You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Igor Chudov <ic...@Algebra.Com> on 2007/08/30 16:59:34 UTC
Do procmail and spamassassin violate this "patent"?
Read this jaw dropping article about how someone "patented" what has
been done by procmail for many, many years.
http://informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201802746
``The method and system detailed in the patent describes a way "for
automatically interpreting an electronic message including the steps
of (a) receiving an electronic message from a source; (b) interpreting
the electronic message using a rule base and case base knowledge
engine; and (c) retrieving one or more predetermined responses
corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a
repository for automatic delivery to the source."''
Let's see, spamassassin interprets electronics messages and uses a
rule base to retrieve predetermined responses such as "spam" or "ham".
I do not know if I should laugh or cry, any suggestions?
i
Re: Do procmail and spamassassin violate this "patent"?
Posted by Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>.
> But, the people on this list are probably not what the courts will have
> in mind for deciding what is obvious to a typical person or not.
This list or the procmail list is what they SHOULD have in mind. Because it
isn't a "typical person". It is a "practitioner of the art".
Loren
Re: Do procmail and spamassassin violate this "patent"?
Posted by John Rudd <jr...@ucsc.edu>.
Loren Wilton wrote:
>> Last year a company (K.C.) received 12 patents on various aspects of
>> dimming LEDs using an ANSI standard dimming protocol/method. Their
>> claim is they invented the idea of dimming LEDs using the same dimming
>> method used for incandescent lamps and that it wasn't obvious that an
>> LED could be dimmed.
>>
>> So far, the patents haven't been overturned, but they haven't also
>> have sued anyone like Nokia for having dimmed LEDs in their phone
>> keypads...
>
> And they won't, because the Color Kenetics patents relate to producing
> colored light for specific purposes (like lighting buildings, and
> stages, and TV shows, and kitchens) that don't include keypads. Now, if
> a bunch of kids do an experimental movie on Youtube that is lit by their
> cel phone keypads, CK will probably sue them. They have certainly sued
> about as many people as the music industry at this point.
>
> And while there was strong hope that these idiot patents would be
> invalidated outside the US, that hope evaporated a couple months ago
> when Philips bought a big hunk of them.
>
The other thing to keep in mind is that while procmail and vacation look
like prior art when you read the summary of the patent, that does NOT
mean that they are prior art when you get into the nitty gritty of the
patent.
From what I read on /., this patent covers some pretty specific stuff
that may or may not match procmail and vacation. And even if procmail
and vacation are _capable_ of doing it, that doesn't necessarily mean
that they qualify as prior art if no one ever suggested that they be
used that way (I seem to recall that an example of procmail or vacation
being used in the same manner might be required).
For example, vacation is usually used to elicit one specific response
from a given recipient user, where the patent in question is for
selecting responses from an array of choices, based upon the content of
the message (and not the recipient user). It's really more like the
abuse auto-responder that yahoo uses than what vacation does.
I'm not saying that the patent shouldn't die a painful death ... IMO,
the patent covers what would be obvious from standard procmail recipies.
But, the people on this list are probably not what the courts will
have in mind for deciding what is obvious to a typical person or not.
Re: Do procmail and spamassassin violate this "patent"?
Posted by Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>.
> Last year a company (K.C.) received 12 patents on various aspects of
> dimming LEDs using an ANSI standard dimming protocol/method. Their claim
> is they invented the idea of dimming LEDs using the same dimming method
> used for incandescent lamps and that it wasn't obvious that an LED could
> be dimmed.
>
> So far, the patents haven't been overturned, but they haven't also have
> sued anyone like Nokia for having dimmed LEDs in their phone keypads...
And they won't, because the Color Kenetics patents relate to producing
colored light for specific purposes (like lighting buildings, and stages,
and TV shows, and kitchens) that don't include keypads. Now, if a bunch of
kids do an experimental movie on Youtube that is lit by their cel phone
keypads, CK will probably sue them. They have certainly sued about as many
people as the music industry at this point.
And while there was strong hope that these idiot patents would be
invalidated outside the US, that hope evaporated a couple months ago when
Philips bought a big hunk of them.
Which is kinda off-topic here.
Loren
Re: Do procmail and spamassassin violate this "patent"?
Posted by Jerry Durand <jd...@interstellar.com>.
At 02:31 PM 8/30/2007, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>This so-called "patent" actually is for an autoresponder, not for a spam
>filter. I think they will find lots of prior art :-)
Last year a company (K.C.) received 12 patents on various aspects of
dimming LEDs using an ANSI standard dimming protocol/method. Their
claim is they invented the idea of dimming LEDs using the same
dimming method used for incandescent lamps and that it wasn't obvious
that an LED could be dimmed.
So far, the patents haven't been overturned, but they haven't also
have sued anyone like Nokia for having dimmed LEDs in their phone keypads...
