Slashdot Mirror
Subdomains Part Of The Patent Frenzy
Colonel Angus writes "Web Hosting Industry is carrying a story about a company called Ideaflood that has been sending out letters to web hosting firms claiming that they own a patent on subdomains and are claiming a license needs to be purchased to continue to use them. This is reminding me of the hyperlink patent from a couple years back." Maybe Frank Weyer will ask them to wrestle.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
From the article:
"Business method patents that cover software programs weren't legal until a few years ago," Dicig says, "so there is no comprehensive way for the PTO to search for software and computer-related technology that's already been invented, other than that described in patents and published applications. For instance, if the patent office didn't know about WordPerfect 1, it could issue a patent on word processing because it has no way to know that word processing was already invented."
I'm sorry, but this is just a ridiculous argument. Firstly, the USPTO must use technology to some degree, so if someone visited "news.yahoo.com" two years before this patent was ever issued, they've got their prior art right there.
Secondly, what kind of organisation is restricted to only doing research with its own prior body of work? Can you imagine if every doctor in the country called the CDC when they saw their first flu patient? (Doctor: Quick! There's this new disease I've never seen before and it completely debilitates the patient!)
As I said, just ridiculous.
libertarianswag.com
Ya know, up until I saw this I was against blanket tort reform (ya know, the price of overreaction and such).
Screw it. I'm overreacting.
However, some little rational side of me asks this question: Do patent laws really have this much teeth? Some evidence I've been seeing lately implies it may not...
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
The problem with the patent office is the same problem we have: They can't be experts in everything.
The reason software patents makes me sick is because although I can keep track of whether or not I'm copying from anyone, I can't keep track of all the possibilities of all the patents I may someday be accused of violating.
The patent office itself has the same problem. They can tell if someone else patented the same thing (did they copy?) but they simply don't have resources to tell if some technical thing has ever occured before.
Sure, we all know about domains, but we're computer nerds. Most people in the patent office could probably not make that claim, just as they couldn't claim to be automobile designers or materials scientists.
TW
It sure isn't helping anything that what's *legal* varies from what's *ethical*. And then combine that with a clueless USPTO and a pile of ambulance-chasers...
Sorry, just had to vent it; I'm pissed.
C|N>K
I think the PTO should be sued every time a patent that has caused problems becomes invalid after a court case. Then it might just give them an incentive to actually DO their job. Actually, I think the individual examiners should be held responsable; then they're really have an incentive to do it right!
AC comments get piped to
http://www.uspto.gov/
g =english&p_d=trmk
On the left side, under the 'Patents' column:
'Status' link: http://pair.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/final/home.pl
and under 'Trademarks':
'Status' link: http://tarr.uspto.gov/
'Search' link: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=login&p_lan
So, how long have those been up? Does the USPTO understand what this patent means? It means that even the patent office is in violation of this patent, if it is valid.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Open-Source Patent Examination anyone?
AC comments get piped to
Ah, but you miss an important point - USPTO grants patents because its also a source of income (and a pretty good one at that).
Its not their duty to make sure that its upheld - if its not, its _your_ problem - as an applicant.
However, within the limited scope of their resources (and intellect), they issue as many patents as they can simply because they can. If its a bad one, its going to be dragged to court at some point or the other and shot dead. If not, great, you have great IP on your hands.
Ofcourse, I can see the flaw in this that corporates can bully the less powerful - but hey! Thats corporate Amerika for you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
> They can't be experts in everything.
:)
:)
I dunno. It seems anymore they aren't experts in ANYTHING.
One would like to think that with their 6,500 employees and 1.3 billion dollar budget (in 2003) there would be at least ONE person that actually reads the applications would have some basic awareness of the world and be able to react appropriately. Or hell, even ask a question.
6,500 people is simply too great a number for the entire organization to be so grossly ignorant. There has to be ONE person at least, right?
What I want to know is: what kind of moronic lawyers pick up cases like this?
