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?"
Freeserve and Demon at the very least in the uk.... I got robb@embers-fire.freeserve.co.uk a long long time ago.....
This really needs to be a presidential election issue. I'll vote for whoever says they will end Internet Technology patents.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
It's most definitely a case of "Hey, I wonder if I can nab this now and later screw the world out of their money..." Though when it comes right down to the letter of his patent, how can he sue Network Solutions and Registrar.com? THEY'RE not the ones who's actually DOING the process - all they're doing is lining up domains with IP addresses. It's all of the individual websites and ISPs that are supposedly infringing his patent - at least, the ones that set up e-mail and websites the way he describes.
This case won't stand up in court, and for it to stand up at all, it would have to be against an ISP or organization that assigns URLs and e-mails in the precise fashion his patent states - like my old website (now defunct) guy.thetaint.org with my e-mail having had been guy@thetaint.org.
Thi is yet the latest example pointing out that the USPS is woefully ill equipped to deal with software and Internet relted papents. A completely new process and new staff are going to be required, but who in COngress will take up the cause. It will take some large companies (IBM, Cisco, Microsoft) banding together and raising a ruckus to fix this.
Which raises some questions that perhaps someone with IP legal knowledge can address:
I think the message is pretty clear after all these stories: a lot of really dumb patents are granted.
Is this just a minor side effect of a basically beneficial system that will simply work itself out as the patents are challenged? Or does this have to be fought?
If this is something that needs fighting, it would be good to know who is doing this, either on a grassroots level or as elected officials.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Has anyone ever tried that? It would appear the patent office is not providing the service it advertises. In fact, one could argue the patent office isn't even providing the service at all. Of course lawyers may argue otherwise, but when the US patent office fails so miserably to catch large glaring errors like these, it is a disservice to everyone.
Seeing a dupe story isn't going to do anything more than cause you 5 minutes or less of inconvenience and considering Slashdot is provided free-for-everyone I don't think that slashdotters have any right to complain.
I'm not trying to be a troll and I'm not trying to insult you, but jeez, cut slashdot a break.
I like my women how I like my sugar.. granulated.
Someone should patent something politicians use and the sue. Then things will change.
Some internet fundraising method? Patent it and sue whoever uses your patented idea. That's what patents are all about.
Are we reaching a point where every RFC should be submitted as a patent application, just to prevent others from doing it than suing everyone who follows a standard?
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
URLs don't come in the form "name.subdomain.domain". According to the syntax for URLs in RFC2396, a URI (or URL) starts with the scheme (like http). So the patent should be about assigning URLs in the form "http://name.subdomain.domain/". The patent should be summarily thrown out for being incorrect.
main(O){10<putchar((O--,102-((O&4)*16| (31&60>>5*(O&3)))))&&main(2+ O);}
LN2 is cool!
Reading this article, and the many that came before on the subject of "silly patents", the following occurs to me:
... so how's it done?", lift me into god-like status, blinding all those in a three-mile radius around me with my sheer brilliance.
/. frontpage belong to some arcane subgroup of humanity the members of which should strike through one, if not both of the "sapiens" following the implied description of their species.
- There is hardly a workday that passes where I am not called upon to come up with several solutions to problems that, by the standards given by this patent, are eminently patentable.
- The solutions I come up with that make me happy, about once a fortnight - meaning that I drink my next cup of coffee with a smile - are pure fucking genius, and by rights ought to make me richer than Bill.
- The solutions I come up with, about once every couple of months, where I actually wave my co-workers over and go "lookit this!", and am disappointed if they don't go "neeet!
The fact that the people in my immediate environment are not blind tells me either A) that, in fact, most people working in IT have gained this god-like status and are immune to the blinding light, or B) that the people who came up with those patents that do hit the
/end rant
Well, at least guys like this make SCO feel less alone in the world.
yes, we have no bananas
"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-
Firstly, this story is a dupe. Secondly, as was pointed out in the first story, what you (and the patent) describe has been common practice since the beginning of DNS, so it should not be a problem finding prior art. What is a problem is that the USPTO seems so intent on allowing clueless morons make such important decisions about technology patents. They really need to be reviewed by people who are "sufficiently skilled in the art" so that patents on thinsg which are obvious to such people (or known by them to be previously done / common practice ) will no longer be granted.
I am getting really tired of this pattern of
1) Find something a lot of people are already doing
2) File for a patent describing just that
3) Sue everyone
4) ???
5) Profit!
We need to make doing this a federal crime punishable by hundreds of years in pound-me-in-the-ass prison or else we will continue to suffer the consequences.