Slashdot Mirror

You don't have to be a US citizen to be issued a US patent. The only thing you might need to pay special attention to is the Oath/declaration, though since you clearly comprehend English, this shouldn't be too tricky.

who said long distance relationships can't work: patent no 6368268

link : loong link

For anyone not following this bit of madness, Chemtrails are the contrails of jetaircraft that seem to have unusual persistence. The conspiracy folks have had a field day with this, and I remain somewhat skeptical.

One angle on this (see site here) is the speculation that the chemtrails are caused by additives to the jetfuel designed to reduce global warming by reflecting more of the solar radiation into space.

They even cite this US Patent (5003186) as proof of concept.

truely strange stuff.

The thought that someone may already be engineering or terraforming the earth is slightly disturbing.

Don Bitzer is the true unsung hero of computer science - his work as head of the University Of Illinois' PLATO project touched virtually everything people love today about computers and the Internet!

Check out his 1965! patent - bitmapped graphics, audio and photographic quality images back in the sixties!

Other (pre-1975!) PLATO innovations included instant messaging, near zero latency multiplayer network gaming, distance learning, groupware, newsgroups, online newspapers, animated email, network delivery of music, client/server computing, touch screen interfaces, flat-panel displays (the basis for the ones you're just now seeing at Circuit City!), and multimedia that were delivered across a worldwide educational network with satellite and cable communications.

In his ACM article on the early days of Smalltalk, Alan Kay states that he had no idea how to implement his Dynabook concept before seeing a demo of Bitzer's patented plasma display.

Search some of the early WWW documents, and you'll be surprised to see PLATO's influence. Here's e-mail inventor Ray Tomlinson and Ethernet papa Robert Metcalfe attending a 1971 conference that included a demo of Bitzer's PLATO system before their breakthrough work. And there's communication from none less than Tim Berners-Lee encouraging early Internet pioneers to try to meet Professor Daniel Sleator's challenge to try to provide the Web with easy-to-use PLATO features from two decades earlier.

Prominent users of Bitzer's PLATO system at the University of Illinois included Groove's Ray Ozzie (who credits PLATO with giving him the idea for Lotus Notes) and Brand Fortner, a founder of Spyglass, which produced the original Internet Explorer for Microsoft.

At the risk of overestimating PLATO's profound influence, it certainly is an odd coincidence that "ground zero" of PLATO just happened to be across the street from Netscape founder Mark Andreesen's NSCA gig (where Fortner also worked at one time).

For more info on PLATO, check out David Woolley's excellent PLATO: The Emergence of Online Community.

After reading it, you'll see that Bitzer's PLATO of the early '70s had far more in common with today's popular Internet that Berners-Lee's Web of the early '90s.

Don Bitzer's been the Rodney Dangerfield of the Internet for far too long - it's time to give the guy the proper respect he deserves!

I will stop this ridiculous insanity once and for all by enforcing MY patent #5,163,447 on:
"A method for stopping patent infringements by suing the party committing the infringement."

That's right. I have a patent on suing over patents.
I will be demanding royalties from every jerk suing over a patent by USING my own patented process of suing infringers!

-

The network information provider influences the position for a search listing through a continuous online competitive bidding process. ... The system and method of the present invention then compares this bid amount with all other bid amounts for the same search term, and generates a rank value for all search listings having that search term.

The patent might, at a stretch, cover Google's AdWords Select program, since that allows you to pay for a rank amongst other ads. However, it this still doesn't affect the search results, only ads that are clearly ads, so it doesn't sound like the patent would cover this either.

I can't say anything about their Premium Sponsorship program (the one that puts text ads at the top of the page, rather than to the right) since their website doesn't say anything about ranking of those types of ads.

Oh please, read the patent.

"A system and method for enabling information providers using a computer network such as the Internet to influence a position for a search listing within a search result list generated by an Internet search engine. "

That's Google's entire scheme right there! They use the Internet, they have a system, they're using a computer network, they generate search listings and most importantly they influence the position of the search entries in exactly the manner that that patented algorithm taught them to!

