Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Patents Changing Color of E-Mail Text

Posted by timothy on from the how-very-precious dept.

theodp writes "Last week, the USPTO granted IBM a patent for its 'System and method for comprehensive automatic color customization in an email message based on cultural perspective.' So what exactly did the four Big Blue inventors come up with? IBM explains: 'For example, an email created in the US in red font to indicate urgency or emphasis might be mapped to a more appropriate color (e.g., blue or black) for sending to Korea.' IBM took advantage of the USPTO's Accelerated Examination Program to fast-track the patent's approval. BTW, if you missed the 2006 press release, IBM boasted it was 'holding itself to a higher standard than any law requires because it's urgent that patent quality is improved.'"

12 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. great ideas make the world go round by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Funny

    Thanks to slashdot for highlighting one of the many great ideas that Big Blue has brought to our meager existences. It's things like color fonts in email that really put a smile on my face every day. I'm glad slashdot posts stories like this to remind us of who's behind some of the great ideas we use every day.

    To celebrate this remarkable achievement I am going to send all my emails today using a Big Blue font.

  2. But... wait... by Bazman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can't we just tag the text with some kind of semantic markup, and then use some kind of "sheet of styles" that relate the markup to the appearance? Sound familiar?

    1. Re:But... wait... by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Perfect idea! I just *want* more of those emails embedded inside bloat html for no reason!

      <x-html>
      <!x-stuff-for-pete base="" src="" id="0" charset=""><DIV></DIV><w:fonts> <w:defaultFonts w:h-ansi="Times New Roman" w:cs="Times New Roman"/> </w:fonts> <w:docPr/> <w:body> <wx:sect> <w:p> <w:pPr/> <w:r> <w:rFonts w:h-ansi="Helvetica" w:cs="Helvetica"/>
      <w:t>I agree.</w:t> </w:r> </w:p> <w:pgSz w:w="12240" w:h="15840"/> <w:pgMar w:top="1440" w:right="1440" w:bottom="1440" w:left="1440"/> </w:sectPr> </wx:sect> </w:body>

    2. Re:But... wait... by sopssa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I prefer plain text because its 100x more secure than HTML with how its rendered. Theres various exploitable software and even drive-by-download exploits, and then you can use hotlinked images to track who reads emails (and spam them even more).

      Yes, my email client supports html emails. It even has it enabled by default. But because of that, I changed it to show text version to me before and just when I click it will show me the html version

  3. Colour in email? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    But who would see colour anyway? Is this another Windows thing?

  4. Black is the New Red by skywire · · Score: 4, Funny

    I know when I'm emailing my Korean friends, I always switch from the default black to black when I really want get their attention.

    --
    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  5. Why we think all or almost all s/w patents are bad by presidenteloco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because most of them would take most competent software engineers about 5 minutes to think up themselves if presented with the problem that the patent claims to be a solution to.

    The programmatic solution is often obvious from a routine logical analysis of the problem and its domain, and standard modelling techniques.

    The examiners seem not to be able to have a proper idea of non-obviousness (to a practitioner in the field), when it comes to software patents.

    This causes areas of software work to be unreasonably closed off to any reasonable creative developer, and that's just a pain in the ass. So we basically say, look, if I could have thought of that without breaking a sweat just by using the standard analysis and coding techniques of the trade, then I'm pretty much going to ignore the "patent" on it, aren't I.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  6. Re:Well I'll be dipped in dogshit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    hmmm, aren't those fat multi-color pens and multi-color typewriter ribbon evidence of prior art?

    This should be modded +1 Funny, because there is no way that this post can be serious. Writing a letter with a multi-color pens gives you a letter with multiple colors. When you send it to people with different cultural backgrounds, the colors of your letter don't automatically change so that they have the same cultural meaning for your recipients as they do for you. Maybe such a pen exists in the world of Harry Potter. But in the real world, this doesn't come even close to prior art that anticipates this invention.

  7. Re:Typical IBM strategy by bipbop · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So you perjured yourself several times? Nicely done!

  8. Re:Why we think all or almost all s/w patents are by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But its also preventing the problem, imagined or not, from being solved. I believe that if software patents are allowed (and I believe that they shouldn't be allowed, but for arguments sake lets say they are allowed) then the patented idea needs to be in software produced by the company within 3 months of the patent being filed. If not then the patent is automatically voided.

    How many of you think this will actually be used? It won't be, it however, does prevent me from making a program to solve this "problem".

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  9. Re: communication barrier by az1324 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hmm.. so that's why Kim Jong-il doesn't respond to our urgent messages.

  10. No more HTML e-mail? by the+pickle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does this mean we can expect IBM to start suing anyone who uses HTML-formatted e-mail? Because I think that would probably be a good thing.

    p

    --
    In Korea, long hair is for old people!