Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Faces Patent Infringement Lawsuit
Digital Dan writes "Twitter is being sued for patent infringement. Surprised? OK, probably not, but you'd think the plaintiff would at least wait for Twitter to actually make money before striking. According to TechCrunch: 'Twitter is being sued ... by TechRadium, a Texas-based technology company which makes mass notification systems for public safety organizations, the military, and utilities.' The abstract to patent #7130389 describes it: 'A digital notification and response system utilizes an administrator interface to transmit a message from an administrator to a user contact device. The system comprises a dynamic information database that includes user contact data, priority information, and response data. The administrator initiates distribution of the message based upon grouping information, priority information, and the priority order.' Two other patents are involved as well."
think there is bound to be a bit of prior art here... like the teletext, sms, wordprocessors and even digital radiotransmissions. Who grants this stuf anyway?
A Texas based patent lawsuit that doesn't, at first blush, appear to be a patent troll.
TechRadium actually has a website (http://www.techradium.com/) and appears to sell products.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
So despite Twitter being around for years, this firm just now decided that they're infringing on patents? Furthermore, is it just me or does the concept of "mass notification systems that allow a group administrator or 'message Author' to originate a single message that will be delivered simultaneously via multiple communication gateways to members of a group of 'message Subscribers'" encompass things such as newspapers and cable TV?
... email too?
Maybe they can use net send to communicate the failure of their suit.....
Why does this patent sound like a pager to me?
Otherwise known as "E-Mail auto-responders"
As far as I can tell, email distribution lists and automated rules for re-sending email after receiving them from an email list is also covered under the claims in this patent. How did the patent examiners fail to see this?
-- John
I acknowledge that at least the suing company is in the market of actually selling something to 911's, EMS's and the like, and the increasing use of twitter for "Follow me for important safety updates" is probably cutting into their business...dramatically....but...I don't think this lawsuit deserves legs.
The problem with patents is that one can sit in a dark room and dream up every conceivable thing that may plausibly be invented, patent it and then sit back and either watch the cash roll in for doing bugger all ... or the whole of human development has to wait for your patent to expire.
I am sick of it. We should scrap patents completely. If you have got a secret way of doing something, then it is up to you to exploit it and keep it secret. If somebody else discovers, either independently or through espionage, what you are doing, and they can do it better, cheaper, then you are fair game.
SIMPLE + NO LEGAL TEAM FEES!!!
E.g. India etc.. should be flooding our markets with what at the moment would be called "stolen drug technologies", but are in fact just reverse engineered. I don't care if the big biotechs bitch that without patenting it would not be worth their while investing in R&D - they should invest in R&D to keep their stuff secret if it concerns them that much, or better still, be more efficient on the production line.
Which idiotic organization saw fit to authorize that patent? They have effectively patented two-way communication!
Will I get sued for my use of my A-Team walkie-talkies when I was a kid?
@TechRadium, your #lawsuit is #bullshit.
TechRadium's lawyers really should have a read the Bilski decision before launching the suit since it invalidated this kind of patent.
A digital notification and response system utilizes an administrator interface to transmit a message from an administrator to a user contact device. The system comprises a dynamic information database that includes user contact data, priority information, and response data. The administrator initiates distribution of the message based upon grouping information, priority information, and the priority order.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
No prior art here. OMG HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Not even Jabber or XMPP, let alone SMTP. And those are just what immediately come to mind.
you had me at #!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I guess a big part of my new development project has to be rewritten.
New entry in the user manual:
Updates:
Users must check their notification page(s) regularly for new content, comments or results. (I know e-mail, sms, etc would be easier, but we cannot risk a lawsuit to make, you, the user's life easier. Sorry. Please send complaints to idiots@techradium.com.)
I'd like to submit any bulk spamming software (that uses a mailing list) as prior art.
Bogus patents really get to me. I feel that companies should be required to demonstrate a prototype prior to receiving a patent, but that wouldn't help in this case.
I'd like to submit a patent for "A procedure for clearing flat spaces using a linen transfer device" - after all I'm the only person who's ever thought of clearing off my bed by just pulling off the top sheet...
It's not patent infringement if the patented device has been improved upon.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
>The abstract to patent #7130389 describes it: 'A digital notification and response system...
Sounds like they tried to patent e-mail...
So what year was wall created?
Not only do the tax payers have to fund the USPTO and all of its horrible miserableness, but we also have to fund all the fucking terrible trials that inevitably pop up from their failings.
One convenient locations...in Africa.
This patent pretty much describe any sort of automated notification system; hell I have a modem at work that monitor the power into our building and when we have issue(s) it automatically call me and my manager.
Here's the second clue: the patent has one independent claim (claim 1), and all other claims are specificly narrowed cases of claim 1. Here's claim 1:
1. A digital notification and response system, comprising:
a. an administrator interface for preparing and transmitting a message from an administrator to at least one user contact device;
b. a dynamic information database for storing the message, wherein the dynamic information database comprises;
i. user contact data comprising:
1. user contact device information; and
2. user selected priority information that indicates a contact order for the user contact device;
ii. user selected grouping information comprising:
1. at least one group associated with each user contact device; and
2. a priority order for contacting each user contact device within the group;
iii. response data comprising:
1. user response information that indicates individual user contact devices have received the message; and
2. response information that indicates when insufficient user contact device information exists to contact the user contact devices;
wherein the administrator initiates distribution of the message using the grouping information, priority information, and the priority order, and wherein the message is transmitted through at least two industry standard gateways simultaneously, wherein the two industry standard gateways are selected from the group consisting of: a SMTP gateway a SIP, an H.323, an ISDN gateway, a PSTN gateway, a softswitch, and combinations thereof, wherein the message is received by the at least one user contact device, and the at least one user contact device transmits a response through the industry standard gateways to the dynamic information database.
Now, to interpret the meaning of the claims, it is necessary to read the specification, to see if the terms used have special definitions. Studying the exemplary embodiments described in the specification may also be informative (or not, depending).
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
"Vague."
Common sense -- which used to exist, but in order to be equal we had to separate out the better discernment of others -- would have us realize that vague patents are time bombs.
I've just patented the act of hiding information in physical and virtual objects. You all owe me your life savings. That's my socialized healthcare and retirement plan, right there!
Futurist Traditionalism
. . . whoever owns the "Method and Process of Opening the Window and Screaming at the Neighborhood Kids, 'Get off my lawn!' patent is going to totally sue the Slashdot crew . . .
. . . you have been warned . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
What level of stupid do you have be at to be an employee of and to approved stuff for the patent office?
I'm tired of seeing pathetic patents for generic terms, technology and thought.
While they no doubt have actual products based on those patents, looking at when they applied for the ones that resemble wall, sms, email, instant messaging and other similar technologies, it appears that they started applying for many of them around 2000ish... that is long after those services I listed were in existence. They do seem to have a few valid patents though, one involving travel reservation system and such that was filed in 1988, although I have not looked into the details of that patent. They have so many.
Either way, I won't go so far as stating they are patent trolls, but at the same time, they have some pretty obvious patents that never should have been granted in the first place.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
USPTO should hire smarter examiners. After the amazon's one click shopping patent debacle how can they still grant such obvious use case patents. It seems you just need to hire a smart-a$$ lawyer and get you patent granted. If you work for Google, IBM or Microsoft the lawyers are already there to beat the poor examiners. Looks like the examiners do not even dare to ask the right questions.
What will this do the sockpuppets? Won't somebody please think of twitter's numerous sockpuppets?
I personally maintained a system that went into production in 1968 which had twitter like features.
A message was limited to an 80 character TTY line.
The first five characters were addressing information, a space and the rest free form text.
