NTP Sues Six Major Tech Companies Over Wireless Email Patents 197
rgraham writes "NTP, the same company that sued and eventually settled with RIM for $612.5 million over an IP dispute, has now sued Apple, Google, HTC, LG, Microsoft and Motorola for infringement of wireless email patents. In the press release, NTP co-founder Donald Stout said, 'Use of NTP's intellectual property without a license is just plain unfair to NTP and its licensees. Unfortunately, litigation is our only means of ensuring the inventor of the fundamental technology on which wireless email is based, Tom Campana, and NTP shareholders are recognized, and are fairly and reasonably compensated for their innovative work and investment. We took the necessary action to protect our intellectual property.'"
Fundamental technology (Score:5, Insightful)
inventor of the fundamental technology on which wireless email is based
Really? Which technology would that be: wireless or email?
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
I was wondering the same thing.
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
I was wondering of it was 2006 all over again.
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
And on top of that, I was wondering of it was 2006 all over again.
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:3, Funny)
Well I was wondering of it was 2006 all over again - via the internet
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:3, Funny)
Oh yeah? I was wondering of it was 2006 all over again - via the ... ummm... radio internet.
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:3, Funny)
I was wondering what a stack overflow is.
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:5, Funny)
inventor of the fundamental technology on which wireless email is based
Really? Which technology would that be: wireless or email?
Nono, it's the combination of it.
Millions of people put peanutbutter on their bread. Millions of other people put jelly on their bread. But it takes a genius to think of combining these things, and should therefore be reasonably compensated for their services to mankind.
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
WHAT? People put peanut butter AND jelly on their bread without paying license fees to me? I need to call my lawyer!
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:4, Insightful)
My specific innovation (patent applied for) was to spread the peanut butter on one slice of bread and the jelly on the second slice of bread, then putting them together.
It's all about the process.
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you not know that there already is a patent on a specific implementation of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? [wikipedia.org]
--jeffk++
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
Where he at?
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:5, Interesting)
Wasn't NTP's key patent ruled invalid, but the judge made RIM pay anyways?
And it seems to me that the "email + wireless" patent would be invalid under KSR v. Teleflex [wikipedia.org]
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:5, Informative)
My understanding was the the patent was held invalid but only after RIM settled out of court - and since that was a voluntary surrender on their part it's tough bastard titty for RIM[1]. But there have been so many of these retarded cases that I could well be confused.
[1] serves them right, the soft bastards.
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2, Interesting)
The law really needs to be changed to NOT reward companies like NTP that do that.
The proceeds of any judgement or settlement of that nature ought to have to be held in escrow pending completion of a thorough review of the patent.
And the plaintiff who brought the patent suit should have to pay a fine, of some percentage (plus compensation to the other party), if their patent was egregiously invalid from the very beginning.
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
But it was RIM's decison to capitulate. Given the US system, it often makes financial sense to do so. Even if you you're in the right (and Jehovah, Buddha and that blue dude with the elephant head and all those arms will testify likewise) it could still cost more in fees than to pay what amounts to protection money.
I'm not an IBM fanboy, but I think they totally did the right thing(tm) in telling SCO to shit crushed oysters.
In the UK it would be; generally, the loser pays both sides' legal fees. But of course they only lose if the case runs to conclusion. Blink first and you lose.
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
Millions of people put peanutbutter on their bread. Millions of other people put jelly on their bread. But it takes a genius to think of combining these things, and should therefore be reasonably compensated for their services to mankind.
Brilliant! [smuckers.com]
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:3, Funny)
I lay claim to grape butter and peanut jelly.
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:5, Insightful)
SYSTEM FOR INTERCONNECTING ELECTRONIC MAIL SYSTEMS BY RF COMMUNICATIONS AND METHOD OF OPERATION THEREOF
Says the United States Patent Office. Yes, it is as ridiculous as it sounds. I need to start thinking abstractly and patenting anything and everything that will be tried. I mean, touch interfaces are becoming popular. Can I patent the use of multi-touch interfaces and Email clients? Can I patent the use of non-touch hand gestures to operate a computer? What else could I just sit on that will be done eventually...