Why do you think they've been so successful?

I don't suppose you can back up that assertion with links to authoritative source(s), can you?

Yes.

The Relevant Patent

The Hollings bill S-2048

A less authoritative but nevertheless informative article summarizing the issues

If you need more information and aren't just a troll, you can do any further research on your own. Google is your friend (except when censored by corporate interests such as the Scientologists, but that doesn't appear to have happened WRT this subject, yet).

Seems to me that these patents form the foundation of this offensive maneuver. Otherwise they would have no basis for disallowing alternative implementations.

So then, any chance anyone can find grounds to dismiss the validity of either of these patents? Here are links to the USPTO files:

Patent number 5,265,261

Patent number 5,437,013

At the very least, this sickening abuse of patent rights provides further support for the elimination of software patents.

Seems to me that these patents form the foundation of this offensive maneuver. Otherwise they would have no basis for disallowing alternative implementations.

So then, any chance anyone can find grounds to dismiss the validity of either of these patents? Here are links to the USPTO files:

Patent number 5,265,261

Patent number 5,437,013

At the very least, this sickening abuse of patent rights provides further support for the elimination of software patents.

If you read the license carefully you will see that it's also a license for U.S. patents 5,265,261 and 5,437,013. These patents are pretty similar, and the second seems to be an update of the first. They look to me like bogus software patents, covering the stunning invention of single-copy network drivers.

The Big Questions:

Will Microsoft attempt to enforce these patents?

Can Samba be implemented without infringing these patents?

A quick read of the patent gives the impression that adding an extra copy step would do it, in which case a user-space implementation should be safe. But I'm not sure. It depends on what level of abstraction they can get away with for "receiver" and "transport" and so forth. And it might be that any "computer system" with an mswindows client on one end infringes. IANAL.

If you read the license carefully you will see that it's also a license for U.S. patents 5,265,261 and 5,437,013. These patents are pretty similar, and the second seems to be an update of the first. They look to me like bogus software patents, covering the stunning invention of single-copy network drivers.

The Big Questions:

Will Microsoft attempt to enforce these patents?

Can Samba be implemented without infringing these patents?

A quick read of the patent gives the impression that adding an extra copy step would do it, in which case a user-space implementation should be safe. But I'm not sure. It depends on what level of abstraction they can get away with for "receiver" and "transport" and so forth. And it might be that any "computer system" with an mswindows client on one end infringes. IANAL.

Slightly off-topic but Sony Electronics seems to have tried to patent zero-click shopping.

No one has patented the idea yet so knock yourself out.

I havent had a chance to read it, but the patent for the method is 5,757,916

(http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm and enter the number)

From the abstract: "A method and apparatus for authenticating the identity of a remote user entity where the identity of such user entity is authenticated by use of information specific to geodetic location of the user entity but that changes constantly, making "spoofing" the host device extremely difficult. The invention is preferably implemented utilizing satellite positioning technology to produce the identifying information."

InterTrust Disputes Microsoft Ownership of Important Trusted Computing Technologies.

InterTrust press release announcing "action to assume ownership of key Microsoft operating system patent claims."

At issue are Microsoft's two Digital Rights Management Operating System patents, discussed in this previous article. The patents are viewable here and here. Microsoft's idea of "trusted computing" is to secure the computer against the owner. If we're lucky this will get tied up in the courts for years.

The press release may be two months old, but I haven't seen it mentioned on slashdot. Instead we get these stupid April fools day articles and this gets rejected.

-

InterTrust Disputes Microsoft Ownership of Important Trusted Computing Technologies.

InterTrust press release announcing "action to assume ownership of key Microsoft operating system patent claims."

At issue are Microsoft's two Digital Rights Management Operating System patents, discussed in this previous article. The patents are viewable here and here. Microsoft's idea of "trusted computing" is to secure the computer against the owner. If we're lucky this will get tied up in the courts for years.

