.com

has been created for you!

Bizreport isn't responding for me so i am just assuming that the description of the patent posted by other users is valid.

READ THE DAMN PATENT FOOLS

[elmegil]

The key part here is that Tumbleweed is in the business of providing SECURE "content management systems", not bloody greeting cards. Hallmark wants their greeting cards (unlike those of Blue Mountain et. al.) to be SECURE. So they licensed a particular technology which claims to do that, and which happens to have a patent.

Now that you've thrown your reflexive anti-patent knee out of joint, try getting upset about something important for a change.

Re:READ THE DAMN PATENT FOOLS

[Waffle Iron]

Hallmark wants their greeting cards (unlike those of Blue Mountain et. al.) to be SECURE.

Now, this is a significant innovation. I was sitting awake in bed all night worrying about a man-in-the-middle greeting card attack:

• Alice chooses a Hallmark condolence card, and emails it to Bob on an unsecure link.
• Mallory intercepts the condolence card message and substitutes a novelty insult card. Mallory forwards the message to Bob.
• Bob receives the card, and is tricked into believing that Alice is an insensitive bitch.
• Alice denies sending the card, but Bob doesn't believe her. Their friendship is never quite the same after this.

With a secure greeting card, this could never happen!

Re:READ THE DAMN PATENT FOOLS

[tshak]

I don't think /. is responding unfairly. For example, we do something similar to validate email addresses of people who sign into our system. They get a specal "VCODE" in a "Private URL (PURL!)" (essentially a unique MD5 hash) which they click on to get validated. The entire project took maybe a few days (including meetings arguing about pointless implementation "issues"). The code is minimal. The amount invested is minimal. The concept is trivial. This is all obvious when you read the abstract:

A document delivery architecture dynamically generates a private Uniform Resource Locator (URL) to distribute information. Each private URL ("PURL") uniquely identifies an intended recipient of a document, the document or set of documents to be delivered, and (optionally) other parameters specific to the delivery process. The intended recipient of a document uses the PURL to retrieve the document. The server, upon retrieval of the document, customizes the behavior of the retrieval based upon attributes included in the PURL, as well as log information associated with the retrieval in a data base. This architecture and usage of PURLs enables secure document delivery and tracking of document receipt.

Looks almost verbatim to our design docs!

Re:READ THE DAMN PATENT FOOLS

[mshiltonj]

Hallmark wants their greeting cards (unlike those of Blue Mountain et. al.) to be SECURE.

* Now, this is a significant innovation. I was sitting awake in bed all night worrying about a man-in-the-middle greeting card attack:

* Alice chooses a Hallmark condolence card, and emails it to Bob on an unsecure link.

* Mallory intercepts the condolence card message and substitutes a novelty insult card. Mallory forwards the message to Bob.

* Bob receives the card, and is tricked into believing that Alice is an insensitive bitch.

* Alice denies sending the card, but Bob doesn't believe her. Their friendship is never quite the same after this.

With a secure greeting card, this could never happen!


This is a non-issue, because bob wouldn't actually *read* the card...

* Bob check mail

* Bob gets message with subject "Alice has sent you an electric greeting card"

* Bob groans.

* Bob knows he can't get away with not clicking on the enclosed link, because the card web site notifies the sender when the card was "read". That's why Mallory is still pissed at him.

* Bob opens message, clicks on enclosed link.

* Bob's browser opens in new window. He is forced, under great pain, to wait while a page with an animated gif of some sort draws on the screen. As soon as the midi file starts playing, he knows the page is fully loaded and Alice gets the notification that he read the message.

* Bob closes browser window on second note of midi file. Card goes unread.

* Bob hit reply to sender in email. Composes some hack response like, "I just read the card you sent me. Thank you so much for brightening my day. You are so sweet!"

* Bob sends reply.

* Bob deletes original message.

The above series of events can happen in less than 30 seconds. Honest.

Lastly,

* Alice gets warm fuzzy feeling.

* Bob gets laid.

The patent claim is frightening...

[Chagrin]

Patent number 6192407, which Tumbleweed is claiming:

• PURLs are temporary, dynamically generated uniform resource locators which uniquely identify the intended recipient of a document and the document itself, as well attributes associated with the delivery of a document. PURLs avoid attaching information to e-mail messages to send documents, but rather attach a general reference to a document to be sent, and then enable the recipient to access a document via the reference.

Really, any user-specific link sent via e-mail is covered by this patent.

From the Patent office site...

[Robber Baron]

An electronic document delivery system and methods of its use are provided. A document, preferably in a portable format, is forwarded to a remote server (e.g. using HTTP to "push" the document to the server). The server sends a generic notification of the document to an intended recipient, and the recipient can download the document from the server using local protocols. In preferred embodiments, the invention is used for the controlled delivery of portable documents from a sender to a large number of recipients, using a network of servers that route the documents and notifications in a store and forward manner, while providing routing and accounting information back to the sender.

Egad! Sounds like a glorified e-mail system! With attachments! And distribution lists! What a novel concept! But wait...It's not even attaching the document in question??? It's merely sending a link to a site where the file is located! Well,I don't know about you guys, but I was sending hyperlinks via e-mail prior to the patent filing date. Either I get to patent the wheel, or this is a non-starter. Somebody in the patent office needs a few whacks with the stupid stick... And don't even THINK about trying to collect royalties on this one.

Links and More Info on Patents

[pgrote]

What a joke this patent is ...

Anyway, here is what TumbleWeed has to say:

http://www.tumbleweed.com/en/company/news_events /p ress_releases/2002/01_02_02.html

The first patent was registered in October of 96 and was granted in August of 98. The title: Electronic document delivery system in which notification of said electronic document is sent to a recipient thereof. The link:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1= PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5,790,790'.WKU.&OS=PN/5,790,790& RS=PN/5,790,790

The second patent was applied for in April of 97 and granted in February of 2001. The title is: Private, trackable URLs for directed document delivery

The URL is: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='6,192,407'.WKU.&OS=PN/6,192,407& RS=PN/6,192,407

Prior art exists for both of these. Thanks you wayback machine! Link from earlier post:

http://web.archive.org/web/19961226182315/http:/ /w ww.cardclub.com/

Just the facts ma'am...

[Thalia]

Let's try the intro to patent law again. The abstract is NOT the claim. The summary is also not the claim. In fact, there is a section, labelled "Claims" that are... well, the claims. The scope of the patent is defined solely by the language of the claims, as interpretted in light of any comments made during prosecution.

So, let's look at the broadest claim of the newest patent:

1. A document delivery system for delivering one or more documents between a sender and at least one recipient, said system comprising:

a server that temporarily stores said documents, wherein said server generates a URL for each intended recipient of said documents, the URL unique to each recipient, and sends each of the URLs to each respective intended recipient; and

a database which is associated with said server and which records log data describing which recipients accessed said documents;

wherein said server sends the log data to the sender of said documents.

What are the simple limitations in this claim that make it narrow enough to be uninteresting. Well, let's see:

1. The server must store "each of the documents" temporarily. So, dynamic URLs are pretty much out.

2. Log data must be "sent to the sender." This means that if you require the sender to log back on to your side (the traditional way of doing this) instead of sending them the log, you do not infringe this claim.

What do you want to bet that none of the prior art (from BlueMountain to standard email) meet all of these criteria? And this doesn't even take into consideration the fact that likely those limitations were discussed during the prosecution of the patent. If you really want to analyze the scope of the claims -- if for example you want to invalidate the patent -- order a copy of the file wrapper from the patent office, which includes every scrap of communication between the PTO and the company. Once you've reviewed that, we can get a real discussion going.

If you actually look at the patents, and in particular 6,192,407, you will find that they cited a huge number of references, including most of the references that you have discussed. This strongly implies that the patent office actually took a look at this patent, before allowing it. Now, whether patents should be permitted at all or not is a different discussion. But assuming that no prior art technology, articles, or patents were referenced is rather silly, when the patent is available for review.

I will agree that this claim is too broad in my (not-a-legal) opinion. However, it is not nearly as broad as /. seems to imply.

So... for future reference, read the bloody patent claims (not just the abstract) before starting to bitch.

Thank you,

Thalia

Re:Just the facts ma'am...

[pclminion]

During my company's battle with Tumbleweed, we looked long and hard for prior art. We found none. Their patent is very carefully worded so as to exclude any of the prior art. Some previous projects come close to the patent description, but none seem to match it.

We were screwed, and had to change our design. I hate these assholes.

Hey I never thought of that.

[crisco]

What happens when a patent is invalidated by prior art? Can the parties who demonstrated prior art file a patent? Or does the fact that they didn't file a patent invalidate any claim they have on the invention.

Please go to BountyQuest

[KjetilK]

Great stuff!

I think I have been infringing on this patent myself since 1995 :-), as I started telling my friends at that time: "don't send me heavy documents in the e-mail, dump it on the web with my name on, and send me the URL". This patent quite simply covers things that the web was specifically made for. But that isn't publicly available information so...

Make sure you to go to BountyQuest every now and than to check if a bounty is posted, so that these patents can be killed once and for all.

Hm, come to think of it, there should be a similar site that organizes prior art claims and challenge patents on the basis of it... Anybody know about anything like that?