USPTO Grants CA Lawyer Domain-Naming Patent 387
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?"
USPTO, (Score:5, Funny)
Prepare to be slashdotted.
Re:USPTO, (Score:2)
Re:USPTO, (Score:4, Funny)
What it will take to challenge (Score:5, Informative)
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-
What about obviousness? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about obviousness? (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is with the USPTO's argument. If it is so obvious, then why didn't anyone do it earlier? Thus you need prior art to invalidate it.
The USPTO is badly broken.
Re:What it will take to challenge (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
Re:What it will take to challenge (Score:4, Funny)
4) Win lawsuits
Netidentity/Mailbank, since 1996 Prior Art found (Score:4, Informative)
Mailbank.com at Archive.org, Nov. 11, 1998. [archive.org]
Just send me my reward money now. I've been using those domain hijackers for years for email/web.
Re:What it will take to challenge (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0799.txt?number=0799
And dated September 1981!
DUPE. (Score:5, Informative)
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!
Re:DUPE. (Score:2)
I'm starting to think that Slashdot is becoming its own recursive Wayback Machine. If we wait around long enough, I'm sure the Y2K bug will appear again and all those out of work programmers will be back in demand writing patches.
Re:DUPE. (Score:4, Funny)
Darl McBride fell down in a Walmart, spilling his scalding hot coffee on his (very shrivelled) member. He got so hopping mad he called David Boies and said "SUE EVERYBODY". In the resulting shitstorm, a Cease and Decist was accidentally sent to goatse.cx.
And that's how it happened.
Re:DUPE. (Score:2)
Prior Art (Score:2, Informative)
Re:DUPE. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DUPE. (Score:5, Funny)
Have a heart, they're probably all sharing Cmdr Taco's (56kbps) pipe.
Re:DUPE. (Score:5, Funny)
-jag
Re:DUPE. (Score:5, Funny)
While I was shocked recently to read that the USPTO awarded this patent, imagine how shocked I was today to read that they had awarded it *AGAIN* to someone. I wonder if the two guys who got it will sue each other now?
RagManX
Re:DUPE. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:DUPE. (Score:2)
- Yes the woman is an idiot, putting a hot substance between your legs is stupid no matter if it is 150F or 200F.
- MD should have made clear that their hot coffee was hotter than the other places selling hot coffee that was not so hot.
- No it was not above boiling, if that were the case they would have sold hot coffee vapor.
- This is offtopic
- MD sucks for making coffee hotter than others to make it last longer
- MD now sucks but didn't
Re:DUPE. (Score:2, Offtopic)
Actually, it is when the coffee is brewed. When you have water under pressure, you can superheat it far above boiling (up to the structural limits of the pressurizer). As a result, the coffee is pretty close to boiling when it first hits the pot.
FWIW, I was a kid working at McD's at the time of the suit. I've dumped hot coffee on myself many, many times and didn't get anything worse than a red patch of skin. The reas
Re:DUPE. (Score:2)
The lady got it in a plastic cup, superheating was not an issue I presume.....
Even in the case of superheating one could argue that since the boiling point itself rises it is still under it, just above the standard defined boiling point (which really is nonsense).
Prior art has to be out there... (Score:5, Insightful)
There has to be prior art out there that shoots this down.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Prior art has to be out there... (Score:2, Funny)
Is that your last name?
That is the COOLEST name I have ever seen! (well, second to Zaxxon...) 2 points!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Prior art has to be out there... (Score:2)
Re:Prior art has to be out there... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Prior art has to be out there... (Score:2)
Freeserve has done this since they started, if your email address is foo@freeserve.com you have a web site foo.members.freeserve.com.
That has to be the standard at a heck of a lot of ISPs. It means that you have to maintain a DNS link to the appropriate server but it means that it is pretty easy to do load balancing. If you give each user a subdirectory on a Web host it is pretty difficul
Re:Prior art has to be out there... (Score:5, Interesting)
Which raises some questions that perhaps someone with IP legal knowledge can address:
Re:Prior art has to be out there... (Score:4, Insightful)
2. No.
3. The answer to any question starting, "Why don't they-" is almost always, "Money." -- Robert Heinlein
Re:Prior art has to be out there... (Score:3, Informative)
2. Yes. If you don't it's fraud.
3. It's up to the patent office and anyone contesting the patent to find the prior art.
If it weren't for the cost of litigating a patent this wouldn't be a problem.
But it is.
