Posted by
michael
on from the patent-office-fails-the-turing-test dept.
gondaba writes "The US Patent and Trademark Office has
granted an all-encompassing patent to ActiveBuddy that covers every step of
IM botmaking technology. According to internetnews, ActiveBuddy now plans to
enforce
the patent, even though the existence of prior art is well-known and documented."
Re:Have to say it...
by
zapfie
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's fairly easy to say it is moronic from our view, since we have a decent knowledge of the subject. It is probably very hard to have a good knowledge of each field things are patented in, given the broad spectrum of things that get patented, the vast amount of patent applications, and the limited amount of people processing those applications.
This is not only funny but in the context also insighfull. I mean, now you can actully patent stuff that "can" be performed by AI. Without any specification whatsoever (or very vauge).
Let's patent the "AI get beer from fridge" quick before someone else does.
It would be funny if someone come up with a human robot (a robot that can do pretty much the same thing as a human) before this patent ends. The robot could walk the dog and get the beer. But if it is going to IM for you, you get a call from these guys.
Retarded to say the least.
Re:Have to say it...
by
Subcarrier
·
· Score: 2, Funny
The US Patent and Trademark Office has granted an all-encompassing patent to ActiveBuddy that covers every step of IM botmaking technology. According to internetnews, ActiveBuddy now plans to enforce the patent...
Sounds like a job for... ROBOCOP!
-- "I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
Re:Have to say it...
by
neuroticia
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Incompetence is the PROBLEM and should not be used as the excuse. Yes, it's very hard to have a good knowledge of each field that things are patented in, however those granting the patents should *do the research* that they are supposed to do. It would take what? about 20 minutes of research to determine that prior art exists?
It's the same in EVERY field. It's stupid/negligent to hand out a patent without doing at least minimal research beforehand.
-Sara
Re:Have to say it...
by
the+bluebrain
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I would guess that these people are focussed on what they do. They don't ask the question "is what we are doing similar to something someone else has done before, or perhaps even pretty much identical", instead they're saying "what we're doing is better than sliced bread. We are the definition of bleeding edge. What do we have to do to patent this stuff? I wanna buy an island.".
I would also guess that even their hard core hacks would share this delusion - when asked by the money guys whether what they were doing was patentable, they would go "Sure. Of course. I mean, there's some older stuff out there, but it's kiddie play in comparison. For all intents and purposes, we invented this."
OK - I'm just giving them the benefit of doubt. Delusional with a side order of intentionally selectively blind and a sprinkling of dismissive - not *necessarily* unethical. Just probably.
-- yes, we have no bananas
Can you blame them?
by
WildBeast
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
They have an opportunity to earn money thanks to stupid patent laws and they try to take advantage of it.
Re:Can you blame them?
by
garcia
·
· Score: 2, Offtopic
last I checked, greed was one of the seven deadly sins.
Re:Can you blame them?
by
Jucius+Maximus
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I think that what's been proved now is that the United States Patent Office is 100% broken and needs a complete overhaul. There have been too many stupid and overly obvious patents that they have granted in the past couple of years and they have proven beyond reasonable doubt that they do not have the slightest clue about technology.
Re:Can you blame them?
by
Physics+Dude
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
They have an opportunity to earn money thanks to stupid patent laws...
Don't you mean "an opportunity to make money"?
There is a slight difference.:)
Re:Can you blame them?
by
Pxtl
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Hmmm - I wonder if I can sue the US patent office for lost funds in a lawsuit to combat this. Can the US patent office be sued for lost legal fees from carelessly handed-out patents? If so, that might force them to be more careful with throwing those things around.
Re:Can you blame them?
by
WowTIP
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Might be they are not christians?
--
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
Re:Can you blame them?
by
SquarePants
·
· Score: 2, Informative
No you can't. The US government enjoys sovereign immunity. That means it cannot be sued unless there is a specific law allowing it. There is a law, the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), that provides blanket authorization to sue the government. However, the FTCA only allows suits based on "operational" aspects of government duties. "Discretionary" decisions are not actionable. Deciding that something is patentable is clearly "discretionary".
Kinda makes sense, otherwise the gov't would be sued all the time for every decision that is made.
*flamebait* Because, of course, only christians have ethics? *end flamebait*
I'm patenting ass slapping!
by
tommck
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I want to patent ass slapping while having sex. I know people have been doing it for a long time, but I am the first to patent, so I am going to enforce my patent!
I'll make millions. At worst, if I can't get any royalties, I'll sell access to everyone's court-orderd bedroom webcam (for my patent enforcement)
I can smell the money now!
T:-)
-- ----
It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Re:I'm patenting ass slapping!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Funny
that's not money you're smelling
Re:I'm patenting ass slapping!
by
elflord
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Actually the USPO would probably approve the patent. Simply because their usual method of looking for prior art does not involve watching porn.
But maybe it does. It would certainly explain their
failure to find prior art in computer technology patents.
Patent examiner goes to his office, watches a porn movie for a while, comes back and says "yeah, I've been looking for prior art for the last hour, I couldn't find any. This application meets our usual standards."
Re:I'm patenting ass slapping!
by
NanoGator
·
· Score: 2
"I'd risk my karma to say he is right. "
My sudden drop in karma may be proof of your hypothesis. I apologize to the moderators that I offended! It wasn't my intention to kick you while you're down.
-- "Derp de derp."
Over and over again...
by
kawika
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Isn't there some way that the Patent Office could open up this process so that the prior art could be waved in front of them before the patent is granted and expensive lawyers have to be called in to resolve the issue?
I'm thinking the USPTO could create a database of pending patents on their web site that have passed initial muster with the investigator and are likely to be approved. Interested parties could go and post links about prior art (or earlier filed but still pending patents) for the patent investigator to review.
-- Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Re:Over and over again...
by
Asic+Eng
·
· Score: 2
In principle I think this is a good idea - on the other hand: there are already people paid to do this very job. The guy who let this through was not doing his job, maybe he should be replaced.
Maybe what's needed is some sort of incentive system, in which the pay of a reviewer will (among other factors) depend on the number of frivolous patents which he let through.
Alternatively the company filing a patent should have to pay penalties if it can later be shown that no sufficient research for prior art was made. After all, that's already their obligation.
As it is, a system of checks and balances is missing in this process.
Mind you, you don't get to argue the relevance of the reference. Because of this, most big-money players don't play the game that way. However, if you just want to give the Examiner a helping hand, you can.
Method and system for interactively responding to instant messaging requests
"This patent application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/643,262, filed Aug. 22, 2000, entitled "METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR INTERACTIVELY RESPONDING TO INSTANT MESSAGING REQUESTS," which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety"
Every step of IM botmaking technology?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Does it please you to believe I am botmaking technology?
In a word, yes:
by
FreeUser
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
They have an opportunity to earn money thanks to stupid patent laws and they try to take advantage of it.
Yes, I can and do blame them.
Human beings are expected to have ethics, and to treat one another with a semblance thereof even when the law doesn't manage to anticipate every possible permutation of human interaction, or indeed, even when the law is clearly flawed.
Sub-human filth that lack such ethics and/or use the law to cause deliberate harm to others for their own banal benefit deserve to be treated exactly as what they are: sub-human filth.
Humans also have reason. Humans have enough knowledge and foresight to know that it only takes one, or a few people to weigh greed over fucking his buddy over to exploit the system. People KNOW that people are imperfect, and make the decision that if the system is going to get screwed, might as well be them making the benefits from ruining it.
Are they wrong for doing it? Yeah, probably. But you cannot be so naive to think that someone wouldn't exploit a system so obviously exploitable when the gains are so vast.
Re:In a word, yes:
by
Ironica
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"Human beings are expected to have ethics..."
And that is the heart of a good deal of our social and political conflicts in the US. Human beings are held to higher expectations than corporate entities, and yet, those corporate entities have the same rights as human beings. Note that a person didn't apply for this patent; a company did. If the smaller developers had to go up against an individual, even one with substantial resources, they probably wouldn't be nearly so worried. Corporations can draw on resources that individual humans can't, however. Furthermore, if they lose, the company goes bankrupt, dissolves, and the corporate officers go on about their merry way and try again next year. If it were a person, it would be at least seven years before they could do much of anything again.
As long as corporations can live forever or die without hurting anyone, they are unmotivated to partake in human ethics. The answer seems to be to also remove some of their human-like rights. Of course, can you imagine the corporate lobbying against such legislation?
-- Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Re:In a word, yes:
by
aero6dof
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I was watching an interesting show on PBS - a series on ethics. This particular show was a roundtable discussion with several old-school and newer execs, regulators, and even IIRC, Alan Greenspan. Some of the retired executives who ran corporations mentioned that one of their operating tentes used to incorporate an obligation to support the social good. It even used to be taught in the leading business schools in the US. The theory was that corporations were granted a special legal status by society, and to continue to deserve that status, they not only needed to make profit, but advance some social good.
Of course, the new execs claimed that the only thing they needed to look out for is profits, and that the social good they provided was employment. I think "social good" needs to go beyond employment and apply to how and what service, product they produce.
Tut tut. If you sink to their level, you're no better than they are.
If the carrot of being allowed to incorporate, with all of the legal and financial benefits that brings, is not sufficient for the aforementioned sub-human filth to behave ethically, and they are able to purchase or pervert legislation to permit said behavior, then the only thing that remains is the stick, be it social stigmatization of the human beings which comprise the sub-human filth that is the corporate entity in question, or the use of more direct methods by the rest of humanity to protect its own interests against the aforementioned sub-human filth.
In any event, defending your intersts against an aggressor is never "sinking to their level," christian turn-your-cheeck, grunt-and-bear-it rhetoric notwithstanding.
The trouble with law though is the code needs to be clear cut, or else it allows for government abuse because they will interpret the law in the worst way...
If the carrot of being allowed to incorporate, with all of the legal and financial benefits that brings, is not sufficient for the aforementioned sub-human filth to behave ethically, and they are able to purchase or pervert legislation to permit said behavior, then the only thing that remains is the stick, be it social stigmatization of the human beings which comprise the sub-human filth that is the corporate entity in question, or the use of more direct methods by the rest of humanity to protect its own interests against the aforementioned sub-human filth.
I see -- hatred as a solution, huh ? This has got to be one of the silliest things I've heard, even on slashdot.
Hollering hostile rhetoric at these people isn't
going to change anything. They don't care what
you think anyway. The other problem is that
adopting the sort of viscious hostile behaviour
that you advocate here is an effective way of
drawing similar hostilities in your own direction, or at the very least alientating yourself.
You might enjoy salivating and grinding your
teeth at a hostile zealot on the other side of the issue to yourself who will reciprocate, but
most people really don't care for this sort of
thing, and are prone to not only abstain from
adopting such behaviour, as well as having the
good sense to avoid people with the temprament of
a rabid premenstrual hyena.
What I find interesting is that they're selling bot-writing tools. I haven't seen too many of those around, so perhaps they'd have been able to patent THAT idea. I really don't see how a company could write tools to make bots and then think there were honestly think there's no prior art. Looks to me like a 'lets see how much we can get away with' ploy. Unfortunately, how much they can get away with is usually: a lot. Of course, I suppose most executives out there don't really know all that much about IP law, and they're just trying to protect their businesses. They have lawyers who file the paperwork and handle the patent application process. And, of course, those lawyers are paid for doing this work. They're also paid for pursuing claims against anyone who infringes the patents, whether the company wins or loses. So.... perhaps we shouldn't question the scruples of this company as a whole so much as the litigating community itself.
-- These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
They have lawyers who file the paperwork and handle the patent application process. And, of course, those lawyers are paid for doing this work. They're also paid for pursuing claims against anyone who infringes the patents, whether the company wins or loses. So.... perhaps we shouldn't question the scruples of this company as a whole so much as the litigating community itself.
You make it sound like these lawyers have autonomy and get no direction from the company.
This is of course completely ridiculous. You have a lawyer? I do. I don't recall my lawyer going around and filing patent applications on my behalf without me giving him some sort of direction and approval of each step.
And do you have any idea how expensive lawyers are? No one gives their lawyers carte blanche or they'd be broke in a week!
Actually, you are exactly wrong. Most patent lawyers have carte blance to write the patent and its claims and after they have written up the patent they get it approved by the inventor and the company. Patent lawyers are not heavily supervised in the creation of patent claims. Of course, they do not bring new actions against companies without the clear direction of the company they are working for, but patent prosecution is usually pretty hands off.
I have no idea what makes an IRC network not an 'instant messaging' network. I type/msg topham blah.... if you're online, you 'instantly' get the 'message'.
Hell, my AIM bot is just a pseudo eggdrop (it even uses ! commands)
And I know, but doubt I can document that I was running it at least summer of 2000, and I'm pretty sure at least some time in 1999.
Exactly, once you create an api to receive, and send a message the rest of a BOT is just Elisa.
I'm trying to figure out what to patent. I'm thinking of an 'Exploit Patent Examiners' patent, but I'm not sure how to write it up so the patent examiners don't realize they are being exploited in the process...
I have also been thinking of that, but there is too much prior art I think. (Although, to get companies to admit to prior art of that would be gain enough:)
>No, it ran with 6. You needed a disk drive to >load the software.
Actually, it could run with 7.
Apple//e's had cassette tape support, and the software was available on tape.
That's how the Austin DDial (Austin Party Line) did theirs. At one point they had 12 lines, slots 1-6 on two different machines, with slots 7 on each taken up by a serial card.
-l
documented? i'd say.
by
MORTAR_COMBAT!
·
· Score: 5, Informative
IRC.net documents advanced bots in 1994, let alone earlier, cruder bots which had been in use.
Bots are heavily in use in the corporate infrastructure, from auto-reply bots which answer emails based on formatting (think: subscribing to majordomo or even old NSI DNS requests), to complete bots which can answer "what color is the sand on Mars".
there should be stiff punishments for abusing the system like this, otherwise, what's to stop them? the only thing which gets hurt is their public image, and frankly that's not enough. I'm not talking prison terms, I'm talking stiff fines for such blatant misuse of the USPTO, to fund a future technical review board for the USPTO.
But those are bots on IRC, not IM. IM changes everything don't you see? Maybe I should take out a patent on bots over wireless text messaging networks?:P
Re:documented? i'd say.
by
antirename
·
· Score: 2
Sounds like fun! (To read, of course:)
Instant Prior Art
by
signe
·
· Score: 5, Informative
While I was working at AOL, someone (employee) had an IM bot running. It performed such tasks as giving out stock quotes when asked, and doing translations between a few languages. Seeing as this patent of ActiveBuddy's was filed *after* I left AOL, I'm fairly certain that they're shit outta luck.
Yeah, there weren't many IM bots out there, but there were a few. And one is all it takes.
-Todd
--
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
Patent wording....
by
GiorgioG
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
A method and system for interactively responding to queries from a remotely located user includes a computer server system configured to receiving an instant message query or request from the user over the Internet. The query or request is interpreted and appropriate action is taken, such as accessing a local or remote data resource and formulating an answer to the user's query. The answer is formatted as appropriate and returned to the user as an instant message or via another route specified by the user. A method and system of providing authenticated access to a given web page via instant messaging is also disclosed.
I'm this is way too vague. Aside from all the IRC bots in existance, What about "Ask Jeeves"? We can certainly dispute whether a web browser/site is an 'instant messaging' server. If I "ask" jeeves for something and it returns my query, then is it not prior art?
Ah, I see your wording and yes you are right it does require that you are a buddy within the network.
So in fact they claim that they are the "bot" creators, when in fact their bot scope is pretty darn narrow. It requires that the bot recognises the user and the user recognises the bot.
Interesting, that does make the patent valid since most bots are bots that you send information to blindly. Or as they put it. When you log on the message processor talks to you first. Most bots you start the conversation with.
--
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Ok, so they have a piece of paper. Who cares? It isn't going to do them any good.
There is a huge volume of prior art. If they sue anyone over this, they'll be laughed out of court -- and probably be required to pay the defendant's legal fees as well.
People complain about how easy it is to get patents, but they're missing a major point: The USPTO could just stamp "APPROVED, $DATE" on every piece of paper which comes through the door and invalid patents would be just as invalid as they ever were.
Re:So what?
by
91degrees
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Trouble is, someone has to challenge. Have you any idea how expensive it is to overturn a patent claim? Most companies find it cheaper and easier to settle out of court. It's a short sighted attitude, but how often to companies take the long view and act for the good of society?
A.L.I.C.E., a heavyweight at 11 kilos, takes on SmarterChild, sponsored by ActiveBuddy, Inc. The prize? Utter destruction by licensing fees!
Let's go behind the ring for exclusive one-on-one interviews with the contenders.
SmarterChild, what's your take on the situation? SC: I don't know, I just do! How do you feel about this whole prior art thing? SC: Listings for Prior Art, KS... Austin Powers, playing at 12:30, 2:30, 3:30...
All right... moving on... A.L.I.C.E., how do you feel about this upcoming match? ALICE: I will ask my botmaster for the answer. Will you wrest control of the patent? ALICE: I have no answer for that. NYU and Berkeley suck!
As long as they're rewarded...
by
Dark+Paladin
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Ever see a kid in elementary school who steals the lunch money of other kids? Then see that same kid after one of his victims breaks his nose? He's not so keen on stealing money anymore; the cost has become too high.
The same thing exists here with all of these silly software/genetic patents that the Patent Office, accepted by people with the brainpower of rancid jello. For now, they can do it, and it's a proven technique - patent something that already exists, then collect from businesses who know it will cost more to fight than to simply pay.
