This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Paging Eliza: Patenting IM Bots
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
Have to say it... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Have to say it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Have to say it... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same in EVERY field. It's stupid/negligent to hand out a patent without doing at least minimal research beforehand.
-Sara
Re:Amazing. (Score:3, Informative)
Sure thing.
The original phrase came from a cheesy video game called "Zero Wing." I've never actually played it, and in fact hadn't even heard of it until the "All Your Base" thing became so popular. Gamespy [classicgaming.com] has some good information on the "All Your Base" mistranslation and on the game itself.
For Great Justice! (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably the greatest waste of my entire summer. I never really understood what it was about (other than blowing aliens up) but it was grand fun trying to understand the manual.
Like many Sega-Genesis import games, ZW suffered from what could be kindly called KungFu Movie Syndrome in which the translation is done by bored graduate students who never actually studied the language in question and were paid in beer. Which was consumed during translation.
Can you blame them? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Can you blame them? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Can you blame them? (Score:2, Insightful)
In a word, yes: (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I can and do blame them.
Human beings are expected to have ethics, and to treat one another with a semblance thereof even when the law doesn't manage to anticipate every possible permutation of human interaction, or indeed, even when the law is clearly flawed.
Sub-human filth that lack such ethics and/or use the law to cause deliberate harm to others for their own banal benefit deserve to be treated exactly as what they are: sub-human filth.
Re:In a word, yes: (Score:2)
Are they wrong for doing it? Yeah, probably. But you cannot be so naive to think that someone wouldn't exploit a system so obviously exploitable when the gains are so vast.
Re:In a word, yes: (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is the heart of a good deal of our social and political conflicts in the US. Human beings are held to higher expectations than corporate entities, and yet, those corporate entities have the same rights as human beings. Note that a person didn't apply for this patent; a company did. If the smaller developers had to go up against an individual, even one with substantial resources, they probably wouldn't be nearly so worried. Corporations can draw on resources that individual humans can't, however. Furthermore, if they lose, the company goes bankrupt, dissolves, and the corporate officers go on about their merry way and try again next year. If it were a person, it would be at least seven years before they could do much of anything again.
As long as corporations can live forever or die without hurting anyone, they are unmotivated to partake in human ethics. The answer seems to be to also remove some of their human-like rights. Of course, can you imagine the corporate lobbying against such legislation?
Re:In a word, yes: (Score:2, Informative)
Of course, the new execs claimed that the only thing they needed to look out for is profits, and that the social good they provided was employment. I think "social good" needs to go beyond employment and apply to how and what service, product they produce.
Re:In a word, yes: (Score:2)
If the carrot of being allowed to incorporate, with all of the legal and financial benefits that brings, is not sufficient for the aforementioned sub-human filth to behave ethically, and they are able to purchase or pervert legislation to permit said behavior, then the only thing that remains is the stick, be it social stigmatization of the human beings which comprise the sub-human filth that is the corporate entity in question, or the use of more direct methods by the rest of humanity to protect its own interests against the aforementioned sub-human filth.
In any event, defending your intersts against an aggressor is never "sinking to their level," christian turn-your-cheeck, grunt-and-bear-it rhetoric notwithstanding.
Re:Can you blame them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not PTO to blame but legal system (Score:2)
This is where our countries check and balances, 3 branches of government comes into play. It is up to the legal system to determine whether a patent request is valid or not. The problem is that the legal system has become a joke. The time and expense involved with pursuing these cases makes it so that the deepest pocket almost always wins.
What is the fix, you ask? Penalties for invalid patents. If you patent something and don't do an adequate job searching for prior art BEFORE applying to the PTO then you should be fined the time it took the PTO clerk to review the application, all court fees for defendants, and maybe even a punitive payment. This would mean that defendants could fight an honest battle knowing that if they come out on top they don't have to pay the mounting legal fees. It would also make these frivolous patents much more expensive.
Re:Can you blame them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you mean "an opportunity to make money"?
There is a slight difference. :)
Re:Can you blame them? (Score:5, Interesting)
Eldred v. Ashcroft (Score:3, Informative)
There is a law, the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), that provides blanket authorization to sue the government. However, the FTCA only allows suits based on "operational" aspects of government duties. "Discretionary" decisions are not actionable.
