IBM filed the patent back in 2010. On January 17, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted it to the company, effectively recognising IBM’s “invention” of out-of-office email alerts. The feature has been available in most major email clients for years and was introduced over two decades before IBM’s patent filing.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital rights organisation that aims to protect people online, slammed the patent as “out of touch” and “nonsense.” It pointed out that the Patent Office reviewed the application for years in a process meant to consider existing implementations of the technology. Its report failed to discuss any of the email programs commonly used today, even though its employees could have used the feature themselves.
The precise history of out-of-office emails isn’t clear. Versions of the feature are known to have existed in Microsoft’s Xenix email system, a facility available during the late 80s. It was then accessed through the “oof” (out of facility) command, a quirk that separated Microsoft’s implementation from the more commonly used “OOTO” (out of the office).
After being handed the EFF’s “Stupid Patent of the Month” accolade, IBM has since backed down from the filing. Seemingly realising it’s far from the first to have developed out-of-office alerts, the company has announced it is releasing its rights to the patent. IBM has already contacted the Patent Office, saying it will “dedicate the patent to the public.”
IBM’s patent filing differed from current real-world examples of the technology in only minor ways. The one unique element describes a system capable of automatically notifying contacts you’ll be away a few days before your absence begins. The EFF argued this is “like asking for a patent on the idea of sending a postcard, not from a vacation, but to let someone know you will go on a vacation.” The controversy has reignited debate around patents held by technology companies. Many people believe firms should not be able to patent generic systems that are common to multiple software utilities. Instead, the Patent Office should only recognise developments that are truly innovative and show wholly original input.
In IBM’s case, the Patent Office’s unwillingness to look beyond other patent filings and examine real-world software led to the patent being awarded. The Office effectively ignored the existence of the scores of email clients and services already offering the feature. At one point, the examiner did reject the application, but later accepted IBM’s suggestion that a “hardware storage device” could be used to store the patent.
