null | Patexia

5 Comments

Andy BosyiOct 24, 2014

I think the patent meant it more in terms of the client terminal's network address. For instance, how a web app logs which IP addresses you've logged in on, but warns you or asks for 2-factor authentication when it sees you login from a new IP address. Hope that helps!

J LOct 24, 2014

Hi Chris. Thank you for your question. Andy has a good point in a very reasonable explanation. On the other hand, Patexia doesn't want to narrow down the scope of your search. So if you find a reference that covers Question 7~11 but may be a little bit short of Question 4 and 6. You are more than welcome to submit this reference, too! I hope this answers your question. I'm looking forward to your submission to this project.

Chris HamonoOct 25, 2014

The patent refers to two distinct operations

Chris HamonoOct 25, 2014

Hmmm weird comment system. I'll have to cut and paste my comments as you are using an incorrect type of input field for a comment.

Chris HamonoOct 25, 2014

My original comment was not a question it was a statement of fact. 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.