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?"
And I warned the "On Duty" editor, but i guess they're just asleep at the wheel.
All we need now are:
1) references to the McDonalds coffee lawsuit
2) SCO jokes
3) a comparison to Falling down at Walmart
4) Posts bemoaning the loss of Goatse
And it'll be a typical Wednesday morning on Slashdot!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
...already, when two Australians copyrighted all phone numbers way back in 2001.
libertarianswag.com
Link to patent text
Its not like the patent office don't deserve a good slashdotting.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
When I worked for an ISP many years ago (Galaxy Star Systems), we did that very thing with the domain "tulsa.net". We put their webpages at hostname.tulsa.net. Any email to hostname.tulsa.net was forwarded to their single email account.
We're talking 1995 technology here, and it was obvious at the time.
I'll just link to my previous comment ;^)
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
How about the US Government? This is how all .mil address are done, AFAIK. the domains are structured base.branchofservice.mil, and all email address associated with them are structured as fname.lname@base.BOS.mil. That being the case, this method of domain name assignment is as old as the internet itself, since DARPA used this method while setting up ARPANet way back in the 70s. This begs the question of 'How the hell did this patent get approved?'
I have no regrets, this is the only path.
My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
Get angry, folks, and tell these people what you think. Hell hath no fury like a Slashdotter.
Frank Weyer,
Beverly Hills patent attorney
also the founder of EveryMD.com
EveryMD.com
323/874-2567
866-EveryMD (866/383-7963)
fweyer@everymd.com
His address:
264 S. La Cienega Blvd., #1224, Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Everyone thinks the McDonalds lawsuit was an example of how litigation has gotten out of control. Read the site and then tell me how frivolous third degree burns are.
I missed posting on version one of this story (doing work... frustrating how that gets in the way) so I'm posting my prior art example here.
My personal email address for a long time has been with MailBank.com (now called NetIdentity.com). This is how their ENTIRE BUSINESS has been working since 1996: you pay them (yearly) to get email/web addresses using your last name; they own domains like smith.net, and they give you (supposing your name is bubba):
bubba@smith.net
http://bubba.smith.net
Again, the operative year is 1996 (I got my email from them in 97 or 98).
There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
www.netidentity.com have been doing this since at least 1998 when I got my account with them.
In the US, I guess it's mainly the EFF and FSF, but I'm not very familiar with the situation there.
Donate free food here
1. The only requirement is that you disclose any prior art that you know about when filing.
2. Yes. If you don't it's fraud.
3. It's up to the patent office and anyone contesting the patent to find the prior art.
If it weren't for the cost of litigating a patent this wouldn't be a problem.
But it is.
When working in UK Local Government a few years ago, we moved from an obscure ICL email system to Exchange 5 then 5.5.
In the documentation that came with Exchange back then was an example on how exchange sites could be linked together with a domain structure identical to what you said. They even used london.domain.com and sydney.domain.com in those examples.
Java gaming nut - http://www.retep.org/ or for the rail http://uktra.in/
IANAPL, but from the above, it appears that the patent only applys to "Licensed professionals" i.e drbob@doctors.com url: drbob.doctors.com
and the patent does not apply to me, as the only licence I have is for driving
__
Sigs are like arse-holes, everybody has one
Many choose to simply submit the patent and let the PTO verify prior art. In this case I suspect the prior art search by the examiners resulted in three sites:
- Webpage: Netfirms, Sep. 1998.*
- Webpage: Freeyellow.com, Apr., 1998.*
- Webpage: switchboard.com, Jun. 1996.*
I believe that is what the asterisk entails, I could be wrong... How this patent made it past the obvious I am not clear on. Lord knows most patents sit in the quagmire of the PTO's review system for what seems like an eternity only to be rejected on something like obviousness and prior art.The patent (6,671,714) is a worth read.
I know I did not address your points directly but the nature of the examination is such where this is a gray area. The courts are supposed to be the final filter, seemingly making it guilty before innocents... when it comes to property rights infringements.
He's managed to get a patent for RFC 1034.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1034.html
Hmmm. That RFC is from 1987. Could it be... prior art?
I think we can safely ignore this USPTO faux pas.
USPTO, you have pissed us off too many times.
/.ers might like to note first, that the filing date of the application leading to this wretched patent was Nov 23, 1999, so anything done in 2000 can't be relied on as prior art.
Prepare to be slashdotted.
This sure does look to me like yet another patent without any apparent ingenuity at all.
But before getting ignored by the USPTO,
Second, the subject of the patent appears to be the coordinated allocation of email addresses and matching web addresses, such as an email address of willrobinson@physicians.org, along with a web address of http://willrobinson.physicians.org.
While I would personally agree that this is a case of 'Eureka - not!', that won't cut any ice at the USPTO. In reality, evidence of relevant prior art would be needed to take this out.
The prior art would include (a) anything that was used in the US or published in print before 23 Nov 1998, (b) anything used in the US or published in print in the period 11/23/98-11/22/99 -- except insofar as the 'inventors' don't prove that they 'invented' it first, and (c) anything 'invented' in the US before the named inventors did it, whenever that was.
-wb-
Domains / Sub Domains.
That's why we have terms like TLD, nth level domain, et al.
Friggin' DNS was DESIGNED to do this. Use of DNS for Child / Parent domains should NOT be patentable. Regardless of the cutesy little twist on the application of inherits functionality.
Has no one EVER setup a server and had it handle email for sa@servername.domain.net? What's the difference between this a surname? Joe@smith.mydomain.com or Joe@smith.com?
Prior art issues aside, this is like patenting chewing when someone uses a fork. [See Icon]
The patent office, besides looking for prior art, should at least grasp the technologies that patents being applied for are based upon.
Many "No Crap, You Morons!" [NCYM} issues expressed by opponents of SW patents are because the requested patent is a direct benefit of the insight and forward thinking thoughtfulness of the online community when designing standards, protocols, and the like.
This is patently absurd.
/me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
The patent claims functionality that IKI.FI, among others, has been providing publicly for thousands of users since 1995.
IKI.FI has a web page that documents the prior art for the patent 6,617,714.
It should be a no brainer for the courts to deal with this one. Basically, as I understand it, a patent may not be granted if prior art exists. Given that the DNS and email have existed in some form or another for a long time now, and predating the original application date of this patent, the USPTO ought not to have granted it to begin with. However, from what I have read about the total disarray at the USPTO, it is not surprising that this amde it through. Apparently, they are so overwhelmed they just pull out a rubber stamp if no one opposes the application. Heck, I believe it was slashdotted when a lawyer, as an object example of how silly the system has become, had his child file for, and receive a patant on the swing.
It is obvious as you say.
The problem is with the USPTO's argument. If it is so obvious, then why didn't anyone do it earlier? Thus you need prior art to invalidate it.
The USPTO is badly broken.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Mailbank.com at Archive.org, Nov. 11, 1998.
Just send me my reward money now. I've been using those domain hijackers for years for email/web.
Isn't :
First Name . Middle . Last Name
A pre-existing work?