Really? Then what's ACLU v. Reno? What's Eldred v. Ashcroft [eldred.cc]? (I wouldn't have so much of a problem with the Bono Act [everything2.com] that Eldred et al. seek to overturn, except that in some fields such as songwriting, there exist only a limited number of possible original works [everything2.com], and it's possible to run out of them [baen.com].)
In general, if a fellow wants to sue the government over a "discretionary" action, he sues the persons in charge of enforcing the regulation, such as the Attorney General, the head of the USPTO, the examiner who approved the patent, etc. in their official capacities. Hence, ACLU v. Janet Reno in her official capacity as AG, Eldred et al. v. John Ashcroft in his official capacity as AG.
I'm patenting ass slapping! (Score:4, Funny)
I'll make millions. At worst, if I can't get any royalties, I'll sell access to everyone's court-orderd bedroom webcam (for my patent enforcement)
I can smell the money now!
T :-)
Re:I'm patenting ass slapping! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'm patenting ass slapping! (Score:3, Funny)
But maybe it does. It would certainly explain their failure to find prior art in computer technology patents.
Patent examiner goes to his office, watches a porn movie for a while, comes back and says "yeah, I've been looking for prior art for the last hour, I couldn't find any. This application meets our usual standards."
Prior art (by about a decade) (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Prior art (by about a decade) (Score:4, Funny)
I dunno, she seems kinda apathetic :-)
Re:Prior art (by about a decade) (Score:3, Funny)
You: Who are you?
Eliza: Would you prefer if I were not []?
You call this art?? (j/k)
Re:Prior art (by about a decade) (Score:2)
And what about IRC chatbots? Do they count as "IM bots"? They have certainly been around since long before 2000.
I've got it! (Score:5, Funny)
"I'm not familiar with that," Kay said in response to claims that interactive bots were in existence even before ActiveBuddy launched, with venture funding from Reuters and Wit Soundview.
Active Buddy CEO is, in fact, an IM Bot. I mean, has anyone actually seen the guy? And his responses sound suspiciously like Eliza...
Re:I've got it! (Score:5, Insightful)
"The subject of enforcing the patent shouldn't even come up. Anyone wanting to build a very good interactive agent will find that our tools are the very best."
-schussat
Re:I've got it! (Score:2)
Anyhow, I dont see a chance of this standing up in court. I have to say that if they do go after everyone tho, a lot of us would have no choice but to turn them off, at least temporarily. Mine is hosted on a school server, and it wouldnt take much for them to force me to terminate it. A single nastygram from a lawyer would do it, since I need the school account more than the bot. Any bets on who they're gonna go after first?
And whatever happened to SmarterChild? I havent seen it lately.
MBAs (Score:3, Funny)
Over and over again... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm thinking the USPTO could create a database of pending patents on their web site that have passed initial muster with the investigator and are likely to be approved. Interested parties could go and post links about prior art (or earlier filed but still pending patents) for the patent investigator to review.
Re:Over and over again... (Score:2)
Opening up application review. (Score:4, Informative)
They did. [kuro5hin.org]
Re:Over and over again... (Score:2, Informative)
Every step of IM botmaking technology? (Score:3, Funny)
Grrr (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Grrr (Score:2)
You make it sound like these lawyers have autonomy and get no direction from the company.
This is of course completely ridiculous. You have a lawyer? I do. I don't recall my lawyer going around and filing patent applications on my behalf without me giving him some sort of direction and approval of each step.
And do you have any idea how expensive lawyers are? No one gives their lawyers carte blanche or they'd be broke in a week!
Patent? crap! (Score:5, Insightful)
Or any other bot running within an environment generally used for 2-way (or more) communication?
I wrote a bot in 1990 for christ sake.
Not kidding, work with DDIAL chat systems.
DDIAL ran on Apple IIe with 7 300bps modems.
documented? i'd say. (Score:5, Informative)
Bots are heavily in use in the corporate infrastructure, from auto-reply bots which answer emails based on formatting (think: subscribing to majordomo or even old NSI DNS requests), to complete bots which can answer "what color is the sand on Mars".
There's even a Wired article [wired.com] about IRC bots.
there should be stiff punishments for abusing the system like this, otherwise, what's to stop them? the only thing which gets hurt is their public image, and frankly that's not enough. I'm not talking prison terms, I'm talking stiff fines for such blatant misuse of the USPTO, to fund a future technical review board for the USPTO.
Instant Prior Art (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, there weren't many IM bots out there, but there were a few. And one is all it takes.
