Akamai Wins Lawsuit to Protect Obvious Patent

brandaman writes "Akamai, the largest content delivery network (CDN) with about 70% market share, recently won its lawsuit against the against second largest CDN - Limelight Networks. The suit asserted that Limelight was infringing on Akamai's patent which, upon examination, seems to be somewhat on the obvious side. 'In accordance with the invention, however, a base HTML document portion of a Web page is served from the Content Provider's site while one or more embedded objects for the page are served from the hosting servers, preferably, those hosting servers near the client machine. By serving the base HTML document from the Content Provider's site, the Content Provider maintains control over the content.' Limelight is obviously not pleased, and this is not the first lawsuit Akamai has won regarding its patents."

Comments

I'm in trouble now.

[palegray.net]

I guess I'd better shut down BlogPuzzles.net immediately, since it obviously infringes on Akamai's patent. My site allows people to host a base HTML document, with embedded content (puzzles) being hosted on my servers. This is clearly unlicensed use of Akamai's intellectual property. While I'm at it, I'd better warn Google before they get involved in a real financial nightmare over content hosted on their servers and integrated into other peoples' websites. Now, where did I stick that attorney's phone number?

Re:What a ridiculous summary

[Rakishi]

It's even more interesting to watch the Netherlanders of Slashdot try to defend Mr. Holmes, I mean it's actually beyond hilarious just how much of an idiot you apparently are. Christ, you can't even comprehend the couple sentences in my original post much less the patent itself. You quote the most obvious part of the patent that is used by nearly any website and the one part which has NOTHING to do with web caching. It's an overall basic descriptive section pure and simple, meant to be nothing but that and contains none of the guts of the patent. It's like quoting the definitions section of a math thesis and saying they're incredibly insightful. Only an utter nitwit would even consider that instead of quoting the guts of a thesis or the overall contributions of it.

I never said the patent is (or isn't) obvious, I simply said you're a moron who couldn't defend it's lack of obviousness if your life depended on it. Judging by some of the other replies to your post this seems to be not only my own opinion.