Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:00:09 -0400

A new, spam-related, US Patent was issued today. It is a continuation in
part of US Patent 6,192,114 which is on the first list of patents I
posted to this group.

See: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6587550

US Patent 6,587,550
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ENABLING A FEE TO BE CHARGED TO A PARTY
INITIATING AN ELECTRONIC MAIL COMMUNICATION WHEN THE PARTY IS NOT ON AN
AUTHORIZATION LIST ASSOCIATED WITH THE PARTY TO WHOM THE COMMUNICATION
IS DIRECTED 

Abstract
A method and apparatus for determining whether a party sending an email
communication is on a list of parties authorized by the intended
receiving party. If the sending party is not on the list of authorized
parties, an electronic billing agreement is emailed to the sending party
indicating a fee that will be charged to the sending party in return for
the message being provided to the intended receiving party. Preferably,
the present invention is implemented with Internet communications and
utilizes a security protocol to enable the electronic transaction to be
transacted in a secure manner. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Inventors:  Council; Michael O. (186 Hurt Dr., Cordele, GA 31015);
Santos; Daniel J. (3525 Roswell Rd., #721, Atlanta, GA 30305)  
Appl. No.:  783340 
Filed:  February 14, 2001 

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:42:40 -0400

Does this seems to cover all kinds of e-stamp systems? Also, who is this 
assigned to?

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:51:47 -0400

Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
Re: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6587550
>Does this seems to cover all kinds of e-stamp systems? 
	It certainly seems to cover some of them. Nonetheless, I'm sure
you appreciate that it is very hard to make flat statements about what
is covered by any particular patent.

>Also, who is this assigned to?
	This patent does not seem to have been assigned to anyone. Under
US law, an assignment is not required. Also there are a number of forms
of licensing which can result in transfer of effective rights without an
actual assignment occurring.

		bob wyman

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:00:58 -0400

>is covered by any particular patent.

It seems to at least cover systems where the receiver wants the sender to 
pay before the email goes through. I vaguely remember one commercial system 
like that.

Also, what about patent # 5,999,967? It seems to cover generic e-stamps?

Yakov

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:38:56 -0400

Here's a patent that I missed in earlier listings. It covers white
lists, etc. as well as parental controls (i.e. lists of allowed
correspondents).

See: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6393464
United States Patent  6,393,464  
Dieterman  May 21, 2002  

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Method for controlling the delivery of electronic mail messages 

Abstract
The present disclosure discloses a method for controlling the delivery
of electronic mail. The method comprises the steps of: creating an
allowed list of electronic addresses with which the user is permitted to
freely exchange messages; categorizing as authorized each message that
is sent to or received from an entity whose address is included on the
list; categorizing as unauthorized each message that is sent to or
received from an entity whose electronic address is not included in the
list; transmitting authorized outgoing messages to their intended
recipients; allowing the user to access the contents of authorized
received messages. Also disclosed is a method for allowing an
administrator to selectively approve messages which are sent to or
received from entities whose electronic addresses do not appear on the
allowed list. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Inventors:  Dieterman; Jude Gerard (Naperville, IL)  
Assignee:  Unbound Communications, Inc. (Wheeling, IL)  
Appl. No.:  309219 
Filed:  June 10, 1999

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:12:40 -0400

This also seems to affect consent systems on the local level.

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:03:56 -0400

It is Thursday, thus, there are more spam-related patent applications at
the USPTO. Among today's publications, the following seem most
interesting:

20030126300  Method, system, and product for marking particular types of
communications 

20030126218 Unsolicited commercial e-mail rejection setting method and
e-mail apparatus using the same 

20030126120 System and method for multiple data sources to plug into a
standardized interface for distributed deep search 

To view these applications, go to:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html
Then, issue one of the following three queries:

	DN/20030126300 
	DN/20030126218
	DN/20030126120

(i.e. you want to search for "DN" or "Document Number")

		bob wyman

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:27:22 -0400

On July 8 2003, yet another spam-related patent was issued in the US:
This system describes yet another method of generating and using "single
user" email addresses.

US Patent 6,591,291
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6574658

System and method for providing anonymous remailing and filtering of
electronic mail 

A system for, and method of, generating an alias source address for an
electronic mail ("e-mail") message having a real source address and a
destination address and a computer network, such as the Internet,
including the system or the method. In one embodiment, the system
includes an alias source address generator that employs the destination
address to generate the alias source address. The system further
includes an alias source address substitutor that substitutes the alias
source address for the real source address. This removes the real source
address from the e-mail message and thereby renders the sender, located
at the real source address, anonymous. Further-described are systems and
methods for forwarding reply e-mail and filtering reply e-mail based on
alias source address. 

Inventors: Gabber; Eran (Summit, NJ); Gibbons; Phillip B. (Westfield,
NJ); Kristol; David Morris (Summit, NJ); Matias; Yossi (Potomac, MD);
Mayer; Alain J. (New York, NY) 
Assignee: Lucent Technologies Inc. (Murray Hill, NJ) Filed: March 12,
1998

---

From: david nicol <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Jul 2003 16:46:25 -0500

why isn't anon.penet.fi prior art?

-- 
David Nicol, independent consultant, contractor, and food service worker
Imagine the first ice cream in Calcutta:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/078686740X/tipjartransactioA/

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:40:50 -0400

>why isn't anon.penet.fi prior art?
	RTFM... Anon.penet.fi is explicitly discussed in the patent. The
distinction would appear to be that this patent relies on computation to
generate the "alias" addresses while other systems have traditionaly
relied on translation tables stored in databases. In fact, the well
known case of anon.penet.fi being forced to disclose one of their
translations to the police is cited as a problem with existing art that
this invention attempts to fix.
	For those not familiar with long closed anon.penet.fi site, I
suggest that you read: 
http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/sep/helmers.html

	Personally, I think a much better question on prior art is why
the patent examiner didn't consider US Patent 6,356,935 and several
other similar systems to be relevant to this application. I think the
examiners may have been too focused on "anonymity" in the process of
examination while not realizing that there were a number of other
problem spaces which can be addressed with substantially the same
method. The solutions to both the "anonymity" problem and the "spam"
problem involve constructing "alias" addresses which are based on "real"
addresses. The methods are identical even though the reason for
deploying them and the words used to describe them are different.
	The problem here is that in software, the distinction between
what appear to be distinct methods is often simply the way you think
about the methods -- not anything inherent to the method itself. Thus, a
single method can be described multiple times with completely distinct
vocabulary. This sort of problem is not as common in the realm of
"traditional" patents.

		bob wyman