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
I'm not interested enough to read details, but I'm pretty sure that folks did UUCP (including email) over HAM radio decades ago.
http://www.globalspec.com/reference/29627/203279/we-used-to-copy-e-mail-across-2-400-baud-modems [globalspec.com]
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:4, Interesting)
There were plenty of amateur radio operators (myself included) using the KA9Q stack to implement e-mail over radio in the late 80s.
As is so frequently the case, though, I haven't been able (yet) to find the details of the patents at issue here. Although possibly they are the same as the ones at issue in the RIM case (the PR blurb from NTP seems to indicate that that's a possibility, but isn't explicit). In any case, without the actual patents (indeed, without the detailed claims from the complaint), it's hard to know whether the action is even, as the lawyers say, colorable.
The devil is in the details (Score:2)
I'm not interested enough to read details, but I'm pretty sure that folks did UUCP (including email) over HAM radio decades ago.
It doesn't matter what you think you remember. What matters is what is exposed in the body of the patent - not in the introduction and not in an abstract.
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
I certainly know of one guy that was. But there's this bizarre idea that if you take a network transport layer, throw some derivative or work-alike protocol on top of it, suddenly you've got a whole new invention.
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
Actually, "each of the plurality of electronic mail systems transmits other information from its plurality of originating processors to its plurality of destination processors through a wireline without using the RF information transmission network" sounds like it could describe the internet itself.
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
Yes, it is as ridiculous as it sounds. I need to start thinking abstractly and patenting anything and everything that will be tried. I mean, touch interfaces are becoming popular. Can I patent the use of multi-touch interfaces and Email clients? Can I patent the use of non-touch hand gestures to operate a computer? What else could I just sit on that will be done eventually...
You could make a nice business out of patent trolling like this. You just need the capital to file all these bogus patents, and then threaten companies when they inevitably make working versions of these ideas (since the patents no longer require any kind of working prototype any more).
To avoid having your patents declared invalid, you just need to keep your company and operation small, and negotiate for smaller settlements or license fees. Large enough to be profitable, but small enough that it isn't worth it for the companies to take it to court. NTP seems like they're being too greedy in this regard, and that causes the companies they threaten to go ahead and litigate; if they settled for, say, $100k or $500k, the companies probably wouldn't bother and would just write a check.
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
SYSTEM FOR INTERCONNECTING ELECTRONIC MAIL SYSTEMS BY RF COMMUNICATIONS AND METHOD OF OPERATION THEREOF
So, shouldn't every single laptop/notebook/netbook/tablet with WiFi manufacturer also be on the lawsuit list? After all, any and every single laptop/notebook/netbook/tablet with WiFi is also "INTERCONNECTING ELECTRONIC MAIL SYSTEMS BY RF COMMUNICATIONS"...
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
First of all, there are 665 claims in that patent [google.com]. Isn't that a little overboard?
But let's look at the first one:
What is claimed is:
1. In a communication system comprising a wireless system which communication system transmits electronic mail inputted to the communication system from an originating device, mobile processors which execute electronic mail programming to function as a destination of electronic mail, and a destination processor to which the electronic mail is transmitted from the originating device and after reception of the electronic mail by the destination processor, information contained in the electronic mail and an identification of a wireless device in the wireless system are transmitted by the wireless system to the wireless device and from the wireless device to one of the mobile processors connected thereto, the originating device comprising:
a programmed processor which executes electronic mail programming to originate the electronic mail, the electronic mail containing an address of the destination processor and the information contained in the electronic mail to be transmitted to the destination processor.
After you parse all this mumbo-jumbo, doesn't it just say e-mail over wireless system? Filed in 1999? Didn't we have e-mail on laptops in 1999? What's wrong with this picture? What if you just remove the word "wireless" from the claim and read it again?
The claim is so broad, it seems to me it covers the pagers too.
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:5, Insightful)
So they own SMTP? POP3? IMAP4? sendmail?!
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
Uh, huh.
And, can you say "obvious", I knew you could.
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
How is taking what already exists and putting it over wireless patent worthy?
Heck these patents have already been rejected, too bad our patent office is treating them as valid until the appeals to the rejection run out. These companies should try to wait it out.
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
Their UUCP technology? Seriously?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCP [wikipedia.org]
That stuff is older than I am (and I don't even think it's actually used anymore).
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I used the word "if" in the previous sentence,
Actually... you didn't
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
Working quite well on my iRedMail server at home, pushing mail to my Android K-9 mail client, thank you very much!
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
the patent is already rejected, just need appeals to run out.
Re:Fundamental technology (Score:2)
Not if you use Activesync aka exchange. It may also support IMAP IDLE, k9 does.
Those who can't create, acquire IP and litigate! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Those who can't create, acquire IP and litigate (Score:2)
NTP (Score:5, Funny)
Nasty Patent Troll?
Hmmm..... (Score:5, Insightful)
First, it seems they forgot to sue Nokia.
Second, I see six very big companies who suddenly have a reason to work together. The $600M NTP got from RIM is a penitence compared to what these people can afford on legal.
Re:Hmmm..... (Score:2, Informative)
The $600M NTP got from RIM is a penitence compared to what these people can afford on legal.
$600 million is a state of sorrow for sins or faults? What the hell does that mean? I believe you mean "pittance".
Re:Hmmm..... (Score:5, Informative)
They may have been penitent, but I believe the word you are looking for is pittance.
Re:Hmmm..... (Score:5, Informative)
They didn't forget. Nokia has a license from NTP so can't be included in this suit.
Re:Hmmm..... (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm..... (Score:2)
Only the penitent company shall pass.
Re:Hmmm..... (Score:2, Informative)
Nokia already licenses from NTP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTP,_Inc.#Patent_licenses
Re:Hmmm..... (Score:2)
Their patents are bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Email is over 20 years old, so there's no way they could patent it. Combining email with IP-over-GSM is simply combining two existing technologies, which isn't patent worthy, so they couldn't have patented that. And, if they had patented something at the transport layer or higher, they wouldn't have called their patents "wireless email patents", they would have called them "wireless networking patents". So, their patents can't possibly be valid. I'd look them up and show exactly why - but they were so ashamed of how much they abused the patent system, that they wouldn't even tell us which patents they are. FTA:
What are these patents? We can only guess, as the one-page release issued by NTP's public-relations firm does not name them.
Re:Their patents are bullshit (Score:2)
Re:Their patents are bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
Mods, please read the back story. [slashdot.org]
Re:Their patents are bullshit (Score:2)
Re:Their patents are bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
What I don't understand is why Ham Radio Packet communications wouldn't be considered prior art for all of these patents. Hams were sending email through automated gateways to MOBILE stations back in the 80s. Why isn't this adequate prior art?
In looking at the patent:
"A system (100) for connecting a plurality of mail systems (1-N) each transmitting information from one of a plurality of originating processors (A-N) to at least one of a plurality of destination processors (A-N) which may be transported during operation in accordance with the invention includes at least one interface switch (304), an interface switch being coupled to each of the plurality of electronic mail systems of receiving information originating from an originating processor in one of the electronic mail systems for transmission to a destination processor in another electronic mail system; and a RF information transmission network (302), coupled to the at least one interface switch, for transmitting stored information received from one of the at least one interface switch originating from an originating processor in one electronic mail system by RF transmission to at least one RF receiver which relays the information to a destination processor within the another electronic mail system. "
The big difference is that there is an RF link....Ham Packet Radio fits the bill.
Re:Their patents are bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
So, their patents can't possibly be valid. I'd look them up and show exactly why
It's no secret which patents NTP owns [google.com], and the patents will necessarily be named in the complaint filed with the court, which like most federal court documents will be available on the PACER [pacer.gov] system for a nominal fee. I don't why you'd expect NTP to name the patents in its press release.
Combining email with IP-over-GSM is simply combining two existing technologies, which isn't patent worthy, so they couldn't have patented that
In fact, combining two existing technologies is patent worthy if the combination is new, useful, nonobvious, and adequately described in the patent application. So after you review that list of patents I linked, you'll need to show that the claimed inventions (i.e., the claims as read in light of the specification) are either fully described in a single piece of prior art (i.e., anticipated) or that there exist multiple pieces of prior art that can be combined to fully describe the invention (i.e., that the invention was obvious at the time). Good luck with that, since several massive companies (RIM included) have already had millions of dollars worth of incentives to find said prior art. By the way, most of the patents date back to around 1995, so your prior art will need to be from roughly around 1994. In one case your prior art will need to be from around 1990. What seems perfectly obvious now was probably not so obvious back then.
Re:Their patents are bullshit (Score:2)
I have no position on the validity of the specific patents, and I do agree with what you've written here... but I would point out that the age of the patents is a double-edged sword. You mention one case whre prior art would have to be from 1990, so I assume you mean that one was filed in 1991; when was it issued? Isn't the patent term 17 years?
Re:Their patents are bullshit (Score:2)
You mention one case whre prior art would have to be from 1990, so I assume you mean that one was filed in 1991; when was it issued? Isn't the patent term 17 years?
That patent (5479472 [google.com]) issued in 1995. The patent term used to be 17 years from the date of issue. It is now 20 years from the date of filing, but it was 17 years from issue when that patent was filed. Anyway, so that patent will be in force until approximately 2012. But remember that the statute of limitations on patent infringement is 6 years, so NTP could theoretically sue up until 2018 for infringement that occurred as late as when the patent expired in 2012.
Re:Their patents are bullshit (Score:2)
In one case your prior art will need to be from around 1990. What seems perfectly obvious now was probably not so obvious back then.
HAM radio BBSes.
Re:Their patents are bullshit (Score:2)
The problem is that the lawyer devised test for obviousness are not obviousness tests at all, they are in fact exercises in doublespeak. They basically come down to redefining lack of prior art as something not being obvious, with a lot of words and procedures to hide that fact.
Yes, it is impossible to objectively decide obviousness and hindsight clouds the judgement ... but regardless, a purely subjective decision by experts is the only reasonable way to decide obviousness. The lawyer devised tests are all pure and utter bullshit.
Re:Their patents are bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
if the combination is new, useful, nonobvious
And that's the problem. Far, far, too many patents are OBVIOUS technology combinations. Since SMTP is in fact one of the oldest Internet age protocols, its pretty easy to argue any wireless layer capable of transporting SMTP is an obvious implementation. In fact, its easy to argue any generic network layer intended to transport IP, SMTP is an obvious implementation. After all, that's entirely the fucking point of using IP and SMTP!
Every time these patent trolls pop up with incredibly obvious patents, I can't help but wonder what the fuck is wrong with the idiots working at the USPO. You don't even have to be a wireless expert to look at this patent and realize in less than five minutes its complete bullshit. Whoever granted this patent should be fired and their pension revoked. Furthermore, their children should be brought to public ire and marked by paint balled on a daily basis to ensure their genes are never permitted into the pool. How the fuck anyone this stupid can qualify for the USPO brings into question every patent granted in the last fifty years or so.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with them?
Re:Their patents are bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
As someone else mentioned, look at UUCP, which on top of allowing copying of files across telephone lines and similar networks, was used for many years to push email and newsfeeds. I had my own UUCP account, and some of my earliest posts to Usenet are archived on Google Groups and still show the old bang paths. Push email has been around a loooong time.
Re:Their patents are bullshit (Score:2)
Combining email with IP-over-GSM is simply combining two existing technologies
Like a screen and a mouse pad and call it a touch screen? The patent system needs to be reviewed.
Re:Their patents are bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
And in case the wiki somehow gets edited (never know!):
* #6,317,592 - Omnidirectional and directional antenna assembly
* #6,272,190 - System for wireless transmission and receiving of information and method of operation thereof
* #6,198,783 - System for wireless serial transmission of encoded information
* #6,067,451 - System and method of radio transmission between a radio transmitter and radio receiver
* #5,819,172 - Electronic mail system with RF communications to mobile radios
* #5,751,773 - System for wireless serial transmission of encoded information
* #5,745,532 - System for wireless transmission and receiving of information and method of operation thereof
* U.S. Patent 5,631,946 - System for transferring information from an RF receiver to a processor under control of a program stored by the processor and method of operation thereof
* #5,625,670 - Electronic mail system with RF communications to mobile processor
* #5,438,611 - Electronic mail system with RF communications to mobile processors originating from outside of the electronic mail system and method of operation thereof
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news (Score:2)
Oh no, that'll open a floodgate of other frivolous lawsuits.
Automative Racing Products, MAC cosmetics, even /. !
Re:In other news (Score:2)
I thought of that joke first! You'll hear from lawyer.
Re:In other news (Score:3, Funny)
I think you have that reversed.
(disclaimer: I use and absolutely love GIMP)
Re:In other news (Score:2)
I think it'd be the other way around, actually.
Bring back lynching (Score:5, Funny)
You know, I think society was fundamentally better when people were physically afraid of screwing over their neighbors too badly. Yeah, I understand the downsides to vigilantism and a lynchmob mentality, but I'm not completely convinced that the tradeoff has been worth it.
Re:Bring back lynching (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a Hostory Channel show on the vigilantes. The cause of the vigilatteism was corrupt government and police that were not accountable to anyone and perverted democracy. In the case of our own corporate-run governments these days...
Re:Bring back lynching (Score:2, Funny)
vigilatteism
People making their own espresso-and-steamed-milk-based beverages? Savages!
(I know what word you meant, but I liked the typo better.)
Re:Bring back lynching (Score:2)
I'm a vigilettante. I deal out fairly rough justice to suspected lawbreakers, but only when I've nothing better to do.
Re:Bring back lynching (Score:2)
Vigilanteism, if not the name, predates government. It would be more accurate to say that the cause of law, government, and particularly the policing function of the latter in enforcing the former is largely the desire throughout society to contain vigilanteism.
Re:Bring back lynching (Score:2)
How do you go vigilante on a megacorp? I mean, you can certainly try, but the odds are very much not in your favor.
Re:Bring back lynching (Score:2)
If you're a bigger megacorp (or a group of six such corps), and no one bigger (e.g., government) is restraining you, its pretty easy.
Re:Bring back lynching (Score:2)
It's not "vigilante" if you do it by the laws.
And if you are a big megacorp, and there is no government, then you are the government.
Re:Stating the obvious. (Score:2)
Doesn't that somewhat depend on whether you're on the giving or receiving end of the screwing over?
Prior art already exists... (Score:5, Funny)
Prior art probably already exists for this patent...
I had an assistant print my eMails for me so that I could read them years before wireless internet routers were even being produced (back in the early 1990s). By holding those hardcopy eMails in my hands to read them, I was reading my eMail in a wireless fashion.
Re:Prior art already exists... (Score:2)
Donald Knuth, is that you ?
I'm suing their slimy rears back to the stone age. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'm suing their slimy rears back to the stone a (Score:2, Informative)
wonton disregaurd
Would that be fried wonton, or wonton soup? I'm not even going to guess on "disregaurd"
Re:I'm suing their slimy rears back to the stone a (Score:5, Funny)
He meant to say disregourd, as in the process of undoing the readding of a gourd to said wonton soup. It's delicious without the gourd that was there (again).
Stupid patent trolls (Score:3, Insightful)
Appears to be related to wireless communications (Score:3, Informative)
It looks like he wrote a bunch of patents regarding wireless data communications.
He isn't even alive anymore which is funny that they mention his name and getting recognition
I don't expect apple et.al to take this sitting down.
Re:Appears to be related to wireless communication (Score:2)
Re:Appears to be related to wireless communication (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Campana,_Jr [wikipedia.org].
Making your link link to the site it says, for those too lazy to cut-n-paste.
Re:Appears to be related to wireless communication (Score:2)
Its friday and I am in a food coma from the pork adobo lunch.
Thanks!
A Bit of History and Some Perspective (Score:5, Informative)
While it's true that NTP received a $612.5 million damages award from RIM, it's important to remember that NTP initially offered to settle with RIM for approximately $6 million. Remember too that RIM was found to have been a willful infringer, so its damages were increased and included attorney's fees. It also engaged in some courtroom shenanigans that likely contributed to the increased damages award. Another reason the eventual settlement was so high was that it was a full and final settlement (i.e., accounted for future use of the patented invention), not just a payment of damages that had already accrued. Finally, the litigation took 6 years, and in that time (2000-2006) the market for smart phones exploded, so RIM effectively racked up a lot of damages.