The press release may be two months old, but I haven't seen it mentioned on slashdot. Instead we get these stupid April fools day articles and this gets rejected.

-

The XP feature that sets the clock via the internet isn't evil, but it seemed on topic to somethign that *is* evil. Amongst other things, it will require continous internet access to a "trusted time server" any time you have a "trusted application" loaded.

As for "Authentication is already a part of existing time protocols". That authentication is to protect you from external attack. The Microsoft version of "autenticated time" is aimed at the legitimate owner of the computer. Big difference.

Have you read the MS-DRM-OS patent? If you haven't, it's probably more evil than you realize. It cripples itself in all sorts of wonderful ways. It's nothing but a list of things it wont do, or blocks the user from doing.

I really love how it's going to require a DRM-CPU too.

-

I believe AOL did get a trademark for "You've got Mail", when using the distinctive "AOL Guy" voice.

AOL(tw) has registered the mark YOU'VE GOT MAIL(tm) for AOL service, AOL service, toys, movies (e.g. with Hanks and Ryan), and t-shirts, and not just with Elwood Edwards' voice. However, AOL lost its (tm) on "you have mail" because it was too generic.

I believe AOL did get a trademark for "You've got Mail", when using the distinctive "AOL Guy" voice.

AOL(tw) has registered the mark YOU'VE GOT MAIL(tm) for AOL service, AOL service, toys, movies (e.g. with Hanks and Ryan), and t-shirts, and not just with Elwood Edwards' voice. However, AOL lost its (tm) on "you have mail" because it was too generic.

I believe AOL did get a trademark for "You've got Mail", when using the distinctive "AOL Guy" voice.

AOL(tw) has registered the mark YOU'VE GOT MAIL(tm) for AOL service, AOL service, toys, movies (e.g. with Hanks and Ryan), and t-shirts, and not just with Elwood Edwards' voice. However, AOL lost its (tm) on "you have mail" because it was too generic.

I believe AOL did get a trademark for "You've got Mail", when using the distinctive "AOL Guy" voice.

AOL(tw) has registered the mark YOU'VE GOT MAIL(tm) for AOL service, AOL service, toys, movies (e.g. with Hanks and Ryan), and t-shirts, and not just with Elwood Edwards' voice. However, AOL lost its (tm) on "you have mail" because it was too generic.

I believe AOL did get a trademark for "You've got Mail", when using the distinctive "AOL Guy" voice.

AOL(tw) has registered the mark YOU'VE GOT MAIL(tm) for AOL service, AOL service, toys, movies (e.g. with Hanks and Ryan), and t-shirts, and not just with Elwood Edwards' voice. However, AOL lost its (tm) on "you have mail" because it was too generic.

Intel has a trademark on "bunny people."

tess.uspto.gov uses session-based navigation; links do not survive for longer than 15 minutes. In the TESS window, try clicking "Check Status" to get the TARR record. Turns out the trademarks are for keychains and sweaters. Here they are:

BUNNYPEOPLE BUNNYPEOPLE

Intel has a trademark on "bunny people."

tess.uspto.gov uses session-based navigation; links do not survive for longer than 15 minutes. In the TESS window, try clicking "Check Status" to get the TARR record. Turns out the trademarks are for keychains and sweaters. Here they are:

BUNNYPEOPLE BUNNYPEOPLE

According to the US Patent and Trademark Office, Intel has a trademark on "bunny people." Looks to me like clean room IC fabrication is up shit creek across the United States!

Is this kind of thing even legal? I mean, how can they enforce such a stupid license? If they want to distribute information, how can they tell us how to use that information?

Say hello to the United States Patent Office. Microsoft owns defensive patents on many software technologies but has a history of licensing many of them royalty-free to all comers. (Heck, even the W3C allows patented technologies into its standards, as long as the patents are licensed royalty-free.)

