The patent encompasses a feature that's not only on Microsoft's IM products but also on those of its rivals America Online and Yahoo. The patent was granted on Tuesday.
Patent No. 6,631,412 could serve as a weapon in Microsoft's battle for IM market share. Microsoft is investing heavily in IM as a springboard for selling communication software to businesses. Later this year, Microsoft plans to launch Live Communications Server, a software product that will initially offer IM for the enterprise and then expand into Internet voice calling and video services.
The software giant currently offers MSN Messenger as a free download off the Web, as well as Windows Messenger, the IM client for its XP operating system. Both services have amassed millions of users.
Having a patent can be a powerful tool, but only if it can be proven in a court that its owner has bulletproof claims to the invention, according to legal experts. Companies that challenge a patent have to prove the patent owner was not the first one on record for the invention.
"This means that if someone tries to invalidate the Microsoft patent, they would try to find examples of instant messaging that predated the filing date," said Carl Oppedahl, an intellectual property attorney at Oppedahl, Larson & Frisco in Colorado.
A Microsoft representative declined to comment on the patent. Both AOL and Yahoo representatives declined comment as well.
Microsoft is not the first company to pursue a patent over IM. In December 2002, AOL subsidiary ICQ won a patent that claimed rights as the inventor of IM. AOL has not flexed its muscle on the patent, and competitive IM services remain active.
The rush to patent elements of IM underscores the application's popularity and potential. IM has become widely used by millions of Web users who exchange text messages with each other in real time. Some of the most popular IM services -- AOL Instant Messenger, Yahoo Messenger and MSN -- have added features, such as video conferencing, animated emoticons and mobile access.
Talkback
One wonders if the officials in the US patent office have any coding/"software development" credentials of any kind, or do they just patent everything they see dumped on their desk and leave expensive litigation processes to sort out the men from the boys, with money being the weapon of choice. If such rights are indeed embedded in to the overall system, one can only say... "What a system."
Taking away the generic name IM, a name that has only recently emerged and is based on the consolidation of other technologies/ideas, it surprises me that the US patent office can issue a patent for the sending of a signal -few bytes- over a network, the signal being triggered when a party begins to type in a field. Probably based on about 4 - 8 lines of code, with slight elaborations expanding the underlying base. This is something I'm sure may developers have included in their, not so popular, applications, and do not think it worthy of mention, let alone of a full patent.
In these days, at least under the American system, ingenuity appears to be being discouraged while shrewdness gains control of the whole development process.
Baffling... Is this what we want to see in Europe? Is this what we will be prepared to accept? And what will happen when everybody patents their little 4-8 lines of process dependent code? What a mess....
I remember using the "talk" command in unix a very long time ago, which was a dumb terminal IM. This was before Windows was even invented, so it's hard to see how Microsoft can be claiming the patent on it.
This is "patently" wrong, although sadly pretty much par for the course from the Yanks. Taking a lesson from their "Wild-West" past they are persuing a policy of IP "claim jumping" either by acquisition or spurious "invention", this "invention" being a case in point. Corporate America is undertaking these types of protectionist action because they perceive the emerging global economy as a threat. and they are seeking to consilidate revenue streams by any means necessary. This type of abuse of the patent system must be curtailed, however as far as the US economy is concerned don't expect the US Patent Office to exercise any restraint either now, or in the future that could be construed as being to the detriment of USA Inc.
If a US company, particularly one with the size, and influence of M$ applies for a patent, the Patent Office will not look very far beyond the end of their desks before granting it.