Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
So, at the end no reply with patent id, so it's a buzz ?
Julien
2009/2/14 Stipe Tolj s...@gw.tolj.org:
David schrieb:
Hello,
Us users of SMS Shortcodes are getting hit in the US for violating a
patent by TCS Inc. The patent claims to cover:
A gateway, comprising: a first communication path to accept a short
message from a mobile device; a translation module to insert said short
message into an Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) message; a second
communication path to push said HTTP message to at least one Universal
Resource Locator (URL); and a return communication path to receive a
return message relating to said HTTP message.
The patent goes on to mention a whole bunch of stuff, ie, using HTTP
POST to send the http message, etc.
I just got out of a meeting with my lawyer. He says, the only way to
get around this is to NOT use HTTP.
Over the weekend, I tried to use the sms-service using EXEC instead of
GET-URL, which worked fine... and then the server crashed... i'm
guessing too many spawned processes?
My question to you all is: how can we NOT use HTTP but have the same
end result? ideally, it would use a command-line exec, but push it into
a waiting server, instead of spawning a new thread. Does anybody have
any ideas on how to do this?
Hi David,
there seems to be a HUGE buzz here in the list regarding this patent issue.
Can you please reference the patent with patent no./ID, so we can have access
to
it and READ what it actually claims to be an invention?
In any modern country, an invention has a precondition: the invention has to
be done FIRST by the claimer. If the pure concept is KNOWN to the public, even
without patent pending registration, a patenting IS NOT possible, and can't be
legally prosecuted.
Therefore, please state the exact patenting country, no., ID and name of
claimer.
Stipe
--
---
Kölner Landstrasse 419
40589 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany
tolj.org system architecture Kannel Software Foundation (KSF)
http://www.tolj.org/ http://www.kannel.org/
mailto:st_{at}_tolj.org mailto:stolj_{at}_kannel.org
---
--
Julien Buratto
Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
David schrieb:
Hello,
Us users of SMS Shortcodes are getting hit in the US for violating a
patent by TCS Inc. The patent claims to cover:
A gateway, comprising: a first communication path to accept a short
message from a mobile device; a translation module to insert said short
message into an Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) message; a second
communication path to push said HTTP message to at least one Universal
Resource Locator (URL); and a return communication path to receive a
return message relating to said HTTP message.
The patent goes on to mention a whole bunch of stuff, ie, using HTTP
POST to send the http message, etc.
I just got out of a meeting with my lawyer. He says, the only way to
get around this is to NOT use HTTP.
Over the weekend, I tried to use the sms-service using EXEC instead of
GET-URL, which worked fine... and then the server crashed... i'm
guessing too many spawned processes?
My question to you all is: how can we NOT use HTTP but have the same
end result? ideally, it would use a command-line exec, but push it into
a waiting server, instead of spawning a new thread. Does anybody have
any ideas on how to do this?
Hi David,
there seems to be a HUGE buzz here in the list regarding this patent issue.
Can you please reference the patent with patent no./ID, so we can have access to
it and READ what it actually claims to be an invention?
In any modern country, an invention has a precondition: the invention has to
be done FIRST by the claimer. If the pure concept is KNOWN to the public, even
without patent pending registration, a patenting IS NOT possible, and can't be
legally prosecuted.
Therefore, please state the exact patenting country, no., ID and name of
claimer.