Win or lose, they get paid... you don't have to be a good lawyer to get paid. Some lawyers find it hard to get a case at all, so they will jump through hoops on command if someone offers them enough money to do it.
5468652047616D65
That's prior art of a domain being specified. This patent is about automatically creating a subdomain for each user. The difference? I imagine they had to do some significant work to make their server do that at the time it was filed. Good patent? Eh I don't think so. But it doesn't shock me a whole lot that it was granted.
The real question is: Should patenting how a website works be allowed? Should you be able to patent using a bunch of features together for a spcific result? In the physical world, I can see that... but in the digital world, well that's a heck of a lot tougher to answer.
I remember a few years ago somebody told me that a company (RCA?) patented drawing a single character on a TV. That's right, if you made a TV that told you on-screen what channel you were on, you had to license it. It seems so ABSURD these days. Back then, though, they were the first to do it, and it was probably a rather tough situation to solve seeing as how they had to design circuits for it for the first time. I bet back then the general thought was "uhh... but TVs show characters if they're part of the broadcast!" It really did change how TVs work, though.
I'm not really sure how I feel about this topic. I can see the value in patents. I mean, if I do some grunt work that would benefit everybody, and have a patent to insure that I get paid for it, well it really makes me want to innovate. But, at the same time, if I want to go do something obvious and I step on somebody else's toes... well gee. That makes me NOT want to go into that market at all. Does 'fixing' the patent system create winners or losers?
"Derp de derp."
If I'm not mistaken, its pretty darned hard to patent facts - the only exception I know of is the patenting of genome sequences.
.0000e-34343 does not require skill, and is neither new nor non-obvious.
One of the criteria for patents is that your invention should be new and non-obvious to someone who is skilled in that area - unfortunately, even a highschool kid can prove that 7 or 2+5 or even
I'll quote from this site -
You can not patent a scientific principle, an abstract theorem, an idea, a method of doing business, a computer program or a medical treatment.
The thing is that _even_ if you did get around patenting that stuff, you would not really stand a chance because just about everyone else will go ahead and use it. What are you going to do? Sue half the population of America for using 7?
Your case will simply be thrown out.
Patents are usually filed for credit and as a _defense_ - its unfortunate that shitty bastards like Ideaflood abuse the system. But there is nothing they can do, really.
When the whole world has adopted the system, and when they cannot prove with absolute certainty that they were the first to come up with the idea, their idea will be thrown out.
Let's get real. This is completely silly.
I never said it isn't - its just inevitable, thats all. And unfortunate too, ofcourse.
While you are cleaning up with patent reform, please don't forget copyright reform too: reduce the length and increase fair use please :).
The hardest part is finding egregious examples that will make people rally behind the reform effort. Right now patent and copyright law / reforms seem to just bore the general public, need to make it clear how they are being harmed.
... loosely it's the non implemented idea called "loser pays". If someone brings suit and loses, they pay the opposing sides costs-along with their own of course. It, like most law reform ideas, has plusses and minuses.
..stupid.. that somehow this is a good thing for everyone. it ain't, it's only good for them. they shouldn't be passing millions of laws all the time, never (hardly) eliminating any already passed. Where's the outside limit on totality of laws passed? There ain't one..
:)
My idea is to bring back dueling, I think it would be cheaper and more effective. Simple attrition would eliminate a slew of over-litiginous bozos.
Another one I think, that lawyers don't like people to know about, would be to eliminate lawyers minimum fees schedules, making the profession less attractive, and to make it a conflict of interest for anyone with a law degree to be a member of a legislative body. That's a biggee to me, we have legislatures who's only job is totally in their self interest, the idea that by making society and government more complex and
now, to get back to dueling...
