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 > >
