Slashdot Mirror
Federal Appeals Court Tosses Spam Patent
Zordak writes "US patent 6,631,400 claims a method of making sure enough people get your spam. A federal district court had overturned the patent as anticipated and obvious, and not drawn to patentable subject matter. The Federal Circuit, the appeals court which hears patent matters, upheld the finding of obviousness, thus invalidating the patent."
I want to patent my intellectual Idea of "Keep going until I reach my destination"
?
For the one time that an obvious bogus patent is actually useful (hooray, no more spam!), they toss it!
...to assign the patent to an anti-spam organization, then watch as they sue spammers into oblivion for patent infringement!
The primary purpose of patents is to *STOP* the competition from doing whatever it is you are patenting (yes, I know this isn't the stated purpose, but it is the purpose-in-effect). The secondary purpose is to collect money from people who do what you patented, so you can make money without doing it yourself.
In both cases, once you patent something, there is a net loss in the number of people doing it. We have observed this time and time again in the industry.
So why in the world would you REJECT a spam patent? By all means, GRANT THE PATENT! Let the spammers sue each other into oblivion and reduce the total amount of spam generated.
Sheesh.
Of course if it was granted, it would be licensed so it would not stop spam. But......
the licensee of the patents would be identifiable, hopefully allowing the identification of the spammers.
Fight Spammers!
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Clearly your example disproves the existence of the soul.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Moseley et al, Mastering Microsoft Office 97 professional edition, 1997, SYBEX Inc., 2nd edition, p. 811-816.* .
Can anyone explain what a spam-propagation method has to do with MS office 97?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The one time I want a patent issued to help retard things and the system does the right thing and rejects it on obviousness. Well maybe they just forgot they could do that and from now on obviousness *will* matter.
Yeah... and the guy who owns this (now invalidated) patent is saying to himself, "Dang-it! And I was going to use that patent to sue all of those spammers -- who somehow keep getting through my filters -- right out of existence! Curses! Foiled again!"
A story is posted about somebody being awarded a patent. It is tagged "corruption."
A story is posted about somebody not being awarded a patent. It is tagged "communism."
MAKE UP YOUR MIND.
So you're saying you're using hotmail?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The patent is basically for an electronic mail distribution system that tracks if emails have been opened, etc. It does specify that the subscribers should be members of an opt-in list, which would preclude UCE. Of course it could be used to nefarious ends by having a spammer submit the addresses as if they were opted in, but it's initial purpose doesn't seem to be one of sending UCE.
[citation needed] pretty sure most spam is not illegal.
Citation: CAN-SPAM Act
I do not like this, Spam I am.
lovely spam, wonderful spa-a-m,
lovely spam, wonderful s spam,
spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am,
spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am,
spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am,
spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am,
lovely spam, lovely spam,
lovely spam, lovely spam,
lovely spa-a-a-a-am...
spa-am, spa-am, spa-am, spa-a-a-am!
- The origin of the term spam (Monty python's flying circus)
I really wish Michael Moore would stop trolling Slashdot.
A little wounded pride here. How is that an error in the summary? The district court invalidated on three grounds. The Fed. Cir. upheld the obviousness finding. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said.
Cut from my summary is a link to Patently-O which has some pretty good analysis.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Sorry, link's still there, they just didn't mention that it was Patently-O.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
This would also really thwart the business plans of the big corporate patent trolls - their plan is to create a huge patent portfolio and sell it as "protection" to be used as a club against anybody who comes after them. Usually big companies acquire large patent portfolios as a form a mutually assured destruction - never used, unless they are attacked. The joy of a bunch of working stiff geeks owning the evil patents is that you can't threaten a working stiff with patent violations.
So go forth, file patent evil and save the world!
Wow, yeah, you're right. My apologies. I read the summary as 'A federal court overturned the patent as anticipated and obvious, and not drawn to patentable subject matter' and presumed that referred to the Federal Circuit. Someone should go ahead and mod my first post down to avoid confusion.
This patent isn't about "spam" per say, but rather bulk e-mails. While spam is completely unsolicited, bulk mail may include necessary mailings, such as companies who e-mail your w-2's or something along those lines for tax time. Also, the article suggests using e-mail lists, while many spammers just generate random e-mail addresses. This patent would be much further reaching than just spammers, but rather affect every single company that sends out e-mails to its consumer lists (ie. pretty much every company that you uncheck the box that says "e-mail me with upcoming promotions and events")
In the interest of full disclosure, I work for a company that sends out e-mails with an opt-in list that we maintain tirelessly in order to ensure that we don't get in trouble for spamming.
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
Sorry to burst your bubble; but the industry has shown us time and again that they will change the law to suit their purposes. You really think that in a decade, these software patents will become public domain? Ha, that has just as much a chance as Mickey Mouse becoming public domain (yeah, I know, copyright versus patent, but in the end we are discussing the same thing which is intellectual property).
Trust me, there are lobbys in D.C. right now fighting to extend patents, and then extend them again, probably into perpetuity. Once a company sees a revenue stream from patents, you think they are going to give that up just because it's the law? You must be high. From a long-term standpoint it's more profitable to spend millions to change the law.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
That would be insightful if it were remotely true. Patent terms have remained relatively stable for a very, very long time (unlike copyright, which actually is creeping ever towards "in perpetuity"). Expired patents enter the public domain almost every day. In fact, the most recent change to patent terms was around 1995 and was to prevent stuff like Lemelson's shenanigans with the patent term. Before 95, you could keep filing continuations forever to keep the thing alive (which is what Lemelson did). Now you get 20 years from the first filing date.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
That is for right now that this is the case... All it'd take is the same class of pressure from, say Microsoft, similar to the one Disney exerted with the Sonny Bono Extension (otherwise known as the Mickey Mouse Extension...otherwise they'd have lost Mickey to the public domain...) to change that game unless we push back against them. The creep in Copyright comes from moneyed interests leaning on the law and getting it updated so that they continue to gain advantage. All it will take is one of the big boys deciding that they can extract rents "forever" on something and the fight will be on just like it is for Copyright.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Perhaps theoretically, this could be the case. But also remember that anybody who makes anything is as much a possible patent defendant as a possible patent plaintiff. The only exception to this is the patent trolls, who don't make anything, so they can't get sued by anybody. But they don't have the clout that Disney does. Patents will continue to have a reasonable term because they are a double-edged sword.
Copyright is completely different. Disney wants perpetual copyright because it's relatively easy not to run afoul of copyright---as long as you don't actually copy anything, you're not liable. There may be the odd case, like Microsoft's recent GPL blunder, but for the most part, it's not a problem. So it's a very one-sided analysis. They make huge money with perpetual copyright, and they gain very little by having a growing public domain.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.