Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google and Others Sued For Automating Email

Posted by kdawson on from the promoting-the-progress-of-science-and-the-useful-arts dept.

Dotnaught sends us to InformationWeek for news of the latest lawsuit by Polaris IP, which holds a patent on the idea of responding automatically to emails. The company has no products. It brought suit in the Eastern District in Texas, as many patent trolls do — though the article informs us that that venue has been getting less friendly of late to IP interests, and has actually invalidated some patents. The six companies being sued are AOL, Amazon, Borders, Google, IAC, and Yahoo. All previous suits based on this patent have been settled.

14 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Procmail v1.0 released in 1991 by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The patent isn't just email filtering, it also covers emailing the sender a canned response (from a repository) based on the content of the message. I'm sure procmail can do that, but unless they procmail included an example of doing just that, it's not prior art. I'm sure prior art does exist, though -- when usenet was king, moderated newsgroups did something similar.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  2. Usually patents that seem stupid aren't quite ... by joe_n_bloe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... but I did skim the first half or so of the claims, and this is one of the most-thoroughly-and-obviously-covered-by-prior-art patents I have ever seen.

    I'm sure that *well* before procmail there were products and academic papers covering exactly this subject matter in detail. How a patent like this ever passes the laugh test, I don't know.

  3. Developing products on someone else's insight ... by joe_n_bloe · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Only behemoths like Microsoft and Google should be allowed to dedicate massive resources to _succesfully?_ develop products based on other peoples insight? God forbid someone actually make money by THINKING. /dives into flame resistant suit/

    Normally, conventional practices and ethics dictate that when you make money by thinking, you use some kind of original thought.
  4. This is almost as stupid as one click shopping. by 3seas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The whole point of using and programming computers is to automate....

    Software Patents are acts of fraud against the consumer and users.

    http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

  5. Re:vacation(1) released in 1983 by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A method for automatically interpreting an electronic message, including the steps of (a) receiving the electronic message from a source; (b) interpreting the electronic message using a rule base and case base knowledge engine; and (c) classifying the electronic message as at least one of (i) being able to be responded to automatically; and (ii) requiring assistance from a human operator. The method for automatically interpreting an electronic message may also include the step of retrieving one or more predetermined responses corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a repository for automatic delivery to the source. That's abstract the patent. If you think that vacation meets even that then you're an idiot. And we haven't even started looking at the claims yet.

    This is what is wrong with Slashdot.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  6. stop settling with patent trolls by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    God damn it. Don't they see what happening? everytime you settle with a patent troll, you give birth to a new one. These guys will go away with the big boys would just make mince meat out of a few of them.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:stop settling with patent trolls by Zebedeu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think usually the trolls are lawyers themselves, so they don't have real legal fees because they don't have to pay the exorbitant lawyer wages.

      My opinion is that these companies that keep getting hit with these patent troll lawsuits should just make an example of one of these guys: fight the lawsuit and start parallel procedures to invalidate each an every one of the other patents that the trolls have, until they are left with no IP and have to fold.
      It would be expensive, but the message would be clear and in the long run it might even be cheaper than fighting each new patent troll individually.

      I usually don't agree with the "prolong the lawsuit until they give up" method because it's an abuse of the system and is generally the wrong/evil way to win a lawsuit.

  7. Re:WHO? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Someone who, when they appeared ready to fight it, was offered a settlement and patent license for a very nominal sum. Easier and cheaper to pay even a few hundred bucks and walk away than pay for lawyers and months of a lawsuit.

    But doesn't that mark you as an easy target?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  8. Can you be more specific? by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's abstract the patent. If you think that vacation meets even that then you're an idiot.

    Can you be more specific on exactly where he is an "idiot"?

    A method for automatically interpreting an electronic message...

    So far, so good.

    ...including the steps of (a) receiving the electronic message from a source;...

    Yes.

    ...(b) interpreting the electronic message using a rule base and case base knowledge engine;...

    Yes. If recipient == X then do Y.

    ...and (c) classifying the electronic message as at least one of (i) being able to be responded to automatically;...

    Not only "classifying" but also responding.

    Seems like he was right and you were wrong.
  9. Re:one mans idea is another mans patent troll by Fyzzler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What about Paul Vixie and FTPMail? I was using that way back around 1988 when DEC still existed as a company.

    --
    I have one question. If the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture is not in charge of Gundam, then who is?
  10. Re:Procmail v1.0 released in 1991 by julesh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Checking my svk tree (converted from cvs), I notice that in 1994 the "man procmailex" manpage included with the procmail distro already contains a dynamic E-mail-me-the-file-I-ask-for example.

    Which isn't what this patent is about. This patent is about running a message through a text classification algorithm to determine what kind of message it's likely to be, pulling a canned response from a database if it matches a known category and sending that response, otherwise flagging it for human attention. Did the example do all of these things? If not, it isn't useful prior art.

  11. Those who forget history... by Xtifr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
            To puff and look important and to say:--
    "Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
            We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

    And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
            But we've proved it again and again,
    That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
            You never get rid of the Dane.
                                            --Rudyard Kipling

  12. Re:finally on topic! by eat+here_get+gas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    you are one sick fuck

    --
    the significance of a signature is insignificant
  13. Re:Procmail v1.0 released in 1991 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I seem to recall that alittle.