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.'"
The World has gone mad. Beam be up i am out of here.
So when is amazon going to sue them for violating their sue-for-something-obvious-and-not-patentable patent? Not that they were the first to do such a thing, but hey, that never stopped them from getting patents before, right?
[sigh]
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Just when you thought they'd run out of silly patents to sue over, here comes another one. According to the good folks at News.com, a couple of Nizzas (the name of their company) have sued Network Solutions and Register.com. As Marguerite Reardon so eloquently puts it, "Two Internet entrepreneurs are suing Network Solutions and Register.com for allegedly infringing on their e-mail and domain naming patent." I take issue with the term entrepeneurs, as scum-sucking bottom feeders seems more appropriate, but you get the idea. Basically, they patented the method of assigning an email address of fake@name.com to the guy with the website fake.name.com. This might be the lamest excuse for a patent ever granted; a 2-year old could have come up with this idea.
A good two and a half months before 1st April. Go join the queue. Behind SCO.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
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.
.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.)
However, the one thing we can relax on is that this doesn't affect
So, this isn't exactly a sky-is-falling situation, but it's shysters trying to make a quick buck off of patent law....
I just patented freaking letters and numbers. So I am going to sue everyone! Sheesh!
I've already patented the letters U, R, and L! After Microsoft patented 1's and 0's [http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatent s.html], I had to find a way to get even! Now, they can't even spell their own name without paying me.
Oh yeah, and CmdrTaco owes me $0.10 every time he says "CmdrTaco". And $0.50 every time the name "slashdot" appears.
OK since when can we patent how URLs and email addresses are assigned? That is the most bullshit non-sense I've ever seen to this day! Whoever is approving these patents needs to be taken out back of their home and shot!
This space is not for rent.
Is the company named SCO???
Darl would be proud!
Fight on, brave righteous patent warriors!
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
I think that the next patent that ought to be pursued in court is the symbolic representation of language as phonetically derived characters. 'Twas recently discovered to be the proerty of a company forming just next week, to assume such rights.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
hen I first saw this, I thought it was a hoax! But its mentioned a few times on google already.
A brief check on the authors shows that there isn't much on the web about these guys.
Troy Javaher is listed as being at ICANN 99 here, and the other guy here.
Dotmd is a strange site
Either way... When did the business model "I created a patent just so I could sue you" a socially acceptable business practice? I have no love for register.com, but I don't think that this is an acceptable thing to do to anyone.
Anybody can sue anyone about anything. It's only newsworthy if there's a slightest shred of the plaintiff winning.
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
No, its the USPTO this time.
Only the money ladden will survive.
Unless all computers in the world switch to Roman numerals soon, India will become the world's wealthiest nation soon!
All your favorite sites in one place!
..and I feel fine.
Seriously, old fat women that go to Wal-Mart and fall on the wet floor have made their way to IT.
Just they are now heads of companies, heads that somehow rocketed up the company's ass so far that they cannot see reality.
*sigh*
STEEEEMPY, YOU EEEDIOT
Am I the only one that thinks the patent system is out of control. I thought patents were designed to further scientific knowledge for the betterment of mankind or something like that. Now there are cases where research is being hindered because you're not allowed to use prior patented research. Patents helped a lot of scientists in the early days make a living but now it is just a way to strengthen megacorps. It disgusts me when a big company is sold not because of anything produced by it or because of it's quality of it's employees but because of the size of it's patent library. Changes need to be made.
I would like to salute the ashes of american flags, and all the fallen leaves filling up shopping bags.
These guys are morons. They patent a technology and sue with groundless accusations. Usually when a company claims patent infringement, they try to find a small defenseless company in hope they can set precident. These guys? They go after NetSol and Register.com, two companies with enough legal firepower to make just about any company disappear.
This will be a fun one to watch.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Also be a great example to the EU of what not to allow.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
"GNR manages the registry, and they're also potential infringers"
G'nR ?? I thought they broke up when Slash went solo.
