Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
Take MailBlocks, for example - they
are claiming patents on all C/R systems.
They may be claiming patents on all C/R systems, but they can't
claim all C/R related patents... MailBlocks may have basic patents that
might claim some essential element of all C/R systems, but there are
still many non-essential elements that their patents don't cover.
For instance, one of at least four spam-related US Patent
Applications that were filed just yesterday covers a number of
elaborations on the C/R idea. The application I'm referring to is:
20030110400 "Method and system for blocking unwanted communications".
This application goes beyond the base MailBlocks patents to claim:
1. The process of raising money by "spamming" people who use the
C/R system. What they are claiming is the method of sending periodic
advertisements to users of the system. Also, they claim the method of
stopping such unsolicited advertisements under various conditions --
including payment by the user of a fee to turn off ads.
2. They claim a method of reducing the number of challenges
which are issued. For instance, if you send messages to a number of
users of C/R system and respond correctly to them, then the system will
"trust" you in the future when you send mail to new people on the same
system.
3. They claim a variety of methods and criteria for revoking a
previously granted authorization based on observed behavior. For
instance, even if you properly responded to challenges in the past, if
you suddenly send a high volume of messages, your "authorization" will
be revoked. Similarly, if several of the people who you authenticated
with in the past put you on block lists, the system will no longer
"trust" you and will issue new challenges.
etc....
Patents like this are trying to claim a large number of
non-essential elements which are likely to be implemented by those who
implement the methods of the base patent. The holders of the base patent
may find themselves backed into a corner... They may have a base patent,
however, they can't implement a viable, "feature-rich" product without
infringing on someone else's patent -- even though the other patents
depend on theirs.
For the application discussed above see:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u
=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=20030110400&FIE
LD1=PGNR&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PG01
bob wyman
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg