netlawyers: why is this patentable?
wonder why this is patentable? sounds like preque filtering available in every mta since the early 90's... looks for 'helo/mailfrom/recpt to' then drops or accepts connection. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7490128.html United States Patent 7490128 Abstract: The spam blocker monitors the SMTP/TCP/IP conversation between a sending message transfer agent MTA—0 and a receiving message transfer agent MTA—1; catches MTA—0's IP address IP—0, MTA—0's declared domain D—0, sender_address A—0; and recipient A—1; and uses this source and content based information to test for unsolicited messages. It interrupts the conversation when MTA—0 sends a command specifying the recipient (an “RCPT” command) and uses the various test results to decide if the message is suspected of being unsolicited. If the message is suspected of being unsolicited then it logs the rejected message, sends an error reply to MTA—0 which forces MTA—0 to terminate the connection with MTA—1 before the body of the message is transmitted; else it logs the allowed message, releases the intercepted RCPT command which allows the conversation between MTA—0 and MTA—1 to proceed. -- Michael Scheidell, CTO Phone: 561-999-5000, x 1259 *| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation * Certified SNORT Integrator * King of Spam Filters, SC Magazine 2008 * Information Security Award 2008, Info Security Products Guide * CRN Magazine Top 40 Emerging Security Vendors * Finalist 2009 Network Products Guide Hot Companies _ This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap(r). For Information please see http://www.secnap.com/products/spammertrap/ _
RE: netlawyers: why is this patentable?
-Original Message- From: Michael Scheidell [mailto:scheid...@secnap.net] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 9:24 PM wonder why this is patentable? sounds like preque filtering available in every mta since the early 90's... looks for 'helo/mailfrom/recpt to' then drops or accepts connection. Why are software ideas patentable, anyway? It is only to steal $$$ and to stop newcomers, which is the exact opposite of the original meaning of patenting... Have a read to http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ . It is an EU-based organization, but motivations are the same regardless of nationality. Here in EU we have a lot of (zealous?) public officers attempting to introduce software patens in any possible way. Giampaolo http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7490128.html United States Patent 7490128 Abstract: The spam blocker monitors the SMTP/TCP/IP conversation between a sending message transfer agent MTA-0 and a receiving message transfer agent MTA-1; catches MTA-0's IP address IP-0, MTA-0's declared domain D-0, sender_address A-0; and recipient A-1; and uses this source and content based information to test for unsolicited messages. It interrupts the conversation when MTA-0 sends a command specifying the recipient (an RCPT command) and uses the various test results to decide if the message is suspected of being unsolicited. If the message is suspected of being unsolicited then it logs the rejected message, sends an error reply to MTA-0 which forces MTA-0 to terminate the connection with MTA- 1 before the body of the message is transmitted; else it logs the allowed message, releases the intercepted RCPT command which allows the conversation between MTA-0 and MTA-1 to proceed. -- Michael Scheidell, CTO Phone: 561-999-5000, x 1259 *| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation * Certified SNORT Integrator * King of Spam Filters, SC Magazine 2008 * Information Security Award 2008, Info Security Products Guide * CRN Magazine Top 40 Emerging Security Vendors * Finalist 2009 Network Products Guide Hot Companies ___ __ This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap(r). For Information please see http://www.secnap.com/products/spammertrap/ ___ __
Re: netlawyers: why is this patentable?
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote: -Original Message- From: Michael Scheidell [mailto:scheid...@secnap.net] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 9:24 PM wonder why this is patentable? Perhaps just because someone has the Chutzpah to try to patent it and the patent office hasn't a clue. Technology of all sorts has moved too quickly for the patent office and/or the patent laws to keep up. Another example is a U.S. company that uses recombinant DNA to put an unusual color in a bean. Then they patent it and sue a Mexican company and block imports of a bean that the Mexicans have been growing for generations. That's just nucking futs. sounds like preque filtering available in every mta since the early 90's... looks for 'helo/mailfrom/recpt to' then drops or accepts connection. Why are software ideas patentable, anyway? It is only to steal $$$ and to stop newcomers, which is the exact opposite of the original meaning of patenting... or stop others from doing what they've been doing all along and gain a competitive edge in the process or make them pay. All of which works iff the patent office hasn't a clue. Have a read to http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ . It is an EU-based organization, but motivations are the same regardless of nationality. Here in EU we have a lot of (zealous?) public officers attempting to introduce software patens in any possible way. Giampaolo http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7490128.html United States Patent 7490128 Abstract: The spam blocker monitors the SMTP/TCP/IP conversation between a sending message transfer agent MTA-0 and a receiving message transfer agent MTA-1; catches MTA-0's IP address IP-0, MTA-0's declared domain D-0, sender_address A-0; and recipient A-1; and uses this source and content based information to test for unsolicited messages. It interrupts the conversation when MTA-0 sends a command specifying the recipient (an RCPT command) and uses the various test results to decide if the message is suspected of being unsolicited. If the message is suspected of being unsolicited then it logs the rejected message, sends an error reply to MTA-0 which forces MTA-0 to terminate the connection with MTA- 1 before the body of the message is transmitted; else it logs the allowed message, releases the intercepted RCPT command which allows the conversation between MTA-0 and MTA-1 to proceed. -- Michael Scheidell, CTO -- --- Chris Hoogendyk - O__ Systems Administrator c/ /'_ --- Biology Geology Departments (*) \(*) -- 140 Morrill Science Center ~~ - University of Massachusetts, Amherst hoogen...@bio.umass.edu --- Erdös 4
Re: netlawyers: why is this patentable?
