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?"

8 of 387 comments (clear)

  1. DUPE. by mekkab · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  2. Link To Patent Text by Mateito · · Score: 5, Informative

    Link to patent text

    Its not like the patent office don't deserve a good slashdotting.

  3. We did that back in '95... by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  4. Re:Prior art has to be out there... by YomikoReadman · · Score: 5, Informative

    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"
  5. Contact Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  6. What it will take to challenge by waterbear · · Score: 4, Informative

    USPTO, you have pissed us off too many times.
    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, /.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.

    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-

    1. Re:What it will take to challenge by tonyr60 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well this appears to be an example oif prior art...

      http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0799.txt?number=0799

      And dated September 1981!

  7. Netidentity/Mailbank, since 1996 Prior Art found by HDlife · · Score: 4, Informative
    Here it is, exactly, in 1998 at Mailbank.

    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.