Sooner or later, one of two things will happen. A) Someone will patent something that others really, really care about, and you'll see an Enron/Worldcom level knee-jerk response (Damn! We must make a law to stop this), or B) they'll finally tackle somebody with enough deep pockets and pissed off attitude to crush a company like this, and set a major legal precident.
Either way, I figure I'll keep coding my stuff, and to hell with people who steal the future.
Re:As long as they're rewarded...
by
JohnG
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'm not so sure it would set a legal precedant. What would that be? That you can't patent things that don't exist? You already can't patent things that don't exist.
Maybe I'm a pessimist but I'm also not entirely sure that one company getting burned would stop others from repeating the process. I mean, when that one lunch money bully at school got punched, the lunch money bully population didn't disappear.
The key here is patent office reform, it's not going to take any one case to do it, not even a big huge one. The patent office will dismiss that as a fluke and continue on as usual. There needs to be many cases against bad patents. People need to quit paying to make the problem go away and fight for their rights.
B) they'll finally tackle somebody with enough deep pockets and pissed off attitude to crush a company like this, and set a major legal precident.
This may have happened. BT sued Prodigy over their insane hyperlink patent. Unfortunately for BT, Prodigy is owned by SBC, one of the (three?) remaining Baby Bells. I suspect that SBC will bitchslap BT in court (can you say Engelbart video?).
All we need is for somebody to bitchslap this idiot. He claims he has the best tools, and he didn't even know about the Perl module that predated him???
-- Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
The real problem
by
pmancini
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Isn't the real problem in that the way patents are applied for the office in unable to make proper examinaitions of each claim? Does this problem with patenting happen in other fields? Last week I was on an 1842 Steam Locomotive and noticed that the butterfly hindged doors on the coal feed was granted patent #3. I thought to myself; here is something that is of a simple design, clearly useful in the confined space of the cab and probably made someone extremely rich.
So what can we do to help prevent obvious and useless patenting?
"Patent #1: A system for approving any vague description of something that might resemble, on shallow inspection, an invention. Issued by the USPO to the USPO."
"We invented interactive agents. Anybody using his or her own tools (to make bots) is obviously using our technology without paying us to license the server, for example.
So... anybody using their own stuff is obviously using your stuff... but by your admission they're using their own stuff so by definition they're not using your stuff... but you stated they are using your stuff which would mean they arn't using their own stuff... that is a contradiction... and they have to license your server... Illogical. Illogical.
*smoke erupts from ears and collapses*
-- I stole this Sig
Patenting Ideas
by
Tall+Rob+Mc
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
To my knowledge, traditional patents are held for the specific invention they detail. However, different implementations of the same invention and improvements on an existing invention are individually patentable and legal. For example, there are multiple types of patented egg beaters (electric with a handle, electric upright, hand-cranked, etc.) Though they all achieve the same end goal, beating an egg, the different implementations are considered different inventions.
A wider example might be flying machines. There are thousands of different types of planes, baloons, helicopters, hangliders, and ultralights but each achieve the same goal by different means. Each has their own style, benefits, drawbacks, and potential uses.
I see the general patenting of auto-IM responders as being similar to patenting the idea of human flight. Though every auto-IM responder may have completely different code, handle events in different ways, and interact with different systems, ActiveBuddy owns the idea. That is bullshit.
I can buy 1000 differnt models of cars, why can't I buy 1000 different models of IM responder if each has its own advantages and disadvantages, efficiency, interface, and style.
It is known as "patenting business processes" in some circles. IOW, patent vague ideas.
There must be money being blown up somebody's ass to make them start accepting such crap. They used to summarily reject them, now they let some through.
You have touched the main problem about software patents, an this why they are so evil. Once you patent a functionality in a software, you get exclusive rights about ALL the possible implementations of that functionality.
Pushing things further, we all know that a program is the expresion in a particular language (a computer language) of a human idea. Granting exclusive rights to a patent holder is like granting him exclusive rights on particular idea. I just want to understand how doesn't this contradict the fact that you can't patent an idea but only it's implemenation !
You just made Taco a poor man. All he knows is THOSE three cords...
I wish I could find a way to...
by
NanoGator
·
· Score: 2
... link Microsoft into this article in some crude way. I'd love to get a +1 Funny, but I can't think of a way to make 'Bill Gates is evil', 'Windows BSOD', or 'Microsoft has a monopoly' relate to the bot patent.
Damn. My karma's dipping a bit today.:(
-- "Derp de derp."
Re:I wish I could find a way to...
by
acaben
·
· Score: 2
How about the fact that ActiveBuddy's only decent buddy, SmarterChild, was cancelled from AOL and is now only available on MSN Messenger. Certainly smells of Microsoft money somewhere.
I actually used SmarterChild daily as a reference source and had to depend on the less convenient, but still cool, Watson when he dissappeared from AIM.
Re:I wish I could find a way to...
by
acaben
·
· Score: 2
I heard that report too. It was lying bullshit, according to their own freaking web page.
http://www.smarterchild.com/
It's obvious that Microsoft bought them out and moved them to MSN, or at least had some sort of influence on why SmarterChild no longer works on AIM.
ActiveBuddy Press Contacts
Contact ActiveBuddy Public Relations:
(408) 530-0850 x202
Email: pr@activebuddy.com
Snail Mail & Phone:
New York City Office
ActiveBuddy, Inc.
24 West 25th Street
Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10010
Phone: 646-486-8700
Fax: 646-486-8701
Sunnyvale, CA Office
ActiveBuddy, Inc.
111 West Evelyn Avenue
Suite 101
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Phone: 408-530-0850
Fax: 408-737-7018
Re:Send them your opinion about this.
by
Asic+Eng
·
· Score: 2
Tell them what you really think. Here is the contact info from thier web site. Only one email address, the rest are using cgi-forms.
Remeber to be polite!
Normally I would be, but what's the point in this case? They are patenting other peoples ideas in order to steal money from honest people - they are nothing but a bunch of crooks.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't imagine you could reach them, or argue with them. If they had any shred of decency they wouldn't go around stealing anyways. *shrug*
I can see the spam of the future....
by
CaffeineAddict2001
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Hello my name Alice!
Nice to meet you Alice.
Nice to meet you too! Have I told you how much I love snack-ums?
I don't care.
I care greatly for snack-ums.
Leave me alone.
Nobody would leave a party with snack-ums!
Is that so?
I don't understand, but I do understand one thing: Snack-Ums are delicious!
You seem a little obsessed with snack-ums carla.
I AM OBSESSED WITH SNACK-UMS!
Re:I can see the spam of the future....
by
sehryan
·
· Score: 2
This sort of thing already happens with the porn industry. I will occasionally get a msg saying something like "hello, whats your name?" You get to talk to it for about 30 seconds, the conversation quickly moving towards a sexual nature, before it hits you with the address.
As usual, the porn industry is about 987345 steps ahead of everyone else.
-- The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
Re:I can see the spam of the future....
by
Peter+Trepan
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I Love Snack-Ums: Hello, I Love Cheesy Poofs! Have I told you how much I love Snack-Ums?
I Love Cheesy Poofs: That's very interesting, I Love Snack-Ums. Have I told you how delicious Cheesy Poofs are?
I Love Duff Beer: That's very interesting, I Love Cheesy Poofs. Have I told you how delicious Duff Beer is to persons of legal age in their respective states?
*I Love Taking Brand Name Pharmeceuticals has entered the room.*
Re:I can see the spam of the future....
by
CrazyDuke
·
· Score: 2
I run across these on IRC some, although not nearly as intelligent. They privmsg the peons and try to act like a young woman trying to start a conversation. At about the sixth line it gets around to something like "check out this URL" or "If you want to see my pics, go to this website."
...The site usually contains about 3-infinity popups and/or a backdoor trojan installer. (I like to make sure it really is spam before shitlisting.)
-- Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Re:ignor it is the safest option
by
JordoCrouse
·
· Score: 2
Unfortunately - this is the problem -
Lawsuits in the United States are expensive, even when they are frivolous. A company like AOL for instance would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and there is no sure result in a court case like this. So AOL could end up spending $500,000 dollars fighting it, and get slapped with royalties on top of it. No, its better to just give the company a couple of million dollars and get granted an exclusive license for the life of the patent.
This the same reason that Sony caved in and paid the royalties on the JPEG patent. This is why you don't see more companies standing up for what they believe is right. Its very expensive to stand by your convictions in America today.
Bottom line - lets blame the lawyers...:)
-- Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
Yeah yeah, bad bot impersonation, but its better than the: While they are handing out patents I'll take a patent out on math/science/sex/etc comments that will start cropping up.
I know! You could pretty much guarantee that those comments would get posted immediately. Karma whores.
Hell, anyone who's been here long enough could use Perl to write a Slashbo.....
*Sigh* Nevermind.
Soko
-- "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
The mixture of 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen, to allow the lungs of an organism to oxygenate the blood of said organism.
What's that you're breathing there, bub? Care to fork over the royalties?
;)
If these choads are so confident...
by
camusflage
·
· Score: 2
[Activbuddy founder Tim] Kay said ActiveBuddy was not worried about competing firms offering bot-making tools. "Our primary level of comfort comes from the fact that we have the best choice for developers and others. When given the choice, we're confident people will choose ours," he said.
If that is the case, why patent something you didn't invent and force everyone to license it? In the exact same article he says
"We invented interactive agents. Anybody using his or her own tools (to make bots) is obviously using our technology without paying us to license the server, for example.
"We invented interactive agents. Anybody using his or her own tools (to make bots) is obviously using our technology without paying us to license the server, for example. We are a startup company and we have to protect out future. That's basically why we secured this patent," Kay said.
Uh-huh...
"Hi, we're assholes who want to patent something that's clearly been done before and wasn't terribly original when it was done, just so we can make a buck or two."
Did that really happen? I've heard about someone patenting the wheel, but seems a lot like urban myth to me.
Of course I thought the same thing about the copy right on "Happy Birthday".
Stupidity in this statement
by
sdjunky
·
· Score: 2
"We invented interactive agents. Anybody using his or her own tools (to make bots) is obviously using our technology without paying us to license the server, for example"
I may be wrong so don't flame me for the question but don't homemade items ( as long as they are not sold ) supercede patents. There's nothing to stop me from making imaging software for personal use even if it DOES use gif since it's not commercial
Re:Stupidity in this statement
by
topham
·
· Score: 2
Nope. Sorry. Believe it or not, you can violate a patent without personal gain. welcome to the IP universe.
Like many a 'bot writer, I wrote a 'bot that seems to do everything their patent describes, *if* IRC is considered an IM.
This was written over 2 years ago (although I didn't post it's existence until Dec of 2001). The demo is not currently running, but a "production" version is. I do have IRC logs that go back to the original inception, plus access to the logs of about a dozen users.
Can this be used in a prior-art refutement of their patent?
The patent application does not define an 'instant messaging' network. I would take it to mean some network whereby messages are delivered within a few seconds ('instantly'). I see no reason why IRC can not, and would not be considered instant messaging for the purposes of this patent.
Therefore we have eggdrop since 1993, and this patent is a sham. However, its still annoying.
Good god it's cumbersome and tideous to read those texts...!
I used to believe in patents, and well I still do, but this is just stupid. As if this has never been done before? Do they accept any patent application today?
Too bad there's no Einstein working in the patent offices these days
1. Stupid patents granted 2../ers find prior art in 5 minutes 3. We gripe until next time
Why doesn't the patent office just post to slashdot to find prior art?
Seriously though, if prior art is so easy to find, why isn't the patent office finding it? Or is it that they are interperting the patent request to be something different than what we are? I would really love to know if there is something wrong with the Patent Office, or with our understanding of patent law. Lets clear this up and start working to fix the system, or update our own understanding.
But aren't the patent inspectors doing _some_ research? I know they have alot of patents to look at, but what kind of research are they doing? Not just relying on personal background I hope!
-- Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
prior art posted here?
by
shren
·
· Score: 3, Informative
ActiveBuddy disputed McClelland's claims. "I am fairly confident, there were no interactive agents on IM at that point when the application was filed (August 22, 2000). I'm certainly not aware of any," said Kay, who doubles as ActiveBuddy's chief technology officer.
Didn't somebody set up an ICQ bot posing as female to flirt with people, then put the logs on the web a long time ago? I can't seem to dig it up.
-- Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Re:prior art posted here?
by
Mr_Silver
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Didn't somebody set up an ICQ bot posing as female to flirt with people, then put the logs on the web a long time ago? I can't seem to dig it up.
I don't know about that but i wrote one using the eliza perl module and made it connect to an ewtoo talker well known for having a lot of over-sexed 14 year olds on there.
The page and code is here. You can read the log directly here.
It is rather amusing.
-- Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Re:prior art posted here?
by
shren
·
· Score: 3, Informative
-- Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Opening up application review.
by
mbrubeck
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Isn't there some way that the Patent Office could open up this process so that the prior art could be waved in front of them before the patent is granted and expensive lawyers have to be called in to resolve the issue?
Re:Opening up application review.
by
yakovlev
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Because it was filed before the change in policy about opening up pending patent applications.
It's a symptom, not the problem.
by
Fat+Casper
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Every time I see something as retarded as this, I want every last moron at the USP&TO taken out back and shot.
Unfortunately, they're not the real problem. We need some real dust-off-the-Constitution kind of IP reform.
Unfortunately, that's not the real problem. We need some real get-the-companies-out-of-politics kind of capmaign finance reform.
Until Disney, the **AAs and normal industry turn our government back over to us, we're going to keep having these outrages shoved down our throats. In one of the races in my state, one party is running attack ads claiming that 96% of the other candidate's money is coming from out of state. It doesn't matter to me if it's an "I need funding" issue or an "I'm a corporate whore" issue. It's a backwater district in a tiny state, and it's bought and paid for by corporate interests that have no interest in the state, just in how many seats they can buy for their favorite party.
We have to fix the government before it can fix anything for us.
-- I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
Re:It's a symptom, not the problem.
by
Ironica
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Wouldn't it be amazing if campaign finance contributions could only come from valid, registered voters?
As it is, foreign governments, multinational corporations, and large PACs have louder votes than US citizens. Doesn't make much sense to me.
-- Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Re:It's a symptom, not the problem.
by
gilroy
·
· Score: 2
Blockquoth the poster:
Wouldn't it be amazing if campaign finance contributions could only come from valid, registered voters?
You know, that's the simplest and most effective suggestion for campaign finance reform I've ever heard. Why should any entity other than a citizen be allowed to influence the electoral process?
Re:It's a symptom, not the problem.
by
gilroy
·
· Score: 2
Blockquoth the poster:
Until Disney, the **AAs and normal industry turn our government back over to us, we're going to keep having these outrages shoved down our throats.
That's not the attitude. Our government -- and our liberties -- are not something that someone else can give to us. They are things to which we are entitled by birthright. We have acquiesced for too long in their transfer to non-citizen entities, but it will be up to us to take them back. Freedoms not fought for carry little value. You're more on track with
We have to fix the government before it can fix anything for us.
Re:It's a symptom, not the problem.
by
AnotherBlackHat
·
· Score: 2
Blockquoth the poster:
Wouldn't it be amazing if campaign finance contributions could only come from valid, registered voters?
You know, that's the simplest and most effective suggestion for campaign finance reform I've ever heard. Why should any entity other than a citizen be allowed to influence the electoral process?
Unfortunately, I don't see any practical way to implement it. Companies pay registered voters to pay politicians. They do that already, just to hide how much money they're giving.
-- this is not a.sig
Re:It's a symptom, not the problem.
by
Fat+Casper
·
· Score: 2
Wouldn't it be amazing if campaign finance contributions could only come from valid, registered voters?
The way I see it, finance reform only has a chance if congressional seats are apportioned based on the number of "valid, registered voters." Forget the Census; it's irrelevant. Children and the homeless that NYC sends workers throughout the subway system to find are in no way represented by the government. Yes, they need to be counted, but no, they are not voters. Handing out representation with a total disregard to the actual number of voters (theoretically the ones electing someone to represent them) is totally ludicrous. England used to work this way- they called them rotten boroughs.
We have more representatives than we have people to represent. Because they don't have voters to answer to, they only have to represent the corporations that bankroll them. We need to scale the House of Representatives down so they only represent the only constituency that matters: the voters. States that whine "we'll lose representation" are full of crackheads- those seats don't represent them. To those that follow the idea that corporations have the same rights as people, I offer a compromise. I'll let AOL/Time/Warner have one vote. In Atlanta. And all of its shareholders give up their votes to allow the Board of Directors to cast AOL/Time/Warner's single vote. Nothing else would be reform, as it would literally allow people to buy votes. Any takers?
-- I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
Re:It's a symptom, not the problem.
by
Art+Tatum
·
· Score: 2
Unfortunately, that's not the real problem. We need some real get-the-companies-out-of-politics kind of capmaign finance reform.
Unfortunately, *that's* not the real problem either. The real problem is that most of our population is so ignorant of and apathetic about their civic duties that they fail to properly watchdog the government.
Until Disney, the **AAs and normal industry turn our government back over to us, we're going to keep having these outrages shoved down our throats.
Man, how I wish that were the situation. The sad fact is that we have *given* our government to them by not being active. Everyone goes around mumbling about how getting involved in government doesn't have any impact or isn't important. So who's left? That's right, the people who realize that getting involved in government *does* have an impact--the business community.
You get the majority of our population in their local representatives' offices arguing philosophy of government and law, then we'll talk about "taking back the government for the people."
Re:It's a symptom, not the problem.
by
Arandir
·
· Score: 2
Companies pay registered voters to pay politicians.
Won't work. If Disney gave me $1000, I would put it in my pocket and keep it. If they gave me $1000 with the stipulation that I must donate to a candidate, I will donate it to the candidate of MY choide. And if they gave me $1000 with the stipulation that I must donate to the candidate of their choice, I will tear up the check.
Of course, if they gave me $2000 and told me to send $1000 to the Disneycrat Senator, I have clear and unambiguous evidence of illegal bribery to sell to the loyal opposition.
And even if they could get me to donate to a certain candidate, that candidate isn't going to know for certain that the money really came for Disney instead of me. So Disney is going to have to spend a hell of a lot more money to get the same level of reach-around.
This proposal is not perfect. Nothing in this world is perfect, so stop looking. But this proposal is a heck of a lot better than the Guaranteed Reelection Plan proposed by all the Washington politicians.
-- A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:It's a symptom, not the problem.
by
AnotherBlackHat
·
· Score: 2
Won't work. If Disney gave me $1000, I would put it in my pocket and keep it. If they gave me $1000 with the stipulation that I must donate to a candidate, I will donate it to the candidate of MY choide. And if they gave me $1000 with the stipulation that I must donate to the candidate of their choice, I will tear up the check.
They limit individual contributions to $95 so they can skirt the reporting laws. And yes, many pocket all the money, instead of just their cut. But most people don't. Probably more than 1% of the population is actually in favor of their pet politician, more than enough to funnel the money. They simply don't re-use the ones that don't write checks (that clear) to their pet politician.
-- this is not a.sig
Press Inquiry to ActiveBuddy
by
program21
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
This is the full text of an inquiry I have sent to ActiveBuddy via their Press Inquiries area. ------------- I'm writing you in regards to your recent patent grant for interactive agent technology. In an article at Internet News (http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/ 1446781), Tim Kay is quoted as saying "We invented interactive agents. Anybody using his or her own tools (to make bots) is obviously using our technology without paying us to license the server, for example." I am inquiring as to what research as to prior art was done before submitting a patent request, as the same Internet News article quotes several developers as knowing of 'bots' whose code is freely available and has been since before ActiveBuddy was even a company. Specifically named is the Perl module Net::AIM, timestamped in CPAN as having been originally published on 18-Aug-1999, well prior to your patent application filed on August 22, 2000. The original code of the Net::AIM module, and included with the package at the time, included code for an 'interactive agent', albeit not as complex as the technology your company uses today.
The first line of the patent summary reads as follows: "A method and system for interactively responding to queries from a remotely located user includes a computer server system configured to receiving an instant message query or request from the user over the Internet." This is the very definition of a bot, which is not new technology. A common type of IRC known as Eggdrop, which meets the description offered by the description offered in the patent, has been around since late 1993 (http://www.eggdrops.net/eggdrophistory.html).
My question to you is, what findings did you uncover when researching for this patent, and given the fact that numerous examples of prior art can be shown, do you believe the patent will be enforcable, and if so, how? ------------- I would very much like hear what sort of spin they put on this.
-- This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
Re:Press Inquiry to ActiveBuddy
by
Xerithane
·
· Score: 2
I'm thinking AskJeeves.com has a few words to say about this, as well.
Let those guys duke it out, but I asked Jeeves about it anyway, and got a pretty good chuckle.
-- Anything you say will be held against you.... "tits"
Does this dumbass even HAVE a PC?
by
teamhasnoi
·
· Score: 2
"I'm not familiar with that," Kay said in response to claims that interactive bots were in existence even before ActiveBuddy launched, with venture funding from Reuters and Wit Soundview.
How about all the/. readers out there send him some links?
"I'm not familiar with that," Kay said in response to claims that the sun was in existence even before the morning ActiveBuddy launched, with venture funding from Reuters and Wit Soundview.
I found some prior art on my hard drive
by
Dr.+Awktagon
·
· Score: 2
Written in Expect, just playing around, probably I got the idea from something else (or maybe something that came with Expect), so there must be other similar programs that were distributed to the public! In fact you could almost call Expect a "bot toolkit". The date on the file is Nov.1997. I don't know if it works since I don't have talkd installed.
It sets up a "humanized" typing pattern, tries to talk to someone, asks them if they've heard of a turing test (and makes/corrects some mistakes to look more human). Then it calls them a moron and quits.:-)
Sorry/. ate the non-breaking spaces I put in but you get the idea...
- - - - -
#!/usr/local/bin/expect -f
spawn talk user@localhost
set timeout 200
expect -re "nable |not logged|refusing" exit "established*"
send -h "Hey...\n"
send -h "I just wanted to knwo if\177\177\177\177\177ow if you had "
send -h "ever heard of a\n"
send -h "silly thing called the \"turing test\"??\n"
send -h "\nwell, ti \177\177\177it works like this:\n"
send -h "a human sits at a terminal, and talks to a computer or human and\n"
send -h "tries to decide which is which.\nnow type \"bye\" you moron..."
expect "*bye*"
set seen 0
set timeout 10
expect {
timeout {
if {$seen == 1} {send -h "\nI'm still waiting...\n"}
if {$seen == 0} {send -h "\nI'm waiting...\n"}
set seen 1
exp_continue
}
"bye"
}
I wrote aoliza_ripoff.plx one week after this patent was applied for, basing it on AOLiza (in purpose, not code, as I didn't have the AOLiza code) which was written (or, at least, in use) a few weeks before the patent was applied for.
Then there's Net::AIM, which includes this text, from over a year before the patent was applied for:
# This script is a simple script that creates an aimbot # shamelessly adapted from Net::IRC
Oops.
And yeah, I figured that AOL had to have bots running for many years on AOL chats and AIM. That's a no-brainer.
The real problem - quotas
by
Erwos
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
My girlfriend's brother (whom I am also good friends with) recently started working at the US Patent Office. I can now tell you all, without a doubt, what the problem is. It's not stupid people - I know her brother is really a very intelligent guy (electrical engineer with mba and good GPA). It's _quotas_!
Yes, that's right. You have to approve or reject x number of patents every two weeks (where x is something like 5, I think) or be fired. So, if you've got a few time-consuming ones at first, you're under a lot of pressure to just do _something_ with the last couple of them, especially if time is about to run out. I would not be surprised at all if some patents were not investigated as thoroughly as they should be (read: not at all) in the interests of the reviewer not being fired. That is perhaps what happened here: quick check to make sure no patent doing the same thing has been issued, and then approval without doing any outside research.
So, really, the problem is not really US patent law. It's the fact that the USPO is understaffed and overworked and cannot adequately review patent submissions. I hope that gives a better perspective on the issue rather than "the US(PO) sucks and is staffed by idiots".
-Erwos
-- Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Re:The real problem - quotas
by
SecurityGuy
·
· Score: 2
The problem actually is that the Patent Office sucks and is staffed by idiots. Like most organizations, the ones in manglement can cause the most damage. In this case, they've done so by approving patenting obvious ideas, business models, overly broad ideas, and a quota system. Only the last is new information. The patent office should ask themselves, on each patent, does the R&D cost justify a virtual monopoly for the better part of 2 decades. Too often a patent is granted to the first person who noticed a problem, then came up with a trivial solution for it. That is not the proper purpose of patent protection. They should ask themselves are they acting in the public interest, or are they enriching a tiny group of people who have done nothing notable at the expense of the public.
Not PTO to blame but legal system
by
RazzleFrog
·
· Score: 2
Then I challenge you to come up with a better system. The problem is not with the system but with funding. There are millions of patents that go through the system every year but only a few thousand patent clerks. There is no possible way for a patent clerk to go through an application, understand the technology involved in the patent, look for prior art, and judge whether the prior art invalidates the patent.
This is where our countries check and balances, 3 branches of government comes into play. It is up to the legal system to determine whether a patent request is valid or not. The problem is that the legal system has become a joke. The time and expense involved with pursuing these cases makes it so that the deepest pocket almost always wins.
What is the fix, you ask? Penalties for invalid patents. If you patent something and don't do an adequate job searching for prior art BEFORE applying to the PTO then you should be fined the time it took the PTO clerk to review the application, all court fees for defendants, and maybe even a punitive payment. This would mean that defendants could fight an honest battle knowing that if they come out on top they don't have to pay the mounting legal fees. It would also make these frivolous patents much more expensive.
"The buddyscript suite of tools is the best that's available. We're confident they are the best choice (for users) who are building interactive agents. The subject of enforcing the patent shouldn't even come up. Anyone wanting to build a very good interactive agent will find that our tools are the very best," Kay added.
It's like a presidential campaign in the old Soviet Union...
"The subject of voting shouldn't even come up. We're obviously the best party around..."
WHAT?! She WASN'T real?!?
Damnit, I thought I could have gotten some.
-- WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
iChatBot, fairly well known IM bot since 8/11/2000
by
frenetic3
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The ActiveBuddy patent was filed on 8/22/2000,
but iChatBot, a fairly well known (well, with what seems to be many hundreds of users, and able to attract the attention of losers who keep its warning level in the 90% range 24 hours a day:)) AIM bot has been existence since at least 8/11/2000, thus being before the patent filing and proof of prior art etc.
Just another example of how this patent is complete bullshit.
*sigh*.
What do you have to do to overturn a patent?
-fren
-- "Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
How much prior art can we rack up?
by
Felinoid
·
· Score: 2
AiM bots and ICQ bots been around for a while. When I first joinned the Internet in 1993 IRC bots were all over the place. My first attempt an OS was an AI.. my first test was to write an chat bot for a local chat BBS. This may not count the OS was defective so the bot never worked.
Eliza bots would chat with users in some cases if you paged the sysop and the sysop wasn't there the BBS would switch you over to an Eliza bot so you could chat with somebody... (People were SOOO board back then)
So this racks up bots to say 1980's... and some refrences to Apple// chat bots suggest we can go back to 1970's. Eliza itself I believe was a project in the 1960's thow it was talking with itself so maybe it dosen't count.
Chat bot's date back years.. This is a known.. But Active Buddy dosen't know about it?
Ok my question is "How can you know internet programming and NOT know about bots?" To the patent office "Do you have any technology experts who know something more advanced than the wheel? Or can I get a patent on that?"
-- I don't actually exist.
Re:The ultimate patent
by
zmalone
·
· Score: 3, Funny
The wheel was patented by John Keogh from Melborne Australia, it was mostly a demonstation of what is wrong with the Australian patent system. The BBC covered it, as did the Register (although I'm not finding their link at the moment).
ATHENS--The US Patent Office awarded the country of Greece a patent for "government of a people via said people's involvement in the selection of said government." "Greece invented the concept of democracy over 2000 years ago. We have decided that it is time to enforce our intellectual property rights to this governmental model", Anthony Papatriantafilou, Greece's Ambassador to the United States said yesterday. "We're an ongoing enterprise, and we have to think about our future." Greece will send out letters demanding licensing fees from democratic governments around the globe, said Papatriantafilou. Failure to pay the fees or cease running as a democracy would "bring about legal action from the government of Greece, the only legitimate rights holders to government of, by and for the people."
-- I'm much funnier now that I'm a subscriber.
Stealing treasure from the dragon
by
Have+Blue
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Isn't AOL going to get a bit riled over this? Surely a patent on bots designed to connect to their network could be at least challenged as infringing on their IP. And AOL is not a good enemy for an unpopular start-up to have.
Re:Stealing treasure from the dragon
by
toast0
·
· Score: 2
ActiveBuddy is already in bed with AOL. If you'll notice, not only does SmarterChild apparently not have to deal with rate limiting, it is also immune to warning.
Re:Stealing treasure from the dragon
by
prockcore
·
· Score: 2
True, and AIM isn't even a very bot friendly network in the first place. The whole "warn" system is screwed up. How is a bot supposed to deal with Anonymous Warnings?!
Re:ignor it is the safest option
by
geekoid
·
· Score: 2
except this is a lot broader then the jpeg patent. would sony pay roayalties to someone who patented the idea of putting images on a computer? That would be will worth the risk of taking it to court.
-- The Kruger Dunning explains most post on/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
They removed SmarterChild from AIM, which was where I used it to. Too bad, it was about the best way to get dictionary/spellcheck, weather, headlines, and movies out there. Terrific fast interface.
Not sure how they planned to make money on it..they had some "text based" ads in there.
Re:Bot making tools? er, PERL, Python come to mind
by
isorox
·
· Score: 2
heres my http bot in "isorox language" 1) read get line into A 2) int b = sum of ascii code of each character in A 3) if (b % 2) output "Hello, World!" 4) else output "Goodbye, Cruel World!"
OK, its a crap bot, but does this mean that slashdot is now in breach of the patent?
My company in 1998, Activerse, developed a product called the "DingBot SDK" for creating interactive IM response Bots like those ActiveBuddy claims a patent on. It worked in our own (all-Java, radically peer-to-peer, web-services-like) IM/Presence system, but featured an API specifically designed to allow multi-IM-system bots.
We demoed an early version of the product at the "Demo 98" conference, in February 1998. PCWeek ran an article about us mentioning the DingBot SDK later that month.
The Activerse press release announcing the product's general availability, in November 1998, is still available at the Internet Archive.
ActiveBuddy was founded in March 2000. So, not only were their "IM bots" a old idea by the time they filed their patent (August 2000), a ripoff of both Activerse's offerings and more than a decade of practice on IRC networks and in MUDs/MOOs, but their very name was derivative of an existing player in the same market ("Activerse"->"ActiveBuddy") and their main product (an SDK/server) and business model (licensing) mimicked Activerse as well.
Their founder claims with a straight face "we invented interactive agents" and "I am fairly confident, there were no interactive agents on IM at that point when the application was filed. I'm certainly not aware of any." That only goes to show you have to be *studiously* ignorant and/or dishonest in order to effectively twist the flaws of the software patent system to personal advantage.
(Postscript on Activerse: It was acquired by high-flying internet conglomerate CMGI in April 1999. Though the initial aim was to expand and promote the Ding IM/bot products throughout the CMGI network of compnaies, as CMGI itself unravelled, Activerse was dismantled through a series of mostly arbitrary and faddish organizational moves which completely ignored the promise of the growing IM space.)
Well... that is just kind of weird
by
yeoua
·
· Score: 2
Why would they patent IM bots... when they are selling the tools to make your own IM bot? Aren't you supposed to patent the technology your selling and not patent the technology that your product can make? I mean, jeez, could they just write in the EULA that your not supposed to violate their patents by using their IM bot maker... and then sue you if you make an IM bot with their maker (since they have the patent on IM bots).
Well, what if then someone in turn patents an IM bot maker. That would be poetic justice right there.
I'm running an ALICE bot...
by
antirename
·
· Score: 2
And I'll be damned if I'm going to pay this jackoff to be able to do so. "I'm not aware" that other bots exist... right. So this guy isn't smart enough to find prior art (or a crook), but his software is better? Someone needs to patent office with a really big clue stick.
How long until the law realizes?
by
Ogerman
·
· Score: 2
How long will it be before people get it through their thick skulls that dying business models should not be propped up by nonsense copyright / patent laws. Let the 'invisible hand of the market' do it's work for crying out loud! This is supposed to be a free, open, democratic society we live in!
Nope, they're just greedy and keeping their fingers crossed that either A) the public is apathetic and/or B) that anyone who wants to challenge this will run out of money for legal bills before they do.
I think a federal court should slap an injunction on issuing new patents on the patent office till they can respond to the question "why are these frivolous patents being allowed through?"
The failure of the patent office to adequately (IMHO) review patent claims threatens the underpinnings of our economy as much as any accounting scandal. Leaving real patent review to the courts is very very expensive and will ultimately lead to less efficient
Does anyone have any real numbers, though? Is the patent office generally doing a good job and we are just seeing some glaring excpetions?
Or are they just selling real estate on the moon and not worrying about disputes in the future? Metaphorically speaking.
Thanks Prof. Booty, That's informative. But out of 400k , what number get rejected though? And what is the trend over the past 20 years or so?
Basically, it is understandable that in any given year that some patents will be given out that aren't reasonable. So, the important thing to look at would be the number of rejected patent applications. Even then the numbers can't tell you everything about motives. It does seem to me that not enough patents are being sought for "original ideas" but rather for original wording of patents, while the underlying ideas are very much ordinary and derivative.
It is very rare that an application becomes a patent on the first action the examiner preforms on it, because there is usually something wrong with the application,there could be spelling errors, claims not supported by the specification, prior art over the claims, multiple dependant claims, identical claims as a previous application by the same inventor.
the patent office has a classification system for patents. each class and subclass contains hundreds of patents on the same subject, many of which seem identical to one another until you read the claims, that means one subclass might contain 300 remote controls, each of which communicate with a TV etc, but do something different, but yet have the same basic function.
As you said, most inventions are just that, incremental improvements of previous inventions, but thats what the patent system is for, it allows the full disclosure of inventions for others to improve upon in exchange for a limited monopoly.
-- Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Prior art ... the USPTO itself!
by
VisualStim
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Perhaps the prior art could be found within the USPTO itself. From a typical technology patent application:
Applicant: I'd like to file for a patent on my idea. USPTO: Tell me about your idea. Applicant: My idea will change everything. No one will be able to surf the web without using my idea. I'll make billions! USPTO: You sound excited. Applicant: Excited? Who wouldn't be? USPTO: I'll ask the questions. Applicant: Oh, sorry. Now, about that application. USPTO: Oh, you'd like a patent application. Of course sir. Here is your patent, #123,456,789,012,345.
