Company Claims Ownership of Digital Messaging 325
An anonymous reader writes "Kootol, yet another patent troll, is going after everyone who makes messaging software for violating their soon-to-be-granted patent, which claims they invented one- and two-way messaging in 2005. From the article: 'Kootol, founded in 2010, says it has a patent license agreement with Yogesh Rathod for control of U.S. Patent Application 11/995,343. Rathod, in fact, is a co-founder of Kootol with his brother Vijay Rathod. According to Kootol, the patent application “covers core messaging, publication and real time searching technology.” Interestingly, the patent in question hasn’t actually been awarded to Kootol or Rathod yet. Rather, The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued “A Notice of Allowance.” That’s the term for when the USPTO says that an applicant is entitled to a patent under the law, but must pay an issue fee (and potentially publication fee) first, within three months.'"
Prior Art? (Score:5, Informative)
Surely the SMTP protocol is a one way messaging protocol - and is older than I am!
Re:Prior Art? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prior Art? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In the third grade, in Mrs Woods class, I used to pass notes back and forth with Elizabeth Shafer and Daniel Duggan.
I claim prior art!
And I believe my older sister may have invented the cootie catcher some years before, so every company that makes anti-malware software owes her money.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a new patent. They added " with a computer" to your old, obsolete patent.
Re:Prior Art? (Score:5, Funny)
But did they add "with a shiny computer"?
Re: (Score:3)
Probably.
Re: (Score:2)
ICQ is used pretty heavily in some countries - Russia and other ex-Soviet republics, most notably.
That said, it's not a good IM protocol. No Unicode until a few years ago (and some clients were slow to catch up with transition), passwords limited to 8 significant characters, numeric user IDs - it's very much a dinosaur.
Re: (Score:3)
Phone didn't have presence, quite. However, in 1991, I abused phone to create a notification system for when your peeps logged in, thereby extending
a two-way chat application with presence.
Yes. I've had the code online since 1991.
Anybody with patents on two-way messaging and presence should probably line up and bite my shiny metal ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I recall using 'instant messaging' on a network on VAX/VMS back in the '80s...
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. So were Unisys ICON machines, I fondly remember using one during my childhood and them showing us how to leave messages for people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Telex anyone?
Also used messaging in high-school in the late 70's. We used a mechanical teletype to dial-up other schools, then tried to flirt with girls taking computer programming classes. That's when rule 16 was first being considered.
Re:Prior Art? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not really even about messaging. The abstract in the patent application is so ass-backwards and contorted that nobody could make heads or tails of what the actual invention is. Here is the abstract:
A system for transmission, reception and accumulation of the knowledge packets to plurality of channel nodes in the network operating distributedly in a peer to peer environment via installable one or more role active Human Operating System (HOS) applications in a digital devise of each of channel node, a network controller registering and providing desired HOS applications and multiple developers developing advance communication and knowledge management applications and each of subscribers exploiting the said network resources by leveraging and augmenting taxonomically and ontologically classified knowledge classes expressed via plurality search macros and UKID structures facilitating said expert human agents for knowledge invocation and support services and service providers providing information services in the preidentified taxonomical classes, wherein each of channel nodes communicating with the unknown via domain specific supernodes each facilitating social networking and relationships development leading to human grid which is searchable via Universal Desktop Search by black box search module.
My favorite part has to be "knowledge packets"...
My eyes! (Score:5, Funny)
They will not stand in my way when I patent:
System of using punctuation marks in order to make blocks of text more readable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The abstract in the patent application is so ass-backwards and contorted that nobody could make heads or tails of what the actual invention is.
My favorite part has to be "knowledge packets"...
Oh! That is Indglish - English spoken by an moderately* educated Indian guy. The perfect English mangling scheme for patents. Seriously, a lot of Indians do speak like that...
*- And I use "moderately" in a very loose sense...
Re:Prior Art? (Score:4, Funny)
It is so utterly, completely obvious that the taxonomic ignification is merely a matter of sorting the knowledge packets according to chromulence, distification, and relevactory mystilience. I therefore award this patent to these geniuses, void all prior art, and entitle them to billions in ransom. Let it be known that this East Texas court is a fair and honest place where all may come and get their just rewards.
Re:Prior Art? (Score:5, Insightful)
I currently make most of my income dealing with patents (searching, reading, analyzing, finding problems with them, writing material for them, etc). And guess what? Nobody reads the abstract to figure out the details. All it is useful for is to determine if it's even vaguely related to what you are working on.
If you base any analysis on a reading of the abstract alone, you are making a huge mistake. Don't bother.
I'm not saying the patent is valid or not. I'm just saying don't read the abstract.
Re: (Score:3)
This is very true. But the actual claims aren't much better:
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110078583 [faqs.org]
A method of accessing applications for social networking, searching sharing and communication in a plurality of network(s), said method comprising the steps of:registering and/or integrating at least one application(s) from one or more networks at a central server by one or more application provider(s);selecting at least one registered application(s) by at least one user;installing said at least one selec
Re: (Score:3)
The first claim in the application (which may or may not be the one that will appear in the actual patent, though it's probably pretty close) is very specific. It requires, among other things, that "each user device [have] a local database and an application for... sharing desktop resources," and that "the information and the ap
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And IRC [ietf.org]was a two-way messaging protocol that started out as a replacement for NTALK, a network-based variant of TALK(1) [fuse4bsd.creo.hu]+FINGER. An IRC system is constructed by a peer-to-peer network consisting of a number of IRC Servers, configured into a tree-based topology designed by the server administrators, and stemming from their choice of which peers to connect together.
IRC clients even had a /NOTIFY command for monitoring presence (or WATCH list) command.
Clients had usermodes they could set on themselves suc
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps this is the USPTO's way of making more money -- letting people buy worthless patents that will get challenged and destroyed. They collect the fees and that's about it...
Re:Prior Art? (Score:4, Interesting)
If only USPTO was responsible for sharing the costs of a failed patent they wouldn't allow them so easy.
Re:Prior Art? (Score:5, Insightful)
The most prescient is that the USPTO doesn't look for prior art, obviousness or novelty when granting patents.
The next reason is that the USPTO along with many ill-informed politicians believe that the number of patents granted in a year has a direct correlation to the technological development of the country. This is easily nullified by the very fact that patent trolls exist. Since a company can buy a patent which is a monopoly on a theoretical device, method, or nowadays even a data set (see Monsanto's gene patents), the actual technological imperative to produce is gone. It has been replaced with an incentive to suppress a technology defined in a patent, and when it has been developed by an independent company unaware of the patent, to sue and generate a profit.
Patents are defined in US law as a way to promote the progress of useful sciences and arts. In the last twenty or more years, it has been shown hands-down that patents do the exact opposite. They grant a monopoly to a company. The company then stands to gain in the short term far more by suing than by investing money in developing the device or method described in it's patents.
The way that the patent system has been gamed to prevent the public from doing real research and development is deplorable, and I will be glad of the day when patent is done away with.
I'm sure that patent will exist forever in US government, but all of my observations have show that it is not merely worthless as an institution, but detrimental to technological progress.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Prior Art? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tons of older protocols...
So? This is the USPTO we're talking about, they stamp anything (so long as they get their fee...)
Software patent implosion (Score:5, Interesting)
Good, the more ridiculous the patents get, the quicker something will be done to fix the mess. Personally, I'd like to see this patent granted, and dozens of companies ordered to pay lots of damages to the angelic company that is Kootol. ....if only to see the backlash from a thousand juggernauts against the current patent system ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Software patent implosion (Score:5, Insightful)
The mere fact that we're having to pin our hopes of patent reform on corporate interests is disgusting, and proof of the inherent failure of the US government to act on behalf of the interests of the greater good of its citizens in practical matters.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The Republicans fuck up, so the fools vote in the Democrats. The Democrats fuck up, so the fools vote in the Republicans. The Republicans fuck up, so the fools vote in the Democrats. The Democrats fuck up, so the fools vote in the Republicans. Holy fuck, there might just be a cycle going on here.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called the two party shuffle. There is really only one party...the money party. They use push button issues like abortion to keep people divided so they can lift their wallets.
