On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 03:00:44PM -0600, Ben Schumacher wrote:
Yes, but this patent is specifically directed towards instant messaging
bots. I guess it just a question of how you define instant messaging.
Doesn't something have to be specifically developed from the Patent
anyway? So if you
the
very process that got us here in the first place.
Mark
- Original Message -
From: David Waite [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Slashdot article on IM Bots patent
That is not how patents work, unfortunately. You must
As to prior art...any MOM (Message Oriented Middleware) has this defn of a
bot at the core, as users request for data and a process/application looks
up the data and passes it back.
Further, Reuter Monitor had been doing that since the dawn of time - also
1982? - It was written on PDP-8's when
The scary thing is, these people were actively applying their technology
to use over Jabber at one point (not sure if they still are) -- talk about
bad faith.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.html
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, James MacMillan
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
The scary thing is, these people were actively applying their technology
to use over Jabber at one point (not sure if they still are) -- talk about
bad faith.
Peter
/me is pretty sure that ChatBot would serve as prior art -- if it was
built
Title: RE: [JDEV] Slashdot article on IM Bots patent
The University of Illinois PLATO system had chatbots in at
least 1982 -- probably more like 1978.
Felix
-Original Message-
From: Ben Schumacher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:26 PM
To: [EMAIL
A quick look at the ChatBot logs shows that ChatBot was already logging
its exploits on [EMAIL PROTECTED] as early as late August
of Y2K. I'm sure Ryan can cough up a bunch of previous logs, if a court
requests it.
- Dave
Ben Schumacher wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
: [JDEV] Slashdot article on IM Bots patent
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
The scary thing is, these people were actively applying their
technology to use over Jabber at one point (not sure if they still
are) -- talk about bad faith.
Peter
/me is pretty
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Slashdot article on IM Bots patent
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
The scary thing is, these people were actively applying their
technology to use over Jabber at one point (not sure if they still
are) -- talk about bad faith
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 03:00:44PM -0600, Ben Schumacher wrote:
Yes, but this patent is specifically directed towards instant messaging
bots. I guess it just a question of how you define instant messaging.
From the patent:
A method and system for interactively responding to queries from a
Greetings,
I've followed the development of Jabber for a long time, looking at it
from an end-user perspective. (And if I ever learn to program I'd like to
take a shot at playing with the code.)
I think most people do see Jabber just as an IM system, at least when
they first come to it.
Dave wrote:
Reply inline:
- Dave
Mattias Campe wrote:
Dave wrote:
[...]
Also, I think we should all list our JIDs as early as possible in our
contact info lists. Having our email addresses and Jabber IDs be the
same is also good, because it gives us a measurable advantage over all
Greetings,
I've followed the development of Jabber for a long time, looking at it
from an end-user perspective. (And if I ever learn to program I'd like to
take a shot at playing with the code.)
I think most people do see Jabber just as an IM system, at least when
they first come to it.
Asking your ISP to setup a Jabber server if you don't mind maintaining
it yourself may be possible even if your ISP is having financial
difficulties. An IM system is certainly a feature your ISP can list - a
feature that many companies pay dearly for. Your ISP instantly moves into
a new class
Dave wrote:
Asking your ISP to setup a Jabber server if you don't mind maintaining
it yourself may be possible even if your ISP is having financial
difficulties. An IM system is certainly a feature your ISP can list - a
feature that many companies pay dearly for. Your ISP instantly moves
That's an interesting angle ... maybe we need to work more on getting
Jabber to work well with itself, and less on getting Jabber to emulate
other protocols. Improving client functionality and stability seems to
be the single biggest request I get from other programmers who normally
communicate
Dave wrote:
That's an interesting angle ... maybe we need to work more on getting
Jabber to work well with itself, and less on getting Jabber to emulate
other protocols. Improving client functionality and stability seems to
be the single biggest request I get from other programmers who
Reply inline:
- Dave
Mattias Campe wrote:
Dave wrote:
That's an interesting angle ... maybe we need to work more on getting
Jabber to work well with itself, and less on getting Jabber to emulate
other protocols. Improving client functionality and stability seems to
be the single
Julian Missig wrote:
Julian Fitzell wrote:
[...]
Well, I see their point to some degree. If you switch to linux from
windows, you can't run all the same programs as you could before but
you can find alternatives and conversion programs, etc. The point of
instant messaging is to be
Michael Brown wrote:
Standard stuff being when are you going to have stable and reliable
gateways to the other IM systems?
*sigh*
Yet when /. has an article about Linux, you don't see a whole host of people
complaining that it isn't stable and reliable running Windows
software...weird.
Julian Fitzell wrote:
Michael Brown wrote:
Standard stuff being when are you going to have stable and reliable
gateways to the other IM systems?
*sigh*
Yet when /. has an article about Linux, you don't see a whole host of
people
complaining that it isn't stable and reliable running
Just as a point of reference, here's the k5 article I wrote two years
ago about the issue. Many of the things in it are still relevant,
although a few (such as jwz's thing) require some context as to why I
was saying that.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2000/5/18/17042/5662
It's nice to see
- Original Message -
From: Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 3:57 AM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Slashdot Article
Speaking of public perceptions, there have been 47 comments related to the
poll I posted on JabberCentral:
http
: Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 3:57 AM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Slashdot Article
Speaking of public perceptions, there have been 47 comments related to the
poll I posted on JabberCentral:
http://www.jabbercentral.org/polls
Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 3:57 AM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Slashdot Article
Speaking of public perceptions, there have been 47 comments related to the
poll I posted on JabberCentral:
http://www.jabbercentral.org/polls/results.php?poll_id
Standard stuff being when are you going to have stable and reliable
gateways to the other IM systems?
*sigh*
Yet when /. has an article about Linux, you don't see a whole host of people
complaining that it isn't stable and reliable running Windows
software...weird. Many of the Open
Speaking of public perceptions, there have been 47 comments related to the
poll I posted on JabberCentral:
http://www.jabbercentral.org/polls/results.php?poll_id=1015995663
I'm going to read them now...
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
email+jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
weblog:
27 matches
Mail list logo
