RSS
Twitter
Can We Build An IM Bot That Discusses Bad Patents?
from the more-for-the-lawyers dept
In yet another example of bad patents, ActiveBuddy has been granted a patent for creating instant mesasging bots. The scary thing, however, is just how smug ActiveBuddy's founder, Tim Kay, sounds in the quotes in the article where he talks about going after anyone else who is creating IMbots. For example: "We invented interactive agents. Anybody using his or her own tools is obviously using our technology without paying us." There are plenty of examples of prior art, which Kay simply brushes off by saying, "I am fairly confident, there were no interactive agents on IM at that point when the application was filed. I'm certainly not aware of any." In other words, just because he didn't know of any, they obviously could not have existed.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Damn the patents!
Active Buddy was built on open-source (I thought). How do you patent and open-source application?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What an ass.
I mean that guy may be a good person ( giving him the benefit of the doubt ) but, he comes across as one of the worst kind of weaselly, corporate, we're-going-to-sue-you types around. He should just come out and say, "We don't care what all these unfunded losers think because, we have a patent and money for lawyers."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
My favorite prior art...
..for this particular bad patent is stuff we did at my previous company Activerse, a couple of years before ActiveBuddy was founded. See my weblog for the full details.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
isn't the concept spelled out pretty well in a Turing test? Circa 1910??? I'm guessing that patent won't hold up...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
i thought so...
Here's a link to someone who created an AI bot that passed the Turing test (he claims) in 1989 using a crude Vax VMS version of "chat"
http://www.compapp.dcu.ie/~humphrys/eliza.html
Actually, he has a good set of links on old AI and chat 'bots'.
Good luck with enforcing that patent, cocky mofo.
And another big "thanks" to our patent office!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
U All r GAY
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Eggdrop
Do I really need to point out all of the IRC bot scripts/programs that have existed over the years? I created bots prior to the filing of that patent. One would even monitor conversations in a small channel and try to learn appropriate responses. (It didn't work that well)
How could anyone possibly think this was a unique and new patentable idea. While IRC isn't exactly the same as IM it's not that terribly far off, and this is just an extension of pre-existing work.
I think they need to create a new computer division of the patent office that isn't so moronic.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment