:-( Samsung, Research In Motion Sued For Making It Easy To Use Emoticons
from the thus,-infringing-a-patent dept
All the way back in 2001, we wrote about how the brilliant satirists at Despair Inc. successfully trademarked 🙁 and announced that they planned to sue 7 million internet users for violating the trademark. The actual announcement was pretty funny — even though not everyone got the joke. In 2006, we also had a story that mentioned a whole bunch of patents and patent applications related to emoticons.
It appears that one of those is now being used in a lawsuit against Samsung and RIM for having the gall to create a button that makes it easy to pick an emoticon without typing it in. The patent in question (US Patent 7,167,731) really is for having a button that lets you pick emoticons. How this is possibly patentable is beyond me. But, for some reason, examiner Lee Nguyen thought it was somehow non-obvious. The patent was originally assigned to Wildseed, a mobile accessories firm that AOL bought in 2005. The patent itself then went to Varia Mobil, who moved it to Varia Holdings to Varia and back to Varia Holdings. It’s Varia Holdings bringing the lawsuit. Varia appears to just be a trolling operation (of course).
It’s fairly stunning that anyone considered this a valid patent at any point. That it’s now being used as the basis for a lawsuit should (once again) raise significant questions about the USPTO’s approval process for patents.
Filed Under: emoticons, patents, software patents
Companies: rim, samsung, varia
Comments on “:-( Samsung, Research In Motion Sued For Making It Easy To Use Emoticons”
Excuse me, I need to go palm my face.
Re: Re:
you can’t, i already patented and trademark both the phrase and the action. I then sold it for millions to Varia. Expect a lawsuit in the mail.
Part of it will be seizing the computer you used and all the area around it. Shame on you for stealing my original idea that no one would have ever thought of had it not been for me.
Re: Re: Re:
Never mind the computer – we want his hand and his face as they were the instruments used and as such he should no longer have access to them. Three strikes my ass!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Three palms strike your ass?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I think there’s a porn company with copyright on that one.
Re: Re:
Like this?
……………………………………..________
………………………………,.-‘”……………….“~.,
………………………..,.-“……………………………..”-.,
…………………….,/………………………………………..”:,
…………………,?………………………………………………,
………………./…………………………………………………..,}
……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}
……………/……………………………………………,:”………/
…………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../
…………./__.(…..”~-,_…………………………,:`………./
………../(_….”~,_……..”~,_………………..,:`…….._/
……….{.._$;_……”=,_…….”-,_…….,.-~-,},.~”;/….}
………..((…..*~_…….”=-._……”;,,./`…./”…………../
…,,,___.`~,……”~.,………………..`…..}…………../
…………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-”
…………/.`~,……`-………………………………./
………….`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..,__
,,_……….}.>-._……………………………..|…………..`=~-,
…..`=~-,__……`,……………………………
……………….`=~-,,.,………………………….
…………………………..`:,,………………………`…………..__
……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“
…………………………………._……….._,-%…….`
……………………………..,
Re: Re: Re:
i hope you did’t ctrl-v that.. expect to be sued
There are four different patents on using a laser pointer to tease a cat. There is also one for using a flashlight to tease a cat, but apparently that didn’t count as prior art.
If using a laser pointer to tease a cat is non-obvious, then why should we be surprised when anything else is found non-obvious?
Re: Re:
But it is non-obvious. No one in the existence of mankind has ever thought about using a button to represent and perform a series of commands, especially such commands as entering two or more characters. Ever. If you don’t believe me, I will be forced to say “ever” again, and if you get belligerent then I’ll say “never” very forcefully. This is my argument.
Also, I did not type this on a Windows machine that uses both carriage return and line feed to represent new lines and are both entered when pressing the “Enter” key. That is a violation of this patent, obviously, and my use of that vile, patent infringing OS would be aiding and abetting the enemy.
Also, EVER!
Re: Re: patent examiner Lee Nguyen
It is confounding that patent examiner Lee Nguyen thought this was non-obvious.
Especially since this was filed after examiners were allowed to use Google and a cursory search should have led patent examiner Lee Nguyen to realize that sending many more characters than keypresses happened every time patent examiner Lee Nguyen used the “paste” function on patent examiner Lee Nguyen’s computer.
Attn: patent examiner Lee Nguyen
Re: Re: Re: patent examiner Lee Nguyen
The problem is that patents are written in overly obtuse ways so a google search will come up with nothing. They need to hire people with basic knowledge of what’s trying to be patented instead of getting any old schmuck to decide if “that thing on the fairy box” is nonobvious.
Re: Re:
I am patenting interlocking hoops and needle object into a shape that can never be fully described perfectly by math. This is for the express use of entertaining Felis domesticus. Any other uses are prohibited by law. Reverse engineering of the object will lead to execution by a flogging from small animals.
And that is how you get a patent for an obvious device. In this case a piece of double sided velcro wrapped in a circle.
Oddly the cat loves this more then any of the other toys. Go figure.
It’s not any better or any worse than “one click buying” at Amazon.
Re: Re:
and that makes it OK?
Re: one click
The audacity of Amazon: Someone else invented the mouse click and other people purchasing online, and Amazon claim to have invented “1 click buying”. It makes a mockery of the patent system.
Every time someone successfully files and receives approval on a patent, they have created an unlimited amount of precision financial missiles that can be deployed by any number of owners, future innovation terrorist organizations or individuals, against real innovators shipping financially viable products in the marketplace. I wonder if Lee Nguyen is proud of this. We know people like Andy Baio and Stephan Brunner are not.