The Zephyr instant messaging system used at MIT since the late eighties includes the ability for users to write simple bots within the configuration file (.zwgc.desc). You could send remote commands to a computer (e.g. to log yourself off from across campus if you never made it back from dinner) or to provide an automated response to a specifically formatted incoming message. Everything can be authenticated via Kerberos.
Below are some snippets from my.zwgc.desc file. It was last modified sometime before 1995, and the main body of the file was contributed by lwvanels whose last RCS timestamp is July 23, 1991.
See http://web.mit.edu/olh/Zephyr and http://www.mit.edu/afs/sipb/project/doc/izeph yr/html/izephyr.html for more about Zephyr.
Begin.zwgc.desc snippets --------------------
# Ignore certain people and let them know it
if ($puntlist != "") then if (upcase($sender) != lany (upcase($user), $sender)) then if (($puntlist == "*") | ($puntlist =~ $sender)) then if ((upcase($class) == "MESSAGE") & (upcase($instance) == "PERSONAL")) then set signature = "Automated_reply:" set message = $user+" is currently not receiving your messages." exec "sh" "-c" "zwrite -n -O zebra "+$sender+" -s "+$signature+" -m "+$message endif if ((upcase($class) != "MESSAGE") | (upcase($instance) != "URGENT")) then exit endif endif endif endif
# # ZEPHYR REMOTE COMMANDS # # The following segment enables the user to send a command to another terminal # provided that user is running a zwgc on that terminal. The command is sent # as the message portion of a zephyrgram and is directed at the terminal named # in the opcode portion of the zephyrgram. # # To receive remote commands with this code requires that the user subscribe to # messages of class Command and instance Personal. This is accomplished with # the following command entered at the prompt: # zctl add command personal %me% # # To facilitate the sending of remote commands, these aliases may be added # to your.cshrc.mine file or your.aliases file: # alias execute 'zw -c command -i Personal {$user} -O' # alias status 'zw -O \!* -c command -i Personal {$user} -m "ps acgx | zwrite -n -q -i status $user"' # alias rlogout 'zw -O \!* -c command -i Personal {$user} -m/usr/athena/end_session' # Usage: # execute <hostname> # ---> Send a command to the machine named by <hostname>. This # requires that you have a zwgc running on that machine and # are subscribed to the appropriate class and instance. The # command should be a standard unix command or the full path # of an executable file. Pipelined commands and commands # requiring arguments are allowed. A windowgram will appear # displaying the command that has been requested. A response # will be sent by the named machine informing whether the # command was executed. There is no guarantee that the # command will actually succeed in performing as expected # once zwgc attempts to execute it: the actual behavior of # the command is determined by the shell in which the zwgc # is running. # status <hostname> # ---> Send a list of the processes currently running on <hostname>. # This is an example of a pipelined unix command, and shows one # way to receive back the output of a command: pipe the output # into a personal zwrite. # rlogout <hostname> # ---> Log off <hostname>. A great way to avoid returning to that # cluster on the other side of campus when you forget to logout. # All processes should die, no unsaved files will be saved. # match "command" fields signature command # Ignore pings if (upcase($opcode) == "PING") then exit endif # Display replies if ($opcode == "reply") then print "@center(@bold("+$aval+" "+$instance+" "+$class+"))\n" print "@center("+$fromhost+")\n" print "@center(has executed the command:)\n" print "@center(@bold("+$command+"))" put exit endif # Verify that sender of request is legitimate user if (upcase($user) != lany (upcase($sender), $user)) | ($auth != "yes") then exit endif # Display command request print "@center(@bold("+$aval+" "+$instance+" "+$class+"))\n" print "@center(From: "+$sender+" on "+$fromhost+")\n" print "@center(To: "+$recipient+" on "+$opcode+")\n" print "@center(@bold("+$command+"))" # Host specified by opcode executes command request if (upcase($opcode) == lany (upcase($hostname), $opcode)) then # Record the command request in specified file set cfile = "/mit/"+getenv("USER")+"/zwgc_command."+$time &nb sp; outputport "request" $cfile put "request" $command closeport "request" print "\n@center(Host "+$hostname+" acknowledges request.)\n" # Execute the command request set command = lbreak($command, "\n") exec "/bin/csh" "-fc" $command set reply = "zwrite -n -q -O reply -c command -i "+$instance+" "+getenv("USER")+" -m '"+$command+"'" exec "/bin/csh" "-fc" $reply endif put exit
Re:1991 prior art right here
by
i0lanthe
·
· Score: 2
Yeah, I don't know how the bot scene is at MIT these days, but at CMU (zephyr migrated to multiple realm thingies here a while ago) there are bots that have been around for years, one of the more pointless ones being the Cube. The Cube was born in 1996, still in "use" daily, may be vaguely familiar to anyone who saw ye olde Forum 2000.
-- "The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life"
Couple of comments re: IMBot Patent
a) There was no prior art for what we patented - we looked. And it wasn't obvious either.
b) We considered free intellectual property concerns prior to applying but as officers of a corporation we were obliged to do whatever we could to protect our shareholder's rather significant investment in the company - and protecting the firm's IP was tops on the list.
c) There are companies out there (and you and they both know who they are) that would have tried to overtly rip off AB if it had no such protection.
d) I'm willing to bet that my co-founder - Tim Kay - has contributed as much code to the open source movement as most of you (AB certainly utilizes plenty of open source stuff in its development and operations)
e) we allow people to download BuddyScript for nothing - and nothing in the license agreement prevents anyone of you from cloning an interpreter for the language (remember PostScript Clones?)
I strongly advise that the members of the Open Source community grow up, smell the coffee and use their rather significant intellectual engergy to create change from within the system rather than whining like little girly-men every time somebody patents a new idea.
On a related note - an article in the Financial Times this morning pointed out that one of the casualties of the burst tech bubble is casual clothing - apparently the bankers and entrepreneurs are climbing back into their suits for the next round of financings... my guess is engineers may have to do the same thing. Maybe I should patent ties with Penguins on them and sell them through/.
Robert Hoffer
Founder
Chairman
ActiveBuddy
I'd be more interested in hearing you explain what's non-obvious about this patent rather than hear arguments as to why the prior art examples "aren't quite there." I haven't the time to read the entire patent right now, but I didn't see anything that would have been non-obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art of instant messaging at the time the invention was made. What makes your invention so special?
--
-beme
1971
I can remember back in 1994...
by
bmooney28
·
· Score: 2
There was a MUD (multi user dimension) that was adventure based... and contained a room with a foul mouthed priest that preformed fairly basic AI responses... When you confessed to him, he would give such responses as "screw absolution, we're all goin' to hell anyway! stop wasting your time talkin to me..."
As I recall, in this MUD you could create your own objects including characters, and for characters, you could have them respond to certain keywords... Hmm.. this sounds very familiar...
Don't AOL and Active Buddy work *together*
by
EMIce
·
· Score: 2
How else would ActiveBuddy get their AI bot on the AIM network under the im name "SmarterChild" among others? My guess is AOL would have to hand them a special account without rate limits.
Re:Don't AOL and Active Buddy work *together*
by
signe
·
· Score: 2
They may very well work together. I really don't know. But it doesn't matter in this case. Even if they have a business arrangement, it doesn't make the patent any more valid.
As has been pointed out in the article, the perl modules for connecting to AIM were around long before this patent was filed, and included a simple bot.
-Todd
--
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
Re:Don't AOL and Active Buddy work *together*
by
dillon_rinker
·
· Score: 2
Even if they have a business arrangement, it doesn't make the patent any more valid.
IANAL (duh), but if AOL agreed that ALL their work related to BOTS was, in fact, the intellectual property of Active Buddy, that would be a business arrangement. Anyone who tried to use AOL's work as evidence of prior art would be pounced on by Active Buddy's lawyers, who would say "See, you PROVE our case! The work you refer to is OUR work! Here's the proof..."
Using a more tangible analogy...engineering firm X researches piston-sprocket gears (PSGs). They build many prototypes. Along comes firm Y, who has also done work with PSGs. They say "We'll buy all your prototypes nd all your rights to them for $1 million." Firm Y patents PSGs. An engineer sues firm Y, claiming prior art at firm X invalidates the patent. Firm Y says "No, that prior art is ours, and here are the piston-sprocket gears to prove it."
If you claim this is invalid, it seems to me that it is tantamount to using an inventors own prototypes against him. If I invent something, creating prototypes along the way, are the prototypes samples of prior art that invalidates my patent? What if my dad does a lot of work on an invention, dies, leaves his work to me (ie physical and intellectual property rights), and I improve on and patent it? What if I buy all the rights from the original inventor, improve them, THEN patent them? What if my father does much work, then dies, and I inherit his work, improve it, and patent it?
Anyway, I think that AOL conceivably could have a business arrangement that invalidates their own prior art. If not, they would seem to own Active Buddy now... =)
So could I patent pirating Windows?
by
Uttles
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
OK, here's a good EULA question:
Microsoft's EULA for Windows OS says don't copy it and distribute copies. People do that, and supposedly they're breaking the law.
AIM's EULA says don't make an automated chatting script, or bot, especially not to spam with. People do that, and apparently they get patents for it. How does this make sense to anyone?
--
~ now you know
Re:So could I patent pirating Windows?
by
namespan
·
· Score: 2
I'm sure businesses -- especially partners or potential partners -- are given more favorable terms in their license agreements than mere consumers.
-- Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Re:ignor it is the safest option
by
Asic+Eng
·
· Score: 2
Bottom line - lets blame the lawyers...:)
I agree with that, but I'd leave of the smilie...
IIRC the US has over half the worlds lawyers. That's a ridiculous amount, and a clear indication that something is wrong. Most countries have laws which make the losing party pay the winner's court costs. While this in a very few cases stops suits which have merit (because of the risks) - it greatly reduces the number of frivolous suits.
This company might think twice about suing someone over a patent violation, if the result
of that suit could be that they have to pay the
defendands costs.
Like a typical patent, they move from less specific to more specific. Few people expect for all of the claims to be accepted, the first one is almost always something along the lines of "I patent breathing."
-- Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Can somebody tell me what the origin of "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" actually is? I understand what it means -- I just want to know who said it first and why everybody latched on to it.
The original phrase came from a cheesy video game called "Zero Wing." I've never actually played it, and in fact hadn't even heard of it until the "All Your Base" thing became so popular. Gamespy has some good information on the "All Your Base" mistranslation and on the game itself.
-- !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I wrote a Pascal IRC "intelligent bot" in '91...
by
steppin_razor_LA
·
· Score: 2
I know IRC isn't exactly the same as an IM platform, but IMHO (not a lawyer disclaimer of course), there isn't much of a difference - both sit around monitoring conversations and have some sort of AI that drives responses.
I used to have a blast unleashing the bot onto IRC channels and watching as people would try and carry on conversations with it.
The *basic* personality was defined in a text file and consisted of a number of keywords/phrases that it would look for and then a number of responses for each of those keywords. If you were careful in how you picked them, you could put together entire potential conversations.
The "personality" I had the most fun/success with was a rather depressed and drugged out one. People would assume he was "stoned".. etc and feel sorry for him.
I guess it was sort of mean. But... well.. I still thought it was funny.:)
-- Evolution: love it or leave it
Who's going to be the first victim?
by
AndroidCat
·
· Score: 2
ActiveBuddy is going to try to get some weak sisters to roll over on the patent before taking on anyone who could fight back in court.
They'll want to pick a victim with some cash to pay for a licence, but not enough to handle a legal campaign. (If there are any IM-bot companies rich enough to handle a legal fight...)
-- One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Question for you then
by
JeanBaptiste
·
· Score: 2
What is a corporation made out of? Well, judging by your earlier post, you just might not have the horsepower upstairs to figure it out, so I'll answer for you. Corporations are made out of PEOPLE.
And what human-like rights does a corporation have? Really, I would like to know what "human-like" rights that a corporation has.
Re:Question for you then
by
NoRights
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Corporations are made out of PEOPLE.
Is it just me, or did that have a Soylent Green feel to it?
Re:Question for you then
by
Alex+Belits
·
· Score: 2
People's right to free speech is unrelated to this -- in most of situations where corporation "speaks" , its employees' rights are actually trumped by corporation's contracts (NDAs, trade secrets, various agreements), yet corporation itself can "speak" as a separate entity, and that "speech" is supposed to be entirely based on corporation's interests. Yes, a corporation can force an employee (writer, spokesperson, executive) to say what it, as a large non-human entity, "wants" even if no one inside the corporation agrees with it.
-- Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
For the love of god, write to your congress people
by
jonabbey
·
· Score: 2
This is such egregious, offensive nonsense. This whole process of the government granting monopolies on who ever is first to rush to the patent office and pay the government for the privilege, no matter how many programmers would declare the idea perfectly obvious.
A few thousand letters to the congress protesting the granting of bad patents would go a long way in sparking reform.
Being in the crosshairs..
by
slashkitty
·
· Score: 2
As the creator of RunABot.com, I can't tell you how much I hate these software patents. Granted, there is a lot of prior art on IM and chat bots. EggDrop, AOLEliza, UltraHal AIM bot, ALICE gaim plugin, and many more were all online before this patent was filed. The problem is the threats to enforce this patent. I think that it will HARM innovation in this area, maybe even spread into AI and other agents and ultimately harm them.
-- -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
Re:I wrote a Pascal IRC "intelligent bot" in '91..
by
toast0
·
· Score: 2
There is no significant reason, especially since the patent does not describe an instant messaging system, that IRC should not be considered an instant messaging network.
(Aside from during times of poor performance/netsplits/etc) Messages from one user to another are delivered very quickly, almost 'instantly'.
If the patent was more specific about where it connects to, it would still be bogus however, due to prior art on aim.
"Our primary level of comfort comes from the fact that we have the best choice for developers and others. When given the choice, we're confident people will choose ours"
such a modest bunch of lads. I bet their mommies think that they are the best and tell them that every night.
-- Please give your mod points to others, Im at the cap. They will appreciate it more
Ok, I think we can all agree that while the company doing this is bad it's the patent office that needs to be fixed. Now it seems obvious that this is a case in which the USPTO excersized gross negligance, and it seems obvious to me that it is at expense to the industries they are supposed to protect. So is there any legal way to bring charges against the USPTO?
--
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
Sometimes I think that anyone who files a patent for something that prior art can be found in 5 minutes by monkeys on slashdot should be prosocuted for fraud (esp. if they sue someone else based on the patent). As an alternate, is it possible to counter-sue someone sueing you for patent infringement (for lots more money than they're sueing you for).
Sorry, but I agree with him.
by
El+Camino+SS
·
· Score: 2
Unfortunately, I prefer his take on the history, probably because he has a plausable answer, and prior art backed up on the net and all.
suddenly i have an interesting view on patents
by
shren
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You spend 75 of your working hours on four patents. Now, in the last 5 hours, you have to approve or deny a last patent.
If you deny a patent and it turns out to have been a bad patent, you did the right thing, but only by accident.
If you deny a patent and it turns out to have been a fair patent, you did the wrong thing, and you're probably going to get in trouble when the company bitches about your denial of thier perfectly reasonable patent.
If you allow a patent and it's a fair patent, then you did the right thing, but only by accident.
If you allow a patent and it's a bad patent, you did a bad thing. But you met your quota, and the patent applicant sure as hell isn't going to get you in trouble. You can rest easily knowing (or hoping) that the patent will be shot down later. You've met the quota and kept your job by deftly shifting the burden to the legal system.
Thus, the patent reviewers are encouraged by the system to approve bad patents when they are short on time. Furthermore, if I had to pick between a sort of bad one and a really, really bad one, then I'd pick the really, really bad one because there's less chance that it'll stand.
Systems build the world we live in. Can anyone think of a different system that doesn't reward the patent examiner awarding bad patents?
-- Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Re:suddenly i have an interesting view on patents
by
kcbrown
·
· Score: 2
Can anyone think of a different system that doesn't reward the patent examiner awarding bad patents?
Yeah: if you approve a patent that is later proven to be a bad patent (prior art, etc.) you're fired.
You can also set it up so that the patent applicant gets, say, two chances to get his patent approved. If his patent is rejected after the second attempt, that's the end. The patent goes to a different examiner the second time around, in order to prevent bias.
In reality, the bias at the patent office should be against granting patents. So I'd arrange things so that patent applicants have to pay each time they submit a patent application, even if it's for the same patent. So rejections would be encouraged, because the patent office would get more work and thus make more money that way.
There should be no consequences for rejecting what turns out to be a valid patent. Not being granted a patent doesn't prevent one from further developing the invention in question, but being granted a patent certainly does prevent others from further developing that invention. A patent is a grant of a monopoly over the invention in question, so in reality being granted a patent should be a rare occurrance, not a commonplace one.
-- Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
SmarterChild is no longer on aim..
by
slashkitty
·
· Score: 2
I think that ActiveBuddy is running out of money to pay AOL to keep it on. smarterchild has moved onto MSN and yahoo..
-- -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
Somebody's been reading Gates...
by
Mitchell+Mebane
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Remember the Bill Gates quote from Lessig's OSCON speech?
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete stand-still today.
The solution... is patenting as much as we can... A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high: Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors."
I dare to think they'd make this stuff illegal, except for the fact that it is hard to write an exact definition of when somebody goes overboard.
--
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
Re:Patenting Ideas (basic vs improvement patents)
by
McFly777
·
· Score: 2
there
are multiple types of patented egg beaters (electric with a handle, electric upright, hand-cranked, etc.) Though they all
achieve the same end goal, beating an egg, the different implementations are considered different inventions.... I can buy 1000 differnt models of cars, why can't I buy 1000 different models of IM responder if each has its own advantages and disadvantages, efficiency, interface, and style.
