But the existence of prior art makes the patent unenforcable. Hopefully this gross oversight on the part of both ActiveBuddy's patent attorneys and the USPTO will be realized before any action is taken using this ridiculous patent.
Given the fact that they didn't seem to notice that bots existed before ActiveBuddy, yes, I do wonder why they charge so much if they can't find obvious example of prior art.
This is the full text of an inquiry I have sent to ActiveBuddy via their Press Inquiries area. ------------- I'm writing you in regards to your recent patent grant for interactive agent technology. In an article at Internet News (http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/ 1446781), Tim Kay is quoted as saying "We invented interactive agents. Anybody using his or her own tools (to make bots) is obviously using our technology without paying us to license the server, for example." I am inquiring as to what research as to prior art was done before submitting a patent request, as the same Internet News article quotes several developers as knowing of 'bots' whose code is freely available and has been since before ActiveBuddy was even a company. Specifically named is the Perl module Net::AIM, timestamped in CPAN as having been originally published on 18-Aug-1999, well prior to your patent application filed on August 22, 2000. The original code of the Net::AIM module, and included with the package at the time, included code for an 'interactive agent', albeit not as complex as the technology your company uses today.
The first line of the patent summary reads as follows: "A method and system for interactively responding to queries from a remotely located user includes a computer server system configured to receiving an instant message query or request from the user over the Internet." This is the very definition of a bot, which is not new technology. A common type of IRC known as Eggdrop, which meets the description offered by the description offered in the patent, has been around since late 1993 (http://www.eggdrops.net/eggdrophistory.html).
My question to you is, what findings did you uncover when researching for this patent, and given the fact that numerous examples of prior art can be shown, do you believe the patent will be enforcable, and if so, how? ------------- I would very much like hear what sort of spin they put on this.
It's one thing for them to be lobbying against laws mandating open source, it's quite another for them to bash the GPL like they're doing. If the 'Software Choice' group wants to live up to it's name then it should respect any decision a group makes for it's software, be it proprietary or open-source, instead of trying to force a 'choice' of proprietary software.
No, there will just be a huge crackdown on PCs, and then advertisers will throw their weight behind Palladium so that noone can watch anything that doesn't have commercials.
I wonder if we can start a campaign to keep the RIAA DoSed off the net. Not that I'd ever condone such a thing, but there are times when a little net abuse is so poetic.
There's not a whole lot of foresight that goes into planning, I guess, it seems that it's just 'get it out, we'll fix it in the next version' for hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
But the existence of prior art makes the patent unenforcable. Hopefully this gross oversight on the part of both ActiveBuddy's patent attorneys and the USPTO will be realized before any action is taken using this ridiculous patent.
Given the fact that they didn't seem to notice that bots existed before ActiveBuddy, yes, I do wonder why they charge so much if they can't find obvious example of prior art.
This is the full text of an inquiry I have sent to ActiveBuddy via their Press Inquiries area./ 1446781), Tim Kay is quoted as saying "We invented interactive agents. Anybody using his or her own tools (to make bots) is obviously using our technology without paying us to license the server, for example."
-------------
I'm writing you in regards to your recent patent grant for interactive agent technology. In an article at Internet News (http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php
I am inquiring as to what research as to prior art was done before submitting a patent request, as the same Internet News article quotes several developers as knowing of 'bots' whose code is freely available and has been since before ActiveBuddy was even a company. Specifically named is the Perl module Net::AIM, timestamped in CPAN as having been originally published on 18-Aug-1999, well prior to your patent application filed on August 22, 2000. The original code of the Net::AIM module, and included with the package at the time, included code for an 'interactive agent', albeit not as complex as the technology your company uses today.
The first line of the patent summary reads as follows: "A method and system for interactively responding to queries from a remotely located user includes a computer server system configured to receiving an instant message query or request from the user over the Internet." This is the very definition of a bot, which is not new technology. A common type of IRC known as Eggdrop, which meets the description offered by the description offered in the patent, has been around since late 1993 (http://www.eggdrops.net/eggdrophistory.html).
My question to you is, what findings did you uncover when researching for this patent, and given the fact that numerous examples of prior art can be shown, do you believe the patent will be enforcable, and if so, how?
-------------
I would very much like hear what sort of spin they put on this.
It's one thing for them to be lobbying against laws mandating open source, it's quite another for them to bash the GPL like they're doing. If the 'Software Choice' group wants to live up to it's name then it should respect any decision a group makes for it's software, be it proprietary or open-source, instead of trying to force a 'choice' of proprietary software.
Interesting that a group calling itself Software Choice is trying to tell people not to choose certain software.
Why not just get CDex and not have to worry about that?
No, there will just be a huge crackdown on PCs, and then advertisers will throw their weight behind Palladium so that noone can watch anything that doesn't have commercials.
I wonder if we can start a campaign to keep the RIAA DoSed off the net. Not that I'd ever condone such a thing, but there are times when a little net abuse is so poetic.
Right on.
I'm surprised you can even find them anymore on eBay, I'd have figured they'd have all been Bought Now pretty quickly.
There's not a whole lot of foresight that goes into planning, I guess, it seems that it's just 'get it out, we'll fix it in the next version' for hardware.
This seems like a sign pointing out that Symantec only wants the SecurityFocus name.
About what percentange of effects and the like in the average movie is there? And how do you think this will be 5 or 10 years from now?
It's truly a sad state of affairs, and it doesn't look like it's going to get any better in the near future.
And it only took MS 3 years to get a PC version of a game originally developed for the PC.
Ironic, isn't it.