Carriage return dispatched the message which was spooled to drum then picked up and distributed to a single entity or a group (depending upon the first five characters as I mentioned).
So, ya. I think there is prior art.
I almost care.
We need to get these guys to sue all people that send out SPAM. I think their patent covers that as well. This would be awesome. Stop the drug emails for good!!!
Well, just looking at claim 1, there is no Bilski problem. It's a system claim; not a method. A system claim will likely survive any review under Bilski since it's going to be tied to a particular machine. In particular, an administrator interface and a database would be sufficient not to mention the fact that it has to be capable of receiving user input. Good try though.
net send /domain:CONASTA "Anyone want a beer after work."
... the official newsite for ridiculous lawsuits?
Student Sues cause she's unemployable
Student Sues amazon
Touchpad patent holder sues everybody
Family Sues Genie
Wells Fargo Sues Itself
Rosetta Stone Sues Google
City Sues Man for rotting meat
Keep in mind those stories were all in the last 30 days!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sounds like a one-to-many distribution or broadcast. Wow, that's original. Patents like this should have failed the obviousness test and if the patent holder had some novel method that made it work better than any other system, then protect it by a trade secret.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Sounds even more like a pager. I am sure there are patents involved there as well. There really needs to be a technology unit at the patent office if there is not one already b/c almost everything builds in some way off of something else. Why do we have all of these obscure patents? Granted, some are standouts and are worth a patent, but others might also be legitimate but are playing patent bingo instead of creating meaningful technological advancement.
IANAL. Could this sketch from 2000, which clearly showed plans for twitter, be used as prior art? If so, then the patent is invalid. If not, then Twitter must not be infringing.
It seems like 99% of patents these days are covered by prior art, and 100% of them are covered by triviality.
Finally, someone who understands that the abstract is meaningless. The claim is what matters here.
And speaking of the claim. 1.i.2.: "user selected priority information that indicates a contact order for the user contact device;" I am not aware of Twitter allowing a user to prioritize contact order.
And 1.iii.1.: "user response information that indicates individual user contact devices have received the message;" Again, I am not aware of Twitter doing this. Perhaps for ad tracking purposes, but otherwise there is no indication that this occurs at all.
Thus, I would go so far as to say that there is no infringement here - aka nothing to see, move along.
I wrote something like this 20 years ago to allow a company to contact all their offices with one message. And, I know that Wal-Mart had a system to send notices to groups of their stores from the HQ before that. This is a common idea, and how it could get patented is beyond reason.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
having read the patent, it has one novel aspect differentiating it from a general message system: it relies on two or more gateways to relay messages to different user devices, allowing users to prioritize the order in which their devices receive notification. this as opposed to, say, only an sms gateway, or only an email gateway.
that said, i don't pay enough attention to twitter to know whether or not its actually infringing.
I don't think Twitter applies here anyway. It describes a notification system to alert authorities and the public of emergency and general information in a speedy manner. Twitter is not used to alert EMTs, Fire, or Police. It is not used to give general warnings to the public. Sorry to break the news, but everyone does not use Twitter. Twitter is not speedy. You are limited in how fast and how many times you can update your feeds. Twitter is not IM. Yes, Twitter is not longer limited to one device, but so are other systems. I can send email through my computer, cell-phone, and other devices. If the application or settings are set, I can get quick notification of "You've got mail".
I wonder how many network monitoring tools fill all these claims.
Lots of them allow groups, with various contact details for each group member and message delivery to multiple devices based on priority.
In fact, about the only thing that might be missing would be the administration interface for preparing and transmitting. Do any of the packages around pre 2005 allow preparing and delivering a one off message?
refers to an administrator interface, and the whole patent is about "administrator interface to transmit a message from an administrator to a user contact device". Seems like it's talking about a "master to slaves" selective broadcast system, rather than a "peer to peer(s)" system like Twitter.
Thats sort of a major conceptual difference, right there.