Stipe
--
---
Kölner Landstrasse 419
40589 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany
tolj.org system architecture Kannel Software Foundation (KSF)
http://www.tolj.org/ http://www.kannel.org/
mailto:st_{at}_tolj.org mailto:stolj_{at}_kannel.org
---
Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 07:40, Falko Ziemann wrote: Does the Patent say anything about HTTPS? I mean HTTPS is not HTTP. And if the patent cover this to, why not simply route your traffic through a ssh-tunnel? You can setup this in seconds and these guys even helped you with their claim to secure your systems. Man, I should a patent this idea ;-) Too late. Your post will be used against you as evidence of prior art :-) -- Kind regards, Milan
Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
Hi I had a similar problem with long php scripts updating several databases. What I finally do is split the php script in 2 parts a way that I can respond back to kannel ASAP so kannel can continue with next message and then. I did this storing data in a temporary table and then launch the 2nd part of the script with a cron picking up the info from temp table and finish the process. Regarding the patent thing... In the US that kind of stuff is legal. I worked some time ago for Glenayre Electronics who was suid by RIMM (BlackBerry) regarding the the way we used to send 2way paging messages between users and to the internet using smtp... well, we lost the claim !!! Hope Helps Alvaro |-| Envíe y Reciba Datos y mensajes de Texto (SMS) hacia y desde cualquier celular y Nextel en el Perú, México y en mas de 180 paises. Use aplicaciones 2 vias via SMS y GPRS online Visitenos en www.perusms.NET www.smsglobal.com.mx y www.pravcom.com On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Milan P. Stanic m...@arvanta.net wrote: On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 07:40, Falko Ziemann wrote: Does the Patent say anything about HTTPS? I mean HTTPS is not HTTP. And if the patent cover this to, why not simply route your traffic through a ssh-tunnel? You can setup this in seconds and these guys even helped you with their claim to secure your systems. Man, I should a patent this idea ;-) Too late. Your post will be used against you as evidence of prior art :-) -- Kind regards, Milan
Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
Hi, Not necessary. It is much simpler to start it in the background with ''. If kannel doesn't support this, you can very easily make a simple shell wrapper, that calls from within the large executable in the background. But I thought, thanks to our resident lawyer Falco, that we can start using HTTP again! BR, Nikos On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Alvaro Cornejo cornejo.alv...@gmail.comwrote: Hi I had a similar problem with long php scripts updating several databases. What I finally do is split the php script in 2 parts a way that I can respond back to kannel ASAP so kannel can continue with next message and then. I did this storing data in a temporary table and then launch the 2nd part of the script with a cron picking up the info from temp table and finish the process. Regarding the patent thing... In the US that kind of stuff is legal. I worked some time ago for Glenayre Electronics who was suid by RIMM (BlackBerry) regarding the the way we used to send 2way paging messages between users and to the internet using smtp... well, we lost the claim !!! Hope Helps Alvaro |-| Envíe y Reciba Datos y mensajes de Texto (SMS) hacia y desde cualquier celular y Nextel en el Perú, México y en mas de 180 paises. Use aplicaciones 2 vias via SMS y GPRS online Visitenos en www.perusms.NET http://www.perusms.net/ www.smsglobal.com.mx y www.pravcom.com On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Milan P. Stanic m...@arvanta.net wrote: On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 07:40, Falko Ziemann wrote: Does the Patent say anything about HTTPS? I mean HTTPS is not HTTP. And if the patent cover this to, why not simply route your traffic through a ssh-tunnel? You can setup this in seconds and these guys even helped you with their claim to secure your systems. Man, I should a patent this idea ;-) Too late. Your post will be used against you as evidence of prior art :-) -- Kind regards, Milan
Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
Wow, be carefull. That was what I found in a blog. I'm some 1,000 miles away from the US and so is my knowledge about the US law-system. I can quite surley tell you, that these guys have no chance in Germany ... but the US?! I read a story about a guy who sued McDonalds because the coffee was too hot and he burned his mouth ... successfully!!! A german judge would have sent this guy to an insane asylum. Regards Falko Am 13.02.2009 um 17:30 schrieb Nikos Balkanas: Hi, Not necessary. It is much simpler to start it in the background with ''. If kannel doesn't support this, you can very easily make a simple shell wrapper, that calls from within the large executable in the background. But I thought, thanks to our resident lawyer Falco, that we can start using HTTP again! BR, Nikos On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Alvaro Cornejo cornejo.alv...@gmail.com wrote: Hi I had a similar problem with long php scripts updating several databases. What I finally do is split the php script in 2 parts a way that I can respond back to kannel ASAP so kannel can continue with next message and then. I did this storing data in a temporary table and then launch the 2nd part of the script with a cron picking up the info from temp table and finish the process. Regarding the patent thing... In the US that kind of stuff is legal. I worked some time ago for Glenayre Electronics who was suid by RIMM (BlackBerry) regarding the the way we used to send 2way paging messages between users and to the internet using smtp... well, we lost the claim !!! Hope Helps Alvaro | -| Envíe y Reciba Datos y mensajes de Texto (SMS) hacia y desde cualquier celular y Nextel en el Perú, México y en mas de 180 paises. Use aplicaciones 2 vias via SMS y GPRS online Visitenos en www.perusms.NET www.smsglobal.com.mx y www.pravcom.com On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Milan P. Stanic m...@arvanta.net wrote: On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 07:40, Falko Ziemann wrote: Does the Patent say anything about HTTPS? I mean HTTPS is not HTTP. And if the patent cover this to, why not simply route your traffic through a ssh-tunnel? You can setup this in seconds and these guys even helped you with their claim to secure your systems. Man, I should a patent this idea ;-) Too late. Your post will be used against you as evidence of prior art :-) -- Kind regards, Milan
HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
Hello, Us users of SMS Shortcodes are getting hit in the US for violating a patent by TCS Inc. The patent claims to cover: A gateway, comprising: a first communication path to accept a short message from a mobile device; a translation module to insert said short message into an Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) message; a second communication path to push said HTTP message to at least one Universal Resource Locator (URL); and a return communication path to receive a return message relating to said HTTP message. The patent goes on to mention a whole bunch of stuff, ie, using HTTP POST to send the http message, etc. I just got out of a meeting with my lawyer. He says, the only way to get around this is to NOT use HTTP. Over the weekend, I tried to use the sms-service using EXEC instead of GET-URL, which worked fine... and then the server crashed... i'm guessing too many spawned processes? My question to you all is: how can we NOT use HTTP but have the same end result? ideally, it would use a command-line exec, but push it into a waiting server, instead of spawning a new thread. Does anybody have any ideas on how to do this? Thank you very much, David
Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
Hi, You probably have a problem in your exec code. Since it is a different process it doesn't affect kannel and only the server or its target. Mind posting it? BR, Nikos - Original Message - From: David To: users@kannel.org Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:00 PM Subject: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol? Hello, Us users of SMS Shortcodes are getting hit in the US for violating a patent by TCS Inc. The patent claims to cover: A gateway, comprising: a first communication path to accept a short message from a mobile device; a translation module to insert said short message into an Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) message; a second communication path to push said HTTP message to at least one Universal Resource Locator (URL); and a return communication path to receive a return message relating to said HTTP message. The patent goes on to mention a whole bunch of stuff, ie, using HTTP POST to send the http message, etc. I just got out of a meeting with my lawyer. He says, the only way to get around this is to NOT use HTTP. Over the weekend, I tried to use the sms-service using EXEC instead of GET-URL, which worked fine... and then the server crashed... i'm guessing too many spawned processes? My question to you all is: how can we NOT use HTTP but have the same end result? ideally, it would use a command-line exec, but push it into a waiting server, instead of spawning a new thread. Does anybody have any ideas on how to do this? Thank you very much, David
Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
Hi, I have never used this module, but very much of the users here did it: won't sqlbox solve your problem? Insert the message into a database and get it out of the database. No http and a fine, tested and supported module... Regards Falko OffTopicIt is so much unbeliveable what you can claim a patent for and that US courts even enforce them/Offtopic Am 12.02.2009 um 20:39 schrieb Nikos Balkanas: Hi, You probably have a problem in your exec code. Since it is a different process it doesn't affect kannel and only the server or its target. Mind posting it? BR, Nikos - Original Message - From: David To: users@kannel.org Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:00 PM Subject: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol? Hello, Us users of SMS Shortcodes are getting hit in the US for violating a patent by TCS Inc. The patent claims to cover: A gateway, comprising: a first communication path to accept a short message from a mobile device; a translation module to insert said short message into an Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) message; a second communication path to push said HTTP message to at least one Universal Resource Locator (URL); and a return communication path to receive a return message relating to said HTTP message. The patent goes on to mention a whole bunch of stuff, ie, using HTTP POST to send the http message, etc. I just got out of a meeting with my lawyer. He says, the only way to get around this is to NOT use HTTP. Over the weekend, I tried to use the sms-service using EXEC instead of GET-URL, which worked fine... and then the server crashed... i'm guessing too many spawned processes? My question to you all is: how can we NOT use HTTP but have the same end result? ideally, it would use a command-line exec, but push it into a waiting server, instead of spawning a new thread. Does anybody have any ideas on how to do this? Thank you very much, David
Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
my php script is this really, really long php script that controls all logic in our company. my concern is that having 10+ running copies of the php script (vs being handled by apache which probably does a better job of managing overhead) caused the server to crash (or kannel to be unresponsive. the command i had is: exec = /var/www/vhosts/.../httpdocs/exec.php msg=%a phone=%p shortcod e=%P operatorid=%o metadata=%D /dev/null 21 now looking at it, if I add a to the end, would that fix it as it detaches the process? ie: exec = /var/www/vhosts/.../httpdocs/exec.php msg=%a phone=%p shortcode=%P operatorid=%o metadata=%D /dev/null 21 --- On Thu, 2/12/09, Nikos Balkanas nbalka...@gmail.com wrote: From: Nikos Balkanas nbalka...@gmail.com Subject: Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol? To: dbw1...@yahoo.com, users@kannel.org Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 1:39 PM Hi, You probably have a problem in your exec code. Since it is a different process it doesn't affect kannel and only the server or its target. Mind posting it? BR, Nikos - Original Message - From: David To: users@kannel.org Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:00 PM Subject: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol? Hello, Us users of SMS Shortcodes are getting hit in the US for violating a patent by TCS Inc. The patent claims to cover: A gateway, comprising: a first communication path to accept a short message from a mobile device; a translation module to insert said short message into an Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) message; a second communication path to push said HTTP message to at least one Universal Resource Locator (URL); and a return communication path to receive a return message relating to said HTTP message. The patent goes on to mention a whole bunch of stuff, ie, using HTTP POST to send the http message, etc. I just got out of a meeting with my lawyer. He says, the only way to get around this is to NOT use HTTP. Over the weekend, I tried to use the sms-service using EXEC instead of GET-URL, which worked fine... and then the server crashed... i'm guessing too many spawned processes? My question to you all is: how can we NOT use HTTP but have the same end result? ideally, it would use a command-line exec, but push it into a waiting server, instead of spawning a new thread. Does anybody have any ideas on how to do this? Thank you very much, David
Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
Hi David, Falko gave the solution - use sqlbox for internal communication. Anyway, I'd love to know more of this like patent ID etc. In short, I have my doubts that they will claim violation. In short you do use http as internal communication INSIDE your boxes. HTTP is NOT used to receive MO traffic from mobile devices. The SMPP/OtherProtocols are used to communicate with mobile operators SMSC. the SMPP protocol DOES not send short text messages at all ..:) These people claims sound not serious to me at all. So relax a bit :) hint: the exec module has its issues with escaping non usual characters... I could be wrong, but they have to prove something non even existing ... cheers David wrote: Hello, Us users of SMS Shortcodes are getting hit in the US for violating a patent by TCS Inc. The patent claims to cover: A gateway, comprising: a first communication path to accept a short message from a mobile device; a translation module to insert said short message into an Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) message; a second communication path to push said HTTP message to at least one Universal Resource Locator (URL); and a return communication path to receive a return message relating to said HTTP message. The patent goes on to mention a whole bunch of stuff, ie, using HTTP POST to send the http message, etc. I just got out of a meeting with my lawyer. He says, the only way to get around this is to NOT use HTTP. Over the weekend, I tried to use the sms-service using EXEC instead of GET-URL, which worked fine... and then the server crashed... i'm guessing too many spawned processes? My question to you all is: how can we NOT use HTTP but have the same end result? ideally, it would use a command-line exec, but push it into a waiting server, instead of spawning a new thread. Does anybody have any ideas on how to do this? Thank you very much, David
Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
Hi, What happens, if it is a really long script, is that you tie up Kannel for too long. Since it is in essence single-threaded, this will make it apparently unresponsive. But this is so, only until your script exits. I think it would be an excellent idea to send in the background. Please try it. BR, Nikos - Original Message - From: David To: users@kannel.org ; Nikos Balkanas Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:43 PM Subject: Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol? my php script is this really, really long php script that controls all logic in our company. my concern is that having 10+ running copies of the php script (vs being handled by apache which probably does a better job of managing overhead) caused the server to crash (or kannel to be unresponsive. the command i had is: exec = /var/www/vhosts/.../httpdocs/exec.php msg=%a phone=%p shortcod\ e=%P operatorid=%o metadata=%D /dev/null 21 now looking at it, if I add a to the end, would that fix it as it detaches the process? ie, exec = /var/www/vhosts/.../httpdocs/exec.php msg=%a phone=%p shortcod\ e=%P operatorid=%o metadata=%D /dev/null 21 --- On Thu, 2/12/09, Nikos Balkanas nbalka...@gmail.com wrote: From: Nikos Balkanas nbalka...@gmail.com Subject: Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol? To: dbw1...@yahoo.com, users@kannel.org Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 1:39 PM Hi, You probably have a problem in your exec code. Since it is a different process it doesn't affect kannel and only the server or its target. Mind posting it? BR, Nikos - Original Message - From: David To: users@kannel.org Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:00 PM Subject: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol? Hello, Us users of SMS Shortcodes are getting hit in the US for violating a patent by TCS Inc. The patent claims to cover: A gateway, comprising: a first communication path to accept a short message from a mobile device; a translation module to insert said short message into an Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) message; a second communication path to push said HTTP message to at least one Universal Resource Locator (URL); and a return communication path to receive a return message relating to said HTTP message. The patent goes on to mention a whole bunch of stuff, ie, using HTTP POST to send the http message, etc. I just got out of a meeting with my lawyer. He says, the only way to get around this is to NOT use HTTP. Over the weekend, I tried to use the sms-service using EXEC instead of GET-URL, which worked fine... and then the server crashed... i'm guessing too many spawned processes? My question to you all is: how can we NOT use HTTP but have the same end result? ideally, it would use a command-line exec, but push it into a waiting server, instead of spawning a new thread. Does anybody have any ideas on how to do this? Thank you very much, David
Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200804/ai_n25346966 The patent describes a means for triggering an Internet informational query or search using a simple text message originated from a cell phone or mobile device, and is widely used today for two-way premium messaging services. Well, I didn't read the whole patent, but this really sounds like they should sue Google mobile (I would really love to see this), not you... Regards Falko Am 12.02.2009 um 23:31 schrieb seikath: Hi David, Falko gave the solution - use sqlbox for internal communication. Anyway, I'd love to know more of this like patent ID etc. In short, I have my doubts that they will claim violation. In short you do use http as internal communication INSIDE your boxes. HTTP is NOT used to receive MO traffic from mobile devices. The SMPP/OtherProtocols are used to communicate with mobile operators SMSC. the SMPP protocol DOES not send short text messages at all ..:) These people claims sound not serious to me at all. So relax a bit :) hint: the exec module has its issues with escaping non usual characters... I could be wrong, but they have to prove something non even existing ... cheers David wrote: Hello, Us users of SMS Shortcodes are getting hit in the US for violating a patent by TCS Inc. The patent claims to cover: A gateway, comprising: a first communication path to accept a short message from a mobile device; a translation module to insert said short message into an Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) message; a second communication path to push said HTTP message to at least one Universal Resource Locator (URL); and a return communication path to receive a return message relating to said HTTP message. The patent goes on to mention a whole bunch of stuff, ie, using HTTP POST to send the http message, etc. I just got out of a meeting with my lawyer. He says, the only way to get around this is to NOT use HTTP. Over the weekend, I tried to use the sms-service using EXEC instead of GET-URL, which worked fine... and then the server crashed... i'm guessing too many spawned processes? My question to you all is: how can we NOT use HTTP but have the same end result? ideally, it would use a command-line exec, but push it into a waiting server, instead of spawning a new thread. Does anybody have any ideas on how to do this? Thank you very much, David
Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
Uhh, found a even better one here: http://www.cellitmarketing.com/blog/the-tcs-patent-dispute-cellits-viewpoint/ As many of you know, TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. is currently pursuing legal actions against many players in the mobile space. (bla bla) It is Cellit’s belief this patent claim is without merit. Freely available software, namely Kannel (available at Kannel.org), enables this exact type of interaction (conversion of MOs into web requests) and has been available since 1999. While I am not a lawyer, it is my belief the existence of Kannel in 1999 constitutes “prior art” and thus nullifies TCS’s 2000 and 2005 patent claims. Am 12.02.2009 um 23:56 schrieb Falko Ziemann: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200804/ai_n25346966 The patent describes a means for triggering an Internet informational query or search using a simple text message originated from a cell phone or mobile device, and is widely used today for two- way premium messaging services. Well, I didn't read the whole patent, but this really sounds like they should sue Google mobile (I would really love to see this), not you... Regards Falko Am 12.02.2009 um 23:31 schrieb seikath: Hi David, Falko gave the solution - use sqlbox for internal communication. Anyway, I'd love to know more of this like patent ID etc. In short, I have my doubts that they will claim violation. In short you do use http as internal communication INSIDE your boxes. HTTP is NOT used to receive MO traffic from mobile devices. The SMPP/OtherProtocols are used to communicate with mobile operators SMSC. the SMPP protocol DOES not send short text messages at all ..:) These people claims sound not serious to me at all. So relax a bit :) hint: the exec module has its issues with escaping non usual characters... I could be wrong, but they have to prove something non even existing ... cheers David wrote: Hello, Us users of SMS Shortcodes are getting hit in the US for violating a patent by TCS Inc. The patent claims to cover: A gateway, comprising: a first communication path to accept a short message from a mobile device; a translation module to insert said short message into an Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) message; a second communication path to push said HTTP message to at least one Universal Resource Locator (URL); and a return communication path to receive a return message relating to said HTTP message. The patent goes on to mention a whole bunch of stuff, ie, using HTTP POST to send the http message, etc. I just got out of a meeting with my lawyer. He says, the only way to get around this is to NOT use HTTP. Over the weekend, I tried to use the sms-service using EXEC instead of GET-URL, which worked fine... and then the server crashed... i'm guessing too many spawned processes? My question to you all is: how can we NOT use HTTP but have the same end result? ideally, it would use a command-line exec, but push it into a waiting server, instead of spawning a new thread. Does anybody have any ideas on how to do this? Thank you very much, David
Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
it ups to the handler you call with exec, the system resources you posses ...
in case you dont experience high loads exec is acceptable as short term solution
otherwise, use sqlbox, or, what about XML POST ?:)
i do parallel processing of MO traffic with invoking php script from kernel
inotify.h
in short when xml file is being moved to a directory, i spawn php script like
this one
/usr/bin/nohup ${php} ${loopScript} ${key} PAYMENT ${filename}
so far i have no issues, but for this particular service the max load is like
40 MO messages in same time, which is nothing.
i measure the load level before the each new process start ...
in case you have high load peaks,
1. make sure you know what will happen when the execution of the php scrip
fails.
2. make sure you control the level of the box load ... do not let kannel crash
the box :)
with processes the box cant handle.
last thing - do not let these people change your way of work ...
well its your call anyway :)
cheers
David wrote:
Thanks!
Does anybody know if EXEC can handle large loads if we spawn new
processes (with the at the end of the command?) this seems to be our
short term solution
thanks
--- On *Thu, 2/12/09, Falko Ziemann /fal...@gmail.com/* wrote:
From: Falko Ziemann fal...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
To: dbw1...@yahoo.com
Cc: seikath seik...@gmail.com, users@kannel.org User
users@kannel.org
Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 5:02 PM
Uhh, found a even better one here:
http://www.cellitmarketing.com/blog/the-tcs-patent-dispute-cellits-viewpoint/
As many of you know, TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. is currently
pursuing legal actions against many players in the mobile space.
(bla bla)
It is Cellit’s belief this patent claim is without merit.
Freely available software, namely Kannel (available at Kannel.org),
enables this exact type of interaction (conversion of MOs into web
requests) and has been available since 1999. While I am not a
lawyer, it is my belief the existence of Kannel in 1999 constitutes
“prior art” and thus nullifies TCS’s 2000 and 2005 patent claims.
Am 12.02.2009 um 23:56 schrieb Falko Ziemann:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200804/ai_n25346966
The patent describes a means for triggering an Internet
informational query or search using a simple text message
originated from a cell phone or mobile device, and is widely used
today for two-way premium messaging services.
Well, I didn't read the whole patent, but this really sounds like
they should sue Google mobile (I would really love to see this),
not you...
Regards
Falko
Am 12.02.2009 um 23:31 schrieb seikath:
Hi David,
Falko gave the solution - use sqlbox for internal communication.