There used to be a set of requirements for the issuance of a patent. Something had to be 'not obvious to an expert in the field' before it became patentable. The USPTO in its current form has made a joke out of the patent system as a whole, and this one is a very clear example. I'm not even an expert in the field, but, i had my own email subdomain (mydomain.somedomain.com) more than 15 years ago. I've still got the reciepts to prove it, so, it will be acceptable as 'demonstrateable prior art' in just about any court in the world, except the courts of the usa. They have converted the patent system into a 'first to apply' concept rather than a 'first to innovate' concept. There is no longer any requirement for uniqueness, or innovation at the USPTO, just 'first'.
Patents like this one have devalued the system, and value of a real patent, to the point where the time is not far off that more countries are going to reject american patents wholesale. Since it's not possible to filter the mess for 'what is a good patent' and 'what is a bad patent', the whole lot is going to be rejected in total. I for one am already starting to plant the political seeds in my own country to do just that, and this little escapade is great fodder for the cannon. Politicians are not bright at the best of times, but even the densest of them can understand the concept when it's laid out to them. I had email by subdomains laid out and in operation 15 years ago, it's obvious. Today, suddenly it becomes 'licensable' by american patent laws. i dont need my business to be held for ransom by a foreign company that's in the business of 'legal extortion'. The only way we are going to stop this, is to get the ball rolling to make american patents invalid in our country, because today they are upheld.
The choice in this case is really up to american business. If you want patents to be upheld worldwide, put the value back in them, fix the system. Leave it unchecked with crap like this coming out of the system, and the rest of the world is gonna reject them. it's good for bypassing the crap like this patent, but it's very bad for real innovation that requires real expenditures in research and development.
This is actually a very fundamental issue in terms of IP laws and protections in a global economy. IP is protected thru patents, and, patents like this paint a very sour color on the whole lot of them. Acceptance of US patents in other countries is an all or nothing deal, and many places have chosen 'none'. I live in a country that has chosen 'all', but, that's going to change if the USPTO doesn't. It has to, because if we continue to honor every patent that comes out of the US patent office, it's only a matter of time till we have to pay a licensing fee just to breathe.
Look, the Patent Office is simply overwhelmed. I hear that the practice is supposed to end soon, but patent fees have been diverted to other government agencies, depriving the PTO of resources.
In the meantime, merely getting a patent can take 18 months. Again, I am told that a patent examiner can spend roughly twenty hours total on each application. That doesn't leave a lot of time for luxuries like common sense.
With constraints like that, is it any wonder that junk patents get through?
Open Standards Portal
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:19:46 -0800
From: Chris Cappuccio
To: steven@ideaflood.com
Subject: Subdomain Hosting
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
Hi Steve,
I am directly responsible for registering, hosting, and maintaining thousands of subdomains and other second level domains for educational, commercial, and government entities throughout the North American continent.
These include locality domains like sunriver.or.us, and other sub domains from my own top level domains.
I would like to enter a reasonable licensing scheme whereby I pay you exactly $0 for an unlimited license to use subdomains according to your idea.
If you do not agree to these terms, please initiate a lawsuit against me to assert your patent rights (or you will lose them!)
You may reach me at:
Chris Cappuccio
Network Media
130 NW Greenwood Ave.
Bend, OR 97701
Thank you for your time,
-c
1.chage it away from the current system where there is an incentive to pass patents (even crappy ones) quickly since that makes more $ for the PTO
2.hire experts in all the fields and make sure that every patent has been looked at by at least 2 experts in the field that it applies to (with all the out-of-work-techies, finding experts to examine computer & tech related patents should be easy enough)
3.implement a special "patent court" which is where patent lawsuits get heard. Implement a looser-pays system for this court (with the lawyers not allowed to charge anyone until the lawsuit has been resolved and with the looser paying the winners court costs). This would make it easier for the "little guy being trampled on by a frivioluous patent" to fight it instead of just giving in and settling.
4.If a patent is rejected (either initally or later in the patent court), the patent holder has to pay $$$ to the PTO.
and 5.Anyone should be able to go to the PTO and request that a patent be re-examined. If the prior art they are submitting is genuine and valid, the patent is declared invalid. If it isnt valid, the person requesting a re-evaluation must pay $$$ (this would discourage people making stupid requests). Again, if the patent is thrown out, the holder has to pay $$$ to the PTO.
