[IM-patents] Active Buddy patent application on "Bots"

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Bob,

Thanks again for the heads-up. (And sorry for the delayed reply, procmail
sent your mail to a weird location.) I would like to use this list as a
forum for discussing such applications and potential prior art. The fact
that there are over 700 pending patent applications containing the phrase
instant messaging is pretty scary. I know I certainly don't have time to
read all of them -- it sounds like a full-time job! I could probably read
a few each week but even then it would take me a year to work through the
backlog. Perhaps we can create a "SWAT Team" of people who scout ahead for
potential IM patent threats by reading applications?

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php

On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Bob Wyman wrote:

> The Active Buddy patent application on "Bots" or "autoresponders is a
> good example of why I think we need to be more proactive in thinking
> about IM patents. The application, filed 1 Aug 2002 can be found on the
> USPTO site as: 
> 	Number 20020103917, Method and system for interactively
> responding to instant messaging requests
> 	If granted, this application would allow Active Buddy to claim
> that many uses of IM bots are infringements of their patent. While many
> will argue that there is a great deal of prior art that would allow one
> to discredit the patent, it is still likely that many people would
> simply pay whatever fees that Active Buddy demands as long as those fees
> are lower than what the cost of getting lawyers to fight it out would
> be.
> 	So, we now get to wait to see if this application turns into a
> patent. Note: Even though we can see and study the application,
> according to US law, since it is more than two months after the
> application was published, even if we have voluminous amounts of prior
> art that could be used to convince a patent examiner *not* to issue a
> patent, we are not legally permitted to notify the patent office of that
> prior art.
> 	However, if one discovers a patent application like this one
> from Active Buddy, within two months after the application is published
> on the PTO site, one can send to the PTO examples of prior art that will
> be considered by the patent examiner. Thus, if we had noticed this
> Active Buddy application before 1 Oct 2002, and had sent to the PTO
> examples of prior art, then the liklihood of a patent being issued would
> be drastically reduced.
> 	I think it makes sense for folk that are really interested in
> having Instant Messaging be an arena in which innovation is freely
> pursued to scan new patent applications on a regular basis and, when
> appropriate, organize efforts to submit that appropriate prior art to
> the PTO to ensure that stupid patents don't get issued.
> 
> 	To see the Active Buddy application try:
> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=7&u
> =/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=344&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1='instan
> t+messaging'&OS="instant+messaging"&RS="instant+messaging"
> 
> 	To see the PTO procedures on submitting prior art within two
> months of an application being filed, see:
> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0600_610.htm#sect610
> 
> 	There are now 705 pending patent applications that contain the
> phrase "instant messaging."... How many of those, if turned into
> patents, will cause Jabber and others in the IM world considerable
> difficulty? How many of those applications could be stopped by
> submitting prior art during their evaluation period? Many, I think.
> 
> 		bob wyman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IM-patents mailing list
> IM-patents at jabber.org
> http://jabber.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/im-patents
>