RSS
131 Companies Sued Over Global Text Messaging Patent
from the couldn't-find-anyone-else? dept
The anonymous Patent Troll Tracker points us to a new patent case that appears to involve an astounding 131 defendants, including T-Mobile, Vodafone, China Resources Peoples Telephone Company Ltd, AT&T, Samsung, Palm, Microsoft, and Yahoo!, all concerning patents related to sending text messages internationally, using the internet for part of the trip. Not surprisingly, the patent in question is a continuation patent, which even the USPTO is trying to cut back on, after seeing them abused too often. The patent was just granted last month. Shouldn't it make someone scratch their head to wonder how 131 different companies could all be infringing on a patent just issued? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the idea is fairly obvious and never should have received a patent. Now, obviously, you can go back to 1996, when the original patent was filed, but again, the concept seems like the natural progression of the space, which is perhaps why so many companies use it in some way or another.
28 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- If Google Is Serious About Reforming Patent Mess, It Should Make A Bold Statement And Stop Using Motorola Patents To Demand Cash
- One Reason Why The USPTO Granted Ridiculously Stupid Internet Patents: Patent Examiners Were Banned From Using The Internet
- The Web Is Saved: East Texas Jury Says Eolas Patents Are Invalid
- Tim Berners-Lee In Court To Try To Prevent Patent Troll Eolas From Patenting Key Web Concepts
- USPTO Says Copies Of Academic Articles Submitted As Prior Art Are Covered By Fair Use
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
oh and
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
A. Fix the system by shortening the time allowed on patents for any Communications medium.
B. automatically grandfather any and all systems in place before granting of patent.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Retards !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just venting out, nothing personal, Mike
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, come on.
Just because the system is slow, does not mean that the patent is the problem. Today's equivalent to that patent would be something like practical implementation of wireless power, or airborne agriculture.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
That's it...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Just sayin.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mike, come on.
IMHO (regardless of timeperiod):
(wireless power || airborne agriculture) >> text messaging
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The 1996 date is irrelevant in an obviousness test
"the patent in question is a continuation patent"
From Wikipedia:
"A 'continuation application' is a patent application filed by an applicant who wants to pursue additional claims to an invention disclosed in an earlier application of the applicant (the 'parent' application) that has not yet been issued or abandoned. The continuation uses the same specification as the pending parent application, claims filing date priority of the parent, and must name at least one of the same inventors as in the parent."
These continuation patents are frequently abused by patent trolls. They usually find an older patent that might be somehow related to the thing that they want to patent now, and then file the patent for the new tech as a continuation claim to the original patent. This way they get the newer tech covered by the old patent, with the old patent date. Which is a nice way to do an end-run around prior art and obviousness tests. Which is why the patent trolls love them so much. Which is also why the USPTO is trying to cut back on them.
It would be nice if people could actually read and understand the blog posts before they comment on them...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mike, come on.
Compare the '96 patent to the '07 patent. The recent patent made changes to fit with what was actually happening now (the continuation). The '96 patent doesn't really cover what's happening now at all.
Either way, the point of the patent system is to encourage what wouldn't be invented otherwise. Clearly, this service became an obvious and normal progression of the work, and the patent had nothing to do with it.
So why reward this guy?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Interestingly enough...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mike, come on.
Can't get much more obvious.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
More appropriate if...
"ZOMG! U infrngeing! S3nd $$$ now or els!"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mike, come on.
You seem to be forgetting the purpose of patents: to promote invention. Clearly no patent was needed to promote this so-called "invention" considering its prevalence even before the issuance of the patent.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Text Messaging
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Texting
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Texting
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What?
--
TX CHL Instructor
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
SMS text messages started in 1992
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Been around for years
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
ha
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Obama
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
DUH
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment