OMG! IBM Patented LOL! ROTFLMAO!

from the omg dept

theodp writes "The USPTO has granted IBM a patent covering the Resolution of Abbreviated Text in an Electronic Communications System, lawyer-speak for translating "IMHO" to "In My Humble Opinion" and vice versa. From the patent: "One particularly useful application of the invention is to interpret the meaning of shorthand terms...For example, one database may define the shorthand term 'LOL' to mean 'laughing out loud.'" So much for Big Blue's professed aim of stopping "bad behavior" by companies who seek patents for unoriginal work!"


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    known coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 6:27am

    patenting translating code to langauge

    LOL let them ES&D



    old samual morse must be rolling in his grave


    ... --- ...

    I know this type of translation has never been done before



    ES&DMF

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      chris (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 7:29am

      Re: patenting translating code to langauge

      i agree. IBM DIAF.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        John Duncan Yoyo (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 4:24pm

        Re: Re: patenting translating code to langauge

        Sharks with freaking LASERs are attacking both UNCLE and CONTROL we think it is KAOS and SMERSH teamed up with THRUSH and a bunch of BEMs. Fortunately SHEILD and UNIT are providing assistance in repelling this attack.

        A bunch of old OSS agents that had joined the CIA had this sort of attack on their RADAR and prepared a dozen IBMs to get the blue menace.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 6:28am

    wtf?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 6:41am

    WTF Im LMFAO, This is such BS! I agree that they should ES&D. IMHO. Now they must think they can WOOT everyone but they are F,kng wrong.

    IBM = Idiots Being Morons

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 6:51am

    ZOMGWTFBBQ?!

    DIAF IBM

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 6:54am

    Did they just patent a dictionary?

    Don't we already have those?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Somewhtieguy, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 7:01am

    Read the Patent

    They basically patented what Microsoft Word's word replacement feature has been doing for years. I guess they're making a more universal database so APIs can call the database for the change? My instant messengers have always done this for me. Not sure how this is new technology.

    OMGDIAFBBQIBM

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jake, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 7:03am

    The idea's actually pretty cool, if I'm reading what they're trying to do correctly. It's also something any competent programmer could recreate in a weekend.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Designerfx (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 7:11am

      Re:

      yeah, I don't see how this is patent worthy, but I guess IBM is building up quite a case that software patents are absurd.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 8:16am

        Re: Re:

        "but I guess IBM is building up quite a case that software patents are absurd."

        It makes no difference. Big corporations always get their way.

        While the Internet is generally good I think one problem with it (and I'm guilty of it too) is that it makes people lazy. People think that they can encourage the government to act in their interest by simply making a comment on a blog. Lobbyists, on the other hand, actually GO TO congress and congressmen and demands. Back in the days people would actually MARCH TO congress and overwhelm it with people until congress gave in. They would actually go out and protest and they would overwhelm the streets, etc... Now they think that posting on a blog is a protest and of course congress favors the lobbyists, who are at congress and talking with the congressmen in person, over some comments from people who can't be bothered to go to congress. Also going to congress is something that costs the economy, people deviate from their work to protest congress and that causes economic harm (ie: less tax revenue for the government for one thing), so congress is much more likely to listen. Whereas posting on the Internet is often done on peoples spare time, no economic harm so congress could care less.

        Same thing, people now send E - Mails, which cost virtually nothing whereas people used to send actual letters, which costs resources that could better be used for something else and so it's a waste of economic resources for people to send letters (though it's minor). Also E - Mails are much easier to delete and ignore whereas physical letters clog up our postal service and must be disposed of physically.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 7:04am

    What I'd like to see

    Is some kind of mass overreaction by every one of the "alphabet agencies" in the States.

    FBI
    CIA
    NSA
    DOD
    ONI
    NCIS
    DoHD

    ....Sic 'em, bitches!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    citizenj, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 7:06am

    OMGWTFLOLROFLMAOIANALIMHOI

    crap, now I owe IBM like 30 gazillion dollars....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 7:34am

    They should patent 'Idiot' too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jimr (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 7:40am

    Already Done and USED long long ago.

