Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USPTO Grants CA Lawyer Domain-Naming Patent

Posted by timothy on from the sure-why-not-it's-only-a-patent dept.

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?"

10 of 387 comments (clear)

  1. USPTO, by Xandu · · Score: 4, Funny

    you have pissed us off too many times.
    Prepare to be slashdotted.

    --


    --Xandu
  2. Re:DUPE. by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 4, Funny
    If *I* can remember that this worthless story was a dupe why can't they?
    Ohh! I know! Let me, let me! How's this:
    Because the "Editors" don't actually read Slashdot
    Is that it? Did I get it right?
    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  3. Re:DUPE. by RagManX · · Score: 5, Funny

    I didn't think it was a dupe, I thought the USPTO had done it again. :)

    While I was shocked recently to read that the USPTO awarded this patent, imagine how shocked I was today to read that they had awarded it *AGAIN* to someone. I wonder if the two guys who got it will sue each other now?

    RagManX

  4. We need a new law tool: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Case dismissed, suing party shot for being total asshole."

  5. Re:USPS Needs a Major Overhaul by Queuetue · · Score: 4, Funny

    What do you have against the the postal service?

  6. Re:Prior art has to be out there... by RealityMogul · · Score: 4, Funny

    A couple years ago the patent office lost a legal battle over their use of a rubber stamp with the word "DENIED" on it. Apparently someone had a patent on the device, and the USPTO was in violation.

  7. Re:DUPE. by nate1138 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Did you hear the REAL reason that goatse.cx was taken down?

    Darl McBride fell down in a Walmart, spilling his scalding hot coffee on his (very shrivelled) member. He got so hopping mad he called David Boies and said "SUE EVERYBODY". In the resulting shitstorm, a Cease and Decist was accidentally sent to goatse.cx.

    And that's how it happened.

    --
    Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
  8. Re:DUPE. by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Funny
    Because the "Editors" don't actually read Slashdot

    Have a heart, they're probably all sharing Cmdr Taco's (56kbps) pipe.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  9. Re:DUPE. by rainmanjag · · Score: 4, Funny

    I know. I'll patent "A method of annoying Slashdot readers by publishing articles about the same exact event twice." That way, it will be illegal to have dupes!

    -jag

    --
    http://starboard.flowtheory.net/
  10. Re:Prior art has to be out there... by gosand · · Score: 4, Funny
    A couple years ago the patent office lost a legal battle over their use of a rubber stamp with the word "DENIED" on it. Apparently someone had a patent on the device, and the USPTO was in violation.


    So they obviously switched to the un-patented "APPROVED" one, and all is running smoothly...

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.