RSS
Twitter
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.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Although it seems like "the natural progression of the space" or to put it simply: obvious, in this time and age, I don't recall many companies offering this service back in '96.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
oh and
First post
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
With technology and computers and time everything is obvious so .... perhaps it is time to
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
"place before granting" I think that should be before the patent was filed
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Perhaps it is time to stop granting patents on computer code and business processes?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Retards !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Morons, Idiots, cretins, imbeciles...
Just venting out, nothing personal, Mike
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Mike, come on.
With all due respect, in 1996, such a patent is FAR beyond obvious, it's even far beyond innovation.
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Mike, come on.
uhh, what???
IMHO (regardless of timeperiod):
(wireless power || airborne agriculture) >> text messaging
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Mike, come on.
With all due respect, in 1996, such a patent is FAR beyond obvious, it's even far beyond innovation.
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Mike, come on.
Certainly it was obvious. There was e-mail and ICQ in 1996, both of which involve sending text messages. And certainly, such messages were sent internationally.
Can't get much more obvious.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
That's it...
I'm hopping on the patent bandwagon and getting a patent for texting to other celestial bodies including the moon and any space stations. I'll be rich in the future!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Here's an idea. If it takes them 11 YEARS to grant a patent... maybe it shouldn't be granted?
Just sayin.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The 1996 date is irrelevant in an obviousness test
The key sentence is:
"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 comment) (link to this comment)
Interestingly enough...
The patent was granted last month. The new rules for continuation patents went into effect on the first of this month. Coincidence?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
A lot of people seem to be arguing that such a patent was non obvious back in 1996, but I think there are 2 critical points here. First, the patent's abstract describes the use of the internet to implement a paging system. It was probably not uncommon at the time to send such messages over a packet switched network. Second, the patent is a continuation patent meaning that some of the claims in the granted patent were probably not covered by the original filing and were added to broaden the patent to cover text messaging as it rose in popularity.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
More appropriate if...
I would have liked to have seen the lawsuits get files via text messaging:
"ZOMG! U infrngeing! S3nd $$$ now or els!"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Text Messaging
Relay chat had messaging and paging as far back as 1986. While in the military from '82 - '86 we had international text communication over then internet as well. Seems like prior art to me.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Texting
I think just the mere fact that 131 companies have been doing this for so long with out filing for patents on this makes it obvious or natural progression. As far as obvious and natural progressions go, has anyone filed a patent on attaching more than one wheel on a common plain? If not i can sue every car manufacturer!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Texting
As far as obvious and natural progressions go, has anyone filed a patent on attaching more than one wheel on a common plain? If not i can sue every car manufacturer! Wouldn't this cover bikes, motorcycles, etc? You could be a rich man Text and Drive. 8)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What?
Not in Marshall, TX?
--
TX CHL Instructor
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
SMS text messages started in 1992
Although the ideas in the patent might have been new in the USA in 1996, they were not new in Europe. GSM was defined in 1990, the first commercial services started in 1991, the first SMS text message was sent in 1992, GSM Phase 2 data/fax services were launched in 1994, and FAX/data/SMS roaming started in 1995.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Been around for years
I used to work in the telecomms industry and exchanging text messages via the internet is simply how it is done. SMPP has been around for years and is how one smc (think mail server for text messages) communicates with another. It is a network based protocol that usually uses TCP or X25. Carriers tend to communicate with each other via IPSEC based VPNs, this is just how text messaging works and to patent it is just silly. The only other way is to use an actual private network like MPLS or a straight forward leased line connection with every carrier in the world. When you think about it like that, using a VPN over the internet is incredibly obvious and the only really practicle solution.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
In the above comment I meant SMSC not SMC
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
ha
haha!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Obama
You will never win
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
DUH
He wont win BUT I WILL!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment