USPTO Issues Email Address Patent to Microsoft

theodp writes "On Tuesday, Microsoft was granted U.S. patent no. 6,895,426 for treating electronic mail addresses as objects, which Microsoft notes allows email addresses to be easily added to a contact list, copied to the computer's clipboard, or double-clicked to open the related contact information for that email address sender. After the reaction to news of his first patent, betcha inventor Dan Crevier isn't too eager to let folks know about this one."

Comments

My new patent:

[TripMaster Monkey]

Since we're on the subject, I thought this would be a good time to let all of you know that I have just patented the .sig file. That means that all you suckers who use .sigs now owe me a dollar every time you post. You'll all be recieving bills very soon now.

^_^

Seriously, though, I think the exchange on Dan Crevier's blog regarding his last patent is pretty telling...he gets a barrage of posts criticizing him for stifling innovation, and instead of addressing them, he closes the thread. Yes, yes, I'm well aware it's his blog, and if he doesn't want to play, he' s well within his rights to close the thread...just like that kid who would always take his ball and go home when the game didn't go his way...remember that kid?

Re:My new patent:

[johnnyb]

I think you are confusing things.

Most people here, at least who argue for GPL/FOSS, agree with OBEYING copyright. They disagree with evil companies ABUSING copyright.

The RIAA, for example, is:

• stupid - for not recognizing the ability to make money from P2P
• greedy - because, well, they are
• arrogant - because they think that they should be working against, rather than with, their customers
• abusive - even this week there was an instance of the RIAA suing someone for downloading music they already owned

All of these make the RIAA objects of wrath and disgust and much blogging against them. None of this means "therefore we should make unauthorized copies".

I actually think that if you really look into it, you find much less hypocrasy in the F/OSS world than in the proprietary world. F/OSS came about because people wanted a legal way to share with each other. People in the proprietary world often steal software and music because they don't care if it's legal or not. That's the fundamental difference -- F/OSS was wanting the freedom and wanting to do so within a legal framework.

I have a friend who is a business owner, who uses unauthorized copies of software. When I pointed to the fact it was illegal, he didn't care. He didn't want to use F/OSS software because he didn't care about the legality. If he had cared, then his choice would either be to pay (but he didn't have the money) or use F/OSS. F/OSS thrives because it is a legal and ethical way to do what we always wanted to do with software -- share.

Re:My new patent:

[jcaren]

In the UK it is your responsibility to provide proof that you have taken all reasonable steps to search for prior art.
I see no reason why if this is proven to be false, punitive action should not be taken.
Yes I do belive it is harsh but if implemented MS, IBm et.al would be divesting themselves of large numbers of patents - or registering them overseas instead.

Time to fight back

[fishdan]

What needs to happen is someone needs to sue the Patent Office for negligence. There must be some case out there where it can be shown that the USPTO's negligence in issuing patents so casually has caused some company monetary damages. If a city can be held liable because of damages caused by a pot hole or a supermarket because of floors being slippery, or McDonalds for coffee being too hot, can't we hold the USPTO responsible for issuing patents for which there is BLATANT prior art? I don't mean this as a rhetorical question. Why is the USPTO never held accountable?

Hit them in the pocketbook. It's the only sort of censure a government office understands.

Re:Time to fight back

[TripMaster Monkey]

It's NOT about patenting .sig files.

Of course it's not. That's MY patent, you insensitive clod!

BTW, your use of the word '.sig' just cost you $0.14. You will be billed shortly.

^_^

Just want to be the first

[JWeinraub]

More more patents for microsoft makes me want to get apple more and more

You can't sue the government

[bigtallmofo]

IANAL, but from what I recall the doctrine of sovereign immunity basically says that people can't sue the government unless the government gives them permission to sue them.

More interestingly, the government is generally not responsible for the acts or omissions of its employees even if they acted negligently or in bad faith.

Good luck with that.

Re:You can't sue the government

[Anonymous Coward]

(Score: -1, Troll)

You can't sue anyone unless the government gives you permission, cocknose. That 3rd branch of the government? Yeah that's the judiciary. Stop hiding behind FLAs and say it like it is - "I know nothing, ignore me, I should'nt have wasted your time making you read this crap."

God slashdot would be so much better if people only posted when they knew what the fuck they were on about.

This shows utter Incompetence at the USPTO

[iPaul]

After scanning the claims in the patent, I think this pretty much shows the USPTO has no technical capacity to judge software patents. While I would think of patenting broad categories inventions and even software if it were truly a unique invention, this is just beyond the pale. This is not unique, people have been doing it for years, etc. etc. How did these people get their jobs?

USPTO has been broken since State Street.

[gdek]

Re: software patents, there's a whole lot going wrong. More to the point, just about everyone knows it's wrong -- except for IP lawyers, for whom this is all a tremendous boon, and who will fight tooth-and-nail to keep the system that way. It's just a matter of:

1. Understanding why it's wrong;
2. Formulating a clear position;
3. Taking that position to your congressman;
4. Over and over and over.

Did you know that the USPTO has a public advisory board? Did you know that it's populated almost entirely by IP attorneys?

http://www.redhat.com/magazine/007may05/features/p atents/

This is what the uspto spends their time doing...

[aphaenogaster]

I get at least 400 hits a month by somebody at the uspto. (biodiversity.georgetown.edu ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:43 -0400] "GET /tree/order/Homoptera HTTP/1.1" 404 339 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:44 -0400] "GET /tree/order/Homoptera HTTP/1.1" 404 339 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:46 -0400] "GET /tree/family/Cicadellidae HTTP/1.1" 404 343 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:46 -0400] "GET /tree/family/Cicadellidae HTTP/1.1" 404 343 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:47 -0400] "GET /tree/family/Cicadellidae HTTP/1.1" 404 343 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:52 -0400] "GET /images/counter/infosearch/leafhopper%20bug.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 363 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:52 -0400] "GET /images/counter/infosearch/leafhopper%20bug.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 363 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:55 -0400] "GET /images/counter/picture/leafhopper%20bug.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 360 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:55 -0400] "GET /images/counter/picture/leafhopper%20bug.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 360 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:59 -0400] "GET /images/counter/infosearch/leafhopper%20bug.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 363 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:39:02 -0400] "GET /tree/family/Cicadellidae HTTP/1.1" 404 343 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:39:04 -0400] "GET /images/counter/infosearch/leafhopper%20bug.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 363 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:39:06 -0400] "GET /images/counter/picture/leafhopper%20bug.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 360 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:39:09 -0400] "GET /images/counter/infosearch/leafhopper%20bug.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 363 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:39:11 -0400] "GET /tree/family/Cicadellidae HTTP/1.1" 404 343 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:39:13 -0400] "GET /images/counter/infosearch/planthopper%201.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 362 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:39:13 -0400] "GET /images/counter/infosearch/planthopper%201.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 362 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:39:14 -0400] "GET /images/counter/picture/planthopper%201.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 359 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:39:14 -0400] "GET /images/counter/picture/planthopper%201.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 359

Not an email as an object

[Anonymous Coward]

What they describe is not treating an email address as an object, but creating an object with an email address as a property that gets displayed (like the code example somewhere above). Email addresses are not objects, they're just simple strings with a specified format telling a network where to direct the mail. Now, if all mail servers could receive an object with all this other crap attached and then decide what to do with it, you could consider the 'address' as an 'object', but it would be inefficient to pass real addresses and whatever other information the 'object' holds.

Re:Prior art... any more examples?

[julesh]

None of these are actually prior art for this patent, which is about a specific user interface for manipulating e-mail addresses. If you can find an application dating from at the latest mid-90s that showed e-mail addresses with an icon that varied according to the results of a database lookup to determine what kind of address it was, that is prior art.

The problem is that while this is an obvious idea, I think MS were actually the first to do it.

Re:In your face MS

[julesh]

It depends what you mean by 'object'. In this case, the patent is talking in terms of user interface objects, possibly intending reference to other MS technologies like OLE that use the term in a very specific fashion. This is a lot more advanced and specific than the kind of object that you need to use to program in a pure-OO programming language.

USPTO didn't even check the grammar

[Husgaard]

From the fourth paragraph of the first claim: "parsing at least one email address from the at least one field in the preview pane".

Did somebody at USPTO really read this, or have they begun to simply rubber-stamp "granted" on all applications?

Get you nowhere; republicans are in control

[WindBourne]

Part of the reason why I switched to Libertarian is that republicans (and the democrats, but not as bad) allows the gov. to stomp all our rights and not have any responsibilities for them. If you sue, they will simply pass a law that says that you can not do it. Good Example of this.

Generic Problem with Modern Political Thinking

[Morosoph]

As many have said in the article, and indeed in Dan Crevier's blog, this is ridiculously obvious, and is in addition the natural way to solve the problem in an OO system.

I don't know how you solve this problem more generically with the steady growth of doctrinare propertarianism in politics throughout the world, especially since property, to many, appears as "common sense", without the more sophisticated, economist's understanding of what property is, and means.

The battle to promote educated opinion is a difficult one indeed, requiring a honing of arguing skills so that the informed opinion can be presented as common sense over the prejudiced one.

I think, personally, that the root of the problem is deeper than patents.

Here's a better idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

If a patent is approved that is shown to have had publically visible prior art, then the Patent Examiner who approved the grant of the patent goes to jail for malpractice.

Narrow focus

[mikeborella]

My interpretation of the claims is that the patent is fairly narrow. It's broadest claim outlines a process consisting of many steps, all of which must be performed in order for the patent to be infringed.

You have to read the clauses of the claim as logical AND statements.

Re:Prior Art

[thegameiam]

I'm neither a patent attourney, nor an examiner. I do however, have three good friends who are examiners, one who is a former examiner, and two who are patent attourneys. I am pretty familiar (from a lay perspective) with some of the concepts involved, but make no pretenses that I know whether the behavior of Lotus CC:Mail meets the technical definition of "prior art."

My comment, and I stand by it, was that CC:Mail did differentiate between email sourced from the Internet and email from internal systems, and showed that difference obviously. I was responding to a prior request for examples. One of the things my friend who used to be an examiner has told me is that it's often hard to find the places to begin looking because the patents end up covering tremendously specific cases, and then later on in court, the companies try to broaden them.

I'm not deliberately trying to be an ass... I'm not trying to put words into your mouth...

Then stop. I don't think too many people treat Slashdot as a source for informed legal opinion (and those who do are fools), but rather, one can get a sense of what people (specifically the geeks who read /.) think about an issue.

-David