Slashdot Mirror
Company Claims Ownership of Digital Messaging
An anonymous reader writes "Kootol, yet another patent troll, is going after everyone who makes messaging software for violating their soon-to-be-granted patent, which claims they invented one- and two-way messaging in 2005. From the article: 'Kootol, founded in 2010, says it has a patent license agreement with Yogesh Rathod for control of U.S. Patent Application 11/995,343. Rathod, in fact, is a co-founder of Kootol with his brother Vijay Rathod. According to Kootol, the patent application “covers core messaging, publication and real time searching technology.” Interestingly, the patent in question hasn’t actually been awarded to Kootol or Rathod yet. Rather, The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued “A Notice of Allowance.” That’s the term for when the USPTO says that an applicant is entitled to a patent under the law, but must pay an issue fee (and potentially publication fee) first, within three months.'"
Surely the SMTP protocol is a one way messaging protocol - and is older than I am!
Surely the SMTP RFC negates this...?
Good, the more ridiculous the patents get, the quicker something will be done to fix the mess. Personally, I'd like to see this patent granted, and dozens of companies ordered to pay lots of damages to the angelic company that is Kootol. ....if only to see the backlash from a thousand juggernauts against the current patent system ;)
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
from CS 101 to advanced courses.
So, patent filed in 2005. Facebook launched in 2004. Nice try!
Also, next time, maybe you shouldn't take your podunk "company" and try suing IBM, Apple, and Google all at the same time. They could literally just pay their lawyers to come and sit on your lawn and you'd be crushed under their combined gravitational weight.
I'm pretty sure I was using instant messaging programs well before 2005. I remember having used them since I discovered computers in the late 80s.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Here's the problem, even ignoring issues like software patents, and the morass they cause. The USPTO has stated that they're overwhelmed, so they're just checking the paperwork, and if its all in order, they rubber stamp it and grant the patent, the courts can sort out what patents are valid, they say. Meanwhile, the Courts are continuing to defer to the expertise of the patent office, and are EXTREMELY "reluctant" to void patents. So we get any invention, no matter how obvious, no matter how old, being patentable. And as long as you're smart about who you sue as a patent troll, (pick targets who can't afford to defend themselves, and file in known friendly courts), you're golden. The system is totally borked.
"A system for transmission, reception and accumulation of the knowledge packets to plurality of channel nodes in the network operating distributedly in a peer to peer environment via installable one or more role active Human Operating System (HOS) applications in a digital devise of each of channel node, a network controller registering and providing desired HOS applications and multiple developers developing advance communication and knowledge management applications and each of subscribers exploiting the said network resources by leveraging and augmenting taxonomically and ontologically classified knowledge classes expressed via plurality search macros and UKID structures facilitating said expert human agents for knowledge invocation and support services and service providers providing information services in the preidentified taxonomical classes, wherein each of channel nodes communicating with the unknown via domain specific supernodes each facilitating social networking and relationships development leading to human grid which is searchable via Universal Desktop Search by black box search module."
Application No. US 12/973387
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICQ
ICQ was developed in 1996 by Mirabilis.
The technology's success caused AOL to acquire Mirabilis on June 8, 1998...
If this is not prior art, I don't know what it is...
If you really want to know what this patent is all about, look at the claims to be issued. They are extremely narrow, and would only cover social networking sites if anything. Even more interesting, their claims are probably worthless in light of Muniauction. Proving joint infringement for these claims is likely impossible.
This looks very similar to the Andrew Messaging System that became the CMU campus wide mail system circa 1985.
Well that didn't take long...
Check out the bottom of their site. http://www.kootol.com/Default.html .
+1
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
"claims they invented one and two way messaging in 2005"
I read TFA's description of the patent application, and it doesn't look any different from what this two-way pager (RIM R900M) I have was doing in 1995.
This information is available on the USPTO's website under Public PAIR. You can look at the entire prosecution history of the patent -- and notice that they have submitted a sh*tload of prior art to the USPTO on this one.
Whether you like it or not, it looks like they've spent a lot of money setting this one up.
Start plowing through that prosecution history and start looking for prior art -- early prior art that isn't already on the list.
Does that mean that they won't be able to afford to pay the fees to get the patent granted?
Maybe it's just me, but I think Kootol's logo looks very similar to Gooogl's logo!
http://www.kootol.com/Images/Kootol_Logo.png
http://www.google.com/images/logos/ssl_ps_logo.png
Searching for "two way messaging" and limiting the date rate to _before_ 2005 reveals old web pages mentioning the subject.
For example, here's a web page from 2002:
http://www.wireless-location.com/fcc/tech.htm
Which says:
Along with the FCC's deregulation of telecommunications services, all three of these service providers now offer their customers Email, Internet, and Paging along with their traditional fleet dispatching services. Both Bellsouth and ARDIS (through third party manufacturers) offer small handheld messaging devices that have full function keyboards for two way messaging. Late in 1997 Bellsouth acquired 100% ownership of RAM and in March of 1998 changed the name to Bellsouth Mobile Data. ARDIS, which until recently was owned by Motorola, has been acquired by AMSC to complement its nationwide satellite data communications network by offering its customers lower cost service where ARDIS coverage is available.
Or this press release from 1994:
http://www.telecompaper.com/news/ete-device-offers-2way-pda-messaging
I'm not in the patenting arena (rather a researcher by day), I read a ton about how the patent system is totally broken but since I don't interact with it at all would one of you fine scholars be noble enough to provide myself (and perhaps a few others) with some resources that illustrate how broken things are so I can better understand the situation? I would greatly appreciate this. Thanks!
Carl Sagan quotes get you an automatic +5 on all posts.
And I couldn't find any positions listed for 'shitbag' or 'troll'. I figured if they plan on taking on the big fish, they would need legions of shitbags to help take the Internet by storm. I guess they have all the shitbags they need... damn.
It seems that a lot of these frivolous claims could be avoided if there was a stiff penalty for taking a patent issue to court and losing.
from CS 101 to advanced courses.
Patents won't cover the text; that's what copyright does.
But, there's one thing I wouldn't put past them. When e-books for college textbooks start to take off, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they come in a proprietary file format. The format itself and/or the method of rendering human-readable text from it certainly could be patented.
Then it would be even easier for them to a) kill off the used book market and b) change a couple of chapters around and create a "New Edition" that will be required next year.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Common advice from IP counsel is to never mention allowed, but not issued patents. The typical logic is that time still exists to challenge the issuance before publication. This is common advice we receive routinely, so I am surprised the featured company would draw so much attention to themselves before having stable footing. Perhaps the featured company is not receiving solid counsel? As such, I believe it may be worthwhile to seek out the clerk responsible for this patent for discussion before issuance, if anybody has time to pursue it.
They will not stand in my way when I patent:
System of using punctuation marks in order to make blocks of text more readable.
That the USPTO is staffed with lazy incompetent morons.
Even WOPR was calling David Lightman back in 1983 for a quick game of thermonuclear war...
Hmm, I like this idea. How about a patent for "Storing a complex clusters of knowledge packets such that the Operating System needs only to store the location of a single head/root packet, and each packet needs only to knowledge of one or more other packets."
There, trees lists and graphs all in a few stupid lines of legal nonsense. Maybe get specific, and patent that damned k-D tree so no one else gets tortured trying to understand how to delete crap from one.
O hai thar!
Boredom is bliss.
In the case of computer software related technology, a patent application that receives an allowance in the first office action is not worth the paper on which it is printed. Even if this issues, it will probably be invalidated by the patent office itself even before litigation. IAAPL.
Anyone can pay the fee and submit evidence that says that there were the following items of relevant prior art with documentation and the USPTO will review and issue their judgment.
To that extent, if someone patents something that had been done at a college in the 80s, it would be worthwhile submitting the documentation to show it was not a newly "invented" system.
Right now the patent application which is published does NOT reflect the allowed claims, which is typically narrower than what was originally submitted.
It will take some time to sort this out.
It seems to me that everyone comes on here and bitches every couple of weeks when another patent trolling case lights up the collective ire of Geeks United, complaining that the USPTO is incompetent, couldn't tell Prior Art if it was stuck in their prosteriors, and generally how much these things suck.
Has anyone done anything about it? Has anyone called to apply for a job at the USPTO, as unglamorous as that is? Do you not want to work for "the man"? Do we have anyone here who works for the patent office?
Seems to me you could get very far very quickly as a patent reviewer if you could go in and show that these things are dumb, have been done before and are solely for the purposes of legal action by those who have no claim to be exploiting the patent. I am of course assuming that there's someone with a bit of principle still left at the patent office, if only they could get help in reviewing - or is the patent office just out to make a buck these days?
(I recognise the irony in saying this rather than doing it myself, but as I'm not a US citizen nor do I reside in the US, it'd be difficult at best for me to follow through.)
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
Anytime you want the real story of a patent check public pair. http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair
It has the whole case-file with rejections and arguments by the attorneys.
Claims 481-525 and 662-668 allowed. There were originally 457 claims filed. Remember an examiner has 11 hours to search and the reject (if necessary) each and every claim.
Also they have filed 22 followup applications based upon this original application!!!!
Also interesting they filed a Information disclosure statement after paying the issue fee. Therefore any reference therein haven't been considered.
Morse CODE tickers (produces the dots and dashes on paper) and RADIO TELETYPE (baudot code).
Both are two way messaging systems... and are older than the hills.
Geesh I even used a papertape teletype KSR-34 to send and receive messages from/to a girlfriend I had in 1971. Dont know which is stranger, a young geek having a girlfriend or using teletype to program on.
Talk
Ytalk
VMS Phone
VMS "CB Simulator"
IRC
Telnet chats
MUDs, MOOs and such.
ICQ - and every variation of this from here on like yahoo chat and AIM.
Those are just the ones I've had hands-on experience with
I am sure there must have been some sort of instant messaging under Multics back in the '60s.
--
BMO
I seem to recall ICQ being available for quite some time before 2005.
I'd rather patent the writing system :)
I have distinct memories of using the "CB Simulator" chat system on CompuServe back in 1986. This certainly qualifies as a 2-way messaging system.
The Unix "talk" command has to figure in there somewhere too.
SMS messages have been around before 2005 (I am guessing), so that would certainly qualify as one-way messaging. Then again, so would telegrams and email.
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
JOB DESCRIPTION:
We are looking for candidates with experience managing/leading a development team in social networking, search engine, communication, e-commerce, API for integrating with 3rd parties, mobile & desktop smart client applications related environment. The Project Manager will be asked to take over their . NET development team. They will be responsible for managing the developers and development process.
EXPERIENCE:-
Candidates should have at least 7-10 years of experience.
Did they just admit that social networking already predates their patent?
--
BMO
The only reason USPTO grant dubious patents is MONEY. ... as usual and small companies will be put out of competition.
This system will provide money for :
1) USPTO so-called "civil servants"
2) Lawyers
3) DoJ : each trial will require money : judges, trials, etc.
In the end consumers/taxpayers will pay
UNIX "talk" way outdates about everyting in two way live communication. It even was on PDPs in the 1970s. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_%28software%29 )
IP multicast has been in active use on the internet since the 1980's.
IP multicast lets receivers join groups, defined by a special class of IP addresses. Senders emit packets addressed to those addresses and the IP mulitcast routing systems (of which there are several) build distribution trees to get those packets to those receivers.
So to the extent that this patent claims include subscription based addressing and transmission of data packets, IP multicast has been a running example of this for at least a quarter of a century.
Their patents mention MESSAGING but their US patent drawing http://www.kootol.com/Images/US_Pat_11995343_Figure_52.jpg refers to MASSAGING. Maybe this bloated looking email client they have allegedly invented also does a nice back rub.. ??? Jai Jai Sri Ganesha! The God of luck has answered our prayers! I recommend everyone use Kootol's patented one-way communication system (email) to send your thoughts on this absurdity to License@kootol.com. Beware; By emailing them, you are infringing on their copyright. Let the spam begin! Shubh Kaamnaayein, Kootol. You are really going to need it.
IANAL, but I don't see any information in the USPTO transaction history or file wrapper of 12/973,387 to indicate any notice of claims allowance. This appears to still be just an application.
But for those of you who want to rip into it, here's the part that matters. Have fun!