There are both "basic" patents and "improvement" patents. The egg-beaters are "improvements" on the concept of an egg-beater (which probably was already prior art). Even if you now applied and were granted a patent on "IM bots which send replies in multiple colors" (or whatever) you still couldn't distrubute your patented bot wothout licencing the "basic" IM bot patent.
Perhaps a simpler example would be imagine that I just patented the concept of a stool, or rather "a device for sitting above the ground" and you later tried to patent a chair ("stool with back support"). Because I hold the basic patent on a sitting device, you can't make your chairs without licensing my basic patent. On the other hand I can't put a back on my stools without getting a license from you for your improvment. Or we could trade licensing and both make chairs.
Part of the problem with software patents is that the PTO is granting patents that are overly broad. Back to your egg-beater... the PTO wouldn't let you patent "a device to beat eggs" because of prior art. They might allow "a device to beat eggs using pressurized gas" for example. The first patent is overly broad, and has prior art, the second, more specific, idea could be new however. But as regards software, the PTO apparently doesn't have the background, technology is moving too fast, or the PTO is saying "let the courts sort it out later". Take yor pick, there is probably some of all three going on.
--
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
How is this patent that much different than a bot running over IRC?
I really don't see much of a difference except for the inclusion of some web functionality.
Re:Patenting Ideas (basic vs improvement patents)
by
Tall+Rob+Mc
·
· Score: 2
Back to your egg-beater... the PTO wouldn't let you patent "a device to beat eggs" because of prior art.
What we are looking at here is a clear case of a company getting a patent for "a device to beat eggs" despite numerous, documented instances of prior art. My analogy works perfectly well.
AOLiza seems quite similar to ActiveBuddy based on what little I know about it, and the first logged conversation in the archive is dated 8/15/00, one week before the ActiveBuddy filing. IANAL, but it seems like prior art to me.
A method and system for interactively responding to queries from a remotely located user includes a computer server system configured to receiving an instant message query or request from the user over the Internet. The query or request is interpreted and appropriate action is taken, such as accessing a local or remote data resource and formulating an answer to the user's query. The answer is formatted as appropriate and returned to the user as an instant message or via another route specified by the user. A method and system of providing authenticated access to a given web page via instant messaging is also disclosed.
ftp ftp.foo.com
USER jimbob
PASS bobjim
GET default.html
Funnily enough, I can think of several types of "interactively responding" servers that respond to queries from a "remotely located user" then access a "remote or local data source" and "answer" with a web page if the "message" is "authenticated".
The only part of this farcical patent that is even remotely distinctive is that it refers to "instant message", but without going to the pesky bother of defining what that means.
With any luck, AOL will send a goon squad round to break their arrogant little venture capital funded kneecaps and we'll never hear from these parasitic scum ever again.
-- If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
SLashdot should interview a media contact at uspto
by
ProfBooty
·
· Score: 2
i agree actually, most people on slashdot have no real experience with patents or even understand how the examining system works.
perhaps an interview with a media contact at the USPTO would help to clear this up.
-- Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Flying saucer patent from 1973!
by
Convergence
·
· Score: 2
Does it bother you that Paging Eliza: Patenting IM Bots?
Eldred v. Ashcroft
by
yerricde
·
· Score: 3, Informative
There is a law, the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), that provides blanket authorization to sue the government. However, the FTCA only allows suits based on "operational" aspects of government duties. "Discretionary" decisions are not actionable.
In general, if a fellow wants to sue the government over a "discretionary" action, he sues the persons in charge of enforcing the regulation, such as the Attorney General, the head of the USPTO, the examiner who approved the patent, etc. in their official capacities. Hence, ACLU v. Janet Reno in her official capacity as AG, Eldred et al. v. John Ashcroft in his official capacity as AG.
Just sent a question to them
by
SeanTobin
·
· Score: 2
Thier responce form is crap. It doesn't remember values, and because I left the URL field blank, I had to type my entire message over even after pressing thier 'go back and fix errors' button.... someone should teach these people proper coding techniques. Anyway, here's what I just fired off:
I have been developing a 'bot' for the past several years. It is called Q3Bot, and it primarily provides a remote ftp indexing service over IRC, AOL, MSN, and ICQ messaging systems. Its first use on a public network was on IRC in January 2000. Since then it has progressed through several versions, and now has numerous functions, including pickup lines, curses, delayed messaging, anonymous message relaying, stock lookups, definition lookups (through the dictionary.com website and the everything2.com XML engine) and several other functions. From my interpretation of your recently granted patent, you seem to cover all areas of my work. I would like to ask the following:
-From my description, does your patent indeed cover my work? -If so, how much would it cost so license your technology? -If I were to license it, could I transfer that license to other future developers of my software? -If you do not choose to license your patent, or if the cost is economically unfeasible for me, what options do I have aside from discontinuing my work?
Thank you for your response in these matters.
-- Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
Re:ignor it is the safest option
by
JordoCrouse
·
· Score: 2
I'm a lawyer and I resent that.
I didn't mean anything personally, and I apologize.
I'm not attacking ActiveBuddy for hiring its lawyers, or even the lawyers for going out and doing their job. They tried to get the patent, and for good or bad, they got it.
In my opinion the patent law provides for things like prior art, and the whole thing works itself out if both parties can get in the same room.
My main gripe is that the only thing preventing major corporations from blowing these guys back to the stone age is that the legal fees of such a venture are so large, that it often sours an otherwise legitimate attempt to strike down a silly patent. Once again, this isn't the lawyer's fault per say, because he is going to do everything in his power to win (and if that means filing 3 dozen motions than so be it).
So maybe instead of blaming the lawyers, we should blame a court system that gives them the leeway to delay a case for 18 months (racking up fees in the process).
Until then, when life gives you patents, make motions.
-- Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
Only the inventor can file for a patent
by
yerricde
·
· Score: 2
If I invent something, creating prototypes along the way, are the prototypes samples of prior art that invalidates my patent?
It depends. Only the individual inventor(s) can file for a U.S. patent. The usual procedure is that the inventor agrees to immediately assign the patent as he or she receives it. In this case, some fellows at AOL should have got the patent, and the contract may have stipulated that all such patents would be assigned to ActiveBuddy.
Claim by claim dissection of the first 17 claims
by
yerricde
·
· Score: 2
Read Claim #1 - it clearly states that this invention pertains to a bot that must sign into IM using a screen name and that screen name must be an authorized user on the buddy list of another user. Any system that doesn't do any part of that isn't covered by that claim, period. IRC, Ask jeeves - they don't do that do they?
Here's claim 1 of the patent in question:
1. A method for interactively responding to queries from a user logged in to an instant messaging network, comprising the steps of:
logging a message processor in to the instant messaging network under a first screen-name
Many IRC networks have NickServ, which lets users "log in" to a screen-name.
the user having the first screen-name as an authorized partner and being advised by the instant messaging network of the presence of the message processor;
A bot could require that a user have a name from NickServ. IRC implements "advised by the IM network of the bot" as the "whois" command.
receiving a query addressed to the first screen-name from the user via the instant messaging network in an instant messaging protocol; parsing the query to extract the request; evaluating the request in the message processor formulating an answer to the user's query on the basis of the evaluated request; generating an output message containing the answer; and sending the output message to the user via the instant messaging network.
Every single command line interface does this.
Thus, claim 1 covers all IRC bots. Now, I analyze some of the other claims to give readers a taste of what kind of prior art could be used to attack this patent:
Claim 2 covers a slight technicality.
Claim 3 covers an IRC bot that accesses a database.
Claim 4 covers an IRC bot that accesses a database containing user profiles.
Claim 5 covers an IRC bot that accesses a database containing user profiles, which automatically creates profiles for new users.
Claim 6 is claim 5 where the user specifies personal information in registering for an account with the bot.
Claims 7 and 8 are claim 6 where such information is specified on a web form.
Claims 9 and 10 are claim 3 where the bot asks the user for information.
Claim 11 is claim 3 where the query response information is JOINed with a profile.
Claim 12 is claim 11 where the bot asks the user for such information.
Claim 13 covers an IRC bot that generates encoded URLs.
Claim 14 covers parsing encoded URLs generated by an IRC bot.
Claims 15 and 16 cover minor technicalities in claim 14.
Claim 17 is claim 14 where the encoded URLs expire.
But depending on the definition of "instant messaging network", techniques already in use on hundreds of Apache servers would infringe at least claims 1-17, invalidating most of the patent.
ZERO WING Probably the greatest waste of my entire summer. I never really understood what it was about (other than blowing aliens up) but it was grand fun trying to understand the manual.
Like many Sega-Genesis import games, ZW suffered from what could be kindly called KungFu Movie Syndrome in which the translation is done by bored graduate students who never actually studied the language in question and were paid in beer. Which was consumed during translation.
-- Find out about my new childrens book: SS Death Camp Criminal Batallion Go To Monte Carlo For The Massacre
If you read the patent itself instead of just trusting whatever person managed to get their story approved, you'll notice that it relates specifically to instant messaging and to a remote user logged into a instant messaging system. Yeah, eliza exists. But emacs is not an instant messaging system and you can't claim that it was. It's possible that maybe for fun once someone did some sort of death pipe to get eliza to read and feed talk or ytalk, but those weren't called instant messaging even. So before bitching about this patent, read it and tell me what the prior art really is
Loophole in campaign finance and equal time rule
by
yerricde
·
· Score: 2
Wouldn't it be amazing if campaign finance contributions could only come from valid, registered voters?
I've already found a loophole in that law. Disney Employment Contract 2004: "The Walt Disney Company ("Disney") shall issue You a $1,000 check ("Lobby Check") every Labor Day (first Monday in September). You shall deposit the Lobby Check in your bank account and shall donate $1,000 annually to your representative's re-election campaign. You agree not to use the Lobby Check for any other purpose. You further agree to contact your Representative and Senators at least four times per year, urging them to adopt copyright, patent, and trademark legislation that favor Disney and other owners of copyrights, patents, and trademarks."
However, I see something even worse going on: a violation of the FCC's "equal time" rule. In the United States, as part of the bargain for a monopoly on the use of a particular broadcast frequency in a particular area, a radio or TV station must make advertising time available to all candidates for a particular public office under the same terms. If a network donates money to a candidate's election campaign, its local affiliates are in effect giving free ad time to the candidate, possibly violating equal time.
The US Patent and Trademark Office has granted an all-encompassing patent to ActiveBuddy that covers every step of IM botmaking technology. According to internet news, ActiveBuddy now plans to enforce the patent, even though the existence of prior art is well-known and documented.
So that means...
xX activbud Xx: OMFG I won my patent. I get lots of money from you now. OnlineHost: Son of a bitch.
I wonder, if since "instant messaging" is defined loosely enough to cover IRC, if the likes of eggdrop or something similar would be enough to tell these fools that "chat bots have existed for years, piss off you money grubbing fucktards"?
Description and Background of the Invention:
A method for building a highly successful technology business comprising of three steps:
Patent obvious technology using loose jargon and generalized statements.
Sue the shit out of everyone.
Profit!
Ah, the United States of America... Just when I think I couldn't be LESS proud of it...there it is.
-- CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
A few words on AOLiza
by
KFury
·
· Score: 3, Informative
As the creator (hack, cough, apologies to Prof Weisenbaum (sp)) or AOLiza, I've got a few opinions on ActiveBuddy's patent claim:
First, sadly, despite the fact that AOLiza was unleashed a few weeks before ActiveBuddy's patent filing, it doesn't apply as prior art, because according to patent law, if the claimant filed the patent application within one year of inventing, disclosing, or even detailing the invention in an email, it's still valid.
That isn't to say that prior art doesn't exist. I'm certain that it does, not the least of which in the AIM::BOT perl libraries which preceeded ActiveBuddy by well over a year.
Moreover, AOLiza doesn't even use the AIM::BOT libraries (although an earlier test version did). It uses the Mac version of AIM and the applescript hooks that AOL put into that application. These hooks, including calls so that other programs can grab messages, send messages, and do a myriad of other 'bot' functions, existed well over a year before ActiveBuddy's application, and were clearly designed to allow the attachment of automated scripts or bots to be used with the application.
This is important because in addition to 'get there first' and 'usefulness' the third requirement for a successful patent application is demonstrated non-obviousness. The invention has to be a novel application of technologies, not simply an evolution of existing (and possibly patented) technologies.
Clearly, when AIM for Mac had hooks specifically written to allow third-party programs to act as bots, another companys claim that actually USING those hooks, or punching holes into another part of the program to make hooks of their own, can not be seen as novel in any way.
That's my two cents, and I'd be happy to testify in court.
That's a nice handle. Would that stating something made it so...
It's a shame that you either didn't read my post, or didn't bother to understand it. If you had, you'd have realized:
I didn't say that AOLiza predated your 'invention' or served as prior art. In fact, my first post said just the opposite. However...
If 'LONG before AOLiza' is over 11 months before, then I'm sorry, but you worked yourself OUT of the patent, because patent law decrees that you have to file the patent within one year of the invention (which I also mentioned in my original post, had you bothered to read it).
You don't address the main point I made, which is that, by putting in hooks for bots in the first place, AOL did the legwork that made your work whether it used those hooks or not a simple and predictable extention of previsously available technologies, and not a novel invention worthy of a patent, by their own federal regulations.
Read before you flame. Slashdot forums aren't the place to vigorously defent a patent through FUD.
I was always under the impression that if there was an exsisting patent, but you could somehow improve upon that patent, even in the slightest of ways, it became a whole new patent. How is it that these companies can aquire an "all-encompassing" patent on anything?
Re:I can see the VIRUS of the future....
by
commodoresloat
·
· Score: 2
Hello, my name is Alice
>Hi Alice, nice to meet you.
I send you this file in order to have your advice.
>That file is 3MB! I'm on a 56k modem! And I don't even know how to open it! Please cancel the transfer!
See you later! Thanks
ActiveBuddy's mission statement
by
Tablizer
·
· Score: 2
probably came from here: http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/games/care er/bin/ms.cgi
Here is prior art (28/02/1994)
by
AftanGustur
·
· Score: 2
The Patent was filed August 22, 2000. Read the 'claims' it's important.
Then have a look at This (Posted on Usenet 1994-02-28)
Where is says: If you can access IRC you will be able to get in touch
with other netfolk on the #soccer channel. Even if no-one else is there
you will usually find a bot, called FootInfo, who will give you the
latest results. Type '/msg FootInfo help' for details,
This help system works with the/msg command, i.e. it's one-to-one bot-discussion.
Re:Patenting Ideas (basic vs improvement patents)
by
McFly777
·
· Score: 2
I wasn't questioning your analogy. If you read the sentence before and after the one you quoted, you will see that I agree with you; the PTO has its head up its ass with respect to software patents.
I was trying to respond to your question why things don't seem to work the the same for physical objects as for software. My conclusion was that the PTO needs to get a clue or two about the state of the "software arts."
I also was trying to point out why bad "basic" patents are much more dangerous than bad "improvement" patents (which you can often manage to work around).
--
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
Re:Patenting Ideas (basic vs improvement patents)
by
Tall+Rob+Mc
·
· Score: 2
I misread. After I posted I reread your post and re-interpreted it. I now understand what your point was. Thanks.
Re:You sir, are a clueless fuck
by
elflord
·
· Score: 2
He didn't advocate hatred anywhere in his comments.
Sure he did. He spewed invective at these people, and suggested that such people be treated in a way
consistent with that spiteful invective.
Your subject line says it all-- you're as spiteful as he is.
It's difficult to comment on the details of
"treating people like human filth" unless those details are offered, but the language suggests
obnoxious, hateful behaviour.
As for the suggestion that I advocate "turning the other cheek", or even condoning that conduct, you're proposing a false dichotomy. Perhaps you
should abstain from such simple logical fallacies if you want to use words like "clueless fuck" to describe others (-;
I'm not saying that nothing should be done, I'm saying that there are processes for effecting
change, and obnoxious, antisocial behaviour, and hateful rhetoric has a very poor track record in
bringing about positive social changes.
Re:You sir, are a clueless fuck
by
FreeUser
·
· Score: 2
Sure he did. He spewed invective at these people, and suggested that such people be treated in a way consistent with that spiteful invective.
Social pressure and indeed the maintenance of the social contract, and society in general, only work if there is a stick as well as a carrot. In this case, since there is no law preventing anti-social behavior that causes great economic damage and destroys the lives of thousands (sometimes quite literally), the only alternative is 'spiteful,' 'hateful,' rejection of the persons engaging in such behavior, in short, a general, widespread social rejection and ostrocizing of people who behave so despicably, regardless of the legality of their actions.
I'm not saying that nothing should be done, I'm saying that there are processes for effecting change, and obnoxious, antisocial behaviour, and hateful rhetoric has a very poor track record in bringing about positive social changes.
I agree with that, to a point. Treating the wrongdoers we are talking about as human filth in a political or judicial sense would have tremendous negative effects. Instead, the behavior they engaged in should be outlawed, so that others may not follow in their steps.
However, greating those jackasses as the human filth that they are on the personal level, ie. general and pervasive social rejection of the type O.J. Simpson often laments about, is IMHO very justified, very warranted, and can effect positive social change, in that the next guy to consider such an ignoble way of obtaining wealth may well think twice, knowing that by doing so he or she will become a social pariah.
Which is precisely what these sorts of executives should become, forthwith.
Slashdot Mirror
All Your Bots are Belong to Us!
