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