We'll let the lawyers fight it out, but I wonder what made this company think they could patent that. //how is a paging system with multiple user groups not covered by this patent?
The patent appears to be specific as to purpose and how it would work. So specific, in fact, that Twitter doesn't intrude at all. In order to make Twitter fit so as to be intruding into their patents, you have to broaden the application of the idea so that the technical implementation is no longer important.
Upon broadening the interpretation, a lot of prior art clouds the validity of TechRadium's patents (e.g. using a megaphone to shout at a large crowd is technically a "message sender" sending out one message to a whole lot of "message receivers" who "subscribed" to listen to the message (by showing up at the event) -- so apparently the idea itself isn't really new.
It doesn't stop there.
You may think the megaphone is a silly comparison or clumsy implementation of it... the point is the idea is not new, nor did TechRadium invent it. So what did they invent? Further delve in with some of the things that make their message broadcast system more elegant (yes, well we added this nifty little database so we can manage a publish/scriber model that's a managed and able to be quite a bit more selective than using a megaphone to shout at a crowd), then there's lots of prior art to show that the concept of the pub/sub model in IT predates their oldest patent by many years. The reason the concept was coined the "pub/sub" model is because it worked just like a newspaper or magazine that publishes content and subscribers (a.k.a. customers or readers) could choose to subscribe and, in the case of a publisher with different kinds of magazines, they could even decide which magazines they want to receive. They would of course use some sort of record keeping system so as not confuse what each subscriber wanted to receive. So apparently that idea isn't new either.
Essentially what Twitter "copies" is all the same stuff TechRadium had to also copy in order to come up with their implementation. This is mildly reminiscent of Apple's lawsuit against Microsoft back in the mid 80's when they claimed MS used their desktop GUI idea -- then it turned out BOTH of them got the idea from Xerox. Twitter's implementation would be (a) different and (b) probably a lot more scalable. Twitter has to handle millions of subscribers... TechRadium's solution probably only has to handle a few hundred and *maybe* a couple thousand.... tops. In order to achieve these differences in scale, the implementation is likely to be radically different.
So much for email.
I'm so glad I live in America where instead of finding ways to make life easier and safer and all around better we just sue each other. I can't wait to get my first lawsuit.
A bunch of mad people's paid-off stooges grant this stuff. Just as you indicated the prior art methods, it is unbelievable that the USPTO is THIS damned "overwhelmed". There should be a moratorium on all new tech patents issuance having applications dating back to, oh, say 2004, and a (public) review of all tech patents involved in anti-competitive activities dating from 1992 forward.
How can these "people" in that company suing Twitter even DARE bring themselves forward to sue. It is incredibly easy for database tools such as Lotus Approach, Borland/Corel/et al Paradox, ms' access, the various CRM tools build in LAMP/AMP, and more, and much of it is just plain common sense-enabled after a couple of hours of wrangling out a basic set of parameters.
-- User goes to browser/input device
-- user enters some tidbit of info
-- designated input triggers response to an action list (isn't this starting to sound like JIT product manufacturing/tracking, say, Expandable?)
-- action triggers reports to cognizant persons in the various departments, the vendors/suppliers/contract manufacturers outside the company, AP/AR handle the cost accounting/other accounting/inventory matters....
Expandable is from AT LEAST 1999, and we used it when i was a 400-person company from 1997-1999 and it got replaced by Oracle stuff. PeopleSoft ALONE had a massive set of tools for doing such things. We even used Vantive, which got knocked off from our company when that fiber optic company and their ORCA/Oracle slayers came in and ruthlessly waged battle internally in OUR CONFERENCE ROOMS to purge things like Expandable, Vantive, and other internally-built databases.
Techwhatever from Texas will probably be found to be a patent troll because other business model attempts aren't so rosy these days.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
"...revenues reaching $140m by the end of 2010..."
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14098313&CFID=75044961&CFTOKEN=55045025
aoeu
Yeah, sure, I'll buy that the astract is general and the Devil is in the details.