Re: (Score:3)
Government only looks out for the good of itself. Which is the simple reason it should be limited and very defined roles. Not the "do it for the children" nanny state we've become.
Re: (Score:2)
Government only looks out for the good of itself. Which is the simple reason it should be limited and very defined roles. Not the "do it for the children" nanny state we've become.
"Do it for the children" -- Ah you mean the Ministry of Ministry...
Re:Software patent implosion (Score:4, Insightful)
It may surprise you but there are a few people out there who actually will fight for the people given a chance. Think of the Roosevelts. Of course, since the modern GOP deliberately sabotages the government for the purpose of proving that government doesn't work...
Re: (Score:3)
Correct. However the reason that looking out for itself is not looking out for the people is because we have proven, time and again, that there is no consequence for doing otherwise. Approval rate of Congress? Approximately 30%. Re-election rate of incumbents? Around 90%.
This has little to do with the size of government. It has somewhat to do with the construction (the fact that we have allowed things to devolve to a two party system in particular), b
Re:Software patent implosion (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess you have no understanding of patents... There were meant to protect inventors of things from those that would steal the ideas.
I guess you have no understanding of patents or at least not if you're from the US. They were never indented to protect inventors from anything. You might want to take just a little peek at Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution [wikipedia.org]. The only Constitutional justification for granting monopoly rights to something is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Nothing in there about protecting inventors from anything. And seems to me that justification is pretty focused on the greater good of society.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's a nice thought (and I would hope that would be the outcome) but that only works when you've got someone in the decision making chain who's (choose one) sane or views that as a bad outcome.
For instance, normally when you end up with standard procedure involving sexually molesting children you might stop that, but for DHS that's just reasonable procedure.
In this case, big companies can settle up with Kootol and it becomes yet another barrier for entry to small businesses. As far as they're concern
Re: (Score:2)
I call this the "shoot myself in the foot" theory of political action.
I don't think ever seen anything in my life work out that way. Maybe oppress a pretty white woman somehow, that occasionally gets results.
Re:Software patent implosion (Score:5, Interesting)
Good, the more ridiculous the patents get, the quicker something will be done to fix the mess. Personally, I'd like to see this patent granted, and dozens of companies ordered to pay lots of damages to the angelic company that is Kootol. ....if only to see the backlash from a thousand juggernauts against the current patent system ;)
Unfortunately, it's not likely to work out that way. Kootol will no doubt be crushed, but the giant companies they're suing will most likely pay off Congress to "reform" the patent system in a way that makes it more difficult for small patent trolls to operate while still allowing the giants to go after small developers (and not-so-small, as in Microsoft's ongoing war against Linux.) Don't ask me what the specific wording will be; I don't claim to know, but they've got armies of lawyers to write the language to achieve the desired result.
Re:Software patent implosion (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the thousand juggernauts you speak of are only juggernauts themselves because the patent system is the way it is. They'd much rather pay some miniscule fee than destroy their entire business model. It's going to need to get much worse before it gets better.
(emphasis added)
Isn't that so typically the case? I'd say there seems to be nothing more American than avoiding at all costs the use of foresight and prevention (i.e. before something turns into a crisis) but unfortunately, the USA doesn't have a monopoly on this.
Fools are the sort who really desire political power. Nothing is less evident to a fool than the fact that every large national crisis was once a small problem that could have been resolved with relative ease, but the failure to do so allowed it to grow and evolve into a monster.
The idea scales in both directions. It's true of individual personal lives and it's true of national affairs. Those who don't understand this think they are victims of misfortune. The reality is, an actual victim of misfortune that was completely unforeseeable and non-preventable is an extremely rare entity. On the national scale though, there is a grave injustice built into this: the fact that those who did see it coming are few and tend to be drowned out by the din of reactive fools. When they are affected by broken systems, they get to suffer along with those who really deserve it.
Funny how when politicians talk about "fairness" (really a puerile version of justice), distribution of wealth is the only kind they seem to recognize.
Re: (Score:2)
the fact that those who did see it coming are few and tend to be drowned out by the din of reactive fools.
Unfortunately, a prevailing quote heard in Wall Street and Washington is IBGYBG: "I'll be gone, you'll be gone". They know what's up, and try to make a buck off it while attempting to kick the problem down the road for the next guy.
Really? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure I was using instant messaging programs well before 2005. I remember having used them since I discovered computers in the late 80s.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
The "talk" program was available on the DEC PDP-11 computer system in the 1970s and in BSD v4.2 since 1983. [wikipedia.org]
MOD Parent up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I sent instant messaged to someone 350 miles away on an IBM 370/125 in the 70s. If two computers have communication, there is usually a way that can be worked out. And yeah, I was told on IRC in the 90s I was "older than dirt."
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
In that case you owe me patent royalties, as I invented the digital computer last week.
Surely I have at least as sound a claim as Kootol does.
Re: (Score:3)
You're doing it wrong, you need a block of text so obfuscated that the USPTO isn't quite sure what they're granting.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
Method and Apparatus for use of SIlicon with additives to create electric motion in order to provide a system of postively charge regions thereafter called 1s and a system of negativly charged regions therafter called 0s in order to create, transmit,produce,transfer,convert,read,translate,display,distinguish,perform arthematic functions upon,simulate,compute information packets in order to allow a human user (HU) the ability to create, transmit,produce,transfer,convert,read,translate,display,distinguish,perform arthematic functions upon,simulate,compute further information packets which are then translated into motion of photons and EM radiation of specific frequencies by use of a 'monitor' in order to give Human Readable (HR) results which the human user (HU) is using.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure I was using instant messaging programs well before 2005. I remember having used them since I discovered computers in the late 80s.
You're responding to the click-bait headline, not the patent.
Patent system is broken! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm usually the last person to speak about the benefits of more work (and will cite the broken windows fallacy at the nearest opportunity).
But on this occasion, it looks like they could do with more workers. Qualified workers at that.
Re: (Score:2)
They have no incentive to hire more workers, because it means higher costs. Currently they have a good income by rubber stamping everything but the costs of these patents are conveyed to the consumers. Unless their mandate is changed, they won't reform.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps we should go back to actually funding the USPTO mainly with tax revenue. I realize that there's a lot of people here that are opposed on principle, but sometimes taxpayers are the correct party to fund things.
Re:Patent system is broken! (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps we should go back to actually funding the USPTO mainly with tax revenue. I realize that there's a lot of people here that are opposed on principle, but sometimes taxpayers are the correct party to fund things.
Communist! Socialist! Pedophile! Pothead! Music pirate! Think of the children! If we violate the principles of God and the Founding Fathers by doing such a thing, the terrorists have won!
There. Hope that clears things up for you.
Re: (Score:2)
If this is the case, then the whole thing needs to just go away. "we can't do our job because we're too busy not doing our job" is no excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the Courts are continuing to defer to the expertise of the patent office, and are EXTREMELY "reluctant" to void patents.
The problem isn't reluctance but rather the current legal standard for invalidating a patent. Once a patent is granted it requires "clear and convincing" evidence to invalidate it. It's neigh impossible come up with "clear and convincing" evidence of anything relating to something like software that your average ditch digger or housewife, hell, or even your average judge has little understanding of. All the defense has to do is throw out just a little baffling bullshit and there goes "clear and convincing"
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very good synopsis. It seems very dysfunctional that the USPTO can't accomplish what a message board can - namely, accumulate a number of folks with depth of experience who can rattle off prior art from the tops of their heads.
It seems to me that the patent system should contain a component of peer review. Allow any interested parties to submit 1-page briefs over a 1-month period, limit one per company to prevent DoSing of the poor inventor. Then allow inventor to respond to the briefs as to ho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In fairness to the USPTO (and I'm hardly ever fair to them) they never would have granted anything so obvious.
What they did grant a patent for was for _sideways_ swinging on a swing!
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like a huge percentage of patents that are filed are for software and gui's design (not really even the code just the layout).
"Just the layout" is actually a reasonable design patent (unless it's too broad). It's also not all that harmful, since rearranging the UI elements is easy.
My opinion is those should be handled under copyright and trademark laws. Any physical device handled by patent
That's already how it works. The problem is that patent claims then begin with "a computational device, executing code that does ..." - so the patent is for a physical device by the letter of the law.
Re:Patent system is broken! (Score:4, Interesting)
What good software engineer is going to become an examiner for the USPTO compared to the benefits they could receive elsewhere.
Also, please remember that for about the first decade after they decided to start granting software patents, they did not allow the hiring of software engineers (ie those with CS degrees) as examiners.
I think I've seen this before (Score:5, Interesting)
This looks very similar to the Andrew Messaging System that became the CMU campus wide mail system circa 1985.
Prior art (Score:2)
"claims they invented one and two way messaging in 2005"
I read TFA's description of the patent application, and it doesn't look any different from what this two-way pager (RIM R900M) I have was doing in 1995.
7,991,764 issuing 08/02/2011 (Score:2)
Whether you like it or not, it looks like they've spent a lot of money setting this one up.
Start plowing through that prosecution history and start looking for prior art -- early prior art that isn't already on the list.
Re: (Score:2)
So wait a tick, there is already a ton of prior art ON FILE and yet the patent is still deemed valid? Wouldn't, say, several dozen prior inventions that do what you're trying to patent being on file in the application generally preclude granting of that patent?
Re: (Score:2)
So if nobody pays in the next few months... (Score:2)
Does that mean that they won't be able to afford to pay the fees to get the patent granted?
Kootol's logo looks like Google's.. (Score:2)
Maybe it's just me, but I think Kootol's logo looks very similar to Gooogl's logo!
http://www.kootol.com/Images/Kootol_Logo.png
http://www.google.com/images/logos/ssl_ps_logo.png
Sum it up for me gents. (Score:2)
I'm not in the patenting arena (rather a researcher by day), I read a ton about how the patent system is totally broken but since I don't interact with it at all would one of you fine scholars be noble enough to provide myself (and perhaps a few others) with some resources that illustrate how broken things are so I can better understand the situation? I would greatly appreciate this. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Patent trolling in 10 easy steps:
1) people fooling around with code make new, cool things that are useful
2) someone notices and suggests to these people that these useful things would be useful to other people, and they could probably sell it for something
3) the inventor sells it and starts to make some money, thinking how wonderful it is that this useful thing could be useful to someone else while making some money for him/her.
4) someone with a bit of legalese and a knowledge of the patent system notices s
Re: (Score:2)
Cell phone patent thicket [techdirt.com]. You're in research. Think of where we'd be if all the money being wasted on lawyers was instead being invested in research on better cell phone technology. And it's gonna get worse once the Apple/Microsoft/RIM consortium get all the patents they bought [reuters.com] from the Nortel dissolution sorted. All three are renowned for spending money on lawyers rather than on innovating.
I looked at their careers page... (Score:2)
Further proof (Score:2)
That the USPTO is staffed with lazy incompetent morons.
Aw c'mon... (Score:2)
Challenges to the Patent are only $1500 or so (Score:2)
Anyone can pay the fee and submit evidence that says that there were the following items of relevant prior art with documentation and the USPTO will review and issue their judgment.
To that extent, if someone patents something that had been done at a college in the 80s, it would be worthwhile submitting the documentation to show it was not a newly "invented" system.
Right now the patent application which is published does NOT reflect the allowed claims, which is typically narrower than what was originally sub
Is someone going to step up? (Score:2)
It seems to me that everyone comes on here and bitches every couple of weeks when another patent trolling case lights up the collective ire of Geeks United, complaining that the USPTO is incompetent, couldn't tell Prior Art if it was stuck in their prosteriors, and generally how much these things suck.
Has anyone done anything about it? Has anyone called to apply for a job at the USPTO, as unglamorous as that is? Do you not want to work for "the man"? Do we have anyone here who works for the patent office?
