Cingular Patents the Emoticon?

massysett writes "Mobile phone carrier Cingular Wireless may have managed to get a patent on the emoticon. The patent describes a system for selecting a displayable icon to indicate the mood or emotion of the user. It also covers text-based emoticons, 'so presumably sending :) via an SMS - if selected via a dedicated or softkey, would be a breach of the patent in future.'" My response? >:/

Re:Hmmm

[gEvil (beta)]

They were granted a trademark [uspto.gov] for that, not a patent.

Slash Dot as prior art?

[RingDev]

I always though /. was suposed to be Cmdr Taco pissed off and standing on his head, cause, he's only got one eye ya know.

-Rick (Just Kidding!)

Not a patent - an application only

[ChartBoy]

The "patent number" cited in the article is not a patent number. It is an application number (the US has recently started publishing applications in keeping with the rest of the world). This is the application [uspto.gov].

US utility patent numbers have sequential numbers and are currently in the 6 million range. Application numbers have a year (2006) and a serial number within the year (15812).

Folks, This isn't a Patent

[TheDoctor_MN]

Okay, everyone take a deep breath. Though the original post says this is a patent, it is not. It is a patent application. Anyone can file whatever they want, and it will get published as a patent application in 18 months. ANYTHING. I could write something up for "kissing up to my boss" and it would get published. This application has yet to see an examiner, who will in all likelihood reject it pretty much as quickly as you all have based on a slew of prior art out there. Check back in two or so odd years to see if this issues or not. Link to the full text... http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2F srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220060015812%22.PGN R.&OS=DN/20060015812&RS=DN/20060015812 [uspto.gov]

First Use

[jmkaza]

19-Sep-82 11:44 Scott E Fahlman :-)
From: Scott E Fahlman

I propose that the following character sequence for joke markers: :-)

Read it sideways. Actually, it is probably more economical to mark
things that are NOT jokes, given current trends. For this, use :-(

UseNet, FIDONet

[bwcbwc]

Both pre-date the WWW, which pre-dates text messaging over the phone. In fact, technically, dial-up IS text messaging over the phone. Anyone who used an ANSI art drawing tool or a macro key on their terminal emulator back in the 1200 bps modem days could define macros to generate emoticons. So the only possible basis for this that I can see is the fact that it's over the phone or if they substitute special characters for the emoticon text (i.e., an actual happy face for :) ).

Every single previous platform for text messages has developed the capability for emoticons, and the special characters have already been done by various IM services like Yahoo, MSN, and PHPBB. Also, the mechanism for implementing this feature is the same across all platforms: byte substitution. The technique is platform independent, and therefore the platform can't be used as a basis for non-obvious part.

Correct application number and link

[HDlife]

The APPLICATION NUMBER is 20060015812

This just published and is years from becoming a patent. This is just a laundry list of claims that they want, not that they will get.

You can see it here: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html/ [uspto.gov]

Title wrong, RTA

[rnelsonee]

First off, you can't get a patent on ":)". A trademark, yes, but not a patent.

The patent referenced is for the process of sending the emoticon. More specifically, there would be a way insert the way someone is feeling via a special button, or some other method other than saying "I'm feeling happy". Typing in ":)" doesn't even fall into this patent since that's just typing in characters. But if T-Mobile came out with phones that had smiley-faced buttons that inserted a smiley face while typing an SMS, then that could violate this patent.

Actual patent number = 6,990,452

[hcg50a]

TFA had a bogus number.

Check the actual patent [uspto.gov] out.

headline/summary is WRONG WRONG WRONG

[amliebsch]

How the hell could a patent clerk look at this and stamp it?
It hasn't been stamped. It is just an application.

Did they even look at it?
They are looking at it.

Do we have any recourse or any way to fire these morons?
They haven't done anything.

Why in the name of all that is holy did this GET patented?
It isn't patented.

Patents are out of control... I'm just wondering if anyone has any input on how the hell they get by with this bullshit.

This headline, summary, and post represent the very worst of slashdot. A blatantly wrong headline and summary are posted that just coincidentally happen to inflame the commenters, who immediately posture and condemn without knowing any more about the subject than the misleading headline. A correction, if it is ever made, is already off the front page, and all these geeks who sincerely believe themselves to be rational and intellectually superior go off believing a complete falsehood, because it validates their beliefs.

Re:Not a patent - an application only

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent makes a good point--this is just an application. Furthermore, if you read the first independent claim (claims are by far the most important part of a patent application) you'll discover that the applicant is not trying to patent the emoticon, but rather an "emoticon button" on a mobile device.

Personally, I think this application has obviousness problems (though "obviousness" in patent law means something different from what it means in everyday conversation). But keep in mind that the claims that are allowed by the examiner are basically a subset of the initial application's claims. Therefore, it makes sense for applicants to "ask for the moon" and accept something less.

Is the system broken? Quite probably. Does that mean that Slashdotters can make well-reasoned, informed judgements about patents or applications without reading the claims? Absolutely not.

Read the claims!

Patent office lists prior art too

[goombah99]

[sour grapes] Rejected slashdot submission: [/sour grapes]

An hot news story [cellular-news.com] that makes the outrageous inducing claim that Cingular has just patented the Emoticon appears to be untrue, since the US Patent office shows no such listing for the claimed Cingular patent. But that's not to say it's not outrageous :-0 since in fact AT&T [uspto.gov], some guy in kirkland WA [uspto.gov], and a dozen others have patented the emoticon or aspects of it [uspto.gov]. Perhaps most galling is that the patents actually use the word "emoticon" to describe what they are patenting. They of course don't actually patent the emoticon itself but the act of entering an emoticon into multi-media, sort of like patenting the one-click patent versus patenting, say, commerce. Is this one of the whackiest patents ever :-p