Apple sued over iMessage support for SMS embedded links

Posted:
in General Discussion edited December 2019
Apple on Thursday became the latest target in a series of patent infringement lawsuits leveled by non-practicing Hypertext Technologies, which is leveraging a single piece of IP covering what is ostensibly widely employed embedded SMS clickable link technology.

iMessage


Filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Hypertext's complaint against Apple hinges on U.S. Patent No. 7,113,801 for a "Method for receiving data using SMS and wireless internet and system thereof."

Originally invented by Korean company KTFreetel Co., Ltd., which later merged into networking giant Korea Telecom, the IP covers methods of embedding clickable URL links in SMS texts, technology claimed vital to the development and longevity of the platform. Without a means to access internet content, 140-byte SMS messages would still be limited to "things like the weather and stock price reports, 'how-are-you' and 'where-are-you' messaging between friends and family members, and other short messages," the complaint reads.

According to Hypertext, Apple's iMessage infringes on the '801 patent because, like nearly all smartphones, it incorporates support for clickable links in SMS messages. The complaint goes on to argue patent eligibility, though the cited cases appear to be generic and only tangentially related to Hypertext's owned IP.

The '801 patent dates back to 2001, when KTFreetel filed a parent patent application detailing a means to embed links in SMS correspondence with South Korean regulators. A U.S. version was granted in 2006 and was bounced between various companies including Pantech before ending up under Hypertext's control in August.

Following assignment, Hypertext this month began to level infringement charges against a number of big-name companies including Google, OnePlus and Coolpad. With today's Apple complaint, the firm is working four active suits based on the '801 patent in California.

Hypertext seeks a judgment on patent enforceability, compensatory damages, ongoing royalties on threat of injunction and reimbursement of court fees.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    So wait, they’re suing not for sending links in messages, but because the receiving iPhone makes them clickable?
    llamawatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 9
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,010member
    Yawnnnnnnnnnn,,,
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 9
    Does anyone even have to mention that this patent should never have been issued?

    By LAW you cannot patent something that is “obvious”.  WTF is more “obvious” than clicking on a hyperlink, that is literally baked into the name hyperLINK!

    The patent office is FATALLY corrupt and/or (probably and) incompetent.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 9


    By LAW you cannot patent something that is “obvious”.  WTF is more “obvious” than clicking on a hyperlink, that is literally baked into the name hyperLINK!

    The patent office is FATALLY corrupt and/or (probably and) incompetent.
    Was it obvious back in 2001 when the patent was filed? Obviousness needs to be judged based on a patents priority date, not today. 

    That IS the law. 
    lordjohnwhorfin
  • Reply 5 of 9
    If you read the patent... it should never have been issued in the first place, and there's no way they can win that one, there are too many angles it can be fought -- starting with prior art. How about this paper, found after 10 seconds of googling: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcm.37 Fricking trolls. No wonder attorneys make so much money.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 9
    Maybe Tim Berners-Lee should sue Hypertext for lifting the name from HTTP. 
    entropysnetroxwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 7 of 9
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 1,498member
    mld53a said:


    By LAW you cannot patent something that is “obvious”.  WTF is more “obvious” than clicking on a hyperlink, that is literally baked into the name hyperLINK!

    The patent office is FATALLY corrupt and/or (probably and) incompetent.
    Was it obvious back in 2001 when the patent was filed? Obviousness needs to be judged based on a patents priority date, not today. 

    That IS the law. 
    I would say yes. Hyperlinks had been around publicly for a decade prior to that. They were used on web browsers of course, but the underlying idea was used in other platforms and applications, ex: Hypercard. Putting them on text messages was, IMO an obvious step. 
    FileMakerFellerstompy
  • Reply 8 of 9
    If you read the patent... it should never have been issued in the first place, and there's no way they can win that one, there are too many angles it can be fought -- starting with prior art. How about this paper, found after 10 seconds of googling: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcm.37 Fricking trolls. No wonder attorneys make so much money.
    You’ll have to spend more than ten seconds. The Korean patent Priority date of February 2001 is earlier than this article. 
  • Reply 9 of 9
    rcfarcfa Posts: 946member
    Why is this even patentable?
    hypertext is hypertext, if in an SMS, e-mail, etc. is pretty much irrelevant: it’s all electronic text
Sign In or Register to comment.