-Todd
Patent wording.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm this is way too vague. Aside from all the IRC bots in existance, What about "Ask Jeeves"? We can certainly dispute whether a web browser/site is an 'instant messaging' server. If I "ask" jeeves for something and it returns my query, then is it not prior art?
So what? (Score:2)
There is a huge volume of prior art. If they sue anyone over this, they'll be laughed out of court -- and probably be required to pay the defendant's legal fees as well.
People complain about how easy it is to get patents, but they're missing a major point: The USPTO could just stamp "APPROVED, $DATE" on every piece of paper which comes through the door and invalid patents would be just as invalid as they ever were.
Re:So what? (Score:2, Interesting)
The next step... (Score:2, Funny)
A.L.I.C.E., a heavyweight at 11 kilos, takes on SmarterChild, sponsored by ActiveBuddy, Inc. The prize? Utter destruction by licensing fees!
Let's go behind the ring for exclusive one-on-one interviews with the contenders.
SmarterChild, what's your take on the situation?
SC: I don't know, I just do!
How do you feel about this whole prior art thing?
SC: Listings for Prior Art, KS... Austin Powers, playing at 12:30, 2:30, 3:30...
All right... moving on... A.L.I.C.E., how do you feel about this upcoming match?
ALICE: I will ask my botmaster for the answer.
Will you wrest control of the patent?
ALICE: I have no answer for that. NYU and Berkeley suck!
As long as they're rewarded... (Score:5, Interesting)
The same thing exists here with all of these silly software/genetic patents that the Patent Office, accepted by people with the brainpower of rancid jello. For now, they can do it, and it's a proven technique - patent something that already exists, then collect from businesses who know it will cost more to fight than to simply pay.
Sooner or later, one of two things will happen. A) Someone will patent something that others really, really care about, and you'll see an Enron/Worldcom level knee-jerk response (Damn! We must make a law to stop this), or B) they'll finally tackle somebody with enough deep pockets and pissed off attitude to crush a company like this, and set a major legal precident.
Either way, I figure I'll keep coding my stuff, and to hell with people who steal the future.
Re:As long as they're rewarded... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe I'm a pessimist but I'm also not entirely sure that one company getting burned would stop others from repeating the process. I mean, when that one lunch money bully at school got punched, the lunch money bully population didn't disappear.
The key here is patent office reform, it's not going to take any one case to do it, not even a big huge one. The patent office will dismiss that as a fluke and continue on as usual. There needs to be many cases against bad patents. People need to quit paying to make the problem go away and fight for their rights.
Re:As long as they're rewarded... (Score:2)
This may have happened. BT sued Prodigy over their insane hyperlink patent. Unfortunately for BT, Prodigy is owned by SBC, one of the (three?) remaining Baby Bells. I suspect that SBC will bitchslap BT in court (can you say Engelbart video?).
All we need is for somebody to bitchslap this idiot. He claims he has the best tools, and he didn't even know about the Perl module that predated him???
The real problem (Score:4, Interesting)
So what can we do to help prevent obvious and useless patenting?
Re:The real problem (Score:3, Funny)
"Patent #1: A system for approving any vague description of something that might resemble, on shallow inspection, an invention. Issued by the USPO to the USPO."
Whaa? (Score:3, Funny)
So... anybody using their own stuff is obviously using your stuff... but by your admission they're using their own stuff so by definition they're not using your stuff... but you stated they are using your stuff which would mean they arn't using their own stuff... that is a contradiction... and they have to license your server... Illogical. Illogical.
*smoke erupts from ears and collapses*
Patenting Ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
A wider example might be flying machines. There are thousands of different types of planes, baloons, helicopters, hangliders, and ultralights but each achieve the same goal by different means. Each has their own style, benefits, drawbacks, and potential uses.
I see the general patenting of auto-IM responders as being similar to patenting the idea of human flight. Though every auto-IM responder may have completely different code, handle events in different ways, and interact with different systems, ActiveBuddy owns the idea. That is bullshit.
I can buy 1000 differnt models of cars, why can't I buy 1000 different models of IM responder if each has its own advantages and disadvantages, efficiency, interface, and style.
In related news... (Score:2)
I will defend my original idea in the courts, and I've got a woking prototype to prove I am the inventor.
Re:In related news... (Score:2)
I wish I could find a way to... (Score:2)
Damn. My karma's dipping a bit today.
Re:I wish I could find a way to... (Score:2)
I actually used SmarterChild daily as a reference source and had to depend on the less convenient, but still cool, Watson when he dissappeared from AIM.
Eliza (Score:2)
Send them your opinion about this. (Score:3, Informative)
Remeber to be polite!
contact form [activebuddy.com]
ActiveBuddy Press Contacts
Contact ActiveBuddy Public Relations:
(408) 530-0850 x202
Email: pr@activebuddy.com
Snail Mail & Phone:
New York City Office
ActiveBuddy, Inc.
24 West 25th Street
Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10010
Phone: 646-486-8700
Fax: 646-486-8701
Sunnyvale, CA Office
ActiveBuddy, Inc.
111 West Evelyn Avenue
Suite 101
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Phone: 408-530-0850
Fax: 408-737-7018
I can see the spam of the future.... (Score:5, Funny)
Nice to meet you Alice.
Nice to meet you too! Have I told you how much I love snack-ums?
I don't care.
I care greatly for snack-ums.
Leave me alone.
Nobody would leave a party with snack-ums!
Is that so?
I don't understand, but I do understand one thing: Snack-Ums are delicious!
You seem a little obsessed with snack-ums carla.
I AM OBSESSED WITH SNACK-UMS!
Re:I can see the spam of the future.... (Score:2)
As usual, the porn industry is about 987345 steps ahead of everyone else.
Re:I can see the spam of the future.... (Score:4, Funny)
I Love Cheesy Poofs: That's very interesting, I Love Snack-Ums. Have I told you how delicious Cheesy Poofs are?
I Love Duff Beer: That's very interesting, I Love Cheesy Poofs. Have I told you how delicious Duff Beer is to persons of legal age in their respective states?
*I Love Taking Brand Name Pharmeceuticals has entered the room.*
If these choads are so confident... (Score:2)
Asshole (Score:2)
Uh-huh...
"Hi, we're assholes who want to patent something that's clearly been done before and wasn't terribly original when it was done, just so we can make a buck or two."
These people make me violently ill.
--trb
Hey guys! (Score:2)
Re:Hey guys! (Score:2)
No, Al Gore invented the internet.
Yes, I know that's not really what he said [snopes.com] but it's become a canard.
Stupidity in this statement (Score:2)
I may be wrong so don't flame me for the question but don't homemade items ( as long as they are not sold ) supercede patents. There's nothing to stop me from making imaging software for personal use even if it DOES use gif since it's not commercial
Re:Stupidity in this statement (Score:2)
Sorry.
Believe it or not, you can violate a patent without personal gain.
welcome to the IP universe.
IRC to web site 'bot (Score:2)
Like many a 'bot writer, I wrote a 'bot that seems to do everything their patent describes, *if* IRC is considered an IM.
This [perlmonks.org] was written over 2 years ago (although I didn't post it's existence until Dec of 2001). The demo is not currently running, but a "production" version is. I do have IRC logs that go back to the original inception, plus access to the logs of about a dozen users.
Can this be used in a prior-art refutement of their patent?
--jcwren
some thoughts (Score:2)
Why is this so hard? (Score:2)
1. Stupid patents granted
2.
3. We gripe until next time
Why doesn't the patent office just post to slashdot to find prior art?
Seriously though, if prior art is so easy to find, why isn't the patent office finding it? Or is it that they are interperting the patent request to be something different than what we are? I would really love to know if there is something wrong with the Patent Office, or with our understanding of patent law. Lets clear this up and start working to fix the system, or update our own understanding.
Wheel (Score:2)
I think I'll approach the USPTO with a patent for the wheel - no prior art there
Re:Wheel (Score:2)
Of course, it's an Australian patent, so maybe you could get the US rights to it.
Re:Wheel (Score:2)
Here's the correct one link [cnn.com].
prior art posted here? (Score:3, Informative)
ActiveBuddy disputed McClelland's claims. "I am fairly confident, there were no interactive agents on IM at that point when the application was filed (August 22, 2000). I'm certainly not aware of any," said Kay, who doubles as ActiveBuddy's chief technology officer.
Didn't somebody set up an ICQ bot posing as female to flirt with people, then put the logs on the web a long time ago? I can't seem to dig it up.
Re:prior art posted here? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about that but i wrote one using the eliza perl module and made it connect to an ewtoo talker well known for having a lot of over-sexed 14 year olds on there.