Re: Re:
Every time someone successfully files and receives approval on a patent, a puppy gets kicked.
These patent wars are like a Mexican standoff where somebody was actually stupid enough to fire first. Now everybody is suing everybody else, and the only ones innovating are the lawyers with their “I’m gettin’ richer by da moment” dance routines.
Can I patent patent trolling?
I mean since the fact it’s been done before apparently doesn’t constitute prior art, I should be able to patent it and then sue people who do it.
Re: Can I patent patent trolling?
You can patent it, but you must use a deceptive and over-complicated language in the patent application. And for best results, add “on the Internet” to the patent application.
Re: Re: Can I patent patent trolling?
Sorry, adding “on the Internet” to a patent application is a patent-pending process. Also, “on the Internet” is trademarked.
Re: Re: Can I patent patent trolling?
Exactly. I used to work at a University and one of the Science professors had a broken clock. He tried to order a clock for $10 and was shot down by Finance. So, then he ordered a chronometer for $100 and was approved.
Re: Can I patent patent trolling?
I mean since the fact it’s been done before apparently doesn’t constitute prior art
And why is that? Because the guys at the USPTO are morons or greedy bastards who wave anything through just to make a dime?
I met a patent examiner once
There was a guy I played an online game with once. His mental processes were quite atypical. Somehow anal-retentive and clueless at the same time, with little or no common sense. Not quite the same as some people I’ve known with Aspberger’s; but really just in his own world. Anyway, I asked what he did one day and found out he was a patent examiner and then it all made sense.
Re: I met a patent examiner once
Well, the money he makes granting bogus patents probably pays for the quicklime he uses to dispose of the young mens’ bodies in his crawlspace. And for the video games he enticed them there with.
I’ve got it! All patent examiners are promoted from the front lines of the TSA!! Idiocracy FTW!!!
😮
Opera Mail calls that button insert>Smiley, not Emoticon
so its probably not covered by this patent?
My face after reading the article: )-:
You have GOT to be kidding!
No the lawsuit by the patent troll, that’s predictable.
This got a patent?????????
Does any sentient creature not understand now why software patents are a horrible, bad, terrible thing?
(Sentient creature automatically rules out the majority of IP maximalist trolls here, by the way.)
Re: You have GOT to be kidding!
(Sentient creature automatically rules out patent examiners and the majority of IP maximalist trolls here, by the way.)
FTFY
Re: Re: You have GOT to be kidding!
so you did!
What a joke
This is news? The judge should burn that patent in his/her court room, then send this loser packing.
For goodness sake...
Will someone PLEASE patent the idea of patenting ideas and then suing people/companies while never actually doing anything with the idea.
And while you’re at it, patent the idea of patenting stupid ideas by adding “on a mobile device” and “on the internet”.
Don’t worry about prior art… the patent office doesn’t.
Software patents
This feels like a car manufacturer suing the competition for placing the steering wheel and pedals in exactly the same position in their cars.
The one word I haven't seen mentioned....
MACRO. That’s all this ‘patent’ is. A key-binding macro.
filed in 2005.. and i’ll even give them the line about “continuation of prior application filed in 2001”
every IM client and forum I used from mid to late 90’s through early 2000’s had this [useless] feature
Lee Nguyen… c’mon man
How said.
*Frowns
*Quickly looks around to make sure no lawyers saw
My only comment on this is
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!
This should be a non-event. The Macro is prior art
admit it
I lol’ed at the title. Now all I can do is sigh.
But why stop at Samsung and RIM? Just saying.
Re: admit it
I was thinking that myself. If they’re really so confident in their amazing patent why not sue the entire internet?
Re: admit it
Going past the RIM is just sick!?!
Junk Patent Problem
This patent is yet another example of the junk patent problem.That problem will be with us for as long as the patent system still exists.
Patent/Copyright status: Expired.
Patents and Copyright hinder innovation, I therefore call for the scrapping of them as they no longer serve the spirit of the law associated with these things.
Stockpile your 🙂 s and 🙁 s, we are gonna need them in the near future!
I am curious if anyone noticed the complaint recited the pendency of a lawsuit between Samsung as plaintiff/patent holder and Apple as an alleged infringer. The patent? Emoticons on mobile devices, as is asserted here against Samsung.
For the benefit of those inclined to criticize the patent examiner, while I suspect that subjectively he probably felt the same way of most persons commenting here, he is bound by law to use objective evidence in considering the allowability of patent claims.
I have no doubt there is objective evidence residing somewhere. The difficulty, however, is finding it, a task that is not as easy as many seem inclined to believe.
Ridiculous patents
This is Congress at work. They decided the USPTO should be self-supporting, and since they regularly dip into USPTO funds (they say they no longer do that …), they have put pressure on the USPTO to generate as much funding as possible. The present Director, David Kappos, is doing just that; killing small entity patenting (they pay half-price; can’t have that!!), and putting the award for a patent up for sale. Give the USPTO enough money (and there are multiple “legal” ways) and you can patent anything – say, motherhood.
Didn’t all the messenger apps back in the mid 90’s, early 2000’s all have emoticon buttons? Actually come to think of it the VBulletin forum software has a whole page that shows you all the emoticons available to you on whichever site it’s powering and lets you click the emoticon and it then magically appears in your text box.
I remember quite clearly Netscape’s e-mail client also had a button for inserting smilies.
This “invention” or “innovation” wasn’t just obvious. Everybody was already doing it. The USPTO seriously needs to be sued for incompetence on the job.