Analyzing AT&T's Anti-Anti-Spam Patent

An anonymous reader writes "Dan Gillmor is reporting in his eJournal taken, in turn, from Gregory Aharonian: AT&T has apparently been awarded a patent for circumventing certain spam filters, thereby providing slimeball spammers with yet a bigger hammer!" The patent covers "A system and method for circumventing schemes that use duplication detection to detect and block unsolicited e-mail (spam.)", although it's unclear exactly what AT&T want it for.

Comments

Hey! Shortsighted people!

[KFury]

Has it occured to anyone that by patenting an anti-anti-spam technique, AT&T can legally forbid spammers from using that technique?'

Yay AT&T. I applaud you.

Re:Hey! Shortsighted people!

[GammaTau]

Has it occured to anyone that by patenting an anti-anti-spam technique, AT&T can legally forbid spammers from using that technique?'

If the technique is well-known and utilized prior the patent as well as extensively discussed in public forums (like nearly all ways of bypassing the spam filters are), then the patent can be nullified. In other words:

• If the spammers have been using this patented method, the patent is void
• If the spammers haven't been using this patented method, the patent has very little effect on spam

Re:Hey! Shortsighted people!

[Shakrai]

spammers are already very often violating state laws, violating their ISP AUP, and peddling illegal scams and therefore make themselves hard to find

Hey, I hope this doesn't get me modded flamebait but I've had this thought for awhile and this seems like the ideal article to raise it in. Disclaimer: I am not endorsing or defending SPAM or the people behind it.

Has anyone else thought that the most effective way to combat SPAM would be with education not filters/lawsuits/etc?

It would seem logical to me to assume that at least a large number of (if not a vast majority of?) spammers are ignorant as to why it's a bad idea. They don't know much about the Internet, and some idiot with a spam-software outfit approaches them and tells them about this "Great Marketing Idea", sells them some software (that may or may not do various bad things like hiding headers/etc), and off they go!

My boss approached me once with some literature he received from one of these software companies. After my initial "WTF??? You aren't serious???" reaction I sat down with him and explained some of the history behind spamming, why it's a bad idea, would piss off our existing customers/alienate new ones, etc etc etc. Based on this experience it would seem to me that the most logical solution would be to educate the companies behind the spamming as to why it's a "Bad Idea".

Of course, this theory doesn't hold any water when you look at pornographic spam, Nigerian bank fraud spam (my personal favorite), pyramid schemes, etc etc. But it probably would be a better approach when dealing with the idiots who have been duped into thinking that unsolicited e-mail is a legitimate marketing tool. At the very least it can't hurt any.

Just a thought I've had for awhile now.

Re:Hey! Shortsighted people!

[Narcissus]

Or, instead of trying to educate the spammers, how about trying to educate the people who respond to spam?

Just do a mass spam once a month, or even once a week, to every email address you can find. Do a few spams: one selling Viagra, a few pushing different types of porn, etc. Cover the basic list of things that get spammed for on a regular basis.

Make the offers believable, and direct the recipient to an appropriately believable web site. Take their credit card details (but don't actually charge the card), do the whole lot. Right at the end, though, put up a page and say "hey, this is a scam site. Lucky we didn't really take your money!"

This will make all of those people that actually buy from these emails actually think twice the next time they go to purchase.

I wouldn't mind getting these "spams" as often as other spam if only for the fact that because the goal of these emails is to educate, there would be no reason to try and break through Bayesian filtering (or any other form). That is to say that they would be very easy for me to filter and never see, and hopefully at the same time we would see a reduction in other types of spam as people are educated about the problems associated with it (as it would drive sales down).

Having said that, I know there is no limit to stupidity, so maybe the market will always be big enough...

Up next..

[placeclicker]

A patent on bank robbery!

Obvious value

[SSpade]

If you look back, at the time AT&T would have been filing the patent they were in the consumer ISP business.

Odds are it was filed as an offensive tool to use against spammers.

A patent such as this could be used as a hammer against spammers using filter evasion approaches. The value of that for an ISP of the size of AT&T far exceeds the cost of filing a patent.

(AT&T are pretty clueless on many levels, but this looks like it was a smart move. It'll be interestng to see what, if anything, they do with it.)

PRECISELY!

[Chas]

Now, instead of being well-nigh untouchable due to spam's precarious placement as little more than a highly undesireable activity, AT&T can go after spammers IN COURT on grounds of PATENT INFRINGEMENT.

And going to court over something like this takes megabucks. Especially against a company the size of AT&T. Even if the spammers somehow weasel out on technicalities (like they didn't actually infringe on the patent directly), they're still going to be out so much money that their great grandkids aren't even going to be able to go to any educational institution after public high school.

Pink contracts

[www.sorehands.com]

AT&T have the ability to use this patent for good by killing spammers with it.

What I suspect that they will do is allow it for their Pink contract holders and go after anyone else.

Wouldn't that be illegal in the US anyway?

[Nailer]

Couldn't you use the DMCA to stop circumvention of mail security software?

That's a question, not a statement.

Maybe AT&T is just disorganized

[astrashe]

Maybe this isn't part of a master plan -- maybe it's more random.

I could see a guy inside of AT&T working on something, and having to justify his time to his bosses. The lawyers who filed the patent probably work directly for AT&T, and so they gave it to them, and asked if it could be patented. The patent lawyers filed it, because they're patent lawyers, and that's what they do.

I tend to assume that this situation would fit right into a dilbert storyline. I don't think it's part of a grand strategy.

I can't imagine that AT&T would sell spam technology, because it would be a public relations nightmare. And I can't imagine that they'd try to sue spammers for patent infringment, because that would be expensive, and they wouldn't get anything out of it.

ATT will be selling circumvention

[djupedal]

1980...
Remember being charged for an unlisted number?

1990...
AT&T sells us caller-id, and then sells caller-id avoidance devices to marketeers, then sells us next-gen caller id to thwart their devices...etc...etc.

AT&T has been playing the middle for years...I see no reason for them to stop now. Patents just mean more money, faster.

Wrong numbers

[Betcour]

Those numbers are very wrong. Spammers count returns in sales per MILLION emails, because the rate is so low. It's profitable because they send huge quantities of spam, so even a very low sale rate is quite profitable.

On the other hand real email marketing (done by a well known legitimate business, targetted to specific peoples who agreed to receive it) can get much better results.