Note: I have not read the article.

Figures, since the article is not in a standard format (it's a compressed Windows help file in a self-extracting WinZip archive). To access this Windows help file without agreeing to the self-extractor's license, simply use any popular unzip tool. HEY MICRO$OFT, I'M WEARING A "DMCA ME" SIGN!

I was thinking of using a yugo.

Now the interesthing thing on this is a thing called a "design patent"

As seen on the Patent Office Site:

A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation. A design for surface ornamentation is inseparable from the article to which it is applied and cannot exist alone. It must be a definite pattern of surface ornamentation, applied to an article of manufacture

Apple could probably get a design patent on the look and feel of their OS, separate from the functionality. They are apparently relatively easy to get.

The real worry is if someone like Ford were to see something like this (if I used a Ford car) and got out the legal eagles for "degrading the reputation of their product" by depicting their car on the net with MS colors.

I'd be interested to know what the tech to management/pr ratio looks like for this company.

Curious about how fly by night they are? I know I am. I couldn't find them on USPTO or Strategis.

The actual name of the company is "Prescient International, Inc." - which is probably owned by an LLC. Here's an interesting google search based on that.

Interesting stuff. Is this the same company running out of a PO box in NC? Do they ever decide what their company actually does? Oh, and the last item in that search - a press release submitted December 19, 2001 describing the other product.

They must have an enormous number of people on their team. Three month turn around between reinventing RDMS and solving the world's encryption needs. Amazing!

--ipsuid

Software doesn't need patents to protect it becuase the amount of effort to reverse engineer some code is often more than the energy needed to code something new in the firstplace.

But the code itself isn't what's patented. The patent goes for the "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." The code itself is covered under copyright, and possibly under various protections of trade secrets.

So you don't patent Adobe Photoshop. You could, possibly, patent software for editing digital images in such-and-such a way. It has to be fairly specific. For example, consider patent number 6,337,901, "Customer billing relationships software." (Read it here.) This patent doesn't cover the software itself. Rather it covers the design, methodology, and architecture of the software. In this particular instance, the meat of the patent describes the process that the software implements for generating its output.

So it's not about whether or not you can reverse-engineer Photoshop. It's about whether you should be given the right, for a limited time, to exclude others from writing software that does the same thing Photoshop does.

(This sounds silly because Photoshop is neither patented nor patentable.)

Re Step 425, "Crypto Server Traps Event", Grail said, There is a catch here - perhaps you could argue that, in order to be covered by this patent, the crypto package would have to intercept the "File/Save" event before that event actually got to the application. You are correct. They are trapping when the user selects "save" from the application menu, NOT when the file is written to disk.

They probably meant to say that the system intercepted reads/writes to particular files on the filesystem. That's how SafeHouse (the product they're suing) does it. Oh well, too late to change the patent now. <g>

I also liked

Step 420: Command is translated into an event.
Waddaya mean translated? Modern operating systems handle this as an event by default.

Step 430: Should document be encrypted?
Funny that this decision seems to be made without interaction from the user. In other words, the user doesn't decide which documents are or are not encrypted. (at least not at run time).

The description of the technology in the patent is vague enough that I wonder if they had actually implemented this at the time. Oh, another funny thing... Maz Technology doesn't seem to have a product that does what this patent claims to do. Hmm.... You're not allowed to patent someone else's invention. <g>

Maz does have this product called IntelliGuard, which has a great marketing description, but to me the description seems rather... lite. I wonder if they've actually implemented anything even now. (It also claims to provide an infinite number of customer's options. At least they got the infinity problem licked.)

-gh

DISCLAIMER: this post is a statement of opinion and not of fact. (Just in case any laywers are reading...)