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 16:54 -0500, Chris Hoogendyk wrote: Perhaps just because someone has the Chutzpah to try to patent it and the patent office hasn't a clue. Technology of all sorts has moved too quickly for the patent office and/or the patent laws to keep up. Another example is a U.S. company that uses recombinant DNA to put an unusual color in a bean. Then they patent it and sue a Mexican company and block imports of a bean that the Mexicans have been growing for generations. That's just nucking futs. Sounds like Monsanto at work. -- Lindsay Haisley | Everything works|Accredited FMP Computer Services | if you let it | by the 512-259-1190 |(The Roadie) | Austin Better http://www.fmp.com| | Business Bureau
Re: netlawyers: why is this patentable?
Michael Scheidell wrote: wonder why this is patentable? Loads of things are patentable in the meaning that someone manages to get a patent. That doesn't mean the patent can witstand a challenge. You never know for sure wether a patent (or a trademark) is fully valid until it is is disputed (in court) and survives. sounds like preque filtering available in every mta since the early 90's... It sound like more like the bastard child of a packet sniffing trafic analyzing firewall and a spam-scanning smtp proxy. looks for 'helo/mailfrom/recpt to' then drops or accepts connection. From the abstract it's possible that it does so at a firewall level rather than as an MTA, though it might also describe a more common SMTP proxy. /J -- Jonas Eckerman, FSDB Fruktträdet http://whatever.frukt.org/ http://www.fsdb.org/ http://www.frukt.org/
Re: netlawyers: why is this patentable?
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 17:01 -0600, Lindsay Haisley wrote: On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 16:54 -0500, Chris Hoogendyk wrote: Perhaps just because someone has the Chutzpah to try to patent it and the patent office hasn't a clue. Technology of all sorts has moved too quickly for the patent office and/or the patent laws to keep up. Another example is a U.S. company that uses recombinant DNA to put an unusual color in a bean. Then they patent it and sue a Mexican company and block imports of a bean that the Mexicans have been growing for generations. That's just nucking futs. Sounds like Monsanto at work. Exactly. Two words: prior art. If the US patent office had the balls to enforce that clause then it wouldn't be necessary to argue about software patents. Knuth would invalidate most of them and Hopper would have put paid to most of the rest. Another point: IIRC[1] the patent is required to describe an invention in enough detail to allow a 3rd party to make the patented item. If *that* was enforced then a whole bunch of speculative patents would die when the claimant would be unable to show a working model built from the patent description. [1] I know this applies to British patents but am uncertain whether it still applies to US patents. If it doesn't, it ought to. Martin
Re: netlawyers: why is this patentable?
Michael Scheidell a écrit : wonder why this is patentable? sounds like preque filtering available in every mta since the early 90's... looks for 'helo/mailfrom/recpt to' then drops or accepts connection. - if their spam blocker is linked in the MTA or is a firewall, then this has been done since long - if it is a sniffer that sends fake RSTs, then it's silly. but I'm sure it's something else, I'm just not sure whether it's something to drink or something to smoke ;-p http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7490128.html United States Patent 7490128 Abstract: The spam blocker monitors the SMTP/TCP/IP conversation between a sending message transfer agent MTA—0 and a receiving message transfer agent MTA—1; catches MTA—0's IP address IP—0, MTA—0's declared domain D—0, sender_address A—0; and recipient A—1; and uses this source and content based information to test for unsolicited messages. It interrupts the conversation when MTA—0 sends a command specifying the recipient (an “RCPT” command) and uses the various test results to decide if the message is suspected of being unsolicited. If the message is suspected of being unsolicited then it logs the rejected message, sends an error reply to MTA—0 which forces MTA—0 to terminate the connection with MTA—1 before the body of the message is transmitted; else it logs the allowed message, releases the intercepted RCPT command which allows the conversation between MTA—0 and MTA—1 to proceed.
Re: netlawyers: why is this patentable?
Martin Gregorie wrote: On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 17:01 -0600, Lindsay Haisley wrote: On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 16:54 -0500, Chris Hoogendyk wrote: Perhaps just because someone has the Chutzpah to try to patent it and the patent office hasn't a clue. Technology of all sorts has moved too quickly for the patent office and/or the patent laws to keep up. Another example is a U.S. company that uses recombinant DNA to put an unusual color in a bean. Then they patent it and sue a Mexican company and block imports of a bean that the Mexicans have been growing for generations. That's just nucking futs. Sounds like Monsanto at work. Exactly. Two words: prior art. If the US patent office had the balls to enforce that clause then it wouldn't be necessary to argue about software patents. Knuth would invalidate most of them and Hopper would have put paid to most of the rest. IMHO software patents are a nonsense. Where is the *inventive* step that any knowledgeable programmer wouldn't determine to be obvious? Another point: IIRC[1] the patent is required to describe an invention in enough detail to allow a 3rd party to make the patented item. If *that* was enforced then a whole bunch of speculative patents would die when the claimant would be unable to show a working model built from the patent description. [1] I know this applies to British patents but am uncertain whether it still applies to US patents. If it doesn't, it ought to. In my limited experience (I hold a few British patents - not software related), it's actually more than that. One can file a Patent Application for almost anything, and quite speculatively. However, for the patent to be granted (normally a year after the Application) one must also have exemplified one's claims or must withdraw them. If one fails to exemplify claims made in the Application they then become public domain and hence prior art and are not subsequently patentable. My patents are in the field of cancer research. So for example, one could file an Application for a new anticancer drug. At the time of filing the Application it could just be an idea, but in order to get the patent awarded one must have made the drug and be able to present some evidence that it is effective against cancer as per the claims made in the Application. Simple preliminary results would normally suffice, but the more evidence one is able to present the stronger the case one has. Unless it's an extremely competitive field one would normally wait until you have some evidence before filing an Application given the costs associated with the process (patent lawyers don't come cheap), unless you're in the business of filing many speculative Applications. As usual, the real winners are the lawyers.