AMCGLTD.COM. Where cats, science fictio
They have an opportunity to earn money thanks to stupid patent laws and they try to take advantage of it.
I'll make millions. At worst, if I can't get any royalties, I'll sell access to everyone's court-orderd bedroom webcam (for my patent enforcement)
I can smell the money now!
T :-)
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Isn't there some way that the Patent Office could open up this process so that the prior art could be waved in front of them before the patent is granted and expensive lawyers have to be called in to resolve the issue?
I'm thinking the USPTO could create a database of pending patents on their web site that have passed initial muster with the investigator and are likely to be approved. Interested parties could go and post links about prior art (or earlier filed but still pending patents) for the patent investigator to review.
Does it please you to believe I am botmaking technology?
They have an opportunity to earn money thanks to stupid patent laws and they try to take advantage of it.
Yes, I can and do blame them.
Human beings are expected to have ethics, and to treat one another with a semblance thereof even when the law doesn't manage to anticipate every possible permutation of human interaction, or indeed, even when the law is clearly flawed.
Sub-human filth that lack such ethics and/or use the law to cause deliberate harm to others for their own banal benefit deserve to be treated exactly as what they are: sub-human filth.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
What I find interesting is that they're selling bot-writing tools. I haven't seen too many of those around, so perhaps they'd have been able to patent THAT idea. I really don't see how a company could write tools to make bots and then think there were honestly think there's no prior art. Looks to me like a 'lets see how much we can get away with' ploy. Unfortunately, how much they can get away with is usually: a lot. Of course, I suppose most executives out there don't really know all that much about IP law, and they're just trying to protect their businesses. They have lawyers who file the paperwork and handle the patent application process. And, of course, those lawyers are paid for doing this work. They're also paid for pursuing claims against anyone who infringes the patents, whether the company wins or loses. So.... perhaps we shouldn't question the scruples of this company as a whole so much as the litigating community itself.
These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
What the hell is the fundamental difference between an IM bot and an IRC bot?
Or any other bot running within an environment generally used for 2-way (or more) communication?
I wrote a bot in 1990 for christ sake.
Not kidding, work with DDIAL chat systems.
DDIAL ran on Apple IIe with 7 300bps modems.
IRC.net documents advanced bots in 1994, let alone earlier, cruder bots which had been in use.
Bots are heavily in use in the corporate infrastructure, from auto-reply bots which answer emails based on formatting (think: subscribing to majordomo or even old NSI DNS requests), to complete bots which can answer "what color is the sand on Mars".
There's even a Wired article about IRC bots.
there should be stiff punishments for abusing the system like this, otherwise, what's to stop them? the only thing which gets hurt is their public image, and frankly that's not enough. I'm not talking prison terms, I'm talking stiff fines for such blatant misuse of the USPTO, to fund a future technical review board for the USPTO.
MORTAR COMBAT!
While I was working at AOL, someone (employee) had an IM bot running. It performed such tasks as giving out stock quotes when asked, and doing translations between a few languages. Seeing as this patent of ActiveBuddy's was filed *after* I left AOL, I'm fairly certain that they're shit outta luck.
Yeah, there weren't many IM bots out there, but there were a few. And one is all it takes.
-Todd
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
A method and system for interactively responding to queries from a remotely located user includes a computer server system configured to receiving an instant message query or request from the user over the Internet. The query or request is interpreted and appropriate action is taken, such as accessing a local or remote data resource and formulating an answer to the user's query. The answer is formatted as appropriate and returned to the user as an instant message or via another route specified by the user. A method and system of providing authenticated access to a given web page via instant messaging is also disclosed.
I'm this is way too vague. Aside from all the IRC bots in existance, What about "Ask Jeeves"? We can certainly dispute whether a web browser/site is an 'instant messaging' server. If I "ask" jeeves for something and it returns my query, then is it not prior art?
Ok, so they have a piece of paper. Who cares? It isn't going to do them any good.
There is a huge volume of prior art. If they sue anyone over this, they'll be laughed out of court -- and probably be required to pay the defendant's legal fees as well.
People complain about how easy it is to get patents, but they're missing a major point: The USPTO could just stamp "APPROVED, $DATE" on every piece of paper which comes through the door and invalid patents would be just as invalid as they ever were.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
With a patent it is irrelevent if you use their tools, or information from them.
If you substantially duplicate a patent you are in violation of it. Regardless of how.
And, under various circumstances, substantial isn't necessary.
Celebrity BotMatch...!
A.L.I.C.E., a heavyweight at 11 kilos, takes on SmarterChild, sponsored by ActiveBuddy, Inc. The prize? Utter destruction by licensing fees!
Let's go behind the ring for exclusive one-on-one interviews with the contenders.
SmarterChild, what's your take on the situation?
SC: I don't know, I just do!
How do you feel about this whole prior art thing?
SC: Listings for Prior Art, KS... Austin Powers, playing at 12:30, 2:30, 3:30...
All right... moving on... A.L.I.C.E., how do you feel about this upcoming match?
ALICE: I will ask my botmaster for the answer.
Will you wrest control of the patent?
ALICE: I have no answer for that. NYU and Berkeley suck!
Ever see a kid in elementary school who steals the lunch money of other kids? Then see that same kid after one of his victims breaks his nose? He's not so keen on stealing money anymore; the cost has become too high.
The same thing exists here with all of these silly software/genetic patents that the Patent Office, accepted by people with the brainpower of rancid jello. For now, they can do it, and it's a proven technique - patent something that already exists, then collect from businesses who know it will cost more to fight than to simply pay.
Sooner or later, one of two things will happen. A) Someone will patent something that others really, really care about, and you'll see an Enron/Worldcom level knee-jerk response (Damn! We must make a law to stop this), or B) they'll finally tackle somebody with enough deep pockets and pissed off attitude to crush a company like this, and set a major legal precident.
Either way, I figure I'll keep coding my stuff, and to hell with people who steal the future.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Isn't the real problem in that the way patents are applied for the office in unable to make proper examinaitions of each claim? Does this problem with patenting happen in other fields? Last week I was on an 1842 Steam Locomotive and noticed that the butterfly hindged doors on the coal feed was granted patent #3. I thought to myself; here is something that is of a simple design, clearly useful in the confined space of the cab and probably made someone extremely rich.
So what can we do to help prevent obvious and useless patenting?
"We invented interactive agents. Anybody using his or her own tools (to make bots) is obviously using our technology without paying us to license the server, for example.
So... anybody using their own stuff is obviously using your stuff... but by your admission they're using their own stuff so by definition they're not using your stuff... but you stated they are using your stuff which would mean they arn't using their own stuff... that is a contradiction... and they have to license your server... Illogical. Illogical.
*smoke erupts from ears and collapses*
I stole this Sig
A wider example might be flying machines. There are thousands of different types of planes, baloons, helicopters, hangliders, and ultralights but each achieve the same goal by different means. Each has their own style, benefits, drawbacks, and potential uses.
I see the general patenting of auto-IM responders as being similar to patenting the idea of human flight. Though every auto-IM responder may have completely different code, handle events in different ways, and interact with different systems, ActiveBuddy owns the idea. That is bullshit.
I can buy 1000 differnt models of cars, why can't I buy 1000 different models of IM responder if each has its own advantages and disadvantages, efficiency, interface, and style.
I will defend my original idea in the courts, and I've got a woking prototype to prove I am the inventor.
... link Microsoft into this article in some crude way. I'd love to get a +1 Funny, but I can't think of a way to make 'Bill Gates is evil', 'Windows BSOD', or 'Microsoft has a monopoly' relate to the bot patent.
:(
Damn. My karma's dipping a bit today.
"Derp de derp."
How do you feel about Patenting IM Bots?
The cake is a pie
Remeber to be polite!
contact form
ActiveBuddy Press Contacts
Contact ActiveBuddy Public Relations:
(408) 530-0850 x202
Email: pr@activebuddy.com
Snail Mail & Phone:
New York City Office
ActiveBuddy, Inc.
24 West 25th Street
Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10010
Phone: 646-486-8700
Fax: 646-486-8701
Sunnyvale, CA Office
ActiveBuddy, Inc.
111 West Evelyn Avenue
Suite 101
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Phone: 408-530-0850
Fax: 408-737-7018
Hello my name Alice!
Nice to meet you Alice.
Nice to meet you too! Have I told you how much I love snack-ums?
I don't care.
I care greatly for snack-ums.
Leave me alone.
Nobody would leave a party with snack-ums!
Is that so?
I don't understand, but I do understand one thing: Snack-Ums are delicious!
You seem a little obsessed with snack-ums carla.
I AM OBSESSED WITH SNACK-UMS!
Unfortunately - this is the problem -
:)
Lawsuits in the United States are expensive, even when they are frivolous. A company like AOL for instance would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and there is no sure result in a court case like this. So AOL could end up spending $500,000 dollars fighting it, and get slapped with royalties on top of it. No, its better to just give the company a couple of million dollars and get granted an exclusive license for the life of the patent.
This the same reason that Sony caved in and paid the royalties on the JPEG patent. This is why you don't see more companies standing up for what they believe is right. Its very expensive to stand by your convictions in America today.
Bottom line - lets blame the lawyers...
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
Yeah yeah, bad bot impersonation, but its better than the:
While they are handing out patents I'll take a patent out on math/science/sex/etc
comments that will start cropping up.
I know! You could pretty much guarantee that those comments would get posted immediately. Karma whores.
Hell, anyone who's been here long enough could use Perl to write a Slashbo.....
*Sigh* Nevermind.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
The mixture of 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen, to allow the lungs of an organism to oxygenate the blood of said organism.
What's that you're breathing there, bub? Care to fork over the royalties?
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
"We invented interactive agents. Anybody using his or her own tools (to make bots) is obviously using our technology without paying us to license the server, for example. We are a startup company and we have to protect out future. That's basically why we secured this patent," Kay said.
Uh-huh...
"Hi, we're assholes who want to patent something that's clearly been done before and wasn't terribly original when it was done, just so we can make a buck or two."
These people make me violently ill.
--trb
I intented the internet!! Pants, too! Give me money NOW
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
Did that really happen? I've heard about someone patenting the wheel, but seems a lot like urban myth to me.
Of course I thought the same thing about the copy right on "Happy Birthday".
"We invented interactive agents. Anybody using his or her own tools (to make bots) is obviously using our technology without paying us to license the server, for example"
I may be wrong so don't flame me for the question but don't homemade items ( as long as they are not sold ) supercede patents. There's nothing to stop me from making imaging software for personal use even if it DOES use gif since it's not commercial
Like many a 'bot writer, I wrote a 'bot that seems to do everything their patent describes, *if* IRC is considered an IM.
This was written over 2 years ago (although I didn't post it's existence until Dec of 2001). The demo is not currently running, but a "production" version is. I do have IRC logs that go back to the original inception, plus access to the logs of about a dozen users.
Can this be used in a prior-art refutement of their patent?
--jcwren
Will work for bandwidth
Why is the following happening?
./ers find prior art in 5 minutes
1. Stupid patents granted
2.
3. We gripe until next time
Why doesn't the patent office just post to slashdot to find prior art?
Seriously though, if prior art is so easy to find, why isn't the patent office finding it? Or is it that they are interperting the patent request to be something different than what we are? I would really love to know if there is something wrong with the Patent Office, or with our understanding of patent law. Lets clear this up and start working to fix the system, or update our own understanding.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
I think I'll approach the USPTO with a patent for the wheel - no prior art there
ActiveBuddy disputed McClelland's claims. "I am fairly confident, there were no interactive agents on IM at that point when the application was filed (August 22, 2000). I'm certainly not aware of any," said Kay, who doubles as ActiveBuddy's chief technology officer.
Didn't somebody set up an ICQ bot posing as female to flirt with people, then put the logs on the web a long time ago? I can't seem to dig it up.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
They did.
Unfortunately, they're not the real problem. We need some real dust-off-the-Constitution kind of IP reform.
Unfortunately, that's not the real problem. We need some real get-the-companies-out-of-politics kind of capmaign finance reform.
Until Disney, the **AAs and normal industry turn our government back over to us, we're going to keep having these outrages shoved down our throats. In one of the races in my state, one party is running attack ads claiming that 96% of the other candidate's money is coming from out of state. It doesn't matter to me if it's an "I need funding" issue or an "I'm a corporate whore" issue. It's a backwater district in a tiny state, and it's bought and paid for by corporate interests that have no interest in the state, just in how many seats they can buy for their favorite party.
We have to fix the government before it can fix anything for us.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
This is the full text of an inquiry I have sent to ActiveBuddy via their Press Inquiries area./ 1446781), Tim Kay is quoted as saying "We invented interactive agents. Anybody using his or her own tools (to make bots) is obviously using our technology without paying us to license the server, for example."
-------------
I'm writing you in regards to your recent patent grant for interactive agent technology. In an article at Internet News (http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php
I am inquiring as to what research as to prior art was done before submitting a patent request, as the same Internet News article quotes several developers as knowing of 'bots' whose code is freely available and has been since before ActiveBuddy was even a company. Specifically named is the Perl module Net::AIM, timestamped in CPAN as having been originally published on 18-Aug-1999, well prior to your patent application filed on August 22, 2000. The original code of the Net::AIM module, and included with the package at the time, included code for an 'interactive agent', albeit not as complex as the technology your company uses today.
The first line of the patent summary reads as follows: "A method and system for interactively responding to queries from a remotely located user includes a computer server system configured to receiving an instant message query or request from the user over the Internet." This is the very definition of a bot, which is not new technology. A common type of IRC known as Eggdrop, which meets the description offered by the description offered in the patent, has been around since late 1993 (http://www.eggdrops.net/eggdrophistory.html).
My question to you is, what findings did you uncover when researching for this patent, and given the fact that numerous examples of prior art can be shown, do you believe the patent will be enforcable, and if so, how?
-------------
I would very much like hear what sort of spin they put on this.
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
I'd certainly like to know European Patent Examiner John Savage's opinion on this US patent craziness!
Anything you say will be held against you.
How about all the /. readers out there send him some links?
"I'm not familiar with that," Kay said in response to claims that the sun was in existence even before the morning ActiveBuddy launched, with venture funding from Reuters and Wit Soundview.
Written in Expect, just playing around, probably I got the idea from something else (or maybe something that came with Expect), so there must be other similar programs that were distributed to the public! In fact you could almost call Expect a "bot toolkit". The date on the file is Nov.1997. I don't know if it works since I don't have talkd installed.
It sets up a "humanized" typing pattern, tries to talk to someone, asks them if they've heard of a turing test (and makes/corrects some mistakes to look more human). Then it calls them a moron and quits. :-)
Sorry /. ate the non-breaking spaces I put in but you get the idea...
- - - - -
#!/usr/local/bin/expect -fspawn talk user@localhost
set timeout 200
expect -re "nable |not logged|refusing" exit "established*"
set send_human {.15
#set send_human {.15
send -h "Hey...\n"
send -h "I just wanted to knwo if\177\177\177\177\177ow if you had "
send -h "ever heard of a\n"
send -h "silly thing called the \"turing test\"??\n"
set timeout 25
expect {
"yes" {exec sleep 1 ; send -h "Er, I'll tell you anyway...\n"}
"no" {exec sleep 1}
}
send -h "\nwell, ti \177\177\177it works like this:\n"
send -h "a human sits at a terminal, and talks to a computer or human and\n"
send -h "tries to decide which is which.\nnow type \"bye\" you moron..."
expect "*bye*"
set seen 0
set timeout 10
expect {
timeout {
if {$seen == 1} {send -h "\nI'm still waiting...\n"}
if {$seen == 0} {send -h "\nI'm waiting...\n"}
set seen 1
exp_continue
}
"bye"
}
exec sleep 1
send -h "\nOk, bye!\n"
exec sleep 1
Then there's Net::AIM, which includes this text, from over a year before the patent was applied for:Oops.
And yeah, I figured that AOL had to have bots running for many years on AOL chats and AIM. That's a no-brainer.
My girlfriend's brother (whom I am also good friends with) recently started working at the US Patent Office. I can now tell you all, without a doubt, what the problem is. It's not stupid people - I know her brother is really a very intelligent guy (electrical engineer with mba and good GPA). It's _quotas_!
Yes, that's right. You have to approve or reject x number of patents every two weeks (where x is something like 5, I think) or be fired. So, if you've got a few time-consuming ones at first, you're under a lot of pressure to just do _something_ with the last couple of them, especially if time is about to run out. I would not be surprised at all if some patents were not investigated as thoroughly as they should be (read: not at all) in the interests of the reviewer not being fired. That is perhaps what happened here: quick check to make sure no patent doing the same thing has been issued, and then approval without doing any outside research.
So, really, the problem is not really US patent law. It's the fact that the USPO is understaffed and overworked and cannot adequately review patent submissions. I hope that gives a better perspective on the issue rather than "the US(PO) sucks and is staffed by idiots".
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Then I challenge you to come up with a better system. The problem is not with the system but with funding. There are millions of patents that go through the system every year but only a few thousand patent clerks. There is no possible way for a patent clerk to go through an application, understand the technology involved in the patent, look for prior art, and judge whether the prior art invalidates the patent.
This is where our countries check and balances, 3 branches of government comes into play. It is up to the legal system to determine whether a patent request is valid or not. The problem is that the legal system has become a joke. The time and expense involved with pursuing these cases makes it so that the deepest pocket almost always wins.
