Slashdot Mirror
MailBlocks sues Earthlink over Anti-Spam Tech
goombah99 writes "Mailblocks is suing Earthlink , claiming patents on Challenge-Response as a means of blocking spam. Slashdot recently discussed Earthlink's plans to implement a challenge-response email system. The next day mailblocks filed suit to defend their turf in the $118 million dollar anti-spam solutions market. MSNBC has a complete discussion."
From this number, would I be wrong in assuming that there are many people besides spammers themselves who have no problem at all with spam remaining legislation-free? I had no idea anti-spam was such a lucrative business, and I suspect many others hadn't either.
If I could make this sig kill you, I would.
I know that challenge response has been around longer than thatPRIOR ART.
And challenging Earthlink is a bit foolish. All Earthlink needs to do is come up with the hundreds of thousands of examples of Challenge-Response systems in use as early as 1995 in order to verify an actual person was on the other side.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
challenge-reply is a VERY half-baked idea.
How so?
It seems like a great solution to me (coupled with a whitelist).
I'd put all my friends on the whitelist. When anyone not on that list emails me for the first time, they get an automated message back telling them how to respond. If they do this, the message gets through and they go on my whitelist. If not, they have already been informed that their message will not reach me.
How is this half-baked!?
Life is too short to proofread.
Spam filtering companies are proliferating at a rate almost akin to the growth of spam itself, and not all of them are going to survive.
Remember when there was a similar growth in companies delivering anti-virus solutions? Remember when several of them were caught propogating viruses?
Given how little it costs to Spam - especially if you're willing to accept a response rate of ZERO - I wonder how long it will be before some of these companies start hiring people to send out spam; spam tailored so that the anti-spam company has patented the most feasible defense!
Help make virtual black mail legal.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
This exactly what's wrong with corporate America (a.k.a. the "legal system") Rather than willingly share technology and ideas, people hoarde whatever they can in the hopes of becoming the next overnight Joe Millionaire. The problem is, the success of the one in no way benefits the many. In fact, the contrary is true- this sort of crap hurts the industry more than anything. Meanwhile consumers are complaining to their providors, threatening to take their business elsewhere, crippling an already painful market. If people weren't so damn selfish, and freely shared concepts and ideas (e.g. Open Source), without the need to excessively profit, imagine where technology would be.
How so?
Well, try reading the top rated comments in the last Earthlink-does-challenge-reply business slashdot story. A few of the ideas that occured to me(with varying degrees of seriousness/risk/whatever):
Please help metamoderate.
So now somebody can patent a spam-blocking technique, then bombard you with spam which you can't legally stop because they have patented spam blocking. Then a virus creator will patent virus detection and removal, so you can't legally eliminate their viruses. And they can do the same thing with ad blocking, firewalls, and the list goes on.
The evils brought on society by software patents far outweigh the good brought by the 1% of useful software patents.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
DDOS against whoever's name happens to be in the From line of a spam
So, a patent can tell a company to stop doing something even if they develop it themselves?
:)
I'm curious.
If you patent A, then I come up with A on my own time, for use in my own company, you can still tell me to stop using it?
I mean, I guess Earthlink is advertising that they're going to be using a challenge/response system, but they're not selling it, are they? I don't understand how the patent system even applies here.
Someone help, my head hurts.
I think people like to paint all software patents with a broad brush. It's actually a bigger and broader scope. Work with me here:
"All patents related to software are evil"
The fear is that (and rightly so), the patent office doesn't have the tech knowhow to decide a valid patent or not. Mailblock wants to patent "challenge and response" email. To me that is plain silly. The concept of a challenge and response has existed long before email in regards to communications. Applying such a broad concept to email is nothing new and is only a matter of who got there first.
What SHOULD happen is that a company is granted a valid patent on METHOD. At least in regards to software. Let's take Adobe. What if they were tto be granted a patent on ALL graphics designs programs? It would kill competition in it's tracks. Gimp? nope. PSP? nope. MSPAINT? probably but only because MS would pay the license fee.
You see, in terms of software, the traditional patent model does not work. There aren't enough new ideas out there. The concept of a drawing is as old as caves and berry juice. You can patent YOUR style of pen but not the concept of a pen. What happens is that companies patent more than just THIER way of doing something. Software patents in the current form are diametrically opposed to competition and freemarket operation.
The rules need to be rewritten to take into account this new model. Things like lifetime of a patent on software needs to be rethought as well as the whole process of granting the patent. In the software world, things move too fast. Patent lifetimes are NECCESARY to ensure non-stagnation.
Take the drug market. The patent on the drug (chemical makeup not concept) is the motivation for R&D. Patents encourage companies to develop something to make a profit by guaranteeing those companies the ability to have exclusive profit from that R&D. But this only goes so far. You've got only a few years before the patent expires and anyone else can make a generic version. They can't call it the same thing you do, but the can sure as hell color the pill the same as you.
What now for a company? They must reinvest the money earned from the short term exclusive right of patent and develop a better version. Or something new all together. The company that trys to live on one product dies a quick death. Ever wonder why there are so many versions of sudaphedrine? Patents FORCE innovation. The rules are simple. You come up with something new (such as a drug to inhibit HIV) and you get exclusive right to it. But only for a while. After so many years, anyone can produce it. It's now up to you (the company) to make a bigger and better HIV blocker. You know the rules. Everyone has to play by the same ones. Because a patent is public (has to be or else how would anyone know if they might infringe), you get that exclusivity= bonus for making it public. Don't like that rule? Keep it as a trade secret. The rules are different there. Much more difficult to enforce.
Almost done.
People also link patents to copyrights which have become a bastardized version of what they were. The current Micky Mouse is much better (to some) than the Steamboat Willy '46 version. Copyright terms forced Disney to make a better Mickey Mouse. The problem now (as we all know) is that Disney and the other large lobbies have decided that they don't want to play by the same rules that put them where they are. They are most undoubtedly an enemy of the freemarket and capitalism.
Sorry for such a long rant. Copyrights and patents aren't a bad thing unless misused. This is the case with the Sonny Bono Act and most software patents.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
C/R technology is inconvenient and obsolete. I'm not even sure why Earthlink decided to implement such an obsolete approach that has the side effect of doubling the amount of emails related to spam.