Slashdot Mirror


IBM Gets a Patent On 'Out-of-Office' Email Messages -- In 2017 (arstechnica.com)

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued IBM a -- what the Electronic Frontier Foundation calls -- "stupefyingly mundane" patent on e-mail technology. U.S. Patent No. 9,547,842, "Out-of-office electronic mail messaging system" was filed in 2010 and granted about six weeks ago. Ars Technica reports: The "invention" represented in the '842 patent is starkly at odds with the real history of technology, accessible in this case via a basic Google search. EFF lawyer Daniel Nazer, who wrote about the '842 patent in this month's "Stupid Patent of the Month" blog post, points to an article on a Microsoft publicity page that talks about quirky out-of-office e-mail culture dating back to the 1980s, when Microsoft marketed its Xenix e-mail system (the predecessor to today's Exchange.) IBM offers one feature that's even arguably not decades old: the ability to notify those writing to the out-of-office user some days before the set vacation dates begin. This feature, similar to "sending a postcard, not from a vacation, but to let someone know you will go on a vacation," is a "trivial change to existing systems," Nazer points out. Nazer goes on to identify some major mistakes made during the examination process. The examiner never considered whether the software claims were eligible after the Supreme Court's Alice v. CLS Bank decision, which came in 2014, and in Nazer's view, the office "did an abysmal job" of looking at the prior art. "[T]he examiner considered only patents and patent applications," notes Nazer. The office "never considered any of the many, many, existing real-world systems that pre-dated IBM's application."

16 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. An American patent? by gtall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since when is IBM still an American company, they cannot seem to shed American workers fast enough. There are some jobs el Presidente Tweetie can save, convince Rometty that she really wants to hire Americans, watch her turn green.

    1. Re:An American patent? by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People need to complain and stop this nonsense. Patents and copyrights should expire at 20 years max. Maybe less. This stifles creativity and productivity, and has nothing to do with the original intent of protecting inventors and writers. It has to stop.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    2. Re:An American patent? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People need to complain and stop this nonsense. Patents and copyrights should expire at 20 years max. Maybe less. This stifles creativity and productivity, and has nothing to do with the original intent of protecting inventors and writers. It has to stop.

      If an idea can be conceived in an hour and implemented in a under a month, then 20 years is far in excess of anything reasonable. This is part of the problem with software patents: many of the patents can be designed and implemented in less than a month. Contrast that to hardware, where the cycle can often closer to a year, or more, and many hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent, so an extended protection makes some sense to recoup R&D costs.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    3. Re:An American patent? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 2

      No, the issue is whether the patent's teachings might be of any use whatsoever to anyone who seeks to implement similar functionality.

      If they aren't -- and they definitely aren't in this case -- then the claims are obvious, and no patent should be granted on them.

      The incentives are completely misaligned at the USPTO. Their policy is to rubber-stamp everything and let a bunch of subliterate hayseeds in East Texas sort it out. This policy has no downside for the patent office at all... just for society as a whole.

    4. Re:An American patent? by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't matter. The purpose of IP (in the US) is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

      If a patent or copyright makes a reasonable profit during it's term, the intent of those exclusive rights is met. Beyond that, locking up IP impedes progress, since others can't freely build on the original. Disney built their business using the works of the bros. Grimm, Hans Christian Anderson, Mark Twain, Lewis Carroll, Kipling, etc., but now work diligently to steal our culture from us by preventing newcomers from doing similar.

      There are very, very, few inventions or works which are created with an expectation of not making good profit in less than 20 years (or for copyright, 14 years, plus one extension if the author was still alive, which was the original copyright term - patents were a bit shorter in general). And if something is going to take that long to provide enough public benefit to make a profit, it's probably better to open it up to 3rd party improvement sooner, so there's an opportunity to make it better.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:An American patent? by msauve · · Score: 2

      "make it a pure registration system where you must prove the patent valid when you try to enforce it."

      So, weight the scales even more toward large corporations with lawyers on retainer, and against the small startup?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:An American patent? by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      and has nothing to do with the original intent of protecting inventors and writers.

