Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

USPTO Grants CA Lawyer Domain-Naming Patent

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the sure-why-not-it's-only-a-patent dept.

Patents 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?"

cancel ×

387 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

will it what? (-1)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112753)

will it what?
-l

Re:will it what? (1)

mekkab (133181) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112805)

Will it see how assinine our legal system is.

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? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112853)

Here's an article [zdnet.com] about geeks who haven't had enough caffeine. Very funny. Enjoy.

Re:will it what? (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112964)

I missed the sentence between "My friend who ran for political office in 2000 used this exact naming scheme for his web site." and "Will our legal system?".

-l

VOLVO 240 MANUAL BOOST CONTROLLER IS ON TEH SPOKE! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112756)

on teh spoke? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112933)

What the hell does that mean? WTF is the spoke?

read this (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112974)

for better understanding [zdnet.com] of what "on teh spoke" means.

USPTO, (4, Funny)

Xandu (99419) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112758)

you have pissed us off too many times.
Prepare to be slashdotted.

Gotta love... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112878)

the slashdot effect [zdnet.com]

Re:USPTO, (1)

sofar (317980) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112963)

finally we recognize that the USPTO deserves to be trolled just as bad as they deserved to be treated like trolls. /me mods the uspto troll(0)

DUPE. (4, Informative)

mekkab (133181) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112760)

And I warned the "On Duty" editor, [slashdot.org] but i guess they're just asleep at the wheel.

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. (-1, Redundant)

garcia (6573) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112795)

All we need now is some snide-remark from the editors like: Yeah, it's a dupe, get over it.

I always appreciate that from people that fuck up on a regular basis. If *I* can remember that this worthless story was a dupe why can't they?

Re:DUPE. (4, Funny)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112845)

If *I* can remember that this worthless story was a dupe why can't they?
Ohh! I know! Let me, let me! How's this:
Because the "Editors" don't actually read Slashdot
Is that it? Did I get it right?

Re:DUPE. (5, Funny)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#8113005)

Because the "Editors" don't actually read Slashdot

Have a heart, they're probably all sharing Cmdr Taco's (56kbps) pipe.

Re:DUPE. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112864)

probably because you read slashdot.

Re:DUPE. (5, Funny)

RagManX (258563) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112908)

I didn't think it was a dupe, I thought the USPTO had done it again. :)

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. (5, Interesting)

vmfedor (586158) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112997)

How about because the editors have to look at hundreds of stories at a time and you only see what they give you?

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8113061)

Except that there is a member service that views all articles before the general public and can report dupes to the editor for removal. In theory this should never happen now. It is one thing if they are just posting blindly but it is another if they have 100's of eyes reviewing it and giving them feedback.

Re:DUPE. (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112823)

You know, I half thought that when I was typing my post.

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. (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112844)

You forgot the "Who should we root for? NS/Veraslime or two (other) sleezy lawyers?" threads.

Re:DUPE. (1)

mekkab (133181) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112871)

Good catch!

Here's another dupe. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112904)

From ZDNet [zdnet.com]

Gotta love /. editors.

Re:DUPE. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112912)

I will oblige on the McDonalds lawsuit - to say that it seems funny but the the woman needed skin grafts. I only got coffee at McDonalds once, and it was so damn hot that I couldn't even hold the cup, I have never seen coffee so fucking hot anywhere else... - I am sure people would be laughing if they spilled that 190 degree (F) on their nutsacks.

Re:DUPE. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112929)

Yeah! What the hell happened to goatse?!!!
-AC

Re:DUPE. (0, Offtopic)

Mateito (746185) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112965)

Hey! Did you hear that some stupid woman sued McDonalds because she fell down at Walmart and spilt hot goatse [goatse.cx] all over some litigious bastards [sco.com] ?

The McDonalds lawsuit was not frivolous (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112984)

McFacts [lawandhelp.com]

Everyone thinks the McDonalds lawsuit was an example of how litigation has gotten out of control. Read the site and then tell me how frivolous third degree burns are.

Re:The McDonalds lawsuit was not frivolous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8113029)

I call McGodwin!

Re:DUPE. (4, Funny)

nate1138 (325593) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112985)

Did you hear the REAL reason that goatse.cx was taken down?

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. (1)

kent.dickey (685796) | more than 10 years ago | (#8113010)

Someone should file a patent on posting the same story on Slashdot over and over. He could get a fortune in royalties. Or, it might provide financial incentive to stop dupes.