Se
Prior Art (Score:2)
Talk
Ytalk
VMS Phone
VMS "CB Simulator"
IRC
Telnet chats
MUDs, MOOs and such.
ICQ - and every variation of this from here on like yahoo chat and AIM.
Those are just the ones I've had hands-on experience with
I am sure there must have been some sort of instant messaging under Multics back in the '60s.
--
BMO
CompuServe circa 1986 (Score:2)
I have distinct memories of using the "CB Simulator" chat system on CompuServe back in 1986. This certainly qualifies as a 2-way messaging system.
The Unix "talk" command has to figure in there somewhere too.
SMS messages have been around before 2005 (I am guessing), so that would certainly qualify as one-way messaging. Then again, so would telegrams and email.
Re: (Score:2)
As well as snail mail, semaphore, morse code, drum signals, smoke signals and talking to yourself.
Prior Art. (Score:2)
JOB DESCRIPTION:
We are looking for candidates with experience managing/leading a development team in social networking, search engine, communication, e-commerce, API for integrating with 3rd parties, mobile & desktop smart client applications related environment. The Project Manager will be asked to take over their . NET development team. They will be responsible for managing the developers and development process.
EXPERIENCE:-
Candidates should have at least 7-10 years of experience.
Did they just admit
IP multicast - prior art? (Score:3)
IP multicast has been in active use on the internet since the 1980's.
IP multicast lets receivers join groups, defined by a special class of IP addresses. Senders emit packets addressed to those addresses and the IP mulitcast routing systems (of which there are several) build distribution trees to get those packets to those receivers.
So to the extent that this patent claims include subscription based addressing and transmission of data packets, IP multicast has been a running example of this for at least a quarter of a century.
No notice of allowance, but here are the claims. (Score:2)
IANAL, but I don't see any information in the USPTO transaction history or file wrapper of 12/973,387 to indicate any notice of claims allowance. This appears to still be just an application.
But for those of you who want to rip into it, here's the part that matters. Have fun!
1. A method for publishing and subscribing in a social network, the method comprising: allowing user to manage Human Operating System (HOS) including one or more profiles, activities, applications, services, actions, transactions, gro
Prior Art (Score:3)
Let's see:
It describes using a VAX. (Score:3)
Clauses 1-457 were canceled.
in 458 they describe a main frame (prior art by many, many years) so 458 should have been canceled, in addition to all of the clauses based on 458.
providing a central controller for controlling a plurality of processes involved in said information searching and sharing;
463 is based on 462 which is based on 458 so it should be canceled. 479 repeats the claim to prior art noted above. This leaves 478 as the only clauses not voided by the above prior art. Unfortunately for the patent troll 478 vaguely describes clustered computing as a means to duplicate the process of a main frame, which there are several instances of prior art as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I don't see anything hacked or otherwise off (except for the crazy patent-trolling) about the page, top or bottom. The linked images also appear un-hacked.
I really hope the ultra-cluttered "Figure 2" is not of the actual program(s) they want their customers to use, though. A screenshot that ugly doesn't need hacking.
Re: (Score:2)
Check the HTML. A div is created, 4 links to random sites inserted, and then said div is hidden via javascript. Presumably some SOE-aimed hack/spam/bot/thing.
Re: (Score:2)
from CS 101 to advanced courses.
Patents won't cover the text; that's what copyright does.
But, there's one thing I wouldn't put past them. When e-books for college textbooks start to take off, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they come in a proprietary file format. The format itself and/or the method of rendering human-readable text from it certainly could be patented.
Then it would be even easier for them to a) kill off the used book market and b) change a couple of chapters around and create a "New Edition" that will be re
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I like this idea. How about a patent for "Storing a complex clusters of knowledge packets such that the Operating System needs only to store the location of a single head/root packet, and each packet needs only to knowledge of one or more other packets."
There, trees lists and graphs all in a few stupid lines of legal nonsense. Maybe get specific, and patent that damned k-D tree so no one else gets tortured trying to understand how to delete crap from one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but this is "over the internet" which makes it entirely new again.
I just filed a patent on "the wheel on the internet" and I expect to start litigating pretty soon.