The page and code is here [ewtoo.org]. You can read the log directly here [ewtoo.org].
It is rather amusing.
Re:prior art posted here? (Score:3, Informative)
Right. Thanks.
Get your linkage here [fury.com]
It's a symptom, not the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, they're not the real problem. We need some real dust-off-the-Constitution kind of IP reform.
Unfortunately, that's not the real problem. We need some real get-the-companies-out-of-politics kind of capmaign finance reform.
Until Disney, the **AAs and normal industry turn our government back over to us, we're going to keep having these outrages shoved down our throats. In one of the races in my state, one party is running attack ads claiming that 96% of the other candidate's money is coming from out of state. It doesn't matter to me if it's an "I need funding" issue or an "I'm a corporate whore" issue. It's a backwater district in a tiny state, and it's bought and paid for by corporate interests that have no interest in the state, just in how many seats they can buy for their favorite party.
We have to fix the government before it can fix anything for us.
Re:It's a symptom, not the problem. (Score:2, Insightful)
As it is, foreign governments, multinational corporations, and large PACs have louder votes than US citizens. Doesn't make much sense to me.
Press Inquiry to ActiveBuddy (Score:5, Interesting)
-------------
I'm writing you in regards to your recent patent grant for interactive agent technology. In an article at Internet News (http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php
I am inquiring as to what research as to prior art was done before submitting a patent request, as the same Internet News article quotes several developers as knowing of 'bots' whose code is freely available and has been since before ActiveBuddy was even a company. Specifically named is the Perl module Net::AIM, timestamped in CPAN as having been originally published on 18-Aug-1999, well prior to your patent application filed on August 22, 2000. The original code of the Net::AIM module, and included with the package at the time, included code for an 'interactive agent', albeit not as complex as the technology your company uses today.
The first line of the patent summary reads as follows: "A method and system for interactively responding to queries from a remotely located user includes a computer server system configured to receiving an instant message query or request from the user over the Internet." This is the very definition of a bot, which is not new technology. A common type of IRC known as Eggdrop, which meets the description offered by the description offered in the patent, has been around since late 1993 (http://www.eggdrops.net/eggdrophistory.html).
My question to you is, what findings did you uncover when researching for this patent, and given the fact that numerous examples of prior art can be shown, do you believe the patent will be enforcable, and if so, how?
-------------
I would very much like hear what sort of spin they put on this.
Peek Into European Patent Examining Cancelled (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this dumbass even HAVE a PC? (Score:2)
How about all the /. readers out there send him some links?
"I'm not familiar with that," Kay said in response to claims that the sun was in existence even before the morning ActiveBuddy launched, with venture funding from Reuters and Wit Soundview.
I found some prior art on my hard drive (Score:2)
Written in Expect, just playing around, probably I got the idea from something else (or maybe something that came with Expect), so there must be other similar programs that were distributed to the public! In fact you could almost call Expect a "bot toolkit". The date on the file is Nov.1997. I don't know if it works since I don't have talkd installed.
It sets up a "humanized" typing pattern, tries to talk to someone, asks them if they've heard of a turing test (and makes/corrects some mistakes to look more human). Then it calls them a moron and quits. :-)
Sorry /. ate the non-breaking spaces I put in but you get the idea...
- - - - -
#!/usr/local/bin/expect -fspawn talk user@localhost
set timeout 200
expect -re "nable |not logged|refusing" exit "established*"
set send_human {.15
#set send_human {.15
send -h "Hey...\n"
send -h "I just wanted to knwo if\177\177\177\177\177ow if you had "
send -h "ever heard of a\n"
send -h "silly thing called the \"turing test\"??\n"
set timeout 25
expect {
"yes" {exec sleep 1 ; send -h "Er, I'll tell you anyway...\n"}
"no" {exec sleep 1}
}
send -h "\nwell, ti \177\177\177it works like this:\n"
send -h "a human sits at a terminal, and talks to a computer or human and\n"
send -h "tries to decide which is which.\nnow type \"bye\" you moron..."
expect "*bye*"
set seen 0
set timeout 10
expect {
timeout {
if {$seen == 1} {send -h "\nI'm still waiting...\n"}
if {$seen == 0} {send -h "\nI'm waiting...\n"}
set seen 1
exp_continue
}
"bye"
}
exec sleep 1
send -h "\nOk, bye!\n"
exec sleep 1
Prior Art (Score:4, Informative)
Then there's Net::AIM [cpan.org], which includes this text, from over a year before the patent was applied for:Oops.
