Yes - not like he didn't realize. Nonetheless, mr Robert Uomini could be in for the payday of his life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55
Meh, his technology doesn't work too well, I'm still getting spam.
Payday of his life eh? Well then, as Rob stated his 'technology' sucks ass and if he does manage to win this silly suit then I formally propose a class action suit against him with the named plaintiffs being... Oh I dunno... Maybe the billions of email users who still get spam by the boatload. Clearly his technology is severly broken and we the users demand compensation... After all if he does win... The named companies will be writing the checks but just as every other class action suit, it's the public / customers that end up paying for it.
I'm not an expert on Italian, but Uomini sounds like it means "little man." Uomo = man, mini = little. If so, it would seem an appropriate moniker for someone doing this.
It's like those license plates that spell out something.
The AI troll filter cannot work as long as people respond to trolls as their messages show up in the responses. The only way to get rid of trolls is to ignore them and not respond. What's the point of trolling if nobody takes notice? Unfortunately this is a point that will never be understood by most people.
A new lawsuit filed this week ....The complaint was filed on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Marshall..
When you sue here, its because you do not really have a case. This is troll country and trollers win here more than anywhere else in the country. Its how they pay for the local government.
I wish they'd actually implement these filters because my iP4 has been blasted all day with odd looking emails with no subject or body content. I can't see these in my MobileMe account or delete from my iP4.
This is a good example I think of where the patent should not be issued to cover a generic idea but a specific implementation - if he has some algorithm or specific method then great you get a patent - but not for describing the problem and a potential solution.
Are they suing the user of the technology or the companies who wrote and sell spam filter software.
it appear they are using the end users, since the last time I checked Apple does not sell spam filtering software so they are not profiting form it. unless they mean Apple's employees are profiting form not having to filter it themselves
OS X's Mail application automatically attempts to identify spam messages and marks them by displaying their subject lines in brown. This is a form of "filtering".
However, I'm not sure that Mail actually uses the algorithm described in this patent, alone or as part of another larger algorithm, as its method of identifying spam messages.
No sure if you got my post. I meant that with success (the kind Apple is enjoying) also comes a giant bulls-eye 'cause all these lawsuits are gunning for them. I didn't mean gunning for the trolls. I wasn't referring to gunning for trolls.
When you sue here, its because you do not really have a case. This is troll country and trollers win here more than anywhere else in the country. Its how they pay for the local government.
Just a thought,
en
I'm not so sure it's because you don't have a case, but it sure seems the law is more favorable to first filers there.
I wish they'd actually implement these filters because my iP4 has been blasted all day with odd looking emails with no subject or body content. I can't see these in my MobileMe account or delete from my iP4.
Anybody else had this?
Here's a snapshot taken a few mins ago.
Notice the date 01/01/1970.
The date 01/01/1970 is the first day of the unix date format that the app uses. So i guess its just showing you a bunch of blank/non-existant entires on your iPhone as it shows the default text that appears when the fields are blank. The date is 01/01/1970 because (i think) they are using the function timeIntervalSince1970 to calculate the date shown which takes in a time interval in microseconds since 01/01/1970 and gives out the current date based on time elapsed. So if you pass 0 to that, the date is 01/01/1970. So in a way, it is the default date if the email has no date.
This is my reasoning on the particular date shown but i have no idea why the bug exists in the first place.
My 2 cents being an iPhone Developer for 18 months.
This is a good example I think of where the patent should not be issued to cover a generic idea but a specific implementation - if he has some algorithm or specific method then great you get a patent - but not for describing the problem and a potential solution.
Clearly, you have no idea why patents are issued and not issued. Patents are not granted for "generic ideas."
Actually, I would say it covers NO spam filter in the world. I read the summary and scanned the description of the patent. This isn't your typical broadly worded patent that should have never been issued. It's actually quite specific. Although I would argue whether it should have been issued on the grounds of it not exactly being a non-obvious use of technology.
Read the patent. It's really nothing more than a reverse lookup. It uses the email address of the sender along with other header information to try and determine who the sender is. So instead of the receiver seeing "[email protected]" the system would be able to tell the recipient that the email was from "Steve Jobs, CEO, Apple Computer". The closest thing any spam filter comes to this is a blacklist. But even that is only saying whether to deliver the email to your inbox or not. It doesn't look up information about the sender for you.
The patent was a good idea 15 years ago when it was filed because email back then was quite cryptic. But as far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with today's spam filters.
Sounds like Apple may be getting sued for mail's feature that replaces email addresses with the sender's name (and vice versatile via address book)--not necessarily their spam filter
Clearly, you have no idea why patents are issued and not issued. Patents are not granted for "generic ideas."
Actually it is Patents are not supposed to be granted for "generic ideas" just like they are not supposed to be any granted for perpetual motion machines. The last such patent was granted May 27, 2008
If the Patent Office has people working in it STUPID enough to grant patents on machines that break the laws of physics then it has people in it STUPID enough to grant patents that break other laws as well.
Comments
Yes - not like he didn't realize. Nonetheless, mr Robert Uomini could be in for the payday of his life.
Meh, his technology doesn't work too well, I'm still getting spam.
Payday of his life eh? Well then, as Rob stated his 'technology' sucks ass and if he does manage to win this silly suit then I formally propose a class action suit against him with the named plaintiffs being... Oh I dunno... Maybe the billions of email users who still get spam by the boatload. Clearly his technology is severly broken and we the users demand compensation... After all if he does win... The named companies will be writing the checks but just as every other class action suit, it's the public / customers that end up paying for it.
Another day, another lawsuit. Next!
I think I read somewhere that Microsoft was being hit with 20 something lawsuits a day. I bet Apple isn't far behind.
I'm not an expert on Italian, but Uomini sounds like it means "little man." Uomo = man, mini = little. If so, it would seem an appropriate moniker for someone doing this.
It's like those license plates that spell out something.
Uomini
U = You
o = owe
mi = me
n = and
i = I
you owe me and I
Much more appropriate...
Have you tried using the AI's troll filter?
The AI troll filter cannot work as long as people respond to trolls as their messages show up in the responses. The only way to get rid of trolls is to ignore them and not respond. What's the point of trolling if nobody takes notice? Unfortunately this is a point that will never be understood by most people.
A new lawsuit filed this week ....The complaint was filed on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Marshall..
When you sue here, its because you do not really have a case. This is troll country and trollers win here more than anywhere else in the country. Its how they pay for the local government.
Just a thought,
en
Anybody else had this?
Here's a snapshot taken a few mins ago.
Notice the date 01/01/1970.
Are they suing the user of the technology or the companies who wrote and sell spam filter software.
it appear they are using the end users, since the last time I checked Apple does not sell spam filtering software so they are not profiting form it. unless they mean Apple's employees are profiting form not having to filter it themselves
OS X's Mail application automatically attempts to identify spam messages and marks them by displaying their subject lines in brown. This is a form of "filtering".
However, I'm not sure that Mail actually uses the algorithm described in this patent, alone or as part of another larger algorithm, as its method of identifying spam messages.
Have you tried using the AI's troll filter?
No sure if you got my post. I meant that with success (the kind Apple is enjoying) also comes a giant bulls-eye 'cause all these lawsuits are gunning for them. I didn't mean gunning for the trolls. I wasn't referring to gunning for trolls.
When you sue here, its because you do not really have a case. This is troll country and trollers win here more than anywhere else in the country. Its how they pay for the local government.
Just a thought,
en
I'm not so sure it's because you don't have a case, but it sure seems the law is more favorable to first filers there.
I wish they'd actually implement these filters because my iP4 has been blasted all day with odd looking emails with no subject or body content. I can't see these in my MobileMe account or delete from my iP4.
Anybody else had this?
Here's a snapshot taken a few mins ago.
Notice the date 01/01/1970.
The date 01/01/1970 is the first day of the unix date format that the app uses. So i guess its just showing you a bunch of blank/non-existant entires on your iPhone as it shows the default text that appears when the fields are blank. The date is 01/01/1970 because (i think) they are using the function timeIntervalSince1970 to calculate the date shown which takes in a time interval in microseconds since 01/01/1970 and gives out the current date based on time elapsed. So if you pass 0 to that, the date is 01/01/1970. So in a way, it is the default date if the email has no date.
This is my reasoning on the particular date shown but i have no idea why the bug exists in the first place.
My 2 cents being an iPhone Developer for 18 months.
This is a good example I think of where the patent should not be issued to cover a generic idea but a specific implementation - if he has some algorithm or specific method then great you get a patent - but not for describing the problem and a potential solution.
Clearly, you have no idea why patents are issued and not issued. Patents are not granted for "generic ideas."
Actually, I would say it covers NO spam filter in the world. I read the summary and scanned the description of the patent. This isn't your typical broadly worded patent that should have never been issued. It's actually quite specific. Although I would argue whether it should have been issued on the grounds of it not exactly being a non-obvious use of technology.
Read the patent. It's really nothing more than a reverse lookup. It uses the email address of the sender along with other header information to try and determine who the sender is. So instead of the receiver seeing "[email protected]" the system would be able to tell the recipient that the email was from "Steve Jobs, CEO, Apple Computer". The closest thing any spam filter comes to this is a blacklist. But even that is only saying whether to deliver the email to your inbox or not. It doesn't look up information about the sender for you.
The patent was a good idea 15 years ago when it was filed because email back then was quite cryptic. But as far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with today's spam filters.
Sounds like Apple may be getting sued for mail's feature that replaces email addresses with the sender's name (and vice versatile via address book)--not necessarily their spam filter
Clearly, you have no idea why patents are issued and not issued. Patents are not granted for "generic ideas."
Actually it is Patents are not supposed to be granted for "generic ideas" just like they are not supposed to be any granted for perpetual motion machines. The last such patent was granted May 27, 2008
If the Patent Office has people working in it STUPID enough to grant patents on machines that break the laws of physics then it has people in it STUPID enough to grant patents that break other laws as well.