Re: Do procmail and spamassassin violate this "patent"?

Igor Chudov wrote:
> Read this jaw dropping article about how someone "patented" what has
> been done by procmail for many, many years.
>
> http://informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201802746
>
> ``The method and system detailed in the patent describes a way "for
> automatically interpreting an electronic message including the steps
> of (a) receiving an electronic message from a source; (b) interpreting
> the electronic message using a rule base and case base knowledge
> engine; and (c) retrieving one or more predetermined responses
> corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a
> repository for automatic delivery to the source."''
>
> Let's see, spamassassin interprets electronics messages and uses a
> rule base to retrieve predetermined responses such as "spam" or "ham".
>
> I do not know if I should laugh or cry, any suggestions?
>
> i
> .
>
>

This is just another example of poor research for prior art. The patent system is broken. If a company submits a patent and the patent is accepted then the company can go around threatening to sue. Okay we'll settle out of court for much less than it would cost me in court. Until someone takes them to court and shows prior art. Just my theory, but I think that unless they are idiots they would never touch procmail.
Why? because there is a fanatical base for opensource, who probably would throw in a lot of money just for the chance to take this to court.   Not only that they would also probably counter sue for negligence in search for prior art. In either of these cases MS would probably step in and tell the company with the patent to knock it off or pay them to quit. Because if the company with the patent were to lose, it would seriously undermine some of the FUD they are spewing out. Received on Thu Aug 30 13:43:14 2007