Take me down
To the paradise city
Where the grass is green
And the girls are pretty
Sweet Jebus, is this article for real?!?! This makes Amazon's whiny militance about the 1-Click patent look like the wisdom of King Solomon.
What's next...lawsuits claiming infringement on the I.P. rights of the air we're breathing? Jupiter's own Ganymede is going to sue our Moon, claiming that it was first with the "orbiting satellite" patent? Why don't I slap my own brand-name sticker on the friggen _neutron_?
Can't stop the Beta? Time to evacuate to ##altslashdot at webchat.freenode.net - Slashcott in effect.
Oh, my God... how in the blue fucking hell did these two clowns get a patent for this shit????
I knew the USPTO was full of 'tards, but this just takes the fucking cake.. Only a freaking chimpanzee could think this patent deserved to be granted... no, wait, I take that back... a moderately intelligent chimp could see through this...
AAaaagggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! These fools are gonna cause me to pull every last hair I have out of my head....
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
I ran a BBS in the late 1990's that was the first to provide internet e-mail at the time. I did it by piggybacking folks off the real internet provider at the time called EFN. People e-mailing my people had to send e-mail in a similiar fashion as I recall. I wish I could recall it exactly [its been a long long timt ago] but this is hardly new. I think it was daf.stargazer@efn.org became daf@stargazer locally. This is hardly something they need to fear!
Bush: Saddam Hussein must be stopped.
You: Hussein wouldn't have any affiliation with Microsoft would it???
Someone: Hitler was one of the most evil men alive.
You: Hmm. Hitler wouldn't have any affiliation with Microsoft would it???
So I guess what I'm saying here is that you are truly a nerd, my man. A bit of a kook in that you seem to think MS is out to get you, but nerdly none the less. I salute you.
From the patent documentation:
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.
...and see for yourself how techno-jargon and a tremendous effort at obfuscation through over-complexity passed this patent through the filter. CowboyNeal's pithy sentence describes the near totality of the patent yet the patent itself spews reams of steps, trivia, and jargon to hide as well as possible the actual application of the patent. What a bunch of bullshit!
I think there ought to be penalties for the use of these nuisance patents. A judge then could not only strike down the patent's validity (which will obviously happen here), but could also impose a heavy fine to deter this kind of litigious crap from happening.
Hacking articles at http://www.geocities.com/chroo
So, anyone have a website log or e-mail from before November 23,1999?
:)
Damn, and this whole Slashdot thing starting on Nov 24th. We're hosed!!
End Sarcasm.
MailBank (Now NetIdentity) has been doing exactly this since 1996. I don't see these cretins getting very far.
yes, however
'alphanumeric symbols combined to create grammatical constructs on the internet'
will probably be OK.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I hope here in Europe we do not import the US stupid Patent problems.
The only way round this is for US citizens to lobby US congresmen to change the patent laws to something sensible. Also publishizing things like this in the popular press is a good idea.
To the citizens of the US - Do you really want to live in a country where these IP pirates disrupt all? Where they in effect steal monies from businesses (who will pass the loss onto the customer)? You live in a democracy - do something about it!
Web Sig: Eddy Currents
With apologies if it's been posted before..
The Prior-Art-O-Matic
Patent Description: Method for protecting inventions from being replicated by others, allowing the inventor a monopoly on their production. Yay, I just patented the patent. I ownerz the USPTO! Now stupid bastards can't patent obviously prior art ideas!
The Patent was issued on November 23 1999.
Somehow I don't think its going to take a miracle to find prior art here.
I think the USPO could really do with being staffed by people with Common Sense(tm).
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
The patent application was filed in 1999. Reading through the text of the patent, it describes something completely different: an email-to-fax/telephone/snail mail gateway and not the idea of having blah@foo.bar
My guess is this is someone trying to prove how idiotic the USPTO is.