For the full text of the patent, visit USPTO Search Page and enter the patent number 6185681.
See also a sci.crypt discussion on google groups

I find claim 10 rather amusing, though:

10. A linear accelerator, comprising:

a support rail;

a capacitor module comprising a first conductive element having a cylindrical geometry and a first sliding electrical contact; a second conductive element axially spaced from said first conductive element and of a geometry of smaller axial extent than the first conductive element and having a second sliding electrical contact; and a dielectric element disposed between said first conductive element and said second conductive element so as to form the capacitor module;

a frictionless connection for connecting said capacitor module to said support rail for movement therealong; and a high voltage source, having first and second terminals connected respectively to said first and second sliding electrical contacts, for applying a high voltage to said conductive elements of sufficient value to create a thrust force on said module inducing movement thereof along the support rail.

Before you bother looking... no, they don't disclose how to create a frictionless connection. :-)

And I thought reactionless thrusters were impossible... Can some physics guys help us out here?

BFD.

Go read it here

It's easy to come on /. and complain about how the patent system sucks. If you want to have a real effect in changing how the 'system' works, maybe you'd like a career there?

I know this is kinda a dupe - but a pretty good one for a more focused discussion. When I saw this in the paper today, I thought "finally, maybe somebody legitimately patented something of interest to Slashdot readers". Siemens appears to have at least one, fairly broad patent on the device/process.

Check out Patent #6,353,428 on the USPTO website:

"Method and device for detecting an object in an area radiated by waves in the invisible spectral range"

The first claim is as follows:

"1. A system for detection of an object in an area irradiated by waves in an invisible spectral range, the system comprising:

a projector configured such that a video image is projectable onto the area;

a device for emitting waves in the invisible spectral range configured such that the area is substantially illuminated;

a reception device configured such that the reception device registers the irradiated area, the reception device being specifically balanced for an invisible spectral range corresponding to the waves; and

a computer configured with a recognition algorithm, whereby the object irradiated by the emitted waves is detected using the recognition algorithm."

The patent seems pretty broad in that it uses phrases like "a reception device..." and "a recognition algorithm" to cover the process, but reading the specification makes it clear that the focus is on "virtual" keyboards, mousepads, and presentation pointing, and it is a bit more specific about the actual means of detection etc.

All and all, without being an expert in the prior art or patent law, I think this one actually seems like a pretty good patent (If you believe in patents at all, of course). Also a pretty cool invention. Obviously it will have to be improved and smallified before being really useful (and integratable into my cell phone, watch, ring, etc.), but they seem to be off to a great start!

I know this is kinda a dupe - but a pretty good one for a more focused discussion. When I saw this in the paper today, I thought "finally, maybe somebody legitimately patented something of interest to Slashdot readers". Siemens appears to have at least one, fairly broad patent on the device/process.

Check out Patent #6,353,428 on the USPTO website:

"Method and device for detecting an object in an area radiated by waves in the invisible spectral range"

The first claim is as follows:

"1. A system for detection of an object in an area irradiated by waves in an invisible spectral range, the system comprising:

a projector configured such that a video image is projectable onto the area;

a device for emitting waves in the invisible spectral range configured such that the area is substantially illuminated;

a reception device configured such that the reception device registers the irradiated area, the reception device being specifically balanced for an invisible spectral range corresponding to the waves; and

a computer configured with a recognition algorithm, whereby the object irradiated by the emitted waves is detected using the recognition algorithm."

The patent seems pretty broad in that it uses phrases like "a reception device..." and "a recognition algorithm" to cover the process, but reading the specification makes it clear that the focus is on "virtual" keyboards, mousepads, and presentation pointing, and it is a bit more specific about the actual means of detection etc.

All and all, without being an expert in the prior art or patent law, I think this one actually seems like a pretty good patent (If you believe in patents at all, of course). Also a pretty cool invention. Obviously it will have to be improved and smallified before being really useful (and integratable into my cell phone, watch, ring, etc.), but they seem to be off to a great start!

I had asked the question before on ICANNs own forum: It seems to me difficulties are due to piss poor management and nothing to do with need for structural reform. For instance, why stick with Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue? Is it because of certain old ICANN links with them? Are JDRP profiteering? They are very costly - have you looked for other Law firms?

Have you checked out JDRP.com - and their people involvement with ICANN?

A quote from a Karl Auerbach:

Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue is ICANN's law firm, and has been so since the day of ICANN's birth. Indeed Jones-Day actually performed the incorporation ceremony in its Los Angeles offices.

Jones, Day, in the person of its principle man-on-the-ICANN-scene, Joe Sims, was present for at least half a year before ICANN was born, working in the shadows, responding to unknown interests and possibly making unknown deals. About all we know about that period is that those who were not insiders to Joe Sims process were ignored and that those who objected were treated with condescension and abuse.

Over the life of ICANN, Jones, Day has been the the dominant creditor of ICANN.

Even now Jones, Day continues to receive a lion's share of every dollar that flows into ICANN.

And one of Jones, Day's partners, Louis Touton, left the firm to become ICANN's Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel.

There is in my mind a question about the appearance of propriety.

Karls platform.

***End quote.

In a good two month period, October and November 2000, they got $465,553.67 from ICANN.

ICANN minutes.

As it one of the largest intellectual property practice groups in a general-practice law firm - with more than 85 intellectual property lawyers, I would imagine Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue make a lot of money on trademarks problems on the Internet.

Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue.

Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu - even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat - most many times over.

MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.

The solution to this problem has been ratified by experts - so that ALL registered trademarks can be identified on the Internet.

Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue know this solution.

They would lose a lot of money, if there was less trademark problems on the Internet - wouldn't they?

Draw your own conclusions - but it is my opinion they do not want the solution to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' problems on the Internet.

There is in my mind certainly no question about the appearance of corruption - it is beyond doubt.

Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see. No connection with the United Nations WIPO.org.

While not the final word on the question, this is a huge issue. As reported, the Microsoft saga with the United States Patent and Trademark Office reflects significant issues with the registrability and enforceability of the WINDOWS mark, although they were ultimately resolved in Microsoft's favor after an appeal. The TARR report there interesting relates that the windows mark is presently the subject of a, perhaps unrelated, cancellation proceeding before the USPTO.

But the difference between a straightforward trademark claim, and one where a serious challenge will be mounted to a mission-critical asset (such as the WINDOWS mark), makes a responsible company far more interested in reaching a settlement or accomodation. But this is Microsoft, who isn't even afraid of the United States Government.

www.uspto.gov
It looks like there are a lot of Windows(tm) out there.

When I file for patents and/or trademarks at the United States patent and trademark office here, they accept /yournamehere/ as a legally binding signature for patent work. I don't see why this can't apply to email.

Rock on, Intel!

I'm just as thrilled as everyone else to see intell fighting the SSSCA. But there's one thing that keeps nagging at me...

Remember the Microsoft Digital Rights Managment Operating System patent from a while back? I read most of that sucker. It parts of it require a matching Digital Rights Managment CPU. There is no way in hell that Microsoft has overlooked this point. SOMEONE must have plans and/or patents on this beast. Either Microsoft or a CPU manufacturer. The only company that comes to mind for this role is INTEL...

One key and unique phrase in the DRM-OS patent was "monotonic counter". What is so special about phrase? It generates unique serial numbers beyond the user's control. It enforces "trusted" control over an "untrusted" user.

Well, I just did a search of the US patent office database and found exactly 6 patents contining "monotonic counter". Two patents from MICROSOFT. Two patents from SEAGATE. Two patents from INTEL.

The two Microsoft patents are explicitly DRM. The two Seagate patents are for uncopyable encrypted harddrives. One Intel patent covers secure communications in a "pre-boot environment". This may or may not be DRM relevant. The other Intel patent is subtle, but claim 9 is "in a security device configured to provide secure monotonic counting functions" and later mentions use "In sensitive applications, such as electronic commerce, it is also necessary for the counting function to be secure against unauthorized intrusion and security breaches". This would be security against authorized users.