Anyway, I'd love to know more of this like patent ID etc.
In short, I have my doubts that they will claim violation.
In short you do use http as internal communication INSIDE your boxes.
HTTP is NOT used to receive MO traffic from mobile devices.
The SMPP/OtherProtocols are used to communicate with mobile
operators SMSC.
the SMPP protocol DOES not send short text messages at all ..:)
These people claims sound not serious to me at all.
So relax a bit :)
hint: the exec module has its issues with escaping non usual
characters...
I could be wrong, but they have to prove something non even
existing ...
cheers
David wrote:
Hello,
Us users of SMS Shortcodes are getting hit in the US for violating a
patent by TCS Inc. The patent claims to cover:
A gateway, comprising: a first communication path to accept a short
message from a mobile device; a translation module to insert
said short
message into an Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) message; a second
communication path to push said HTTP message to at least one
Universal
Resource Locator (URL); and a return communication path to receive a
return message relating to said HTTP message.
The patent goes on to mention a whole bunch of stuff, ie, using HTTP
POST to send the http message, etc.
I just got out of a meeting with my lawyer. He says, the only
way to
get around this is to NOT use HTTP.
Over the weekend, I tried to use the sms-service using EXEC
instead of
GET-URL, which worked fine... and then the server crashed... i'm
guessing too many spawned processes?
My question to you all is: how can we NOT use HTTP but have the
same
end result? ideally, it would use a command-line exec, but push
it into
a waiting server, instead of spawning a new thread. Does
anybody have
any ideas on how to do this?
Thank you very much,
David
Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
Great! You put David's lawyer to shame. I hope that they realize that sueing kannel's users, they run in a case that they end up sueing themselves :-) BR, Nikos - Original Message - From: Falko Ziemann To: dbw1...@yahoo.com Cc: seikath ; users@kannel.org User Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 1:02 AM Subject: Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol? Uhh, found a even better one here: http://www.cellitmarketing.com/blog/the-tcs-patent-dispute-cellits-viewpoint/ As many of you know, TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. is currently pursuing legal actions against many players in the mobile space. (bla bla) It is Cellit’s belief this patent claim is without merit. Freely available software, namely Kannel (available at Kannel.org), enables this exact type of interaction (conversion of MOs into web requests) and has been available since 1999. While I am not a lawyer, it is my belief the existence of Kannel in 1999 constitutes “prior art” and thus nullifies TCS’s 2000 and 2005 patent claims. Am 12.02.2009 um 23:56 schrieb Falko Ziemann: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200804/ai_n25346966 The patent describes a means for triggering an Internet informational query or search using a simple text message originated from a cell phone or mobile device, and is widely used today for two-way premium messaging services. Well, I didn't read the whole patent, but this really sounds like they should sue Google mobile (I would really love to see this), not you... Regards Falko Am 12.02.2009 um 23:31 schrieb seikath: Hi David, Falko gave the solution - use sqlbox for internal communication. Anyway, I'd love to know more of this like patent ID etc. In short, I have my doubts that they will claim violation. In short you do use http as internal communication INSIDE your boxes. HTTP is NOT used to receive MO traffic from mobile devices. The SMPP/OtherProtocols are used to communicate with mobile operators SMSC. the SMPP protocol DOES not send short text messages at all ..:) These people claims sound not serious to me at all. So relax a bit :) hint: the exec module has its issues with escaping non usual characters... I could be wrong, but they have to prove something non even existing ... cheers David wrote: Hello, Us users of SMS Shortcodes are getting hit in the US for violating a patent by TCS Inc. The patent claims to cover: A gateway, comprising: a first communication path to accept a short message from a mobile device; a translation module to insert said short message into an Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) message; a second communication path to push said HTTP message to at least one Universal Resource Locator (URL); and a return communication path to receive a return message relating to said HTTP message. The patent goes on to mention a whole bunch of stuff, ie, using HTTP POST to send the http message, etc. I just got out of a meeting with my lawyer. He says, the only way to get around this is to NOT use HTTP. Over the weekend, I tried to use the sms-service using EXEC instead of GET-URL, which worked fine... and then the server crashed... i'm guessing too many spawned processes? My question to you all is: how can we NOT use HTTP but have the same end result? ideally, it would use a command-line exec, but push it into a waiting server, instead of spawning a new thread. Does anybody have any ideas on how to do this? Thank you very much, David
Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
Just an ounce of care. People can inject malicious code in the arguments,
i.e. Sender = 1234;rm -rf . that unless carefully quoted can lead to
disaster.