    Microsoft Word do this a long time ago with the AutoCorrect feature back in late 90s (IE: Word 7, Word 2003)? Since MS Outlook can use Word as email editor then this feature is used in Electronic Communications System.

    I know I put many many short hand items in the AutoCorrect's dictionary. I have even worked at clients that had a custom dictionary full of their internal abbreviations. About 7 years ago we also used there internal abbreviations in the Database to automatically expand out short hand writing.

    It seems to me this idea has already been out in the market for at least the last 10 years. And if I go back to the Automatic decoding Morse code machines into English or even the ticker tape machine translator. All these systems used Electronic Communications System and translated the abbreviation (be it Morse code, or every). You could even classify a compression algorithm like ZIP, Kermit, TAR, etc as a way of Resolution abbreviation in a Electronic Communications System.

    The USPTO must just stamp things approved and then have the courts waste time and money for the eventual challenges that will occur. In the mean time IBM can sue the crap out of small companies that can not afford a court fight.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 8:35am

      Re: Already Done and USED long long ago.

      Remember that PTO is a non tech agency that moves paper from one pile to another

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      wvhillbilly (profile), Jan 2nd, 2010 @ 7:58pm

      Re: Already Done and USED long long ago.

      ISTR the patent office gets paid something extra for approving patents, which incentivizes them to approve as many as they can. Not sure if this is entirely accurate, but ISTR having heard that.

      Another, more likely possibility is that they are so swamped with junk patents they just rubber stamp them to get them out of the way. Only somebody needs to swap the "Approved" and the "Denied" stamps. ;-)

      Has anybody patented emoticons yet? :-0

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    interval, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 7:42am

    That's it. I'm patenting my ass the effluence that flows forth from same. Hell, its got to be worth as much as this patent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Money Mike (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 7:47am

    I hate to take this conversation in a completely different direction, but I thought IMHO was short for in my honest opinion. I guess humble makes more sense... I always wondered why people would have to preface their statement with clarification that it was their honest opinion, as opposed to being some random bs.

    I should point out that while I know the basics (LOL, ROFL, LMAO), I often have to look these things up (FUD, WYSIWYG) when people use them, so it kind of defeats the purpose of simplifying anything for me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Yakko Warner, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 7:48am

    Prior Art: Unreal Tournament 2003

    In the PC game UT:2003, like many others, you can type text messages to other players during the game. UT:2003 had an option where it would read incoming messages using a TTS engine, and it would automatically translate common gamerspeak abbreviations like "ROFL" and read them aloud as "rolling on the floor laughing". (IIRC, it would translate "LOL" as "hahaha" though.)

    Just to throw one more example onto the stack.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 8:07am

    Prior art - from the 1880's

    Have they never heard of the Bentley codebook used by the old telex system?

    Have a look at

    http://wapedia.mobi/en/Commercial_code

    and compare with the patent.

    Looks pretty much the same to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 8:54am

    Just one question

    I know that just because they haven't doesn't mean they won't, but when was the last time IBM sued someone for patent infringement? Unless I'm mistaken, IBM has been completely defensive on patents.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 9:06am

      Re: Just one question

      I think the point is that this demonstrates the absurdity of our patent system. To some extent IBM needs bogus patents to counter sue those who sue them with bogus patents and to that extent I can't blame them. It's our broken patent system that's to blame.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 10:36am

      Re: Just one question

      I know that just because they haven't doesn't mean they won't, but when was the last time IBM sued someone for patent infringement? Unless I'm mistaken, IBM has been completely defensive on patents.

      Not so. IBM has been known to be offensive on patents as well. Remember when they sued Amazon for a patent on "e-commerce":

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061023/105908.shtml

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 1:20pm

        Re: Re: Just one question

        From what I remember, that was a tit-for-tat response to the 1-click patent. IBM saying we can play this game too.