Is it possible that Microsoft, Segate, and Intel are involved in a secret DRM-Axis-Of-Evil?

Can anyone find any other evidence pointing to the required DRM CPU?

-

I couldn't agree more. Check this patent, and this one, and finally this one. They date back to 1989, and are all granted to Jerry Conley and assigned to the E.F. Johnson Company. Basically, you take a radioactive substance (a beta emitter, like your TV electron gun), chemically bond it to a polymer (so it can never get out) then dope it with a phosphor. You now have plastic that glows for decades, and can be smashed to bits without releasing any radiation. Slice it up, and sandwich it between photo-voltaic ("solar") cells. You now have a battery (or battery charger) that is completely safe. By the way, Popular Science had a brief blurb about this in the early 1990's, which is where I first heard about it. All things nuclear are not evil!

I couldn't agree more. Check this patent, and this one, and finally this one. They date back to 1989, and are all granted to Jerry Conley and assigned to the E.F. Johnson Company. Basically, you take a radioactive substance (a beta emitter, like your TV electron gun), chemically bond it to a polymer (so it can never get out) then dope it with a phosphor. You now have plastic that glows for decades, and can be smashed to bits without releasing any radiation. Slice it up, and sandwich it between photo-voltaic ("solar") cells. You now have a battery (or battery charger) that is completely safe. By the way, Popular Science had a brief blurb about this in the early 1990's, which is where I first heard about it. All things nuclear are not evil!

I couldn't agree more. Check this patent, and this one, and finally this one. They date back to 1989, and are all granted to Jerry Conley and assigned to the E.F. Johnson Company. Basically, you take a radioactive substance (a beta emitter, like your TV electron gun), chemically bond it to a polymer (so it can never get out) then dope it with a phosphor. You now have plastic that glows for decades, and can be smashed to bits without releasing any radiation. Slice it up, and sandwich it between photo-voltaic ("solar") cells. You now have a battery (or battery charger) that is completely safe. By the way, Popular Science had a brief blurb about this in the early 1990's, which is where I first heard about it. All things nuclear are not evil!

Fact 1: Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.

Fact 2: The authorities steal words that belong to everybody and give them to Big Business - because domain names were not designed to be trademarks. Ask Paul Mockapetris, creator of Domain Name System. He was asked, what do you wish you had invented? His reply, "A directory system for the Internet that wouldn't be controlled by the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats."

Fact 3: The UN World Intellectual Property Organization and the US Department of Commerce are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem. Please see at WIPO.org.uk - nothing to do with the United Nations WIPO.org.

I think Microsoft is already rubbing its dirty hands, because this patent makes it one of the biggest winners if this bill will pass.

Given your expertise Jay, I am greatly suprised that you don't get it.

You say, "Domain names are addresses, people! They're not speech!"

That is a simplistic and slightly misleading statement.

Domains names are for naming resources.

Paul Mockapetris, DNS creator, said, "The goal of domain names is to provide a mechanism for naming resources in such a way that the names are usable in different hosts, networks, protocol families, internets, and administrative organizations."

I use WIPO.org.uk because the United Nations use WIPO.org to take away domains from owners. There was no better domain for me to make protest and publish the solution to trademark problem.

ICANN and Big Business want control over words you can use on the Internet. They say to stop trademark problems - to my mind that is a lie. For one thing, they want to muffle you.

Which of these gets the message across better: WIPO.org.uk OR freespace.virgin.net/garry.anderson/WIPO?

Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.

You would think then, they would want solution to stop 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' on the Internet - wouldn't you?

A solution that does not make restrictions upon them or mean giving up their dot com domains?

The answer was self-evident - but they do not want it. This is even though Sunrise and UDRP abridges US citizen rights to even use dictionary words - it also gives priority of one trademark over another - with non-trademark holder standing no chance. This violates First Amendment principles and is against Unfair Competition Law.