Additionally, to get anything useful out of the packets, one must sniff and store several packets to make sense of the information. If the government does store copies of this information in order to process it, I suspect it might violate some privacy expectations that is constitutionally protected.
Well, what about the other two prongs to be considered?...
1)Dog sniffed out marijuana during a legitimate traffic stop.
2)Whether there's a legitimate privacy interest being protected.
The first prong would still require some appropriate reason ('probable cause' created by dog) to investigate an individual's packets, and only until a reasonable point (free from being unduly detained) under the Fourth Amendment.
Admittedly, an automated packet sniffer might fit this definition, although whether such a sniffer would be 'sui generis' like the dog, I don't know, but I suspect not. [Here is where a law review article might be useful.]
Second, the case here is over possession of drugs, whereas packets may be more like communication that would be entitled to constitutional privacy interests.
Besides, SCOTUS did decide to determine the question narrowly, saying "The question on which we granted certiorari, 541 U.S. 972, 159 L. Ed. 2d 84, 124 S. Ct. 2219 (2004), is narrow: "Whether the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop."" limiting its potential application to online packet sniffing.
An additional note: I think that replies to both articles posted here and in the previous reference seem to miss the nuances when invoking prior art.
For instance, one had mentioned a "Play Quake" option in ICQ around 1996. Several talk about Battle.net. I'm not certain both are implementations of the Yahoo patent.
Look closely at the patent flow chat (Go to Gamespot article, "view slideshow", second image - press next).
One person starts a game, sends a message using an instant messenger program to an invitee, who receives it using instant messenger, who can use IM to join the game.
My point is if there are small differences in how other programs implemented this system (i.e. how did the inviter create the IM message to the invitee on ICQ "Play Quake"?) then that is enough difference to prevent invoking prior art.
From the article, it looks like there are two problems:
1)Kirmese, one of the Xfire's management, worked for Yahoo and came up with the patent in question while in Yahoo's employment.
2)Whether the implementation of connecting gamers through messenger programs under patent 6,699,125 is really enforceable.
Yahoo is concerned about a former employee using an implementation of connecting gamers together through a messenging service. Somehow, I suspect the patent itself might fall within prior art. The patent was awarded in 2004, and I seem to remember other examples of using messenging services to get games going.
From the article, it looks like there are two problems:
1)Kirmese, one of the Xfire's management, worked for Yahoo and came up with the patent in question while in Yahoo's employment.
2)Whether the implementation of connecting gamers through messenger programs under patent 6,699,125 is really enforceable.
Yahoo is concerned about a former employee using an implementation of connecting gamers together through a messenging service. Somehow, I suspect the patent itself might fall within prior art. The patent was awarded in 2004, and I seem to remember other examples of using messenging services to get games going.
Imagine a scenario where Google sells an AdWord subscription to Microsoft. The keywork they sell is "Linux". Thus, everytime someone does a search on Linux the top link will take them to a page extolling Windows and explaining how the TCO for Windows is considerably less than that of Linux. This is clearly not an acceptable practice. Google needs to use some discretion on who they sell this Adword subscriptions too. A generic noun (like handbag or Operating System) is fair game to anyone. But a trademark needs to be carefully considered. (Emphasis added)
I for one would like to ask, why not?
In my view it would be fair game for Red Hat (or IBM, FSF, and any other Linux advocates) to buy an AdWord subscription and use the keyword "Microsoft" to explain the benefits of open source, improve Linux's 'presence' (think about who search for Microsoft), and improved security. Under the GEICO ruling, this would be a perfectly legitimate practice and without infringing on the GEICO trademark.
I fail to see why the above would not be an acceptable practice, and in reverse, why Microsoft couldn't buy the keyword "linux" for its AdWord subscription.
I think part of the problem here is different laws between the two countries. In the US, Google is not infringing on GEICO's trademark if they triggering advertisement via a trademark, but the same does not appear to be true in France.
Perhaps there are some nuances about the French civil law that makes using trademarked items as advertisement triggers an infringement.
Unfortunately I cannot read French, nor find a copy of the ruling.
Slashdot Mirror
When will it be published, and what is the working title?