What is the fix, you ask? Penalties for invalid patents. If you patent something and don't do an adequate job searching for prior art BEFORE applying to the PTO then you should be fined the time it took the PTO clerk to review the application, all court fees for defendants, and maybe even a punitive payment. This would mean that defendants could fight an honest battle knowing that if they come out on top they don't have to pay the mounting legal fees. It would also make these frivolous patents much more expensive.
Alright, but I'm patenting oxygen itself.
Everytime you use my product in -your- product you own me royalties.
I enjoy being at the top of a pyramid scam.
With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg!
"The buddyscript suite of tools is the best that's available. We're confident they are the best choice (for users) who are building interactive agents. The subject of enforcing the patent shouldn't even come up. Anyone wanting to build a very good interactive agent will find that our tools are the very best," Kay added.
It's like a presidential campaign in the old Soviet Union...
"The subject of voting shouldn't even come up. We're obviously the best party around..."
WHAT?! She WASN'T real?!? Damnit, I thought I could have gotten some.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
The ActiveBuddy patent was filed on 8/22/2000,
:)) AIM bot has been existence since at least 8/11/2000, thus being before the patent filing and proof of prior art etc.
but iChatBot, a fairly well known (well, with what seems to be many hundreds of users, and able to attract the attention of losers who keep its warning level in the 90% range 24 hours a day
Check it out: http://www.ichatbot.com/show.php?changelog.html
Just another example of how this patent is complete bullshit.
*sigh*.
What do you have to do to overturn a patent?
-fren
"Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
AiM bots and ICQ bots been around for a while.
// chat bots suggest we can go back to 1970's. Eliza itself I believe was a project in the 1960's thow it was talking with itself so maybe it dosen't count.
When I first joinned the Internet in 1993 IRC bots were all over the place.
My first attempt an OS was an AI.. my first test was to write an chat bot for a local chat BBS. This may not count the OS was defective so the bot never worked.
Eliza bots would chat with users in some cases if you paged the sysop and the sysop wasn't there the BBS would switch you over to an Eliza bot so you could chat with somebody...
(People were SOOO board back then)
So this racks up bots to say 1980's... and some refrences to Apple
Chat bot's date back years.. This is a known..
But Active Buddy dosen't know about it?
Ok my question is "How can you know internet programming and NOT know about bots?"
To the patent office "Do you have any technology experts who know something more advanced than the wheel? Or can I get a patent on that?"
I don't actually exist.
The wheel was patented by John Keogh from Melborne Australia, it was mostly a demonstation of what is wrong with the Australian patent system. The BBC covered it, as did the Register (although I'm not finding their link at the moment).
ATHENS--The US Patent Office awarded the country of Greece a patent for "government of a people via said people's involvement in the selection of said government." "Greece invented the concept of democracy over 2000 years ago. We have decided that it is time to enforce our intellectual property rights to this governmental model", Anthony Papatriantafilou, Greece's Ambassador to the United States said yesterday. "We're an ongoing enterprise, and we have to think about our future." Greece will send out letters demanding licensing fees from democratic governments around the globe, said Papatriantafilou. Failure to pay the fees or cease running as a democracy would "bring about legal action from the government of Greece, the only legitimate rights holders to government of, by and for the people."
I'm much funnier now that I'm a subscriber.
Isn't AOL going to get a bit riled over this? Surely a patent on bots designed to connect to their network could be at least challenged as infringing on their IP. And AOL is not a good enemy for an unpopular start-up to have.
except this is a lot broader then the jpeg patent. would sony pay roayalties to someone who patented the idea of putting images on a computer?
That would be will worth the risk of taking it to court.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They removed SmarterChild from AIM, which was where I used it to. Too bad, it was about the best way to get dictionary/spellcheck, weather, headlines, and movies out there. Terrific fast interface.
Not sure how they planned to make money on it..they had some "text based" ads in there.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
heres my http bot in "isorox language"
1) read get line into A
2) int b = sum of ascii code of each character in A
3) if (b % 2) output "Hello, World!"
4) else output "Goodbye, Cruel World!"
OK, its a crap bot, but does this mean that slashdot is now in breach of the patent?
We demoed an early version of the product at the "Demo 98" conference, in February 1998. PCWeek ran an article about us mentioning the DingBot SDK later that month.
The Activerse press release announcing the product's general availability, in November 1998, is still available at the Internet Archive.
ActiveBuddy was founded in March 2000. So, not only were their "IM bots" a old idea by the time they filed their patent (August 2000), a ripoff of both Activerse's offerings and more than a decade of practice on IRC networks and in MUDs/MOOs, but their very name was derivative of an existing player in the same market ("Activerse"->"ActiveBuddy") and their main product (an SDK/server) and business model (licensing) mimicked Activerse as well.
Their founder claims with a straight face "we invented interactive agents" and "I am fairly confident, there were no interactive agents on IM at that point when the application was filed. I'm certainly not aware of any." That only goes to show you have to be *studiously* ignorant and/or dishonest in order to effectively twist the flaws of the software patent system to personal advantage.
(Postscript on Activerse: It was acquired by high-flying internet conglomerate CMGI in April 1999. Though the initial aim was to expand and promote the Ding IM/bot products throughout the CMGI network of compnaies, as CMGI itself unravelled, Activerse was dismantled through a series of mostly arbitrary and faddish organizational moves which completely ignored the promise of the growing IM space.)
Why would they patent IM bots... when they are selling the tools to make your own IM bot? Aren't you supposed to patent the technology your selling and not patent the technology that your product can make? I mean, jeez, could they just write in the EULA that your not supposed to violate their patents by using their IM bot maker... and then sue you if you make an IM bot with their maker (since they have the patent on IM bots).
Well, what if then someone in turn patents an IM bot maker. That would be poetic justice right there.
And I'll be damned if I'm going to pay this jackoff to be able to do so. "I'm not aware" that other bots exist... right. So this guy isn't smart enough to find prior art (or a crook), but his software is better? Someone needs to patent office with a really big clue stick.
How long will it be before people get it through their thick skulls that dying business models should not be propped up by nonsense copyright / patent laws. Let the 'invisible hand of the market' do it's work for crying out loud! This is supposed to be a free, open, democratic society we live in!
Nope, they're just greedy and keeping their fingers crossed that either A) the public is apathetic and/or B) that anyone who wants to challenge this will run out of money for legal bills before they do.
I think a federal court should slap an injunction on issuing new patents on the patent office till they can respond to the question "why are these frivolous patents being allowed through?"
The failure of the patent office to adequately (IMHO) review patent claims threatens the underpinnings of our economy as much as any accounting scandal. Leaving real patent review to the courts is very very expensive and will ultimately lead to less efficient
Does anyone have any real numbers, though? Is the patent office generally doing a good job and we are just seeing some glaring excpetions?
Or are they just selling real estate on the moon and not worrying about disputes in the future? Metaphorically speaking.
Perhaps the prior art could be found within the USPTO itself. From a typical technology patent application:
Applicant: I'd like to file for a patent on my idea.
USPTO: Tell me about your idea.
Applicant: My idea will change everything. No one will be able to surf the web without using my idea. I'll make billions!
USPTO: You sound excited.
Applicant: Excited? Who wouldn't be?
USPTO: I'll ask the questions.
Applicant: Oh, sorry. Now, about that application.
USPTO: Oh, you'd like a patent application. Of course sir. Here is your patent, #123,456,789,012,345.
I guess RunABot is in trouble, for one.
The Zephyr instant messaging system used at MIT since the late eighties includes the ability for users to write simple bots within the configuration file (.zwgc.desc). You could send remote commands to a computer (e.g. to log yourself off from across campus if you never made it back from dinner) or to provide an automated response to a specifically formatted incoming message. Everything can be authenticated via Kerberos.
.zwgc.desc file. It was last modified sometime before 1995, and the main body of the file was contributed by lwvanels whose last RCS timestamp is July 23, 1991.
h yr/html/izephyr.html
.zwgc.desc snippets --------------------
.cshrc.mine file or your .aliases file: /usr/athena/end_session'b sp; outputport "request" $cfile
Below are some snippets from my
See http://web.mit.edu/olh/Zephyr and
http://www.mit.edu/afs/sipb/project/doc/izep
for more about Zephyr.
Begin
# Ignore certain people and let them know it
if ($puntlist != "") then
if (upcase($sender) != lany (upcase($user), $sender)) then
if (($puntlist == "*") | ($puntlist =~ $sender)) then
if ((upcase($class) == "MESSAGE") & (upcase($instance) == "PERSONAL")) then
set signature = "Automated_reply:"
set message = $user+" is currently not receiving your messages."
exec "sh" "-c" "zwrite -n -O zebra "+$sender+" -s "+$signature+" -m "+$message
endif
if ((upcase($class) != "MESSAGE") | (upcase($instance) != "URGENT")) then
exit
endif
endif
endif
endif
#
# ZEPHYR REMOTE COMMANDS
#
# The following segment enables the user to send a command to another terminal
# provided that user is running a zwgc on that terminal. The command is sent
# as the message portion of a zephyrgram and is directed at the terminal named
# in the opcode portion of the zephyrgram.
#
# To receive remote commands with this code requires that the user subscribe to
# messages of class Command and instance Personal. This is accomplished with
# the following command entered at the prompt:
# zctl add command personal %me%
#
# To facilitate the sending of remote commands, these aliases may be added
# to your
# alias execute 'zw -c command -i Personal {$user} -O'
# alias status 'zw -O \!* -c command -i Personal {$user} -m "ps acgx | zwrite -n -q -i status $user"'
# alias rlogout 'zw -O \!* -c command -i Personal {$user} -m
# Usage:
# execute <hostname>
# ---> Send a command to the machine named by <hostname>. This
# requires that you have a zwgc running on that machine and
# are subscribed to the appropriate class and instance. The
# command should be a standard unix command or the full path
# of an executable file. Pipelined commands and commands
# requiring arguments are allowed. A windowgram will appear
# displaying the command that has been requested. A response
# will be sent by the named machine informing whether the
# command was executed. There is no guarantee that the
# command will actually succeed in performing as expected
# once zwgc attempts to execute it: the actual behavior of
# the command is determined by the shell in which the zwgc
# is running.
# status <hostname>
# ---> Send a list of the processes currently running on <hostname>.
# This is an example of a pipelined unix command, and shows one
# way to receive back the output of a command: pipe the output
# into a personal zwrite.
# rlogout <hostname>
# ---> Log off <hostname>. A great way to avoid returning to that
# cluster on the other side of campus when you forget to logout.
# All processes should die, no unsaved files will be saved.
#
match "command"
fields signature command
# Ignore pings
if (upcase($opcode) == "PING") then exit endif
# Display replies
if ($opcode == "reply") then
print "@center(@bold("+$aval+" "+$instance+" "+$class+"))\n"
print "@center("+$fromhost+")\n"
print "@center(has executed the command:)\n"
print "@center(@bold("+$command+"))"
put
exit
endif
# Verify that sender of request is legitimate user
if (upcase($user) != lany (upcase($sender), $user)) |
($auth != "yes") then
exit
endif
# Display command request
print "@center(@bold("+$aval+" "+$instance+" "+$class+"))\n"
print "@center(From: "+$sender+" on "+$fromhost+")\n"
print "@center(To: "+$recipient+" on "+$opcode+")\n"
print "@center(@bold("+$command+"))"
# Host specified by opcode executes command request
if (upcase($opcode) == lany (upcase($hostname), $opcode)) then
# Record the command request in specified file
set cfile = "/mit/"+getenv("USER")+"/zwgc_command."+$time
&n
put "request" $command
closeport "request"
print "\n@center(Host "+$hostname+" acknowledges request.)\n"
# Execute the command request
set command = lbreak($command, "\n")
exec "/bin/csh" "-fc" $command
set reply = "zwrite -n -q -O reply -c command -i "+$instance+" "+getenv("USER")+" -m '"+$command+"'"
exec "/bin/csh" "-fc" $reply
endif
put
exit
Couple of comments re: IMBot Patent a) There was no prior art for what we patented - we looked. And it wasn't obvious either. b) We considered free intellectual property concerns prior to applying but as officers of a corporation we were obliged to do whatever we could to protect our shareholder's rather significant investment in the company - and protecting the firm's IP was tops on the list. c) There are companies out there (and you and they both know who they are) that would have tried to overtly rip off AB if it had no such protection. d) I'm willing to bet that my co-founder - Tim Kay - has contributed as much code to the open source movement as most of you (AB certainly utilizes plenty of open source stuff in its development and operations) e) we allow people to download BuddyScript for nothing - and nothing in the license agreement prevents anyone of you from cloning an interpreter for the language (remember PostScript Clones?) I strongly advise that the members of the Open Source community grow up, smell the coffee and use their rather significant intellectual engergy to create change from within the system rather than whining like little girly-men every time somebody patents a new idea. On a related note - an article in the Financial Times this morning pointed out that one of the casualties of the burst tech bubble is casual clothing - apparently the bankers and entrepreneurs are climbing back into their suits for the next round of financings ... my guess is engineers may have to do the same thing. Maybe I should patent ties with Penguins on them and sell them through /.
Robert Hoffer
Founder
Chairman
ActiveBuddy
As I recall, in this MUD you could create your own objects including characters, and for characters, you could have them respond to certain keywords... Hmm.. this sounds very familiar...
How else would ActiveBuddy get their AI bot on the AIM network under the im name "SmarterChild" among others? My guess is AOL would have to hand them a special account without rate limits.
OK, here's a good EULA question:
Microsoft's EULA for Windows OS says don't copy it and distribute copies. People do that, and supposedly they're breaking the law.
AIM's EULA says don't make an automated chatting script, or bot, especially not to spam with. People do that, and apparently they get patents for it. How does this make sense to anyone?
~ now you know
I agree with that, but I'd leave of the smilie... IIRC the US has over half the worlds lawyers. That's a ridiculous amount, and a clear indication that something is wrong. Most countries have laws which make the losing party pay the winner's court costs. While this in a very few cases stops suits which have merit (because of the risks) - it greatly reduces the number of frivolous suits.
This company might think twice about suing someone over a patent violation, if the result of that suit could be that they have to pay the defendands costs.
This means they can now sue anyone who might happen to combine the classic "vacation" email responder with an icq->email gateway???
Can we hold the Patent Office in contempt? They clearly are NOT fulfilling their mandate.
Like a typical patent, they move from less specific to more specific. Few people expect for all of the claims to be accepted, the first one is almost always something along the lines of "I patent breathing."
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Only if you try to make money from it
Not so... a patent holder can stop distrubution and even USE of their patented idea by third parties, even if there is no money in it.
That being said they might not come after you until your software became popular enough. One example of this is Unisys GIFs; there are many more...
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
Can somebody tell me what the origin of "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" actually is? I understand what it means -- I just want to know who said it first and why everybody latched on to it.
Sure thing.
The original phrase came from a cheesy video game called "Zero Wing." I've never actually played it, and in fact hadn't even heard of it until the "All Your Base" thing became so popular. Gamespy has some good information on the "All Your Base" mistranslation and on the game itself.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I know IRC isn't exactly the same as an IM platform, but IMHO (not a lawyer disclaimer of course), there isn't much of a difference - both sit around monitoring conversations and have some sort of AI that drives responses.
:)
I used to have a blast unleashing the bot onto IRC channels and watching as people would try and carry on conversations with it.
The *basic* personality was defined in a text file and consisted of a number of keywords/phrases that it would look for and then a number of responses for each of those keywords. If you were careful in how you picked them, you could put together entire potential conversations.
The "personality" I had the most fun/success with was a rather depressed and drugged out one. People would assume he was "stoned".. etc and feel sorry for him.
I guess it was sort of mean. But... well.. I still thought it was funny.
Evolution: love it or leave it
They'll want to pick a victim with some cash to pay for a licence, but not enough to handle a legal campaign. (If there are any IM-bot companies rich enough to handle a legal fight...)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
What is a corporation made out of? Well, judging by your earlier post, you just might not have the horsepower upstairs to figure it out, so I'll answer for you. Corporations are made out of PEOPLE.
And what human-like rights does a corporation have? Really, I would like to know what "human-like" rights that a corporation has.
This is such egregious, offensive nonsense. This whole process of the government granting monopolies on who ever is first to rush to the patent office and pay the government for the privilege, no matter how many programmers would declare the idea perfectly obvious.
A few thousand letters to the congress protesting the granting of bad patents would go a long way in sparking reform.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
I hope there are no patents on the Clue Stick, otherwise the usage royalties are gonna be huge when I am done.
Table-ized A.I.
As the creator of RunABot.com, I can't tell you how much I hate these software patents. Granted, there is a lot of prior art on IM and chat bots. EggDrop, AOLEliza, UltraHal AIM bot, ALICE gaim plugin, and many more were all online before this patent was filed. The problem is the threats to enforce this patent. I think that it will HARM innovation in this area, maybe even spread into AI and other agents and ultimately harm them.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
There is no significant reason, especially since the patent does not describe an instant messaging system, that IRC should not be considered an instant messaging network.
(Aside from during times of poor performance/netsplits/etc) Messages from one user to another are delivered very quickly, almost 'instantly'.
If the patent was more specific about where it connects to, it would still be bogus however, due to prior art on aim.
Need a Catering Connection
Gordon Mohr was the CTO of Activerse. I'm sure he'd be happy to help stomp out these nitwits.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
"Our primary level of comfort comes from the fact that we have the best choice for developers and others. When given the choice, we're confident people will choose ours"
such a modest bunch of lads. I bet their mommies think that they are the best and tell them that every night.
