Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Company Claims Ownership of Digital Messaging

Posted by samzenpus on from the first-of-the-first! dept.

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.'"

25 of 325 comments (clear)

  1. Prior Art? by Stormthirst · · Score: 4, Informative

    Surely the SMTP protocol is a one way messaging protocol - and is older than I am!

    1. Re:Prior Art? by yeesh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ICQ. It's been out since 1996. And I think it's such a shame it's not still used. Back in the UO days it was the standard of online comms.

    2. Re:Prior Art? by The+Conductor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not as old as SMTP, but older than ICQ, is the text-based talk program, which goes back to at least 4.2 BSD. And IRC and similar BBS type programs, as well as the VAX/VMS phone program, go back to the 80's at least. I know VMS phone had notification; can't remember if it had presence though.

    3. Re:Prior Art? by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not really even about messaging. The abstract in the patent application is so ass-backwards and contorted that nobody could make heads or tails of what the actual invention is. Here is 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.

      My favorite part has to be "knowledge packets"...

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    4. Re:Prior Art? by ldobehardcore · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Reason why this disgusting troll is being awarded a patent is because of multiple reasons
      The most prescient is that the USPTO doesn't look for prior art, obviousness or novelty when granting patents.
      The next reason is that the USPTO along with many ill-informed politicians believe that the number of patents granted in a year has a direct correlation to the technological development of the country. This is easily nullified by the very fact that patent trolls exist. Since a company can buy a patent which is a monopoly on a theoretical device, method, or nowadays even a data set (see Monsanto's gene patents), the actual technological imperative to produce is gone. It has been replaced with an incentive to suppress a technology defined in a patent, and when it has been developed by an independent company unaware of the patent, to sue and generate a profit.
      Patents are defined in US law as a way to promote the progress of useful sciences and arts. In the last twenty or more years, it has been shown hands-down that patents do the exact opposite. They grant a monopoly to a company. The company then stands to gain in the short term far more by suing than by investing money in developing the device or method described in it's patents.
      The way that the patent system has been gamed to prevent the public from doing real research and development is deplorable, and I will be glad of the day when patent is done away with.
      I'm sure that patent will exist forever in US government, but all of my observations have show that it is not merely worthless as an institution, but detrimental to technological progress.

      --
      Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
    5. Re:Prior Art? by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 3, Funny

      It is so utterly, completely obvious that the taxonomic ignification is merely a matter of sorting the knowledge packets according to chromulence, distification, and relevactory mystilience. I therefore award this patent to these geniuses, void all prior art, and entitle them to billions in ransom. Let it be known that this East Texas court is a fair and honest place where all may come and get their just rewards.

    6. Re:Prior Art? by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If only USPTO was responsible for sharing the costs of a failed patent they wouldn't allow them so easy.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    7. Re:Prior Art? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tons of older protocols...

      So? This is the USPTO we're talking about, they stamp anything (so long as they get their fee...)

      --
      No sig today...
    8. Re:Prior Art? by jbeaupre · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I currently make most of my income dealing with patents (searching, reading, analyzing, finding problems with them, writing material for them, etc). And guess what? Nobody reads the abstract to figure out the details. All it is useful for is to determine if it's even vaguely related to what you are working on.

      If you base any analysis on a reading of the abstract alone, you are making a huge mistake. Don't bother.

      I'm not saying the patent is valid or not. I'm just saying don't read the abstract.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    9. Re:Prior Art? by davester666 · · Score: 3

      This is a new patent. They added " with a computer" to your old, obsolete patent.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    10. Re:Prior Art? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is a new patent. They added " with a computer" to your old, obsolete patent.

      But did they add "with a shiny computer"?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Software patent implosion by Twinbee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Software patent implosion by Grave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The mere fact that we're having to pin our hopes of patent reform on corporate interests is disgusting, and proof of the inherent failure of the US government to act on behalf of the interests of the greater good of its citizens in practical matters.

    2. Re:Software patent implosion by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most of the thousand juggernauts you speak of are only juggernauts themselves because the patent system is the way it is. They'd much rather pay some miniscule fee than destroy their entire business model. It's going to need to get much worse before it gets better.