Mmmm.. Donuts
The first was in the 1890's when the Supreme Court gave corporations Eminent Domain which meant they had the rights of citizens but without the consequences.
The second was in the 1980's when they relaxed the patent process for software. Up till that time, software was considered to be nothing more than mathematical formulas which could not be patented.
How I long for the glory days!
Filed: November 23, 1999
The patent abstract just screams "email addresses", which were (IIRC) widely popular & known about prior to 23 Nov. 1999.
This is why I hate the language used in patents & other legel documents - they are purposly obfuscated so that the patent is granted, when if it clearly stated "email addresses and URLs", it wouldn't get a second glance. And then we get more stupid litigation.
Join moola.com, play games to earn money.
Why is this a good thing? Because this time, the fake-patenters got overzealous and attacked someone who actually has the legal resources to fight back. If they get smashed (and I hope they do) it will create a legal precedence that will make this practice much harder to do in the future.
One more example of why this country needs a loser pays legal system and capped awards. It's become so bad that if you have anything of value it's almost assured someone is going to come up with some way to sue you for it. Odds are they'll get something too. They may have no chance of winning but it's often cheaper just to settle with them. If the individual/company doesn't settle and they go to court... there's still some chance they'll some yahoo judge or jury to side with them and get a huge payout. So even if they sue 10 times and win once it still pays off. This nonsense is killing business, driving jobs overseas, raising insurance prices, and prices on everything in general. You make the loser pay that cuts some of that off. You put REASONABLE caps on awards you cut of some more. I really don't want to sudo finance idiots that do stupid things, sue, and end up getting rich because of it anymore. Of course there are times when something happens that's so outragous huge judgement are justified.. so in that case you have some panel of judges that examines these cases and comes up with something suitable. Of course this is probably wishful thinking to think this would ever happen. Trial lawyers are getting rich off this crap now and they have a bought a whole lot of political influence in the Democratic party and Republicans are too afraid to take them on (who wants to get in a fight with a lawyer.. not to mention ALL of them).
Back in the days, before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals was created by corporations and Reagan, Patent Examiners used to be able to reject patent claims.
Sometimes, when someone files claims as blindingly obvious as these, the Examiners would be permitted to reject the claims as an "obvious design choice". This was something appropriate to do when the choice made by the "inventor" did not add any new functionality to the thing sought to be patented, but was merely shuffling around design features that did nothing in and of themselves.
That is exactly what is happening here with these claims. The naming scheme here is no more functional than is a scheme of naming your own children.
Hey, here is a patent claim for ya that I just made up!
1. A method comprising: a set of parents naming their first child Thomas, their second child Zebedee, and their third child Squeamish.
Since a patent examiner looking at such a claim could not find a "motivation" in the "prior art" for one to name their children those precise names in that exact order, one could easily get a patent.
Time to name the Enemy: the Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. They are the malfeasors who have tied the hands of the US Patent Examiners so that they can no longer apply the laws of obviousness, but instead have to jump through absurd hoops looking for "motivation" to do that which take zero mental effort, like.... naming URLs (or kids, for that matter).
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
...when someone obtains a ridiculous patent, gets some goofy Federal judge (and there are plenty of those) to uphold it in such a way to completely devastate an industry or even adversly affect the whole American economy.
;-)
It's like the Iraq WMD situation... except this time they're waiting for someone to drop the Big One before doing something about it.
Of course if I'm the one with the patent, then everything will be OK.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
All IP law needs a complete reworking. Patents should be limited to no more than 5 years (with perhaps 5 more with a renewal - only one allowed), and at the most, copyrights should last no more than 40 years past creator's death (or if corporate owned, 40 years from creation).
And so on...
Christopher S. 'coldacid' Charabaruk -- coldacid.net
I I NIHIL I I NIHIL NIHIL I I NIHIL
;)
DEFECTVS SEGMENTATIONIS
Svre, i can manage that. Lvcky that I, as one, live in Italy
Once we've settled the prior art dispvte vvith the Greeks (damn their alphas and betas, by Jove, vve'll have to invade them again), ovr nation shall rise again!
