Slashdot Mirror
Company Claims Patent On Spam Filtering, Sues World
EvilAlphonso notes news of a "Texas" IP holding company suing 36 actual companies for violating its claimed patent on spam filtering. Techdirt deconstructs the patent itself, No. 6,018,761, which seems to amount to little more than a database lookup. It was filed in 1996 and issued in 2000 (despite the lawyers' press release claiming that it "was awarded... nearly 15 years ago"). Among the companies being sued are 3Com, Apple, Google, AOL, Yahoo, J.C.Penney, IBM, Dell, Citigroup, and RIM. Not Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, or Microsoft, oddly enough.
By the time this patent was filed for spam filters were already around. Indeed, in 1996 one had such sophisticated filters that used by as Jason Rennie's program iFile whiched used a Bayesian statistical approach to sort potential spam into a junk folder. Prior art is going to kill this quickly.
1/ Get ambiguous patent to a seemingly obvious method of spam control
2/ Wait 15 years
3/ Sue every IT firm under the sun
4/ Profit
What is claimed is:
1. A method of obtaining context information about a sender of an electronic message using a mail processing comprising the steps of:
Scanning the message, usinig the mail processine program to determine if the message contains a reference in a header portion of the message to at least one feature of the sender's context, wherein the sender's context is information about the sender or the message that is usefiul to the recipient in understanding more about the context in which the sender sent the message;
If the message contains such reference, using the mail processing program and such reference to obtain [sender] the context information from a location external to the message;
If the message does not contain such reference, using the mail processing program and information present in the message to indirectly obtain the [sender] context information using external reference sources to find a reference to the [sender] context information.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the reference to at least one feature is a reference to a location where context information is stored.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the reference to at least one feature is a hint usable to retrieve a location where context information is stored.
Is there not some rule that says you cant just sit there for all that time until making an infringement claim? There is something rather dishonest about waiting all this time to make such a claim for what looks like a rather obvious method.
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
.30-06 ought to do it.
Other than that, not really, no.
Robert Uomini of Kensington CA already won a $22 million dollar lottery in 1995. And yes, it's the same person, because the patent application's name and city matches and this article says he's a mathematician and his linkedin says he has a Ph.D in Mathematics. Here's his real software website, notice anything familiar? Yep, the design is exactly the same, no doubt about it this is our guy.
Here's his facebook if you want to leave him a message
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
No. The Congress is.
They have lifetime guaranteed jobs (barring impeachment and conviction) because the Constitution says so.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Nonsense. First of all, EDT isn't even the most favorable district for patent plaintiffs. There are something like half a dozen districts where plaintiffs do better.
If you nuked EDT, all you would do is cause the suits to spread out to other districts, to the detriment of defendants. The reason so many suits are in EDT is because EDT can provide reasonably speedy trials. There are two reasons for this. First, because there have been many patent suits there in the past, the courts are familiar with patent litigation, which is one of the more complex areas of litigation. When you have a patent case in a court that has not dealt with patent cases, it is very slow going. (And much more likely that the judge will make reversible errors, so if you do fight off the troll, you'll just end up doing it all over again when the troll gets the verdict thrown out and the case remanded for a new trial on appeal).
Second, EDT doesn't have many Federal criminal cases. Criminal cases take priority over civil cases in Federal court, due to the constitutional requirement of a speedy trial for criminal cases. In districts where there are a lot of federal criminal cases (e.g., any place where the stupid war on drugs is being heavily waged) civil cases can take months or years to even get to preliminary hearings. File a patent case in one of those districts, and you'll be tied up for many many many years--something neither side wants.
Given a choice between being sued in EDT and being sued in the plaintiff's home district (if that is different from the defendant's home district), I would bet that most defendants would pick EDT, to get it over faster and keep costs down.
The Eastern district of Texas was, and perhaps still is friendly to patent trolls
But generally speaking.. they die first.
Out of the 111 justices that have served, 24 retired. That's over 20%.
. . . unless you're a quitter like Justice Stevens.
The man is 90 years old and has served this country for almost 35 years and you call him a quitter because he wanted to retire at 90? Incidentally how would you like to be judged if you lived long enough to retire at 65?
Just because justices are given lifetime appointments does not mean that they themselves can't retire if they choose. Being smart individuals, they probably understand that in older age, they may not have the capacity to serve their post effectively as someone younger/healthier. One reason some of them die before retiring is that they don't want to be replaced by the current administration because the current administration will appoint someone with opposing political views. Some do leave for personal/health reasons like Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, etc.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.