Re:Prior art has to be out there... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Prior art has to be out there... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Prior art has to be out there... (Score:5, Funny)
So they obviously switched to the un-patented "APPROVED" one, and all is running smoothly...
Re:Prior art has to be out there... (Score:2)
So, Bob Smith at the Ames Research Center would be bsmith.arc.nasa.gov
You're right, the USPTO is on crack, and the government has been using that scheme for a long time..
PRIOR ART: mailbank.com (Score:4, Informative)
My personal email address for a long time has been with MailBank.com (now called NetIdentity.com [netidentity.com]). This is how their ENTIRE BUSINESS has been working since 1996: you pay them (yearly) to get email/web addresses using your last name; they own domains like smith.net, and they give you (supposing your name is bubba):
bubba@smith.net
http://bubba.smith.net
Again, the operative year is 1996 (I got my email from them in 97 or 98).
Re:Prior art has to be out there... (Score:2)
username@ch.etn.com Cutlerhammer was a subsidiary of Eaton Corp, but had a seperate email and network at the time.
Eaton used username@etn.com etc. Now with restructuring, they all use username@eaton.com But I still have business cards to prove prior art if needed!
Here's some prior art (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Prior Art (Score:2)
Nice try though. Moron.
Only if your website was also. (Score:2)
This is GOOD news. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get mad. This is good news. It means we're one day closer to patent reform.
Re:This is GOOD news. (Score:3, Interesting)
Some internet fundraising method? Patent it and sue whoever uses your patented idea. That's what patents are all about.
+1, Funny (Score:2)
*sniff* [Wipes tear from eye] Man, you're such a kidder.
The government will never reign in one of its few offices that actually has a positive revenue flow.
Re:This is GOOD news. (Score:3, Insightful)
One, it doesn't take federal enforcement for a patent to be effective. If these guys come up to, say, a big ISP, which has better things to do than fight patents, they'll often pay rather than fight.
Two, every single patent thread on Slashdot includes somebody saying, "Hey, we'll finally get the feds to realize the system is broken." It hasn't happened yet, and I doubt this is the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Patents/copyrights had been shown asinine... (Score:3, Informative)
Link To Patent Text (Score:5, Informative)
Link to patent text [uspto.gov]
Its not like the patent office don't deserve a good slashdotting.
Oh no~ (Score:2, Insightful)
Well if that is the case... (Score:2)
Re:Oh no (Score:2)
Wake the patent office up.... (Score:2, Funny)
Prior Art (Score:2)
This was pretty much standard practice in a lot of places before November 22, 1998, the date before which the knowledge would have to be "public" in order to count as prior art against this particular submarine patent.
Too bad someone has to waste a lot of resources fighting something like this.
END Internet Patents NOW! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:END Internet Patents NOW! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:END Internet Patents NOW! (Score:2)
Re:END Internet Patents NOW! (Score:3, Funny)
He won't get anywhere with this. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Severe eye-rolling taking place here (Score:2, Insightful)
All of us here can see how asinine this is. Will our legal system?
Yes.
Next story?
Please do! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Please do! (Score:2)
Are they cute? Do you have pictures????
They'd only be beating up busines.
Re:Please do! (Score:3, Funny)
We did that back in '95... (Score:5, Informative)
We're talking 1995 technology here, and it was obvious at the time.
Re:We did that back in '95... (Score:2)
Re:We did that back in '95... (Score:2)
Boy am I tired of these "stupid patent" stories (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Boy am I tired of these "stupid patent" stories (Score:2)
This is a new business model. (I probably should patent it but there's too much prior art... Wait, the USPTO will never notice... brb!)
Basically, some company or person is granted a rediculous patent and then sues the bejesus out of everyone. Most people will settle paying up the licensing fees since it's cheaper than laywers and court costs.
It'
Re:Boy am I tired of these "stupid patent" stories (Score:3, Informative)
Software/business method patents are not a basically beneficial system. That's agreed upon by most people, organisations and studies, from the FTC [ffii.org.uk] to even the owners of several mp3 patents, the Fraunhofer Institute [bmwa.bund.de]. Even Andy Grove (you know, the guy that runs Intel) recently said [bsa.org] they have a lot of negative effects (page 11 of the transcript, ne
Oh the irony (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what's funny? the USPTO is supposed to do prior art research to grant patents. Well guess where you can find prior art for this method? at the USPTO itself. Here for example:
estta.uspto.gov [uspto.gov] is a live server, and
estta@uspto.gov [mailto] is a valid email address at USPTO.
You gotta love these guys
Re:Oh the irony (Score:2)
Re:Oh the irony (Score:2)
Except that the patent this post is about would be concerned with the following addresses:
estta.uspto.gov
something@estatta.uspto.gov
I realize no one ever bothers to RTFA, but if you're going to correct someone who did read it with incorrect information, you're just making yourself look stupid.
It says, right up there in the quoted part in the summary, a URL of the form name.subdomain.domain, email address of the
Well... (Score:4, Informative)
Date problem (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's stupid and it sucks but that's the worst-thought-out "reason" for having a patent overturned I've heard since... well, for a good few days at least.
Yeah, what a moron (Score:2)
I'm sure his friend will thank him for turning him in. ;)
I thought you couldn't be nailed for vioaling a *pending* patent (this one was granted in 2003).
Contact Info (Score:4, Informative)
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
We need a new law tool: (Score:4, Funny)
Re:We need a new law tool: (Score:2)
worthwile reading (Score:5, Insightful)
Semicolon. (Score:2)
It is Functional NOT Innovative (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as I can remember I got addresses from Hypermart like:
name@testpharm.hypermart.net [mailto]
Also as far as I can remember Yahoo had addresses that I could use to go directly to the relevant page rather than going via the home page - like
These are some of the applications I remember offhand, and I am sure there has to be stuff like this that was there before this patent was filed.
As it is, it is pretty stupid to give a patent for something that is quite functional - but is it innovative ? And worse, should you be able to prevent others from using it without paying extortion money ?
What I want to patent... (Score:2)
What is claimed
1. That an individual may identify themselves.
2. That the identity of the individual is made regardless of wether the individual is present or otherwise.
3. The individual itentifies themselves by a mark or impression.
4. The individuals unique mark or impression may be stored by another individual for verification purposes.
5. The individuals unique mark or impression may be represented on any media by either descripti
D'oh! (Score:3, Funny)
USPTO and oursourcing (Score:2)
Hey, Americans, wake up until it's too late! You should upgrade your govermental system or stop expecting any good changes in your life! Your economy is stagnating more and more, and USPTO is not the last contributor to it!
patent every rfc? (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't Forget (Score:2, Insightful)
Terminology is wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)
Joke? (Score:2)
Kind of like that "method for swininging sideways" patent.
Different standards ... (Score:4, Interesting)
- 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.
The problem is the US legal system will work... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if prior art is found, patents are assumed by courts to be of good quality. So, even if someone argues, successfully, prior art, some of the patent claims could still be used against other defendants. Basically, this is legal extortion by the patent holder and a make-work program for attourneys. And guess what! Attourneys are one of the most powerful and well funded political organizations in the United States!
So yes, keep the PTO broken - so the legal system will "work" just fine. Where's my LSAT prep book?
Innovative (Score:3, Funny)
Method for stopping stupid patents (Score:3, Funny)
"A Process to Patent Methods that are Obvious"
"A Process to Patent Methods that have Prior Art"
Then, all of these people will be violating my patents when they do these sorts of things. It'll stop the stupid patents and/or make me rich. Either way, I'm happy.
If it doesn't pan out, I might follow up by patenting "A Method for Patenting Inventions". That should shut the whole patent office down since they would be violating my patent each time they award any patent.
Prior art from 1995 (Score:3, Informative)
The patent claims functionality that IKI.FI [www.iki.fi], among others, has been providing publicly for thousands of users since 1995.
IKI.FI has a web page that documents the prior art for the patent 6,617,714 [www.iki.fi].
Re:will it what? (Score:2)
The last sentence was counting on the context from the previous sentence. When you don't read the whole headline, you miss out on the context.
Or maybe you just haven't had enough caffeine yet.
Re:will it what? (Score:2)
-l
Re:USPS Needs a Major Overhaul (Score:5, Funny)
Re:USPS Needs a Major Overhaul (Score:2)
Re:scaremongering (Score:5, Insightful)
He's already refereing to prior art, and it actualy seems his "idea" is a bit different from what we already use and know.
The patented system would allow someone to write directly to some professional without knowing his email address. It would be a simpler system than to have to use a search engine and then search an email on the website to communicate.
I must agree this is a very subtle difference and the guy's interpretation is stupid. However, just because of that, I am vey curious to see how the lawsuits turn out.
Microsoft used this in their Exchange 5 tutorials (Score:3, Informative)
In the documentation that came with Exchange back then was an example on how exchange sites could be linked together with a domain structure identical to what you said. They even used london.domain.com and sydney.domain.com in those examples.