Also, make it easier to submit patents in the first place (cheaper etc) so that those with genuinely patentable things can get the patent easier (because of the big costs if its thrown out, this wont lead to more stupid patents being submitted)
Also, change the rules about what can be patentable. In particular, remove any protection given to the patenting of a gene or a whole organisim.
Wrong on both counts. That fact that there are many infringers does not impair the validity of a patent. In fact, in one respect it strengthens the validity - nobody can claim that the patent has no practical utility, which is one possible challenge to a patent.
Once a patent has been issued, it is presumed valid. In other words, the patent holder is not required to "prove with absolute certainty" that he invented his invention - rather the burden is on infringers to show that someone else invented the invention, or find another means of invalidating the patent.
The patent system works to a better degree in many other countries - in the USA it is diminishing to the role of a legal trick to play on your competition.
Some time back a company patented a projection system based on the principles of a Victorian age stage magic trick - then said they were going to sue David Copperfield. There's too many people out there looking for a way to screw money out of people who did things before instead of selling a new product. The big problem is that a hugely financially successful US legal industry is not going to be able to give the country enough money to buy the innovative products from overseas, so taking these things too far is most definately sociopathic.
A big export of the USA of the day is innovation - the actual parts are made elsewhere. If you kill off the innovation you are left with a film industry that doesn't pay tax and does as much overseas as possible, subsidised agriculture, a dying manufacturing industry, military manufacturers that depend on taxes and not much else.
It would have helped if you had read and understood the patent in question before sending this email to them. Then maybe you could have been able to come up with an intelligently thought out reply instead of this completely off base garbage. It also would have helped if you had given then some idea what in the world you are talking about, because out of the context of this discussion I doubt anyone is going to be able to make much sense of that.
Come on, how ignorant must the USPTO be to allow something like this to get through? Subdomains, hyperlinks, and frames have been used long before the patents for them were ever drafted. Some companies, like ideaflood, probably didn't even exist when domains (and therefore subdomains) were created; RFC 882 was created in 1983 and obsoleted in 1987. I know that the USPTO can't have an expert investigation into every patent that is filed, but the situation is still unacceptable. The government needs to crack down on companies whose sole purpose is to file patents on commonly-used proceses and who make the majority of their profits off of lawsuits, as these companies only destroy the progression of our society and don't contribute in producing goods or services.
I also notice that nowhere in the article is there a www. in front of the websites. Does this mean that someone could interpret www as a subdomain and they're afraid of being sued?
Ah, well, there's a simple solution to that then. Change the rules so that they receive the income whether or not they approve the patent. The fees paid to them (and government budget allotted to them) should be based on how many patents they review, not how many they grant.
n/t *cough* Not Safe For Work you insensative clods *cough*
When companies like Ideaflood are formed that can be described as "Intellectual Property holding companies". Is it me or does that just sound wrong?
Squatting on stupid obvious patents is the same as squattng on stupid obvious domain names isnt it? This and the business plan of trading patents/ip for profit wasnt the intention of the patent system surely? so why hasnt this been fixed years ago? The patent system was supposed to give an incentive to innovate (which is debatable on its own) instead patents are just a commodety! Whats next? companies will start buying and selling jail time - you got jail? sell it to a company who will pay someone else _less_ money to take the sentence for you!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
although I can keep track of whether or not I'm copying from anyone, I can't keep track of all the possibilities of all the patents I may someday be accused of violating.
This is the single biggest proof that the patent system is broken.
Most people (here) know that the only reason that patents exist is to "promote progress in science and the useful arts." - So let's see how this is doing:
If you're a technology 'creator' (programmer, engineer, whatever) ask any patent lawyer, and he'll tell you not to go looking up patents, because it can get you into trouble.
So, if looking up patents can get you into trouble, how the hell is this promoting progress?!?!?!
The patent system is broken, plain and simple.