The problem is your specifications are pretty much the definition of "broadcast" in the telecom world. I'll bet I could even put together an argument that the patent covers a shared line appearance or a hunt group on your phone. Twitter's appeal isn't that it's novel -- it's that it's convenient.
Now, if you'll excuse me , I need to go patent my new invention of designating a person or device by assigning a number to them...
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Would be better to sue Google with their gmail, at least they have cash. This isn't going anywhere.
We have our most correct post right here! Please mod this up so others will be able to follow the correct logic and place what they intrinsically know into words.
The few times a US patent interested me enough to try to read it I found I could read the claims and still not figure out what they were claiming.
This page explains how claims are structured. The complete explanation on reading patents starts here.
Yes, it has been pointed out often enough that the claims matter. But if people need explaining THAT they have to read the claims then it stands to reason that they need an explanation on HOW to read the claims as well.
One of the things that I didn't understand automagically the first time I read a patent was that the function of the mix of broader and narrower claims is. What is it exactly that they're claiming? The idea is that broader claims yield a bigger base for calculating royalties but have a smaller chance of being awarded by a court. If you don't know that then patents can be pretty confusing.
So if you feel the need to give people a clue about reading patents you'd be much more effective if you pointed to a resource like the one I linked to above.
When in the military we used recall lists combined with a telephone and the lists listed people in order of priority to notify.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
The simplest, most trivial web service ever to become virally popular, that any decent web developer could bang out in a week, is being sued for patent infringement. If this doesn't prove the patent system is bullshit, nothing will.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Sounds to me like they patented e-mail and SMS too. Looking forward to reading about their lawsuits against Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint.
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
....someone figured out how to make money off Twitter.
And didn't the Pentagon classify Twitter as an enemy combat information system? Now connect the dots.
Tech Radium also went after Blackboard after Blackboard had purchased NTI and Blackboard has also returned the favor by going after Tech Radium in the courts. Of course I do not favor either company or their abuse of the patent system both having patents which could be too broad.
On first sight I was wondering who the "Twitter Faces" were (despite knowing Twitter), and how they could pull off to patent "infringement lawsuits". Especially given the fact that there is quite a lot of prior art regarding infringement lawsuits, sadly.
I was worried I caused this because I set up @osidealerts to take the emergency alert emails for my town and rebroadcast them over twitter. I figured someone would come after me for copyright. Luckily the system in place in my town is being run by Public Alert System and not TechRadium.
ONLY IN TEXAS, Y'ALL!
This means I can no longer email my employees and contractors about work from my administrative account and have to erase my administrative address book. I also have to return all the company pagers!. Well returning the pagers might actually save me some bucks.
Wow! How did this ever get approved as a patent? Talk about obviousness.
I have prior art for this, but unfortunately, I wrote it and it's never been published. This was a work for hire. I wrote a mainframe program that used a central database to send out emails and pages to various people. Some people only got emails some got pages and emails. The program included a severity code to determine if only an email was sent or if a page was also required. I wrote this before 1997. I may still have all the pieces, but it requires: a Unisys mainframe, A Unisys print manager, a PC with ProComm installed, a mail server, a phone line, and pagers/cell phones..
This is bound to fail. You can't consider every user on twitter to be an administrator. Users on twitter are not adminstrators and do not have the ability to direct their messages to specific set groups. They can only broadcast a message which is subscribed/followed by others. I hope this fails.
Consider yourself blessed if you are sneezed on by a dragon and only get wet, it could have been a fireball.
so they invented IRC?
to do things to stuff with an object.
One small point: Dan says "you'd think the plaintiff would at least wait for Twitter to actually make money before striking."
They can't. There is law that prevents you from waiting for someone to make a lot of money opportunistically before filing suit. I believe it's called the doctrine of Laches. It's a defense from a patent suit if you can show the patent holder was aware of the infringement but waited to file.