And yeah, I figured that AOL had to have bots running for many years on AOL chats and AIM. That's a no-brainer.
The real problem - quotas (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, that's right. You have to approve or reject x number of patents every two weeks (where x is something like 5, I think) or be fired. So, if you've got a few time-consuming ones at first, you're under a lot of pressure to just do _something_ with the last couple of them, especially if time is about to run out. I would not be surprised at all if some patents were not investigated as thoroughly as they should be (read: not at all) in the interests of the reviewer not being fired. That is perhaps what happened here: quick check to make sure no patent doing the same thing has been issued, and then approval without doing any outside research.
So, really, the problem is not really US patent law. It's the fact that the USPO is understaffed and overworked and cannot adequately review patent submissions. I hope that gives a better perspective on the issue rather than "the US(PO) sucks and is staffed by idiots".
-Erwos
suddenly i have an interesting view on patents (Score:3, Insightful)
You spend 75 of your working hours on four patents. Now, in the last 5 hours, you have to approve or deny a last patent.
If you deny a patent and it turns out to have been a bad patent, you did the right thing, but only by accident.
If you deny a patent and it turns out to have been a fair patent, you did the wrong thing, and you're probably going to get in trouble when the company bitches about your denial of thier perfectly reasonable patent.
If you allow a patent and it's a fair patent, then you did the right thing, but only by accident.
If you allow a patent and it's a bad patent, you did a bad thing. But you met your quota, and the patent applicant sure as hell isn't going to get you in trouble. You can rest easily knowing (or hoping) that the patent will be shot down later. You've met the quota and kept your job by deftly shifting the burden to the legal system.
Thus, the patent reviewers are encouraged by the system to approve bad patents when they are short on time. Furthermore, if I had to pick between a sort of bad one and a really, really bad one, then I'd pick the really, really bad one because there's less chance that it'll stand.
Systems build the world we live in. Can anyone think of a different system that doesn't reward the patent examiner awarding bad patents?
Eh? (Score:2)
It's like a presidential campaign in the old Soviet Union...
"The subject of voting shouldn't even come up. We're obviously the best party around..."
iChatBot, fairly well known IM bot since 8/11/2000 (Score:2, Informative)
but iChatBot, a fairly well known (well, with what seems to be many hundreds of users, and able to attract the attention of losers who keep its warning level in the 90% range 24 hours a day
Check it out: http://www.ichatbot.com/show.php?changelog.html [ichatbot.com]
Just another example of how this patent is complete bullshit.
*sigh*.
What do you have to do to overturn a patent?
-fren
How much prior art can we rack up? (Score:2)
When I first joinned the Internet in 1993 IRC bots were all over the place.
My first attempt an OS was an AI.. my first test was to write an chat bot for a local chat BBS. This may not count the OS was defective so the bot never worked.
Eliza bots would chat with users in some cases if you paged the sysop and the sysop wasn't there the BBS would switch you over to an Eliza bot so you could chat with somebody...
(People were SOOO board back then)
So this racks up bots to say 1980's... and some refrences to Apple
Chat bot's date back years.. This is a known..
But Active Buddy dosen't know about it?
Ok my question is "How can you know internet programming and NOT know about bots?"
To the patent office "Do you have any technology experts who know something more advanced than the wheel? Or can I get a patent on that?"
Greece patents democracy, demands licensing fees (Score:2, Funny)
Stealing treasure from the dragon (Score:3, Interesting)
Activerse DingBot SDK, 1997-2000 (Score:5, Informative)
We demoed an early version of the product at the "Demo 98" conference, in February 1998. PCWeek ran an article [zdnet.com] about us mentioning the DingBot SDK later that month.
The Activerse press release announcing the product's general availability, in November 1998, is still available at the Internet Archive [archive.org].
ActiveBuddy was founded in March 2000. So, not only were their "IM bots" a old idea by the time they filed their patent (August 2000), a ripoff of both Activerse's offerings and more than a decade of practice on IRC networks and in MUDs/MOOs, but their very name was derivative of an existing player in the same market ("Activerse"->"ActiveBuddy") and their main product (an SDK/server) and business model (licensing) mimicked Activerse as well.
