CONTEST
Competed
Prize
$5,000
$5,000
DEADLINE
This contest is closed.
This contest is closed.
I just wanted to say if its not blindingly obvious the part that states...
"Does this method dynamically create an account name and network address pair?"
... Read More »
The patent refers to two distinct operations
1/ A login procedure
2/ A quota enforcement system
The login system is simply a standard login. The user name in the example diagram is joe and the network is xyz.com.
The network address of the machine joe@xyz.com used to enter the network is not used other than to identify a "session" other than that it is not used. The username and password part of the claim is identical to and for all accounts synonymous with every login/password system ever devised (in other words this is a "do it on a computer claim" Think of someone knocking on a door and and the person inside asking who is it? and then What's the password before opening the door).
Irrespective of the "session" the quota's are extracted from a "username and network identifier pair" e.g an email address. It is here the information about quota's is kept and referenced. In all other respects this part of the system is a standard email system. which contains the following parts...
1/ login to verify the sender
2/ transmit the message
The additional part and the actual important part of the patent is the enforcement of a time based quota system (in other words user joe@xyz.com can send x emails within y time frame).
This is the only part of the patent that contains any merit. But it fails the obviousness rule. It is obvious to any one with barely adequate knowledge of the email system that enforcing a quota is an effective way to reduce spam.
i.e if someone sends lots of spam reducing the amount of emails they send can in a given period reduces the effect of spam.