Prior Art (2, Informative)

djb (19374) | more than 10 years ago | (#8113077)

www.netidentity.com have been doing this since at least 1998 when I got my account with them.

Prior art has to be out there... (5, Insightful)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112764)

This patent was filed on November 23, 1999.

There has to be prior art out there that shoots this down.

Re:Prior art has to be out there... (4, Interesting)

REBloomfield (550182) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112789)

Freeserve and Demon at the very least in the uk.... I got robb@embers-fire.freeserve.co.uk a long long time ago.....

Re:Prior art has to be out there... (2, Funny)

mekkab (133181) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112834)

embers-fire

Is that your last name?
That is the COOLEST name I have ever seen! (well, second to Zaxxon...) 2 points!

Re:Prior art has to be out there... (1)

REBloomfield (550182) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112857)

erm... yes?

I was going to change it to Max Power, but I thought, what the hell...

Re:Prior art has to be out there... (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112852)

Demon Internet defintely has prior art. I have a name@subdomain.demon.co.uk email address that's six years old and any Demon customer dating back a few years earlier than that will have the same.

Re:Prior art has to be out there... (1)

ed (79221) | more than 10 years ago | (#8113042)

My email account with demon dates back to 1996 and is of that form

Re:Prior art has to be out there... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112854)

Of course there is:

US Patent # 7,043,211: Method of process of duplicating an article in an online information system.

Patente Owners: Timothy, Cmdr. Taco, ...

Re:Prior art has to be out there... (4, Interesting)

igaborf (69869) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112886)

There has to be prior art out there that shoots this down.

Which raises some questions that perhaps someone with IP legal knowledge can address:

  1. Does the patent process impose any legal requirement of due diligence in searching for prior art?
  2. If so, are there any legal sanctions available for those who fail to perform due diligence or who knowingly apply for an interfering patent?
  3. If not, why not?

Re:Prior art has to be out there... (5, Informative)

YomikoReadman (678084) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112915)

How about the US Government? This is how all .mil address are done, AFAIK. the domains are structured base.branchofservice.mil, and all email address associated with them are structured as fname.lname@base.BOS.mil. That being the case, this method of domain name assignment is as old as the internet itself, since DARPA used this method while setting up ARPANet way back in the 70s. This begs the question of 'How the hell did this patent get approved?'

Re:Prior art has to be out there... (4, Funny)

RealityMogul (663835) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112967)

A couple years ago the patent office lost a legal battle over their use of a rubber stamp with the word "DENIED" on it. Apparently someone had a patent on the device, and the USPTO was in violation.

Prior Art (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112949)

See this [zdnet.com] article.

Re:Prior Art (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 10 years ago | (#8113066)

That hidden goatse link doesn't work on people who've got browsers that show the full URL when you hover over it.

Nice try though. Moron.

PRIOR ART: mailbank.com (3, Informative)

jtheory (626492) | more than 10 years ago | (#8113070)

I missed posting on version one of this story (doing work... frustrating how that gets in the way) so I'm posting my prior art example here.

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).

Repost (1, Redundant)

coug_ (63333) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112765)

Wasn't this posted some time ago?

Big Deal (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112766)

I just got First Post!!!!!!!

Re:Big Deal (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112792)

YOU FAIL IT, motherfucker!

scaremongering (1)

relrelrel (737051) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112770)

More /. Scaremongering, this will never pass, simple as that, no need to worry, something to laugh about though at how pathetic/stupid these companies can be.

Re:scaremongering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112917)

Double standards indeed.

The scum at the wheel of these co.'s are probably pump-n-dumping (or something similar) for more $$$ than I'll make in 3 years of honest work. Even in the lowest of the low cases!

Who will join me in GLORIOUS CULTURAL CYBER REVOLUTION!!?? First we take USPTO, then the White House!

Re:scaremongering (5, Insightful)

Neurotoxic666 (679255) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112977)

The present invention overcomes the limitations of the prior art by providing a method, apparatus and business system that allow a user to quickly communicate online with a member of a particular business, professional or other group regardless of whether the member has an internet presence (e.g. e-mail address or website) and without the user needing to know or find the internet address for the recipient.

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.

This is GOOD news. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112773)

Patents like this cannot be enforced. With enough of these, the feds will be forced to re-examine the system.

Don't get mad. This is good news. It means we're one day closer to patent reform.