Their founder claims with a straight face "we invented interactive agents" and "I am fairly confident, there were no interactive agents on IM at that point when the application was filed. I'm certainly not aware of any." That only goes to show you have to be *studiously* ignorant and/or dishonest in order to effectively twist the flaws of the software patent system to personal advantage.
(Postscript on Activerse: It was acquired by high-flying internet conglomerate CMGI in April 1999. Though the initial aim was to expand and promote the Ding IM/bot products throughout the CMGI network of compnaies, as CMGI itself unravelled, Activerse was dismantled through a series of mostly arbitrary and faddish organizational moves which completely ignored the promise of the growing IM space.)
Prior art ... the USPTO itself! (Score:3, Funny)
Applicant: I'd like to file for a patent on my idea.
USPTO: Tell me about your idea.
Applicant: My idea will change everything. No one will be able to surf the web without using my idea. I'll make billions!
USPTO: You sound excited.
Applicant: Excited? Who wouldn't be?
USPTO: I'll ask the questions.
Applicant: Oh, sorry. Now, about that application.
USPTO: Oh, you'd like a patent application. Of course sir. Here is your patent, #123,456,789,012,345.
So could I patent pirating Windows? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft's EULA for Windows OS says don't copy it and distribute copies. People do that, and supposedly they're breaking the law.
AIM's EULA says don't make an automated chatting script, or bot, especially not to spam with. People do that, and apparently they get patents for it. How does this make sense to anyone?
A few words on AOLiza (Score:3, Informative)
First, sadly, despite the fact that AOLiza was unleashed a few weeks before ActiveBuddy's patent filing, it doesn't apply as prior art, because according to patent law, if the claimant filed the patent application within one year of inventing, disclosing, or even detailing the invention in an email, it's still valid.
That isn't to say that prior art doesn't exist. I'm certain that it does, not the least of which in the AIM::BOT perl libraries which preceeded ActiveBuddy by well over a year.
Moreover, AOLiza doesn't even use the AIM::BOT libraries (although an earlier test version did). It uses the Mac version of AIM and the applescript hooks that AOL put into that application. These hooks, including calls so that other programs can grab messages, send messages, and do a myriad of other 'bot' functions, existed well over a year before ActiveBuddy's application, and were clearly designed to allow the attachment of automated scripts or bots to be used with the application.
This is important because in addition to 'get there first' and 'usefulness' the third requirement for a successful patent application is demonstrated non-obviousness. The invention has to be a novel application of technologies, not simply an evolution of existing (and possibly patented) technologies.
Clearly, when AIM for Mac had hooks specifically written to allow third-party programs to act as bots, another companys claim that actually USING those hooks, or punching holes into another part of the program to make hooks of their own, can not be seen as novel in any way.
That's my two cents, and I'd be happy to testify in court.
Re:Open source? (Score:2)
If you substantially duplicate a patent you are in violation of it. Regardless of how.
And, under various circumstances, substantial isn't necessary.
Re:ignor it is the safest option (Score:2)
Lawsuits in the United States are expensive, even when they are frivolous. A company like AOL for instance would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and there is no sure result in a court case like this. So AOL could end up spending $500,000 dollars fighting it, and get slapped with royalties on top of it. No, its better to just give the company a couple of million dollars and get granted an exclusive license for the life of the patent.
This the same reason that Sony caved in and paid the royalties on the JPEG patent. This is why you don't see more companies standing up for what they believe is right. Its very expensive to stand by your convictions in America today.
Bottom line - lets blame the lawyers...
Re:Hello (Score:3, Funny)
While they are handing out patents I'll take a patent out on math/science/sex/etc
comments that will start cropping up.
I know! You could pretty much guarantee that those comments would get posted immediately. Karma whores.
Hell, anyone who's been here long enough could use Perl to write a Slashbo.....
*Sigh* Nevermind.
Soko
Re:The ultimate patent (Score:2)
The mixture of 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen, to allow the lungs of an organism to oxygenate the blood of said organism.
What's that you're breathing there, bub? Care to fork over the royalties?
Re:The ultimate patent (Score:2, Funny)
Everytime you use my product in -your- product you own me royalties.
I enjoy being at the top of a pyramid scam.
Re:The ultimate patent (Score:2)
Of course I thought the same thing about the copy right on "Happy Birthday".
Re:The ultimate patent (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"Hi, I'm Candy ;)" (Score:3, Funny)