1. A method for publishing and subscribing in a social network, the method comprising: allowing user to manage Human Operating System (HOS) including one or more profiles, activities, applications, services, actions, transactions, groups, searching, sharing, communication, collaboration, contents and connections; receiving and storing each registered user's one or more profile(s), user data, preferences and relational connections or dynamic relationships; dynamically publishing one or more selectable users contents via one or more publications; allow user to dynamically subscribing one or more selected contents from selected publications received from one or more connected or related users in the social network; presenting or updating the subscribed contents to subscribing user based on one or more criteria and preferences to user interface.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more selectable subscription of publications comprises subscription of publications from one or more social or personal networks or groups of users of the social network.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein at least one of the groups of users is created based on match making of the users preferences and profiles.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more selectable publications includes a user-defined list of publishers or publications of other users including known and anonymous users of the social network.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more selectable subscriptions of publications include one or more content filters and preferences that identify a type of content from the received content items.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein one of the content filters identifies one or more multimedia content types including text, videos, images, URL, files and databases.
7. The method of claim 5, wherein one of the content filters identifies content from one or more applications, utilities, services, workspaces, auto recorded or generated journal contents and sources within the social network.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein publication synchronizing types includes snapshot, merge and transactional synchronization.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein subscriptions types included pull and push subscriptions from related or connected and matched or anonymous users of the social network.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein presenting or updating in the user interface one or more content items received from users comprises presenting a received contents of one or more subscribed publications.
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the content from publication(s) comprises a content of publication(s) that includes a real time filtered published content items provided by connected users of user.
12. The method of claim 10, wherein the content from publication(s) comprises a dynamic or auto generated content publication(s) that includes a filtered content items selected by the social network as a function of a dynamic relationship between the user and the content items.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the content items in the dynamic or auto generated publication or feed include journal entries about actions taken by other users.
14. The method of claim 10, wherein the publication(s) further includes advertisements.
15. The method of claim 1, further comprising: providing Human Operating System (HOS) including one or more applications, services, modules, utilities to user for managing one or more activities, profiles, surveys, search macros, contents, connections, actions, events, transactions, groups, searching, generating, uploading and sharing contents and communication and collaboration to the connected or related users of the social network.
16. The met
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
In searching through PAIR, I followed the divisional, not the patent at question. Please ignore my comment or feel free to mod down.
Thanks and sorry.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
The firm listed on the correspondence for the application is JENKINS, WILSON, TAYLOR & HUNT, P. A. Hell, one of the attorneys, Greg Hunt, has an M.S. in computer networking. Surely Mr. Hunt wouldn't file and prosecute an application he knows is invalid. Right? Right?
What a bunch of tools.
I tried reading the patent (since the abstract tells me nothing). I only got as far as maybe halfway through the "Background" section, but it seems to be talking about a system for searching and distributing knowledge (the difference between knowing a subject and parroting what Wikipedia says about it) via talking to other people. Maybe a way to quickly find people who would have a clue about the specific problem you have, so you'd find an answer and learn something rather than looking up 5 Q&As from random websites.
That sounds pretty useful actually. I don't know what part of it is actually being patented (maybe the software approach to make this vague system a reality), and I don't know how one would go about recognizing when something infringes on the patent. Maybe instant messages today are seen as part of the solution and thus are "infringing", but if so they are very late on that, and I don't think we've been regularly using IMs for the same purpose they propose. They state right out in the patent that they recognize certain existing forms of communication like chatting. So, again, I have no clue what they think is infringing on their patent, because I don't know of anything today that is being used in that way.
This is not to say I support this patent. It's a nightmare to read and I don't believe general approaches in solving a problem should be patentable.
All these patents start off with "a method and system for blah".
But where's the method?
All this is, is a bland description of how such a system might work. It's not a system or method itself.
This is so pathetic the lawyer$ didn't even bother to create complete sentences:
Is that a sentence?
If this is the state of tech patents today, it's truly pathetic. This is nothing more than a UserLand-esque rant in legalese on current and future possibilities in e-mail.
Also see here.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Is there anything we (as somewhat of a community) can do about this other than bitch? I'm so sick of coming here every day, only to read about bullshit like this, and read posts about about everyone basically agreeing that this is some fucked up shit, and then forgetting about it when tomorrow when more stories about other fucked up shit get posted. When was the last time we have had a victory for the nerds? I want to do more than just bitch on /., but it seems my only alternative is to bitch somewhere else with equal irrelevance.
To they have a blog or any web presence?
They should be publicly shamed - put on a pedestal on time square with a sign around their neck saying "I am a stupid greedy jerk" and a webcam pointing to them!
It doesn't have to be one to one does it? Any BBS chatting would qualify as prior art. Just because you reduce the number of participants to 2 should not make any difference and be obvious.
He he. I applied for a job once at the USPTO. Way back when I first heard they had a backlog problem. I have 20+ years of experience in the software development field. But b/c I have no formal education their online application system qualified me as a G0 (yea, a G ZERO!). And hence no job for me... and no help for those dumb shits. Pathetic.
:T:R:A:N:S:
They are claiming they have a patent, which they DON'T! They have the possibility of a patent if they pay the fees. It looks to me like they are trying to scam some company who would rather just pay for a license than litigate. And this will give them money they need to actually acquire the patent.
From what I read of their patent they're claiming search. The reading goes something along the lines of "any data gathered from a device connected to a network". Pretty much every line in the patent has prior art.
both out before 2005 and both had bare bones TCP/IP two way communications you could create.
ALSO i made such in round 2000.
AND just what is that thing called ICQ and Mirc anyways
Let's see:
Legal system not only patent system is broken. Patent system is only a minor symptom. By extension all modern representative democracy system of governance is broken. No wonder China is making such headway toward world leadership.
Check out the colors of their logo
Them http://www.kootol.com/Images/Kootol_Logo.png
Google http://blog.mediacomponents.com/images/google_logo.jpg
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The patent will issue on August 2, 2011, as #7,99,1764. See the last entry in the image file wrapper in Public PAIR. The original application was divided by the PTO into a large number of divisional applications (which the PTO does when a patent covers disparate items) and all of those are being pursued. So there's more to come.
I think I see how this got through the USPTO. If you read the application, it sounds like a novel but nutty scheme along the line of one of those "answers" sites where people answer questions submitted by others, but distributed and with some kind of AI system to try to put together what the various people are doing. Here's the abstract:
"A system for transmission, reception and accumulation of the knowledge packets to plurality of channel nodes in the network operating distributedly in a peer to peer environment via installable one or more role active Human Operating System (HOS) applications in a digital devise of each of channel node, a network controller registering and providing desired HOS applications and multiple developers developing advance communication and knowledge management applications and each of subscribers exploiting the said network resources by leveraging and augmenting taxonomically and ontologically classified knowledge classes expressed via plurality search macros and UKID structures facilitating said expert human agents for knowledge invocation and support services and service providers providing information services in the preidentified taxonomical classes, wherein each of channel nodes communicating with the unknown via domain specific supernodes each facilitating social networking and relationships development leading to human grid which is searchable via Universal Desktop Search by black box search module. "
The specification is a long stretch of turgid prose translated from some foreign language. There's pages of stuff like "On the other hand knowledge is by and large is pretty dynamic entity wherein one cannot present knowledge with the rigid boundaries. Human communication in general exploits this very virtue of our brain to express things in the plurality of contextual engagements. " It reads like an old USENET posting from some nut who thinks he has figured out AI.
The problem is that the claims don't just cover such a system. They also may cover something like Facebook, which actually is a distributed system which, among other things, puts together answers to questions through a combination of human input and AI. Nothing in the application leads the examiner to consider that possibility.
The priority date is only 2005, so there's probably prior art. But it will take litigation.
It wasn't until 1996 that digital computer was synthesized by Digital Equipment Corporation to be the first to occilate at 1GHz known as the EV6 or 21264.
Enjoy,
A.T.
After all the billions invested by large corporations in the current broken patent system, those corporations *cannot* allow patent reform to proceed, naturally, and will use all their great lobbying powers to block it. Therefore, I see no patent reform coming in my lifetime, just more and more trolls. And troll they shall, making it so that smaller companies and individuals *cannot* innovate or invent things any longer, without being forced to pay ransom on everything they do, like thugs setting up random tool booths on every street corner! Therefore... all innovators, all programmers, all inventors... must leave my country (U.S.) to keep doing what they do, and stay in business. Sorry Old Glory, it's going to be getting more and more dead here, and the rest of the world will pass us up very far technologically. Eventually, in a generation or two, they'll fix it to try to lure some back.
The whole damn internet is built on a one-to-one/two/many way messaging (since we're speaking abstract) protocol. I wonder if there's actually any new messaging protocol invented since 2005 that's worth mentioning.
they even filed it at the European Patent Office. it is not perfect and we saw some exceptions but in general the rule no software patents is working and enforced.
why did they try this? it's madness...
The system is totally borked.
And yet people get all up in their britches about the patent trolls. It's as useful to get mad at coupon shoppers at the grocery store because they drive up prices for the rest of us. The system is the system, and as long as it's the system, there will be no end in sight for the march of the patent trolls.
Folks need to direct some of that outrage towards the cause of the problem - the US government - not feigning disgust at the symptoms (the trolls).
What would it take for Slashdotters to fire off a letter to Congress for every post made here on a patent story? No, seriously, is it time, knowledge, cost, convenience?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Because in contrast to ICQ, you can run your own Jabber-Servers.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
It's the US you're talking about.Anywhere else there would have been an armed uprising. .. not in the USA , having ridiculous patents approved is the norm. .. :D
But no
If they dont understand the language ( in this case gibberrish by a non english raised person ) they will grant it
thinking it's because the invention is so advanced they dont understand the language.Bull but eh
Is, in this particular case, Apple, MS, AOL, etc, etc, etc, all team together, crush these morons, hit them with a countersuit for the costs involved in "defending" against this, and then pushing for reform to the government. Threaten to pull all licensing agreements with the government if they refuse to do something. There's no way the government could deal with no Windows licenses in any reasonable amount of time (20 years or less).
Clauses 1-457 were canceled.
in 458 they describe a main frame (prior art by many, many years) so 458 should have been canceled, in addition to all of the clauses based on 458.
providing a central controller for controlling a plurality of processes involved in said information searching and sharing;
463 is based on 462 which is based on 458 so it should be canceled. 479 repeats the claim to prior art noted above. This leaves 478 as the only clauses not voided by the above prior art. Unfortunately for the patent troll 478 vaguely describes clustered computing as a means to duplicate the process of a main frame, which there are several instances of prior art as well.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Because the businesses write the laws. From this point of view, the GOP is all about big government.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I used Radiation in 1994, a MacOS joke app that warned users about the radiation screen failing on their monitor (haha) to send one-way messages to my boss. I'm glad to hear that this patent troll used a time machine to take this technology into the future.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
I could swear this feature existed in old BBS forums. You subscribe to a thread, and it notifies you of updates via system email.
AIM has been around since 1997, 8 years before this patent was even filed. So how exactly did they invent something that was already around there are older less popular messenger services that were also around prior to this patent filing.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
If anything proves how broken the US patent office is, it'd be this. What the hell?!?
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
As with human nature, someone will go to far sooner or later, and cause a reform in patents. When I say 'go to far' I mean 'cost many corporations money simultanously'. They hate that, and as soon as you do that, sh*t hits the fan. Maybe this will be it, when every cell phone carrier, msn messnger, yahoo, all of it, has to pay royalties. Suddenly software patents might have special rules. Or they'll just destroy their patent grounds. Should be fun to see though, and will have to see what the patent is actually for ;)
Obviously Kootol has never seen any old hacker movies like the "The Cuckoo's Egg." or the like, For that matter. what about semaphore on military ships or the telegraph from the 1800's, some stations actual had two telegraphs just for that purpose. Arpanet I think used to do the same thing also. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/ARPANET
And my two way text pager held me hostage
when, surely longer than 20 years ago.
The boss could send messages to a plurality
of us and we could respond with text.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
In http://www.1729.com/blog/PossiblePriorArtForKootolPatentDated2001.html I examine the relationship between the Kootol patent, Twitter, and my unimplemented Miski system which is (or could have been) similar in many ways to how Twitter actually works. http://web.archive.org/web/20010223204516/miski.sourceforge.net/miski-white-paper.html is a copy of the description of Miski captured 23 Feb 2001 on Wayback.
Music: a super-stimulus for the perception of musicality. Musicality: a perceived aspect of speech.
... straight from the USPTO:
"Status: Publications -- Issue Fee Payment Verified
Status Date: 07-12-2011 "
When patent trolls regularly collect triple the amount of damages awarded to practicing entities in patent litigation, it is certainly no surprise that more NPEs (non-practicing entities, or "patent trolls") are springing up and becoming ever more aggressive. They have everything to gain and relatively little to lose by filing patent enforcement actions. I fear that the only way to minimize the threat that PAEs pose to small businesses is by eliminating their incentives to assert patents -- i.e., by limiting the damages that they can collect. In the meantime, you can't really blame a company like Kootol for taking advantage of weaknesses in the legal system.