Slashdot Mirror
AOL Patents IM
ProgressiveCynic writes "CNet is reporting that AOL has recieved a patent on IM technologies. Specifically, any technology that provides "a network that allows multiple users to see when other users are present and then to communicate with them" is covered. While AOL was a leader in this space the patent was only filed in September 2002."
Dumbass software patents...
I seem to recall applications with names like chat and talk which allowed uses to communicate with anyone logged on at the same time. Do those not count as prior art because the users were all logged onto the same machine, and this patent covers multiple machines networked together? Do terminals hanging off a Vax or IBM mainframe constitute a "network"?
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
% finger <user>
% talk <user>
It's called IRC.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
While AOL was a leader in this space the patent was only filed in September 2002.
The article clearly states that the filing was done in 1997, and the patent was granted in Sept 200.
Usually when companies get a stupid unenforcable patent, they go after small helpless companies that can't afford to defend themselves in court. However, this time, AOL has made a mistake. Not only are they not able to prove this is a valid patent in court, any company they sue is likely to have the resources to defend themselves, not to mention these companie's IM software will predate the patent. I'd love to see what happened if AOL decided to try to sue Microsoft over Windows/MSN messenger. It'd be pretty funny.
I remember multi-line BBSs in the early 80's doing this. I think the Citadel systems could do this arround 84.
In rfc1459, dated May 1993, after 4 years of development. Although it is described as a "teleconferencing system", it does sound like it'd match:
A patent can be filed "post mortem", as long as the person or entity that files for it were the primary (first) inventor. For instance, if AOL can prove that they invented IM before, say, IRC (circa 1987), they have a case.
Only then.
There was a show on swedish television earlier tonight where all the nobel prize winners discussed among many other things intellectual property. One of them said that a patents worth amounts to how much money it will cost to challenge it in court. You probably dont have to be one of the nobel prize winners to realize that but its a good point.
What he didnt say was that it probably works the other way too. A patent left undefended (in case mirabilis and microsoft decides to ignore it) is not worth more than the paper it written on.
I hereby officially serve notice that I intend to file an application to patent the technology behind taking a shit. Everyone out there needs to pay up or just explode
Huh? How does this relate to AOL's patent? The patent is more then just sending a text message to another user.
-BrentI doubt that any of their work predates Bitnet or for that matter possibly "PHONE" on decnet. I remember passing messages back and forth on Bitnet long before Compuserve existed.
Of course.... if I remember correctly compuserve first ran on DEC 10's running.... TOPS? Long time ago. They certainly were not the first though.
You can't grep a dead tree.
I know you're all thinking it, but I'm filing it, and it'll always be (legally) my idea.
Doesn't the Guide define USP&TO as "a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes?"
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
Unfortunately people don't read the actual claims, rather they read the abstract or some other part of the patent and draw conclusions about what is covered from this material.
These conclusions are invariably wrong. What a patent covers is described in the claims, and nowhere else. If you don't read the claim, you don't have a clue as to what a patent covers.
Reading the actual claim in this case, it is quite clear that AOL's patent is not affected by prior art such as BBSs chat systems that don't require a communications network. Nor is functionality like Apple's broadcast because the users are tied to specific machines. IRC also relavant as it does not maintain a list of users that you are interested in talking to, an notify you when they go online.
Following is Claim 1, what AOL actually has a patent on:
What is claimed is:
1. A communications system comprising:
a communications network;
a multiplicity of communications terminals which are connectable to said communications network and which can be employed concurrently by multiple seeking users and multiple sought users to communicate via said communications network, wherein each user is identified independently of a given communications terminal address by a unique identification code predefined for said user, which code is independent of which of said multiplicity of communications terminals that user is employing;
a monitor operative to monitor whether or not a user is connected to said communications network; and
an annunciator operative to annunciate to a seeking user, currently connected to said communications network via any of said multiplicity of communications terminals, network connection status information relating to other users who are in a list of sought users which list includes identification indicia of the sought users, which list is defined by and sent by said seeking user without using verbal requests, and for providing to said seeking user the current network address currently assigned to each of said other users for that other user's current connection to said communications network;
a user communication selector enabling the seeking user to establish communication with at least one sought user on said list.
I will admit that one of virtues is sarcasm, in this case I am completely serious. My last comments on the instant messaging subject have probably already been archived, but those that know me know that I believe in strong intellectual property rights especially in the Instant Messaging realm.
I don't see how you could claim I was ignorant, just because AOL got a patent the rightfully deserved.
Ok, I did have some sarcasm. Sort of. AOL didn't file the patent, they paid $2xx million dollars for it. But I still don't have any problem with them having or enforcing it.
-BrentI've got who and rusers installed on my linux client. Now where's the network that who/rusers provides? Oh wait, it doesn't technically provide a network. I think that AOL has this patent clean.
-Brent