USPTO grants Calif. lawyer patent over entire WWW naming scheme

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004Jan/gee20040120023507.htm ^ | posted 8:43am EST Tue Jan 20 2004 | J. Eric Smith

[mjp]

Do you know about United States Patent No. 6,671,714? You should. The patent, recently granted to one Frank Weyer of Beverly Hills, California, grants the patent holder full rights to: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;"

Sound familiar? Well, it should, because the patent describes what is essentially one of the most basic, most crucial underlying structures of the World Wide Web, namely the domain naming system.

The concept of domains and subdomains, as well as the e-mail addresses associated with them, has been around for a long time but apparently has escaped being patented prior to now. Meyer, a lawyer by trade, has capitalized on that oversight, and as of December 30, 2003, Meyer owns it. And now he's using it where it'll do the most good--in court.

On January 17, 2004, Meyer brought suit against Internet heavyweights Network Solutions, Inc. and Register.com, claiming the two services are infringing upon Meyer's newly-granted patent. In the suit Meyer claims damages of an unnamed amount and requests an immediate injunction against the two companies. Meyer states that he hopes to "work with" NSI and Register.com to license his patent. NSI and Register.com don't seem to be cooperating thus far, however.

You can read the text of the patent at the USPTO.

[Redcloak]

As I understand the law, one cannot patent "prior art". I'm surprised that this got by the USPTO. It's only a matter of time before a judge throws the patent out. I just hope that the same judge makes this sleaze pay court costs.

[wildbill]

This points up to verities:

1.lawyers are bottom-feeders, looking for scraps for a free meal ticket. This guy just won the sweepstakes without any use of intellectual capacity other than to spot the loophole in other's inventiveness.

2.the US Patent Office is hopelessly behind the curve when it comes to new technology. They also gave a patent to a company recently that virtually gives them control of WIFI.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

OH NO!!!

Another SCO type scheme?

[Atlas Sneezed]

Here is the scope of what the patent protects:

1. 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;"

wherein the "name" portion of said URL and said e-mail address is the same and unique for each particular one of said members such that an only difference between said URL and said e-mail address for said member is that in said URL the "@" symbol of the e-mail address is replaced with a "." and wherein said "subdomain" portion of said URL and said e-mail address is the same for all members of said group.

Link to the patent:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,671,714.WKU.&OS=PN/6,671,714&RS=PN/6,671,714

[Atlas Sneezed]

Sound familiar? Well, it should, because the patent describes what is essentially one of the most basic, most crucial underlying structures of the World Wide Web, namely the domain naming system.

---

Wrong. It is limited to a particular system with subdomans and names, and coordinated web addresses and email addresses. Allows a multitude of alternatives.

Anyone have a document showing this was in use prior to the filing date? If so, you can send it in and have the patent invalidated.

[BipolarBob]

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"
William Shakespeare

[Atlas Sneezed]

lawyers are bottom-feeders, looking for scraps for a free meal ticket.

---

That is hateful, irrational, and without basis in the case. You blame a lawyer for succeeding in achieveing the issuance of a patent that you do not comprehend?

You might seek therapy for your aversion to lawyers.

[Boss_Jim_Gettys]

"Anyone have a document showing this was in use prior to the filing date? If so, you can send it in and have the patent invalidated."

I was not aware you could do such a thing in the U.S. I know that patent applications are published in Europe before they are issued and can be opposed before they are allowed.

Could you provide a link to the USPTO which shows how and where to send info to have a patent invalidated?

Thanks, Boss_Jim

[ikka]

Problem is that the prior art goes back to the beginning of the Internet, when it was first envisioned by ARPA. The first link was in the late 60's I believe - a 1200 baud modem connection between Stanford and MIT (I think).

[wildbill]

Dear Counselor Beelsebubba:

My what a revealing username you have!

Are you claiming this lawyer invented the technology that enables us to utilize the web by the use of the www. designation?

I don't think that is correct. As a matter of fact, I believe the man who actually invented the web technology specifically refused to patent it a few years ago, claiming it should be available for all humanity.

No doubt this lawyer read the article and spied a tempting target.

If he didn't invent it, he has no moral right to jump on the universally adopted technology and claim it for his own--whatever the technical legality of filing this patent application.