--
Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc. www.interstellar.com
tel: +1 408 356-3886, USA toll free: 1 866 356-3886
Skype: jerrydurand
Re: Do procmail and spamassassin violate this "patent"?
Posted by Kai Schaetzl <ma...@conactive.com>.
Igor Chudov wrote on Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:59:34 -0500:
> Let's see, spamassassin interprets electronics messages and uses a
> rule base to retrieve predetermined responses such as "spam" or "ham".
This so-called "patent" actually is for an autoresponder, not for a spam
filter. I think they will find lots of prior art :-)
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Re: Do procmail and spamassassin violate this "patent"?
Posted by Tejas Jin <tx...@intelliepi.com>.
Igor Chudov wrote:
> Read this jaw dropping article about how someone "patented" what has
> been done by procmail for many, many years.
>
> http://informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201802746
>
> ``The method and system detailed in the patent describes a way "for
> automatically interpreting an electronic message including the steps
> of (a) receiving an electronic message from a source; (b) interpreting
> the electronic message using a rule base and case base knowledge
> engine; and (c) retrieving one or more predetermined responses
> corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a
> repository for automatic delivery to the source."''
>
> Let's see, spamassassin interprets electronics messages and uses a
> rule base to retrieve predetermined responses such as "spam" or "ham".
>
> I do not know if I should laugh or cry, any suggestions?
>
> i
> .
>
>
This is just another example of poor research for prior art.
The patent system is broken. If a company submits a patent and the
patent is accepted then the company can go around threatening to sue.
Okay we'll settle out of court for much less than it would cost me in
court. Until someone takes them to court and shows prior art.
Just my theory, but I think that unless they are idiots they would never
touch procmail.
Why? because there is a fanatical base for opensource, who probably
would throw in a lot of money just for the chance to take this to court.
Not only that they would also probably counter sue for negligence in
search for prior art. In either of these cases MS would probably step
in and tell the company with the patent to knock it off or pay them to quit.
Because if the company with the patent were to lose, it would seriously
undermine some of the FUD they are spewing out.
R: Do procmail and spamassassin violate this "patent"?
Posted by Giampaolo Tomassoni <g....@libero.it>.
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Igor Chudov [mailto:ichudov@Algebra.Com]
> Inviato: giovedì 30 agosto 2007 17.00
>
> Read this jaw dropping article about how someone "patented" what has
> been done by procmail for many, many years.
>
> http://informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201802746
>
> ``The method and system detailed in the patent describes a way "for
> automatically interpreting an electronic message including the steps
> of (a) receiving an electronic message from a source; (b) interpreting
> the electronic message using a rule base and case base knowledge
> engine; and (c) retrieving one or more predetermined responses
> corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a
> repository for automatic delivery to the source."''
>
> Let's see, spamassassin interprets electronics messages and uses a
> rule base to retrieve predetermined responses such as "spam" or "ham".
>
> I do not know if I should laugh or cry, any suggestions?
If you are from USA, cry.
If you are from Europe, don't laugh.
If you are, say, from India or China, laugh soundly.
Giampaolo
> i
Re: Do procmail and spamassassin violate this "patent"?
Posted by Jeff Eshom <je...@ikano.com>.
People can patent near on anything, there are safeguards though. The
biggest ones are Prior Art and Obviousness.
The moment they try and exercise this patent they will be blown out of
the water, however you can also contact the USPatent Office with a
statement of prior art proof. They will investigate for a couple months
and invalidate it.
Jeff
Igor Chudov wrote:
> Read this jaw dropping article about how someone "patented" what has
> been done by procmail for many, many years.
>
> http://informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201802746
>
> ``The method and system detailed in the patent describes a way "for
> automatically interpreting an electronic message including the steps
> of (a) receiving an electronic message from a source; (b) interpreting
> the electronic message using a rule base and case base knowledge
> engine; and (c) retrieving one or more predetermined responses
> corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a
> repository for automatic delivery to the source."''
>
> Let's see, spamassassin interprets electronics messages and uses a
> rule base to retrieve predetermined responses such as "spam" or "ham".
>
> I do not know if I should laugh or cry, any suggestions?
>
> i
>
>
>
Re: Do procmail and spamassassin violate this "patent"?
Posted by maillist <ma...@emailacs.com>.
Igor Chudov wrote:
> Read this jaw dropping article about how someone "patented" what has
> been done by procmail for many, many years.
>
> http://informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201802746
>
First of all, how can you sue someone or an organization for something
like this? How can you prove any "loss" that needs to be refunded? I'm
not claiming to know anything about patients, or big business, or even
what the article is about (because I didn't read it), but as far as I
know about suing someone/something, you have to be able to prove how it
is a loss to you/your company.
Second, how is this related to Spamassassin? Maybe some of the
Spamassassin team can comment. How much worries are there when
developing Spamassassin, as far as getting sued?
-=Aubrey=-