[Spambayes] Re: egregious patents on anti-spam techniques
(Kaitlin Duck Sherwood)
jm at jmason.org
Thu Jan 30 17:57:40 EST 2003
Gary Robinson said:
> But I do have some experience with patents, and I do understand the
> spambayes approach and the gist of their approach. It is my impression that
> the patent does not have a scope that encompasses Graham-derived filters,
> because they do not calculate "first" and "second" "symantic anchors" as the
> term is used in Claim 1.
> They seem to be trying to make a straightforward adaptation of technology
> that works well for classifying documents according to subject area, latent
> semantic analysis, into the spam realm.
That was my impression, too, which is good news (to a degree). The other
one is much broader, and I've forwarded it onto the TMDA users list, since
they are *totally* prior art.
More information about the Spambayes