It's akin to claim-jumping in my humble opinion.

[martin_fierro]

Sounds like the USPTO clerk approved this after a two-martini lunch.

[Nick Danger]

This patent does not appear to be quite as ridiculous as it has been described, but it nevertheless points to a kind of abuse of the patent system that perhaps does require some reform in the law.

Patents were intended to reward inventors by allowing them to profit from their inventions. A reasonable associated requirement is that the inventor make some good-faith effort to actually implement the invention and provide whatever good or service the patent facilitates. Either that, or the inventor must stimulate others to do so by shopping the patent around and offering to license it for production.

We can't tell from this article whether this has been done in this case. Perhaps it has been, in which case, "good."

What should not be permitted, it seems to me, is a kind of "gotcha" patenting in which the inventor makes no effort whatsoever to provide the "public good" (in the form of some new good or service) that the patent law envisions, but instead hides in the weeds waiting for someone else to duplicate the invention and put their capital at risk... at which point the "inventor" jumps out with the patent and demands money.

I would happily see the Congress add to the patent law a requirement that, to claim damage from infringement, one must have made a good-faith effort to do something with the patent other than wait for a victim to ride by who can be sued.

I don't know that that's what happened here. The patent describes a potentially useful service for arranging electronic communications with people who choose not to have their own web or email presence. I could see some doctor or other professional subscribing to such a service, the same way they might hire an answering service to field their telephone calls. But does the plaintiff here actually offer such a service, or is he just trying to play "gotcha" with people who came up with the same idea, implemented it, but for one reason or another did not seek a patent? If it's the latter, I see nothing but trouble ahead in allowing such individuals to cause Legal Expense for others as a form of extortion, when they themselves will put no capital at risk to bring the invention to market. That's just being a parasite under cover of law.

Those who favor granting patents to business-process ideas need to think seriously about where the line is for abuse. Taking a very hard line on this is almost certain to result in an eventual political backlash that will take some ham-fisted swipe at the whole concept. There is probably room for some of this, but demanding all of it is likely to result in abolishing all of it, simply because that's how the political system reacts to abuse.

[Gorzaloon]

Network Solutions, etc. will take care of this quickly. The only reason it has any traction at all is because of the "Presumption of Validity" that accompanies an issued patent.

There seem to be different requirements for patent examiners these days. My last one was a personified Blonde Joke. Another cost us many thousands by insisting on using a Webster's definition as opposed to our Van Nostrand's Scientific reference, even though in Law the inventor can be his own lexicographer, and call something anything "So long as it is not absurd".

[dwills]

they're also patenting business models nowadays (e.g., Netflix)

we're gonna need a black market soon, like that spawned by every other out of control bureaucracy/oligopoly in history

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

""The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"
William Shakespeare"

I thought he said get the lawyers right after the media.

[AuthenticLiberal]

It is easier and more expedient to throw out the patent system than to waste money tring to reform it. With all of the technically competent people that are needed to weed out frivolous patents it would cost more than it's worth. The Congress can easily pass small, industry specific trade restrictions to protect industries like the drug companies.

[adam_az]

Prior Art from November 1983.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc881.html by Jonathan Postel (RIP!)

Mailbox Support

The design of the domain servers provides two levels of support
for mail.

The first, called "agent binding", is that the right hand part of
the typical mail box (Y in X@Y) can be mapped a host that will
either accept the mail as the destination or accept the mail for
forwarding.

The second, called "mailbox binding", is to map the entire mailbox
(X@Y) to a destination (this mechanism can also support some
mailing list functions).

Agent binding can be used to establish mailboxes that are based on
an organization name rather than a host name.

For example, an organization, "BLAT", with hosts "BLAT-20" and
"BLAT-VAX" in the ARPA domain could set up mailboxes of the
form "user@BLAT.ARPA" and use the domain server mechanisms for
mapping these to the host that accepts the mail for the
organization.

[adam_az]

Here you go.

Perhaps you just didn't realize that Network Solutions was using the same scheme they are being sued for, the very one that this joker patented, for years before he filed his lawsuit. I won't hold that against you, this subject is clearly over your head.

[adam_az]

ping