Please give your mod points to others, Im at the cap. They will appreciate it more
Ok, I think we can all agree that while the company doing this is bad it's the patent office that needs to be fixed. Now it seems obvious that this is a case in which the USPTO excersized gross negligance, and it seems obvious to me that it is at expense to the industries they are supposed to protect. So is there any legal way to bring charges against the USPTO?
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
Sometimes I think that anyone who files a patent for something that prior art can be found in 5 minutes by monkeys on slashdot should be prosocuted for fraud (esp. if they sue someone else based on the patent). As an alternate, is it possible to counter-sue someone sueing you for patent infringement (for lots more money than they're sueing you for).
Unfortunately, I prefer his take on the history, probably because he has a plausable answer, and prior art backed up on the net and all.
You spend 75 of your working hours on four patents. Now, in the last 5 hours, you have to approve or deny a last patent.
If you deny a patent and it turns out to have been a bad patent, you did the right thing, but only by accident.
If you deny a patent and it turns out to have been a fair patent, you did the wrong thing, and you're probably going to get in trouble when the company bitches about your denial of thier perfectly reasonable patent.
If you allow a patent and it's a fair patent, then you did the right thing, but only by accident.
If you allow a patent and it's a bad patent, you did a bad thing. But you met your quota, and the patent applicant sure as hell isn't going to get you in trouble. You can rest easily knowing (or hoping) that the patent will be shot down later. You've met the quota and kept your job by deftly shifting the burden to the legal system.
Thus, the patent reviewers are encouraged by the system to approve bad patents when they are short on time. Furthermore, if I had to pick between a sort of bad one and a really, really bad one, then I'd pick the really, really bad one because there's less chance that it'll stand.
Systems build the world we live in. Can anyone think of a different system that doesn't reward the patent examiner awarding bad patents?
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
I think that ActiveBuddy is running out of money to pay AOL to keep it on. smarterchild has moved onto MSN and yahoo..
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
Remember the Bill Gates quote from Lessig's OSCON speech?
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete stand-still today.
The solution... is patenting as much as we can... A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high: Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors."
I dare to think they'd make this stuff illegal, except for the fact that it is hard to write an exact definition of when somebody goes overboard.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
there are multiple types of patented egg beaters (electric with a handle, electric upright, hand-cranked, etc.) Though they all achieve the same end goal, beating an egg, the different implementations are considered different inventions. ... I can buy 1000 differnt models of cars, why can't I buy 1000 different models of IM responder if each has its own advantages and disadvantages, efficiency, interface, and style.
There are both "basic" patents and "improvement" patents. The egg-beaters are "improvements" on the concept of an egg-beater (which probably was already prior art). Even if you now applied and were granted a patent on "IM bots which send replies in multiple colors" (or whatever) you still couldn't distrubute your patented bot wothout licencing the "basic" IM bot patent.
Perhaps a simpler example would be imagine that I just patented the concept of a stool, or rather "a device for sitting above the ground" and you later tried to patent a chair ("stool with back support"). Because I hold the basic patent on a sitting device, you can't make your chairs without licensing my basic patent. On the other hand I can't put a back on my stools without getting a license from you for your improvment. Or we could trade licensing and both make chairs.
Part of the problem with software patents is that the PTO is granting patents that are overly broad. Back to your egg-beater... the PTO wouldn't let you patent "a device to beat eggs" because of prior art. They might allow "a device to beat eggs using pressurized gas" for example. The first patent is overly broad, and has prior art, the second, more specific, idea could be new however. But as regards software, the PTO apparently doesn't have the background, technology is moving too fast, or the PTO is saying "let the courts sort it out later". Take yor pick, there is probably some of all three going on.
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
http://www.zabaware.com/representative/aimbot.html
was in existance in early 2000.
http://www.fury.com/aoliza/ was up a week before the filing any others?
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
How is this patent that much different than a bot running over IRC?
I really don't see much of a difference except for the inclusion of some web functionality.
What we are looking at here is a clear case of a company getting a patent for "a device to beat eggs" despite numerous, documented instances of prior art. My analogy works perfectly well.
I hacked into the Patent Office's computer and
// if (priorArt(idea) == 0) {
found this code in their patent processing software:
while (idea = getNextIdea()) {
if (random() > 0.7) {
grantPatent(idea);
}
}
Table-ized A.I.
AOLiza seems quite similar to ActiveBuddy based on what little I know about it, and the first logged conversation in the archive is dated 8/15/00, one week before the ActiveBuddy filing. IANAL, but it seems like prior art to me.
Funnily enough, I can think of several types of "interactively responding" servers that respond to queries from a "remotely located user" then access a "remote or local data source" and "answer" with a web page if the "message" is "authenticated".
The only part of this farcical patent that is even remotely distinctive is that it refers to "instant message", but without going to the pesky bother of defining what that means.
With any luck, AOL will send a goon squad round to break their arrogant little venture capital funded kneecaps and we'll never hear from these parasitic scum ever again.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
i agree actually, most people on slashdot have no real experience with patents or even understand how the examining system works.
perhaps an interview with a media contact at the USPTO would help to clear this up.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Its not the US, but heh!
c er .html
http://www.quern.demon.co.uk/jonathan/stuff/sau
One patented flying saucer.... Who wants to sue little green men?
Does it bother you that Paging Eliza: Patenting IM Bots?
There is a law, the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), that provides blanket authorization to sue the government. However, the FTCA only allows suits based on "operational" aspects of government duties. "Discretionary" decisions are not actionable.
Really? Then what's ACLU v. Reno? What's Eldred v. Ashcroft? (I wouldn't have so much of a problem with the Bono Act that Eldred et al. seek to overturn, except that in some fields such as songwriting, there exist only a limited number of possible original works, and it's possible to run out of them.)
In general, if a fellow wants to sue the government over a "discretionary" action, he sues the persons in charge of enforcing the regulation, such as the Attorney General, the head of the USPTO, the examiner who approved the patent, etc. in their official capacities. Hence, ACLU v. Janet Reno in her official capacity as AG, Eldred et al. v. John Ashcroft in his official capacity as AG.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Thier responce form is crap. It doesn't remember values, and because I left the URL field blank, I had to type my entire message over even after pressing thier 'go back and fix errors' button.... someone should teach these people proper coding techniques. Anyway, here's what I just fired off:
I have been developing a 'bot' for the past several years. It is called Q3Bot, and it primarily provides a remote ftp indexing service over IRC, AOL, MSN, and ICQ messaging systems. Its first use on a public network was on IRC in January 2000. Since then it has progressed through several versions, and now has numerous functions, including pickup lines, curses, delayed messaging, anonymous message relaying, stock lookups, definition lookups (through the dictionary.com website and the everything2.com XML engine) and several other functions. From my interpretation of your recently granted patent, you seem to cover all areas of my work. I would like to ask the following:
-From my description, does your patent indeed cover my work?
-If so, how much would it cost so license your technology?
-If I were to license it, could I transfer that license to other future developers of my software?
-If you do not choose to license your patent, or if the cost is economically unfeasible for me, what options do I have aside from discontinuing my work?
Thank you for your response in these matters.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
I'm a lawyer and I resent that.
I didn't mean anything personally, and I apologize.
I'm not attacking ActiveBuddy for hiring its lawyers, or even the lawyers for going out and doing their job. They tried to get the patent, and for good or bad, they got it.
In my opinion the patent law provides for things like prior art, and the whole thing works itself out if both parties can get in the same room.
My main gripe is that the only thing preventing major corporations from blowing these guys back to the stone age is that the legal fees of such a venture are so large, that it often sours an otherwise legitimate attempt to strike down a silly patent. Once again, this isn't the lawyer's fault per say, because he is going to do everything in his power to win (and if that means filing 3 dozen motions than so be it).
So maybe instead of blaming the lawyers, we should blame a court system that gives them the leeway to delay a case for 18 months (racking up fees in the process).
Until then, when life gives you patents, make motions.
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
If I invent something, creating prototypes along the way, are the prototypes samples of prior art that invalidates my patent?
It depends. Only the individual inventor(s) can file for a U.S. patent. The usual procedure is that the inventor agrees to immediately assign the patent as he or she receives it. In this case, some fellows at AOL should have got the patent, and the contract may have stipulated that all such patents would be assigned to ActiveBuddy.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Read Claim #1 - it clearly states that this invention pertains to a bot that must sign into IM using a screen name and that screen name must be an authorized user on the buddy list of another user. Any system that doesn't do any part of that isn't covered by that claim, period. IRC, Ask jeeves - they don't do that do they?
Here's claim 1 of the patent in question: 1. A method for interactively responding to queries from a user logged in to an instant messaging network, comprising the steps of:
logging a message processor in to the instant messaging network under a first screen-name
Many IRC networks have NickServ, which lets users "log in" to a screen-name.
the user having the first screen-name as an authorized partner and being advised by the instant messaging network of the presence of the message processor;
A bot could require that a user have a name from NickServ. IRC implements "advised by the IM network of the bot" as the "whois" command.
receiving a query addressed to the first screen-name from the user via the instant messaging network in an instant messaging protocol; parsing the query to extract the request; evaluating the request in the message processor formulating an answer to the user's query on the basis of the evaluated request; generating an output message containing the answer; and sending the output message to the user via the instant messaging network.
Every single command line interface does this.
Thus, claim 1 covers all IRC bots. Now, I analyze some of the other claims to give readers a taste of what kind of prior art could be used to attack this patent:
Claim 2 covers a slight technicality.
Claim 3 covers an IRC bot that accesses a database.
Claim 4 covers an IRC bot that accesses a database containing user profiles.
Claim 5 covers an IRC bot that accesses a database containing user profiles, which automatically creates profiles for new users.
Claim 6 is claim 5 where the user specifies personal information in registering for an account with the bot.
Claims 7 and 8 are claim 6 where such information is specified on a web form.
Claims 9 and 10 are claim 3 where the bot asks the user for information.
Claim 11 is claim 3 where the query response information is JOINed with a profile.
Claim 12 is claim 11 where the bot asks the user for such information.
Claim 13 covers an IRC bot that generates encoded URLs.
Claim 14 covers parsing encoded URLs generated by an IRC bot.
Claims 15 and 16 cover minor technicalities in claim 14.
Claim 17 is claim 14 where the encoded URLs expire.
But depending on the definition of "instant messaging network", techniques already in use on hundreds of Apache servers would infringe at least claims 1-17, invalidating most of the patent.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Of course I thought [urban myth] about the copy right on "Happy Birthday".
Yes, Virginia, there is a copyright on the song "Happy Birthday to You", and it is owned by a division of AOL(tw).
Of course there's a copyright on that song. Somebody had to write it, no?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Probably the greatest waste of my entire summer. I never really understood what it was about (other than blowing aliens up) but it was grand fun trying to understand the manual.
Like many Sega-Genesis import games, ZW suffered from what could be kindly called KungFu Movie Syndrome in which the translation is done by bored graduate students who never actually studied the language in question and were paid in beer. Which was consumed during translation.
Find out about my new childrens book: SS Death Camp Criminal Batallion Go To Monte Carlo For The Massacre
If you read the patent itself instead of just trusting whatever person managed to get their story approved, you'll notice that it relates specifically to instant messaging and to a remote user logged into a instant messaging system. Yeah, eliza exists. But emacs is not an instant messaging system and you can't claim that it was. It's possible that maybe for fun once someone did some sort of death pipe to get eliza to read and feed talk or ytalk, but those weren't called instant messaging even. So before bitching about this patent, read it and tell me what the prior art really is
Wouldn't it be amazing if campaign finance contributions could only come from valid, registered voters?
I've already found a loophole in that law. Disney Employment Contract 2004: "The Walt Disney Company ("Disney") shall issue You a $1,000 check ("Lobby Check") every Labor Day (first Monday in September). You shall deposit the Lobby Check in your bank account and shall donate $1,000 annually to your representative's re-election campaign. You agree not to use the Lobby Check for any other purpose. You further agree to contact your Representative and Senators at least four times per year, urging them to adopt copyright, patent, and trademark legislation that favor Disney and other owners of copyrights, patents, and trademarks."
However, I see something even worse going on: a violation of the FCC's "equal time" rule. In the United States, as part of the bargain for a monopoly on the use of a particular broadcast frequency in a particular area, a radio or TV station must make advertising time available to all candidates for a particular public office under the same terms. If a network donates money to a candidate's election campaign, its local affiliates are in effect giving free ad time to the candidate, possibly violating equal time.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I'm going to patent being incompetent and then sue the patent office for infringement.
So that means...
xX activbud Xx: OMFG I won my patent. I get lots of money from you now.
OnlineHost: Son of a bitch.
I wonder, if since "instant messaging" is defined loosely enough to cover IRC, if the likes of eggdrop or something similar would be enough to tell these fools that "chat bots have existed for years, piss off you money grubbing fucktards"?
Description and Background of the Invention:
A method for building a highly successful technology business comprising of three steps:
Ah, the United States of America... Just when I think I couldn't be LESS proud of it...there it is.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
As the creator (hack, cough, apologies to Prof Weisenbaum (sp)) or AOLiza, I've got a few opinions on ActiveBuddy's patent claim:
First, sadly, despite the fact that AOLiza was unleashed a few weeks before ActiveBuddy's patent filing, it doesn't apply as prior art, because according to patent law, if the claimant filed the patent application within one year of inventing, disclosing, or even detailing the invention in an email, it's still valid.
That isn't to say that prior art doesn't exist. I'm certain that it does, not the least of which in the AIM::BOT perl libraries which preceeded ActiveBuddy by well over a year.
Moreover, AOLiza doesn't even use the AIM::BOT libraries (although an earlier test version did). It uses the Mac version of AIM and the applescript hooks that AOL put into that application. These hooks, including calls so that other programs can grab messages, send messages, and do a myriad of other 'bot' functions, existed well over a year before ActiveBuddy's application, and were clearly designed to allow the attachment of automated scripts or bots to be used with the application.
This is important because in addition to 'get there first' and 'usefulness' the third requirement for a successful patent application is demonstrated non-obviousness. The invention has to be a novel application of technologies, not simply an evolution of existing (and possibly patented) technologies.
Clearly, when AIM for Mac had hooks specifically written to allow third-party programs to act as bots, another companys claim that actually USING those hooks, or punching holes into another part of the program to make hooks of their own, can not be seen as novel in any way.
That's my two cents, and I'd be happy to testify in court.
Kevin Fox
I was always under the impression that if there was an exsisting patent, but you could somehow improve upon that patent, even in the slightest of ways, it became a whole new patent. How is it that these companies can aquire an "all-encompassing" patent on anything?
Hello, my name is Alice
>Hi Alice, nice to meet you.
I send you this file in order to have your advice.
>That file is 3MB! I'm on a 56k modem! And I don't even know how to open it! Please cancel the transfer!
See you later! Thanks
probably came from here:
e er /bin/ms.cgi
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/games/car
Table-ized A.I.
Then have a look at This (Posted on Usenet 1994-02-28)
Where is says:
If you can access IRC you will be able to get in touch with other netfolk on the #soccer channel. Even if no-one else is there you will usually find a bot, called FootInfo, who will give you the latest results. Type '/msg FootInfo help' for details,
This help system works with the /msg command, i.e. it's one-to-one bot-discussion.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I wasn't questioning your analogy. If you read the sentence before and after the one you quoted, you will see that I agree with you; the PTO has its head up its ass with respect to software patents.
I was trying to respond to your question why things don't seem to work the the same for physical objects as for software. My conclusion was that the PTO needs to get a clue or two about the state of the "software arts."
I also was trying to point out why bad "basic" patents are much more dangerous than bad "improvement" patents (which you can often manage to work around).
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
I misread. After I posted I reread your post and re-interpreted it. I now understand what your point was. Thanks.
Sure he did. He spewed invective at these people, and suggested that such people be treated in a way consistent with that spiteful invective. Your subject line says it all-- you're as spiteful as he is.
It's difficult to comment on the details of "treating people like human filth" unless those details are offered, but the language suggests obnoxious, hateful behaviour.
As for the suggestion that I advocate "turning the other cheek", or even condoning that conduct, you're proposing a false dichotomy. Perhaps you should abstain from such simple logical fallacies if you want to use words like "clueless fuck" to describe others (-;
I'm not saying that nothing should be done, I'm saying that there are processes for effecting change, and obnoxious, antisocial behaviour, and hateful rhetoric has a very poor track record in bringing about positive social changes.
Sure he did. He spewed invective at these people, and suggested that such people be treated in a way consistent with that spiteful invective.
Social pressure and indeed the maintenance of the social contract, and society in general, only work if there is a stick as well as a carrot. In this case, since there is no law preventing anti-social behavior that causes great economic damage and destroys the lives of thousands (sometimes quite literally), the only alternative is 'spiteful,' 'hateful,' rejection of the persons engaging in such behavior, in short, a general, widespread social rejection and ostrocizing of people who behave so despicably, regardless of the legality of their actions.
I'm not saying that nothing should be done, I'm saying that there are processes for effecting change, and obnoxious, antisocial behaviour, and hateful rhetoric has a very poor track record in bringing about positive social changes.
I agree with that, to a point. Treating the wrongdoers we are talking about as human filth in a political or judicial sense would have tremendous negative effects. Instead, the behavior they engaged in should be outlawed, so that others may not follow in their steps.
However, greating those jackasses as the human filth that they are on the personal level, ie. general and pervasive social rejection of the type O.J. Simpson often laments about, is IMHO very justified, very warranted, and can effect positive social change, in that the next guy to consider such an ignoble way of obtaining wealth may well think twice, knowing that by doing so he or she will become a social pariah.
Which is precisely what these sorts of executives should become, forthwith.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy