Subdomains Part Of The Patent Frenzy 356
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Just ridiculous... (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Tort reform! (yeah I'm overreacting) (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Re:Just ridiculous... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Over and Over and Over (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Oh, shit... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Somebody, please, SUE the patent office (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Examples from the USPTO's Site: (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
furthermore... (Score:4, Insightful)
Open-Source Patent Examination anyone?
Re:Over and Over and Over (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Just ridiculous... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not exactly the same. The patent is in the server automatically setting up subdomains for users as they sign up. News.yahoo.com is not a good example. However, if Slashdot was setup so that typing in NanoGator.Slashdot.Org brought up my stats list, well that'd be more like what the patent covers.
Did they do it first? I dunno. I doubt it. However, I can envision a situation where they wrote all the code to make that work, and some PHB saying "what the hell, just file a patent. If we get it, neat!" If nobody else did that before them, then I can see the USPTO allowing it.
Now, before you point your pitchfork at me, understand that I'm *not* saying it's right. I'm not saying they should be able to do it. I'm not saying it's legit, etc. I'm just saying I can see how it probably came about. This was probably something that was filed before the internet really took off.
The nice thing is that if they get too aggressive about it, there'll be a court smack-down. Personally, I wish there was a check and/or balance so that it didn't involve a nasty agressive court case to suss it all out. Small companies really can't get into this sort of mess. Either it should be tougher to get a patent, or there needs to be a way found that means the first patent case is not expensive for either side to get into unless... Well I dunno. Sorry I don't have all the answers heh.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Over and Over and Over (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Over and Over and Over (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Patenting an RFC? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Over and Over and Over (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [womenip.com] -
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.
Re:The future of patents (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
there is... (Score:2, Insightful)
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...
Re:furthermore... (Score:3, Insightful)
An observation on patents and the global economy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Over and Over and Over (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:The future of patents (Score:3, Insightful)
Send him a notice. I did. (Score:4, Insightful)
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
5 things that would fix the USPTO (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Two Misconceptions Down (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Over and Over and Over (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:An Actual Email I Just Sent To Them (Score:1, Insightful)
Isn't it a little early for April Fool's jokes? (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re:Over and Over and Over (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:5 things that would fix the USPTO (Score:4, Insightful)
- Your point (5) is really the most important. I think it should be possible to apply to have a patent revoked if you can submit the right evidence
- Software patents are a ridiculous concept anyway; software is adequately covered by copyright. Patenting software makes as much sense as patenting the storyline in a book.
I also feel that in order to maintain the spirit of the legislation, a patent holder should have to show that they have attempted to use the patent to exploit the invention - i.e. licenced it to someone to develop, sought funding, sold a product using the invention. Patent squatting should not be a valid business model. Intellectual property should not be a commodity; that was never the intention of those that instantiated the patent and copyright laws.Just my UKP0.02 worth!
*cough* NSFW you insensative clods *cough* nt (Score:1, Insightful)
Signs that the apocalypse is upon us :) (Score:2, Insightful)
jail time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Over and Over and Over (Score:3, Insightful)
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.