      (emphasis added)

      Isn't that so typically the case? I'd say there seems to be nothing more American than avoiding at all costs the use of foresight and prevention (i.e. before something turns into a crisis) but unfortunately, the USA doesn't have a monopoly on this.

      Fools are the sort who really desire political power. Nothing is less evident to a fool than the fact that every large national crisis was once a small problem that could have been resolved with relative ease, but the failure to do so allowed it to grow and evolve into a monster.

      The idea scales in both directions. It's true of individual personal lives and it's true of national affairs. Those who don't understand this think they are victims of misfortune. The reality is, an actual victim of misfortune that was completely unforeseeable and non-preventable is an extremely rare entity. On the national scale though, there is a grave injustice built into this: the fact that those who did see it coming are few and tend to be drowned out by the din of reactive fools. When they are affected by broken systems, they get to suffer along with those who really deserve it.

      Funny how when politicians talk about "fairness" (really a puerile version of justice), distribution of wealth is the only kind they seem to recognize.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:Software patent implosion by greenbird · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess you have no understanding of patents... There were meant to protect inventors of things from those that would steal the ideas.

      I guess you have no understanding of patents or at least not if you're from the US. They were never indented to protect inventors from anything. You might want to take just a little peek at Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution. The only Constitutional justification for granting monopoly rights to something is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Nothing in there about protecting inventors from anything. And seems to me that justification is pretty focused on the greater good of society.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    4. Re:Software patent implosion by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And once we've successfully got the size of government down to the point where it can be drowned in the bathtub at Grover Norquist's convenience, who exactly do you think it going to stand up to the corporate plutocrats, even in principle?

      It may surprise you but there are a few people out there who actually will fight for the people given a chance. Think of the Roosevelts. Of course, since the modern GOP deliberately sabotages the government for the purpose of proving that government doesn't work...

    5. Re:Software patent implosion by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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 ;)

      Unfortunately, it's not likely to work out that way. Kootol will no doubt be crushed, but the giant companies they're suing will most likely pay off Congress to "reform" the patent system in a way that makes it more difficult for small patent trolls to operate while still allowing the giants to go after small developers (and not-so-small, as in Microsoft's ongoing war against Linux.) Don't ask me what the specific wording will be; I don't claim to know, but they've got armies of lawyers to write the language to achieve the desired result.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  3. Patent system is broken! by Cadallin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Patent system is broken! by sribe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What good software engineer is going to become an examiner for the USPTO compared to the benefits they could receive elsewhere.

      Also, please remember that for about the first decade after they decided to start granting software patents, they did not allow the hiring of software engineers (ie those with CS degrees) as examiners.

    2. Re:Patent system is broken! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps we should go back to actually funding the USPTO mainly with tax revenue. I realize that there's a lot of people here that are opposed on principle, but sometimes taxpayers are the correct party to fund things.

      Communist! Socialist! Pedophile! Pothead! Music pirate! Think of the children! If we violate the principles of God and the Founding Fathers by doing such a thing, the terrorists have won!

      There. Hope that clears things up for you.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The "talk" program was available on the DEC PDP-11 computer system in the 1970s and in BSD v4.2 since 1983.

  5. I think I've seen this before by glebovitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This looks very similar to the Andrew Messaging System that became the CMU campus wide mail system circa 1985.

  6. Re:Really? by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Funny

    In that case you owe me patent royalties, as I invented the digital computer last week.

    Surely I have at least as sound a claim as Kootol does.

  7. My eyes! by Haedrian · · Score: 4, Funny

    They will not stand in my way when I patent:

    System of using punctuation marks in order to make blocks of text more readable.

  8. Re:Really? by Haedrian · · Score: 5, Funny

    Method and Apparatus for use of SIlicon with additives to create electric motion in order to provide a system of postively charge regions thereafter called 1s and a system of negativly charged regions therafter called 0s in order to create, transmit,produce,transfer,convert,read,translate,display,distinguish,perform arthematic functions upon,simulate,compute information packets in order to allow a human user (HU) the ability to create, transmit,produce,transfer,convert,read,translate,display,distinguish,perform arthematic functions upon,simulate,compute further information packets which are then translated into motion of photons and EM radiation of specific frequencies by use of a 'monitor' in order to give Human Readable (HR) results which the human user (HU) is using.