        Again, not claiming IBM Is altruistic. Not claiming IBM doesn't sue over patents. Just saying that IBM, for a big giant corporation with a metric shit-ton of patents does not abuse the system like our favorite East-Texas patent trolls.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Valkor, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 9:21am

    One or More

    I was almost ready to try to defend IBM on this one as I was first reading the patent. If they had patented some novel way to implement a heuristic text substitution that could say, tell the difference between MS (Microsoft) and MS (Multiple Sclerosis), that would be something I personally hadn't heard of before. Instead, they threw in phrases like "one or more databases" when describing how these words would be substituted, and turned half of this patent into some kind of basic autocorrect/autocomplete for, but not limited to, text messages. Guess who is most likely to get sued. (I'll give you a hint: it's not the company the devises a complicated system, but the company that implements an autocomplete that could fall under the broadest reading of this.)

    Predictive text is already patented. Automatic substitution is already common. Is there a system that uses more than one data base for substitutions and has to deal with ambiguity? Is there anything else in this description that could be described as patentable? They claim one database, they claim more than one database. They claim application on mobile phones, PDAs, and computers. They claim database locations on local machines, on the internet, and on service providers transmission systems. Wow, broad patents suck.

    One final question: Did they patent a program, or a programming project assignment?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Ed Burgueno, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 9:23am

    don't blame IBM, hold the patent office to the flame

    The real issue isn't IBM being plain stupid and filing a patent that may help them be more profitable / block competition. The real issue we have and the issue we should be outraged with is our US Patent office. Theses guys have been giving away patents in exchange for cash for years. Stuff you and I would look at each other and say, WTF, are you kidding. Who the hell bla bla.

    If we can put any pressure on our government to stop and retract "common sense" patents we need to do it. For gods sake they are letting companies patent seeds.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      wvhillbilly (profile), Jan 2nd, 2010 @ 8:18pm

      Re: don't blame IBM, hold the patent office to the flame

      Blame patent attorneys. They make $millions litigating these junk patents. Who knows but what they might be encouraging them?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Pjerky (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 9:38am

    Wait wait wait...

    How is it legal to patent a language construct? WTF? This is the best proof for showing that the patent office ignores the whole prior are clause of patents not to mention common sense.

    Ok, its over, a lotta people look pissed. Kill the patent system.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jason, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 9:59am

    Good Morning Vietnam!

    Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn't we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? 'Cause if it leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we'd all be put out in K.P.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 10:11am

    Knee-jerk reaction? Check

    Let's all assume that IBM is doing this with malicious purposes, because that's the only option here.

    Look - IBM frequently patents things not because it wants to monetize them, instead because it wants others NOT to. They are very experienced at getting things patented, and they actively encourage employees to patent things that are fairly obvious so as to insure that they won't be restricted in doing the obvious thing in the future by someone who patented it and was litigious.

    As a couple of people have noted above, the issue shouldn't be with IBM here, but with a patent system that thinks it's ok to patent really obvious things. Fix the system ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    angry dude, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 10:16am

    USPTO is now a branch of IBM

    Now that Obama has made that SOB, ex-IBM chief lawyer Dave Kappos, as Patent Office director we should expect more and more BS patents from IBM approved

    What is good for IBM should be good for you punks...

    No ???

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 10:28am

      Re: USPTO is now a branch of IBM

      and Bush was any better? If anything the republicans are worse than the democrats. But both parties are bad. Vote libertarian and pirate partisan.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 11:59am

      Re: USPTO is now a branch of IBM

      But the more important thing to worry about is the status of your imaginary patent.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Dementia (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 12:20pm

    Wow, not a single anti mike post....yet

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 1:29pm

    Quite frankly, I am prepared to give the USPTO and IBM the benefit of the doubt since this is not a particularly difficult technology area to understand, the USPTO examiners are not idiots as so many here seem inclined to believe, and the employees at IBM are doubtless familiar with all of the above prior art tid-bits that commenters have latched onto in trying to ridicule this patent.

    Now, whether or not the original application should have ever been filed is an entirely different issue. Of course, I am not privy to the reasoning behind its filing. Maybe people had too much time on their hands and said "What the heck. I/we need something for my/our 'ego wall'." Then again, maybe something is lurking around in IBM's labs to which this may have utility.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      theodp, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 2:47pm

      USPTO Worked With IBM to Make This Patent Happen

      From a quick glance at the correspondence, it appears the USPTO Examiner originally cited some prior art, but worked with IBM to reword their application to get the patent issued.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 5:17pm

        Re: USPTO Worked With IBM to Make This Patent Happen

        This is a normal occurrence during the prosecution of an application. The process is one of give and take, but in the end claims still have to be presented that distinguish over the prior art by being novel and non-obvious in order for a patent to issue.

        What typically happens, by the way, is that an initial set of claims is presented, the USPTO conducts a search of prior art and almost invariably rejects all of the claims, whereupon the applicant amends the claims by narrowing their scope so that the claims now define an invention that meets all statutory criteria.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 3:37pm

      Re:

      Quite frankly, I am prepared to give the USPTO and IBM the benefit of the doubt since this is not a particularly difficult technology area to understand, the USPTO examiners are not idiots as so many here seem inclined to believe, and the employees at IBM are doubtless familiar with all of the above prior art tid-bits that commenters have latched onto in trying to ridicule this patent.

      Yes, that is because you happen to be a patent attorney who always likes to give the benefit of the doubt to the USPTO, despite whatever evidence may be presented to you.

      Occupational hazard, I guess.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 5:38pm

        Re: Re:

        In this case I am trying to figure out just what evidence has been presented that was not brought to the attention of, or already known by, the USPTO examiners.

        The application's description of the invention is relatively straightforward, the claims are not fraught with ambiguous terms, and the technology area is not so difficult that the applicants could "pull a fast one".

        I will admit I am puzzled a bit by the fact the claims are limited as they are given that the description of the invention is broader in scope. Of course, this could mean that a restriction requirement was given and that another application is pending that covers other aspects of the invention.

        I will also admit I have seen instances where an examiner is not fully conversant in certain areas of technology. However, this does not appear to be such an instance, and all the more so given that the application was considered by both a primary and supervisory examiner.

        Perhaps I may be proven wrong, but based upon what information is available I have no reason to conclude that the system has somehow failed.

        HNY and wishing U a prosperous 2K10.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 3:18pm

    I am sure you have heard this one before:

    "I'm often asked why I didn't try to patent the idea of communications satellites. My answer is always, ‘A patent is really a license to be sued.'"
    - Sir Arthur Charles Clarke

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Justin, Jan 1st, 2010 @ 1:12am

    I am ROFLMQAO

    Rolling On Floor Laughing My Queer A** Off

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Tristan Young, Jan 1st, 2010 @ 1:05pm

    Prior Art

    This isn't new.

    I've used programs that do this very thing.

    I guess IBM doesn't do any searching for prior art before wasting their money on a dumb patent.

    What's worse, the USPTO granted the patent.

    More proof the US patent system is corrupt and invalid, and big companies are hypocritical to the end.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 4th, 2010 @ 5:47am

      Re: Prior Art

      Tristan:

      You have used programs that:

      (1) Determine that an initialism is ambiguous.
      (2) Access one or more databases to determine what the initialism could mean.
      (3) Prioritize possible interpretations of the initialism considering who sent the message.

      What program would that be?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    john, Jan 2nd, 2010 @ 12:51am

    ibm and the missing machine intelagence.

    in the case of ibm versus the rest of intelegent life out there. They patented the beging of there first ai..
    its seams to me that if they patent the prosses for an ai in the form of an all incluseve broad spectrum method to interpet the way we talk. They are starting at the ground floor for machine intelgence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anon, Jan 3rd, 2010 @ 10:29am

    Here's an abbreviation for them

    IBM can GFY

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    AJ, Jan 4th, 2010 @ 1:26pm

    LOL

    Mike,

    You had to know this blog was going to produce they funniest collection of crazy ass abbreviations ever seen in the comments section here.

    This was entertaining as hell, thanks ....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This