BR,
Nikos
- Original Message -
From: seikath seik...@gmail.com
To: dbw1...@yahoo.com
Cc: users@kannel.org
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
it ups to the handler you call with exec, the system resources you posses
...
in case you dont experience high loads exec is acceptable as short term
solution
otherwise, use sqlbox, or, what about XML POST ?:)
i do parallel processing of MO traffic with invoking php script from
kernel inotify.h
in short when xml file is being moved to a directory, i spawn php script
like this one
/usr/bin/nohup ${php} ${loopScript} ${key} PAYMENT ${filename}
so far i have no issues, but for this particular service the max load is
like
40 MO messages in same time, which is nothing.
i measure the load level before the each new process start ...
in case you have high load peaks,
1. make sure you know what will happen when the execution of the php scrip
fails.
2. make sure you control the level of the box load ... do not let kannel
crash the box :)
with processes the box cant handle.
last thing - do not let these people change your way of work ...
well its your call anyway :)
cheers
David wrote:
Thanks!
Does anybody know if EXEC can handle large loads if we spawn new
processes (with the at the end of the command?) this seems to be our
short term solution
thanks
--- On *Thu, 2/12/09, Falko Ziemann /fal...@gmail.com/* wrote:
From: Falko Ziemann fal...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
To: dbw1...@yahoo.com
Cc: seikath seik...@gmail.com, users@kannel.org User
users@kannel.org
Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 5:02 PM
Uhh, found a even better one here:
http://www.cellitmarketing.com/blog/the-tcs-patent-dispute-cellits-viewpoint/
As many of you know, TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. is currently
pursuing legal actions against many players in the mobile space.
(bla bla)
It is Cellit’s belief this patent claim is without merit.
Freely available software, namely Kannel (available at Kannel.org),
enables this exact type of interaction (conversion of MOs into web
requests) and has been available since 1999. While I am not a
lawyer, it is my belief the existence of Kannel in 1999 constitutes
“prior art” and thus nullifies TCS’s 2000 and 2005 patent claims.
Am 12.02.2009 um 23:56 schrieb Falko Ziemann:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200804/ai_n25346966
The patent describes a means for triggering an Internet
informational query or search using a simple text message
originated from a cell phone or mobile device, and is widely used
today for two-way premium messaging services.
Well, I didn't read the whole patent, but this really sounds like
they should sue Google mobile (I would really love to see this),
not you...
Regards
Falko
Am 12.02.2009 um 23:31 schrieb seikath:
Hi David,
Falko gave the solution - use sqlbox for internal communication.
Anyway, I'd love to know more of this like patent ID etc.
In short, I have my doubts that they will claim violation.
In short you do use http as internal communication INSIDE your
boxes.
HTTP is NOT used to receive MO traffic from mobile devices.
The SMPP/OtherProtocols are used to communicate with mobile
operators SMSC.
the SMPP protocol DOES not send short text messages at all ..:)
These people claims sound not serious to me at all.
So relax a bit :)
hint: the exec module has its issues with escaping non usual
characters...
I could be wrong, but they have to prove something non even
existing ...
cheers
David wrote:
Hello,
Us users of SMS Shortcodes are getting hit in the US for violating
a
patent by TCS Inc. The patent claims to cover:
A gateway, comprising: a first communication path to accept a
short
message from a mobile device; a translation module to insert
said short
message into an Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) message; a
second
communication path to push said HTTP message to at least one
Universal
Resource Locator (URL); and a return communication path to receive
a
return message relating to said HTTP message.
The patent goes on to mention a whole bunch of stuff, ie, using
HTTP
POST to send the http message, etc.
I just got out of a meeting with my lawyer. He says, the only
way to
get around this is to NOT use HTTP.
Over the weekend, I tried to use the sms-service using EXEC
instead of
GET-URL, which worked fine... and then the server crashed... i'm
guessing too many spawned processes?
My question to you all is: how can we
