Slashdot Mirror


URLs Patented, Domain Registrars Sued

theodp writes "A newly formed company is suing Network Solutions and Register.com for infringing on its e-mail and domain naming patent, which covers assigning each member of a group a URL of the form 'name.subdomain.domain' and an e-mail address of the form 'name@subdomain.domain.'"

13 of 650 comments (clear)

  1. Not as bad as SCO. by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to CNET, these were the people responsible for launching the .md TLD in the USA to represent "medical doctor" when in reality, .md belongs to the Republic of Moldova. These people are definitely not scared of ruining Internet conventions when they stand in the way of a quick buck.

    However, the one thing we can relax on is that this doesn't affect .com, .net, .org, .edu, .us etc., just .name because what the patent covers is selling a 3rd-level domain for web use that equates to a username on the 2nd-level domain's mailserver. (If the registrant of john.doe.name gets the john@doe.name e-mail address... and an unrelated jane.doe.name gets jane@doe.name, and the registrar of .name is keeping doe.name, smith.name, jones.name, etc. for this kind of reselling... that's what the patent covers.)

    So, this isn't exactly a sky-is-falling situation, but it's shysters trying to make a quick buck off of patent law....

    1. Re:Not as bad as SCO. by Nakito · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just a reminder of the standard that must be met:

      United States Code, 35 USC Section 103:
      Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
      (a) A patent may not be obtained . . . if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.

      So -- is this a trivial, obvious extension of the prior art?

  2. WTF? by TheSpoom · · Score: 3, Informative

    What is claimed is:

    1. A method for assigning URL's and e-mail addresses to members of a group comprising the steps of:

    assigning each member of said group a URL of the form "name.subdomain.domain"; and

    assigning each member of said group an e-mail address of the form "name@subdomain.domain;"

    wherein the "name" portion of said URL and said e-mail address is the same and unique for each particular one of said members such that an only difference between said URL and said e-mail address for said member is that in said URL the "@" symbol of the e-mail address is replaced with a "." and wherein said "subdomain" portion of said URL and said e-mail address is the same for all members of said group.

    2. The method of claim 1 wherein said members of said group comprise members of a licensed profession.


    Now... I'm going to try to remain calm here but HOW THE FUCK WAS THIS PATENTED?! Nothing is *invented* here, it's a method of organizing a system which ALREADY EXISTS (email and DNS). This just further shows the US Patent Office's stupidity.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:WTF? by bssea · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually.. to file a patent you don't have to *invent* anything. You just have to show "the use of an idea for a process, machine, item of manufacture, or composition of matter". The mere writing it down is considered the "invention".

      On a side note.. the idea is also supposed to be "novel, useful, AND, nonobvious". This topic fails on at least two of the cases. It's neither novel, nor nonobvious. This is U.S. Patent Law. If you don't like it, talk to your congressman.

      --sea

      Credit of quotes: class notes (Computers and the Law.. yeah who the hell needs to look stuff up?)

  3. Re:What the.... by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

    The patent's more specific than that... their patent is a TLD operator selling people not true domains, but instead 3rd level web domains paired with matching 2nd level e-mail services. It's a specific product that they developed for .md that seems to have been duplicated by .name... the good news is that this only effects those who hold .name addresses, .com, .net, .org, .us, etc. can still go to sleep tonight...

  4. Prior art, DNS zone files by RT+Alec · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the patent documentation:

    1. A method for assigning URL's and e-mail addresses to members of a group comprising the steps of:

    assigning each member of said group a URL of the form "name.subdomain.domain"; and

    assigning each member of said group an e-mail address of the form "name@subdomain.domain;"

    wherein the "name" portion of said URL and said e-mail address is the same and unique for each particular one of said members such that an only difference between said URL and said e-mail address for said member is that in said URL the "@" symbol of the e-mail address is replaced with a "." and wherein said "subdomain" portion of said URL and said e-mail address is the same for all members of said group.

    This is the precice format for e-mail addresses in DNS zone file, for the SOA record. See RFC 1034, section 3.3. Date of prior art, 1987.

  5. Bah - Prior Art is a no-brainer by TekPolitik · · Score: 4, Informative

    MailBank (Now NetIdentity) has been doing exactly this since 1996. I don't see these cretins getting very far.

  6. Re:What the.... by Akai · · Score: 4, Informative

    The thing is that ISPs have been selling these kind of things to customers for over 10 years now, so prior art is going to be hard to determine.

    The first ISP I worked for offered customers:
    www.customer.ccnet.com
    and customer@ccnet.com
    from about 1995 or so.

    It's a silly patent.

    --
    Please send all UCE to scally@devolution.com so I can f
  7. Re:Stop the World i wana get off by ophix · · Score: 5, Informative

    might there be some prior art?

    when setting up a zone file with bind you specify an email address of the admin in charge of the domain in the SOA record.

    an email address of joeuser@somedomain.com would be written as joeuser.somedomain.com. admittedly its not a direct prior art, but i can definately see someone making a jump from this to what the patent is about.

    just my 2 cents

    Ophidian

  8. Re:India patents zero and binary by skavj_binsk · · Score: 3, Informative
    India is by no means the only contender for the "who invented zero" title.

    Maybe Iraq could get a leg up on reconstruction by contesting that claim in an X-TREME CRADLE-OF-CIVILAZATION *SMACKDOWN*.

  9. Re:Stop the World i wana get off by saden1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm sure some university way back used the same naming convention.

    This is beyond belief. I don't know to be upset with these idiots that filed the suite or the US patent office which uses the same naming convention (most government agencies do). I've heard they have Ph. D. working at the patent office but come on...who signs off on their Ph. Ds?

    --

    -----
    One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
  10. Re:Slightly funnier take by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Informative
    ... entrepeneurs, as scum-sucking bottom feeders seems more appropriate

    Indeed. In the article they're described as "Javaher and Weyer were part of the original group that launched the .md domain in the United States in 1998. With the .md domain, physicians could register URLs ending in .md, such as www.janesmith.md."

    No mention that ".md" is just another of those small countries (Moldova in this case) who've signed away rights to some scumbags who think that they can pretend the letters stand for something else. Similar ones: .la (Laos, pretending to be Los Angeles/Latin America (!)/Lousiana), .tv (Tuvalu, pretending to be television). Hopefully all these idiots get burnt when the national governments cancel their domains without compensation or unilaterally multiply the fees.

  11. Re:Slightly funnier take by Znork · · Score: 3, Informative

    Of course, the history of the lightbulb is another great example why patents stink. Edison was, in fact, not the inventor. The working lightbulb idea came along in 1809, and various models were developed over the next 65 years. The patent was filed in 1875 by Woodward and Evans, but they couldnt finance the product development. That ended up with Edison (read, the 'more established and well financed company') buying the patent, finalizing product development and reaping the benefits.

    The original inventors didnt benefit, the lightbulb would have happened with or without the patent as the surrounding technology had reached the point of making it practical.