Additionally, to get anything useful out of the packets, one must sniff and store several packets to make sense of the information. If the government does store copies of this information in order to process it, I suspect it might violate some privacy expectations that is constitutionally protected.
Well, what about the other two prongs to be considered?...
1)Dog sniffed out marijuana during a legitimate traffic stop.
2)Whether there's a legitimate privacy interest being protected.
The first prong would still require some appropriate reason ('probable cause' created by dog) to investigate an individual's packets, and only until a reasonable point (free from being unduly detained) under the Fourth Amendment.
Admittedly, an automated packet sniffer might fit this definition, although whether such a sniffer would be 'sui generis' like the dog, I don't know, but I suspect not. [Here is where a law review article might be useful.]
Second, the case here is over possession of drugs, whereas packets may be more like communication that would be entitled to constitutional privacy interests.
Besides, SCOTUS did decide to determine the question narrowly, saying "The question on which we granted certiorari, 541 U.S. 972, 159 L. Ed. 2d 84, 124 S. Ct. 2219 (2004), is narrow: "Whether the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop."" limiting its potential application to online packet sniffing.
Herding cats? Patents? It's not as if "patent disclosure law very much resembles the proverbial herding of cats".
An additional note:
I think that replies to both articles posted here and in the previous reference seem to miss the nuances when invoking prior art.
For instance, one had mentioned a "Play Quake" option in ICQ around 1996. Several talk about Battle.net. I'm not certain both are implementations of the Yahoo patent.
Look closely at the patent flow chat (Go to Gamespot article, "view slideshow", second image - press next).
One person starts a game, sends a message using an instant messenger program to an invitee, who receives it using instant messenger, who can use IM to join the game.
My point is if there are small differences in how other programs implemented this system (i.e. how did the inviter create the IM message to the invitee on ICQ "Play Quake"?) then that is enough difference to prevent invoking prior art.
From the article, it looks like there are two problems:
1)Kirmese, one of the Xfire's management, worked for Yahoo and came up with the patent in question while in Yahoo's employment.
2)Whether the implementation of connecting gamers through messenger programs under patent 6,699,125 is really enforceable.
Yahoo is concerned about a former employee using an implementation of connecting gamers together through a messenging service. Somehow, I suspect the patent itself might fall within prior art. The patent was awarded in 2004, and I seem to remember other examples of using messenging services to get games going.
Slight nuance: Involving an instant messenging service to invite players. See Figure 2.
From the article, it looks like there are two problems:
1)Kirmese, one of the Xfire's management, worked for Yahoo and came up with the patent in question while in Yahoo's employment.
2)Whether the implementation of connecting gamers through messenger programs under patent 6,699,125 is really enforceable.
Yahoo is concerned about a former employee using an implementation of connecting gamers together through a messenging service. Somehow, I suspect the patent itself might fall within prior art. The patent was awarded in 2004, and I seem to remember other examples of using messenging services to get games going.
Imagine a scenario where Google sells an AdWord subscription to Microsoft. The keywork they sell is "Linux". Thus, everytime someone does a search on Linux the top link will take them to a page extolling Windows and explaining how the TCO for Windows is considerably less than that of Linux. This is clearly not an acceptable practice. Google needs to use some discretion on who they sell this Adword subscriptions too. A generic noun (like handbag or Operating System) is fair game to anyone. But a trademark needs to be carefully considered. (Emphasis added) I for one would like to ask, why not? In my view it would be fair game for Red Hat (or IBM, FSF, and any other Linux advocates) to buy an AdWord subscription and use the keyword "Microsoft" to explain the benefits of open source, improve Linux's 'presence' (think about who search for Microsoft), and improved security. Under the GEICO ruling, this would be a perfectly legitimate practice and without infringing on the GEICO trademark. I fail to see why the above would not be an acceptable practice, and in reverse, why Microsoft couldn't buy the keyword "linux" for its AdWord subscription.
I think part of the problem here is different laws between the two countries. In the US, Google is not infringing on GEICO's trademark if they triggering advertisement via a trademark, but the same does not appear to be true in France.
Perhaps there are some nuances about the French civil law that makes using trademarked items as advertisement triggers an infringement.
Unfortunately I cannot read French, nor find a copy of the ruling.