All your ascii are belong to vs.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
URLs start with the "http://" prefix, or probably more correctly "|protocol|://" prefix.
They have a domain name there, that is all, not a URL.
If they get the terminology wrong in a patent, does that mean it is invalid, because the "inventor" doesn't understand the topic well enough to be explicitly correct ? I would have thought patents have to be explicitly correct, as the government is granting the patent holder a monopoly, and therefore, the patent must be very clear and correct.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
How can they be underfunded when they're the ONLY government department that makes money? That boggles my mind. :)
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
Maybe they need to change their own rules so they can reject a patent "with prejudice" just like the courts and do with stupid cases. That would mean the idea is dead and gone and won't ever come back. Maybe they should publish such things too.
Any person (examiner) who approves a patent this bad should be forced to stand unprotected in the (newly established) "stoning court" outside the USPTO should their patent failt the slash-dot "that's really stupid" test.
The only thing(s) the patent examiner may use as a shield are the materials he gathered together that he can demonstrate are in support the patent, or the bodies of the person or persons who submitted the patent in the first place. The attendence of those persons is mandatory.
The galery has one half of one hour to act as they see fit... stones varing in size from golf-ball to basketball will be amply provided by the FTC.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I completely fail to see how one can patent the use of domain names in this fashion. That strikes me like patenting the concept that a "record" corresponds to a physical object, citing an employee table as an example.
Obviously this patent was never examined by anyone with enough neurons to spark a thought.
Maybe it's time companies affected by these nonsense "patents" start suing the patent office to recover costs and damages for defending against such garbage.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
..so then how exactly did this get through?
All your machinery are belong to me!
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
I just wish my country (Denmark) had a patent-law that could help business' like the american patent-law.
It's clear to me that this patent helps "stimulate the inventive genius" and makes it possible for companies to do do research that would never be done without the patent-law, thus helping the community at large.
SLOGEN [ http://ungdomshus.nu : Sebastian cover music]
Fortunately, BIND treats name.subdomain.domain as an email address for name@subdomain.domain, and I'd be really really surprised to see these Bozos get away with claiming that they were doing this prior to BIND's existence, since it's the canonical DNS server implementation since about a decade before their alleged invention. Also, the IAHC IETF Ad-Hoc Committee, which was trying to do a set of new TLDs (unsuccessful politically) before ICANN was formed to pretend to address the same problem, had proposed a ".nom" gTLD which is substantially similar to ".name" - Their report was in February 1997, and it had been discussed widely in the mailing lists that many of the skilled practitioners hung out in for a while before that.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
At least one specific recommendation by a governing body for using hostmaster.example.com. as a DNS label to represent "hostmaster@example.com" can be found here, published well before this patent was filed.
This can also be seen in RFC 1912 (section 2.2), published in 1996.
These muppets have patented something published in one of the very standards they should be familiar with.
- J
I have been reading with interest the latest (as in the last year or so) patents that you have been granting. I am suprised at your responses and view many having prior art.
I believe that you have a serious problem with your "prior-art" database. I think you should get onto your DBA to sort out why when I enter "URL" in the search field it returns "0 results found."
Karem
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
I propose an IPR-based world domination plan:
Oh wait! the USA started implementing this plan already a decade ago...
Here is one example of what actually does happen when this plan is in action: When someone tries to apply for a real, innovative, detailed patent in another country, say EU for example, it will be rejected by the EU patent office because of an existing over-broad US "patent" which "covers everything". Perhaps patents from overly lax countries should be considered less valid by default?
P.S. Here's my prior art contribution for this bogus patent: IKI.FI, a non-profit society, has been doing since 1995 what they claim to have invented in 1999. I wrote a page about this at http://www.iki.fi/iki/faq/boguspatent6671714.html so it's easy to find when googling with the patent number.