Slashdot Mirror
USPTO Grants CA Lawyer Domain-Naming Patent
SpecialAgentXXX writes "Geek.com reports
that as of Dec 30, 2003, CA lawyer Frank Weyer holds patent #6,671,714
which is '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.' He's now, in SCO-like fashion, suing Network
Solutions and Register.com for infringing on his patent. This is
nonsense. My friend who ran for political office in 2000 used this exact naming scheme for his web site. All of us here
can see how asinine this is. Will our legal system?"
This is all offtopic, I know. So sue me (no, not you, SCO)
McLie #1: They have stated thath they did this because they received more complaints with lowered temperatures than they did with the high ones. They are in the business of pleasing the majority of their customers.
McLie #2: Same as #1, basically. 700 incidents out of the millions of cups of coffee they sell EVERY DAY. That's a pretty good record.
McLie #3: 3rd degree burns to her groin? Well, the "groinal" skin is more sensitive than much other skin, so WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU KEEP COFFEE THERE, not to mention the same coffee on, say, your hand, would not have caused the same burns.
McLie #4: Had she not been a fucking idiot (see "groin != cup holder"), she would not have had those injuries. What happened to survival of the fittest? The unfit hire lawyers.
McLie #5: Same statement as #1 & #2 -- If you are trying to make a point that is "obvious," don't use the same point three times.
McLie #6: is a statement of the result of the jury. The jury is only allowed to hear information both sides lawyers' allow to be said, so a jury's verdict does not show the reality of the case (even though its legal finality)
McLie #7: This is a counter-argument, pointing out that the old woman didn't deserve the full amount she got.
McLie #8: This isn't even an argument, it's a summary and incidental facts that only matter because the person spilled coffee in her own lap.
The last sentence basically says "be careful." If that stupid bitch had been careful at first, she wouldn't have had any problems. No, this is still a case of someone suing due to their own stupidity.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of McCrappy's, but I hate frivolous-lawsuit apologists more. Geez, use your McBrain, if you have one.