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.

[Atlas Sneezed]

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

---

The inventor has sworn just that. And the PTO has accepted that, being unable to find prior art that makes the claim obvious.

If it turns out that there was a prior inventor, then the patent is invalid. There is a simple process for invalidating such a patent. But it won't be necessary until or if the patentee accuses someone of infringement, at which time the accused will undoubtedly seek to dig up the prior art that the PTO couldn't find. If it exists, they will find it, and the patent will be invalidated. A little inconvenient, but the alternative is to vastly increase patent fees to have more thorough searching, which would stifle innovation and protection of ideas.

Go ahead hating lawyers, but it doesn't have much to do with whether patent policies make sense. Most of the trouble in the PTO is due to Congress stealing part of fees paid, leaving the PTO staffed with less-than-capable examiners, many of whom barely speak English as a second language.

[Atlas Sneezed]

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

---

37 CFR 1.99 provides for third party submission of references pertinent to a published application. There is a $180 fee.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_rules.pdf

If the patent has issued, then the cost is much steeper to file a request for reexamination ($2520 if filed before 11-29-1999, $8800 if filed after). Steep, but better than hundreds of thousands for litigation, and a deterrent to unjustitified harrassment.

[Atlas Sneezed]

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.

---

Over my head? Did I claim to know whether or not there was prior art? No, I asked if anyone had "documentation" that the concept had been used.

Point me to the documentation, and I will pass it on to the inventor.

[Atlas Sneezed]

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.

---

But that would violate the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8 - the only part of the original Constitution using the word "right" or "rights"!)

And if industry really thought the system was bad, they'd be trying to change it, instead of investing in the value it provides.

[adam_az]

If you had a lick of sense, you would have realized that since Network Solutions has been using the same software since BEFORE the date the patent was filed, then prior art clearly exists.

You want documentation, though, I posted a link to RFC 881 which is the founding document for the internet naming scheme. It's dated November, 1983. Please pay more attention next time.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1066842/posts?page=18#18

[Atlas Sneezed]

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

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

---

I should clarify my response. The lawyer didn't invent the technology as you overbroadly describe it. He's not claiming he did.

And only the naive try to patent something that they find someone else has invented, because all the cost and effort will be wasted the monent they try to enforce a patent.

[adam_az]

Beelzebubba, Post 23:

"Point me to the documentation, and I will pass it on to the inventor."

Beelzebubba, Post 26:

"I should clarify my response. The lawyer didn't invent the technology as you overbroadly describe it. He's not claiming he did."


You sure you aren't a Democrat, Beelzebubba? You sure smell like one.

[Fresh Wind]

resident @ house_number.street.city.state.country

[Poohbah]

The inventor has sworn just that. And the PTO has accepted that, being unable to find prior art that makes the claim obvious.

Something tells me that the patent examiner pocketed some shekels in return for not being able to find RFC 881.

[Johnny_Cipher]

It's only a matter of time before a judge throws the patent out.

Its either that or the US government might just as well go ahead and give this lawyer his own money printing press.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Thanks for posting, but that does not appear to disclose each and every element of the claim.

(And please call off your unprofessional personal attacks.)

[Admin Moderator]

Knock it off.

[Atlas Sneezed]

the US government might just as well go ahead and give this lawyer his own money printing press.

---

This is a common misconception. There is little if any benefit to getting an overbroad or faurdulent patent, because it will evaporate when you try to enforce it.

A common myth. The patent you want is a robust one that claims no more than it deserves, and withstands the most ardent challenge.

[Johnny_Cipher]

There is little if any benefit to getting an overbroad or faurdulent patent, because it will evaporate when you try to enforce it.

Color me skeptical. If people can make a fortune suing McDonalds for spilling coffee on themselves, they can certainly file enough nuisance lawsuits and get enough defendants to settle to keep themselves in high cotton.

[oceanview]

that basically defines how lawyers operate in the medical malpractice and personal injury/auto accident arena. just file and file and file, while the insurance companies settle and settle and settle. settlements in the 10-50K range are where most of these guys make their money, only the 7 figures cases make the news, but that's not where the frivolous lawsuit action is.

[Johnny_Cipher]

only the 7 figures cases make the news, but that's not where the frivolous lawsuit action is.

Bingo. This shyster can basically go through every major corporation on the planet, "enforcing" the "rights" to "his" patent and getting a nice check to go away.

[adam_az]

That RFC is what defines the naming scheme that this patently foolish author appropriates.

This is the DNS system whose specifications Network Solutions adhered to. These specifications date back to 1983.

If NSI has software written to specs created in 1983, then how could they be in violation of a patent just granted in the past year?

Please describe which part of his patent claim specifically is not covered by the RFC I pointed to you.

I'm in awe of your inability to see the contradictions you made which I pointed out in post #27

[adam_az]

Since when is asking someone if they are a Democrat an insult?

Especially after you catch them changing their story and then denying it ever happened? ;)

Better go delete all those threads about John Kerry and Wesley Clark! ;)

[adam_az]

This patent holder is almost as dumb as Darl.

Looks like you found a new guy to be the chief sycophant of!

[Atlas Sneezed]

Color me skeptical. If people can make a fortune suing McDonalds for spilling coffee on themselves, they can certainly file enough nuisance lawsuits and get enough defendants to settle to keep themselves in high cotton.

---

Good analogy. Like lawsuits, you realize that the "interesting" ones reported by the media are not representative of the whole system. Also, like other legal matters, when one looks at the case in proper detail, the "interesting" and apparently unjust result starts to look more reasonable.