The point is that a lot of the large settlement was RIM's fault: it chose to fight a losing battle, it was a willful infringer, and it behaved unethically in the courtroom. It's hard to have a lot of sympathy for them.
In any event, the cost to end users was not that great. RIM has sold ~100 million BlackBerries. The cost of the settlement amounts to roughly $6 per unit, which is about a 2-5% royalty on the cost of each device. Compared to the cost of owning a smartphone (often well over $1000 per year when you factor in the voice and data plans), $6 isn't much.
Many of you may now be saying, sure 2-5% isn't much, but it adds up fast if you have to settle with multiple patent owners, each of which wants their 2-5%. That's true, and a significant litigation reform effort is building behind allowing defendants in patent infringement suits to present evidence regarding the royalty rates for patents other than the ones in suit. Right now, the jury doesn't get to hear that you have to pay royalties on X other patents for each device sold and that those royalties are typically very small (e.g., pennies per unit or .1% of the cost or somesuch), so it's common for the jury to award comparatively high royalties. There is an effort to change that to allow juries to work with a much more complete picture of how royalty structures work in the real world rather than viewing only the patents in suit in isolation.
frak (Score:2)
So ya, I hearby already thought of teleportation. Any of you really smart physics majors out there thinking of inventing it, don't bother, its mine.
Re:frak (Score:2)
You have violated my patent on listing random ideas as a method of establishing prior art. Prepare to hear from my lawyers!
It looks like wireless & mail one is dead alre (Score:5, Informative)
http://news.cnet.com/Patent-office-issues-final-rejection-of-NTP-patent/2100-1047_3-6042049.html [cnet.com]
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued a final rejection of one of the five patents at issue in NTP's long-running case against BlackBerry maker Research In Motion.
The final rejection was posted on the Patent Office's Web site for the NTP-held patent, which covers a system for sending e-mails over a wireless network to a mobile device. The Patent Office has already issued nonfinal actions rejecting the claims in four out of the five NTP patents in question, but a final rejection is required before the appeals process can begin.
All in 2006...
But they didn't sue Garmin... (Score:4, Insightful)
...because they have a track record of smacking down patent trolls, like today. [bizjournals.com] Maybe some of those companies can toughen up and follow the example.
From the author: details added to post (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks for the attention. One of NTP's PR folks just e-mailed a copy of the company's complaint against Google. There's a copy embedded after the jump of my post [washingtonpost.com], and you can also read or download the PDF via Scribd [scribd.com]. I encourage you all to give that document a careful read, then look through the patents claimed (I've linked to the relevant USPTO pages in the post as well).
- RP
It's NOT a Patent Troll When... (Score:2)
So I'm reading the first of the patents... (Score:5, Informative)
In particular 5,436,960 [uspto.gov], and I note that something like half of the paragraphs in it, though numbered differently, all say:
Which sounds like a particulary contorted way to describe a router taking the data out of a packet routed to it, and routing it to another system based on the destination address.
Then, in the Description he lies:
Email has always had a send-to-multiple recipients functionality, and has always used store-and-forward servers over packet networks and/or instances dial-up lines. It is not "point-to-point" except rarely when sending to the same host where the mail originates.
Basically, when you realize that an Ethernet is an RF frequency network, this patent describes email being forwarded by an outgoing mail server and being routed to one or more destinations. Pretty much what SMTP over TCP/IP had been doing for over 20 years at the time this lame-o patent was filed. I can't wait to see what the other ones look like (shudder).
Prior art (Score:4, Insightful)
3Com press release of the Palm VII in October of 1999, two months before this patent was filed. The press release explicitly mentions wireless e-mail. http://investor.palm.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=338689 [palm.com]
There is probably even earlier prior art as the idea is trivial and was plainly obvious when 3Com released the Palm VII (microwave stations anyone?). This patent also seem to cover any computer using Wifi.
It was stupid when it was filed and is stupid now.