      The funny thing is that the original intent was not about that at all. The intent was to enrich the public domain.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    7. Re:An American patent? by msauve · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Software is an even more extreme case - there's no reasonable argument that continued copyright protection for Apple 2, or Nintendo NES, or MS-DOS programs promote the progress of science and useful arts, yet all are still under protection. A 5-10 year term for software copyright would be reasonable.

      Also, a requirement that in order to even get copyright protection at all, the source code must be placed into a depository which can be publicly accessed upon term expiration - without which the protected work can't be considered contribute to progress in the first place.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  2. Re:Patent Wars: Round 5! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Informative

    FTFA:

    Asked about EFF's criticisms of the patent, an IBM spokesperson said that "IBM has decided to dedicate the patent to the public." The company notified USPTO today that it will forego its rights to the patent.

    Which means that even IBM realizes that trying to enforce this patent would be a PR nightmare.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  3. Re:Patent Wars: Round 5! by msauve · · Score: 2

    Be sure not to leave an "I'm out of the office, returning..." message on your VM.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  4. Patent dedicated to public by by+(1706743) · · Score: 3, Informative
    According to this:

    Asked today about EFF's criticisms of the patent, an IBM spokesperson said that "IBM has decided to dedicate the patent to the public."

    So, while I absolutely think this is a stupid patent, a) I'd rather this outcome than a true patent troll get it, and b) the problem (as I see it...) is really with the patent system, NOT with IBM.

  5. EFF Barking up the wrong tree? by thogard · · Score: 2

    Perhaps the EFF could ask a judge to issue an injunction barring that examiner from issuing any more patents until they are properly trained.

    If you can't change the system at the proper level, maybe you can change the systems using their own KPIs.

  6. Re:Once again... by PPH · · Score: 2

    completely ignorant of patent law

    Perhaps. But patent law is so terribly broken that we can still afford ourselves a hearty laugh before the consequences of this fiasco comes back to bite innovators in the ass.

    From TFA:

    But the examiner considered only patents and patent applications. The Patent Office spent years going back-and-forth on whether IBMâ(TM)s claims where new compared to a particular 2006 patent application. But it never considered any of the many, many, existing real-world systems that pre-dated IBMâ(TM)s application.

    Based on this logic, I could be granted a patent on the wheel.

    F*'d up characters intentionally left in. Because it's $current_year and about time for Slashdot to get its act together.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  7. Re:IBM patents the cancer of the office. by PPH · · Score: 2

    and part excuse to not check the vacation calendar at work

    OOO notification makes sense because not everyone who can e-mail me has access to my companies calendar system. They can't because it contains potentially sensitive information.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  8. Re:Patent Wars: Round 5! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    Or, it could have been preemptive in nature, securing the obvious so that someone ... say .. Microsoft or Google tried to patent the same.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  9. IBM's Role in the Patent Arms Race by BBCWatcher · · Score: 2

    That's the real answer. First of all, IBM ranks right at the top in terms of number of patents granted, and it has for a couple decades running. With all those patents, of course they'll vary in quality and significance. Second, IBM is the first to admit that its patent strategy is primarily defensive -- to grab the patents (or to make disclosures to establish prior art, which it also does a lot) before a patent troll, or a fading technology company turning into a future patent troll, does. IBM makes surprisingly little money on patent licensing, especially given the size and significance of its patent portfolio.

    Just as one example, the primary reason Linux wasn't strangled in its crib is because IBM effectively extended its IP shield over it. We know that history, because most of it is public now. IBM profited (and profits) to some extent from Linux's success, but that's single digit percentage stuff. Something approaching 99% of the financial benefits accruing from Linux go to everybody else in the industry. IBM is fine with that, since it's still a winning profit equation for them.

    With a malfunctioning patent system, I'm OK with IBM -- and other players that behave like IBM -- grabbing the patents. If their business models are to secure patents for defense -- and to stick to those business models -- that's OK with me. But I still want the patent system to be fixed.