Yes they can! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112925)

For the precedent, look here [zdnet.com]

Re:This is GOOD news. (1)

kbsingh (138659) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112930)


This is NOT good news, you need to keep in mind the resources that are going to get wasted in the trial - the public money, time and resources that might be getter used elsewhere.

Just a bunch of wasters trying to make a quick buck if they can, otherwise no harm done.

But one thing i do agree on is that the system needs a bit of a revamp.

Re:This is GOOD news. (2, Interesting)

slimme (84675) | more than 10 years ago | (#8113031)

Someone should patent something politicians use and the sue. Then things will change.

Some internet fundraising method? Patent it and sue whoever uses your patented idea. That's what patents are all about.

The truth about the USPTO... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112779)

Batman touched my junk liberally. he strapped me in to his batmobile and he couldnt keep his offensive hands off of me. he was performing many red flag touches. i couldnt believe what the fuck was going on. i told batman the city would not approve of a millionaire touching an underage kid for free.

Can you believe it? Batman did all this. He picked me off the street, strapped my arms and legs down in the batmobile's passenger seat, and just wouldn't stop fondling my cock'n'balls.

They definately were red flag touches. the goddamn referee he had in the back seat kept on raising up this red flag every time he touched my junk but did batman care? NO WAY! He just kept on doing it. I couldn't believe what the fuck was going on, indeed. I pleaded with Mr. Wayne but to no avail. I told him the city would not approve of such a wealthy man touching an underage kid like me (at the time I was 13) without at least compensating me for the trauma and the use of my body as his own personal plaything.

This got to him, worrying about his image. He continued to fondle me, all the while ignoring the referee's red flags. Then he drove the batmobile to my house and *ejected the seat I was in*! It was amazing. But surprisingly, after I woke up the next morning, my bank account had $150k in it! Can you believe it?

DUPE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112782)

Arghh ye matey! There be a dupe!

no? (0)

turbofisk (602472) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112784)

This is in the US? Probably no. Suing is your national sport...

Repeat story? (1, Redundant)

RT Alec (608475) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112787)

Is this the same story as posted a few days ago [slashdot.org] ?

Not that I agree, but READ ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112796)

The submitter says a friend used this scheme in 2000. Looking at the webpage for a few seconds will show you the patent application was filed in 1999.

Link To Patent Text (5, Informative)

Mateito (746185) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112799)

Link to patent text [uspto.gov]

Its not like the patent office don't deserve a good slashdotting.

Oh no~ (2, Insightful)

gmiley01 (734988) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112804)

I am now in danger of stepping on his IP!! Technically couldn't this guy sue any website owner under the 'name@subdomain.domain' portion? Is it possible this person is doing this, though, for a good cause? Maybe he is sick of seeing this sort of thing happen so he worked out this scheme to make the legal system look at how rediculous alot of these patents are? It's just a theory. I sure hope that is the case though.

Well if that is the case... (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112866)

...perhaps he can blackmail these guys [idiot.com] out of their doman, it would be the perfect one for him.

Re:Oh no (1)

adrianbaugh (696007) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112956)

Only if they owned the domain and were assigning the user.subdomain portion. If, however, I signed up for a somedomain.net account and got given a website at http://adrianbaugh.somedomain.net then I couldn't be sued because it wasn't me that assigned adrianbaugh.somedomain.net, it was the admin software belonging to somedomain.net; they would have to be sued.

quite the "innovation" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112813)

Let's hope he's as successful as Howard Dean!


I'd love to see him scream in court when his patent is thrown out.

Wake the patent office up.... (2, Funny)

MentlFlos (7345) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112818)

Wake the patent office up and sue THEM! :)

Article about this... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112819)

Get it here [zdnet.com]

Goatse link - Don't click (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8113043)

nt

Prior Art (1)

Sir Holo (531007) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112820)


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.

Ehh? (1, Funny)

Polkyb (732262) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112822)

"My friend who ran for political office in 2000 used this exact naming scheme for his web site"

You're friend owns name@subdomain.domain.? That's SO cool

END Internet Patents NOW! (4, Interesting)

haplo21112 (184264) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112825)

This really needs to be a presidential election issue. I'll vote for whoever says they will end Internet Technology patents.

He won't get anywhere with this. (5, Interesting)

Guyle (79593) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112827)

It's most definitely a case of "Hey, I wonder if I can nab this now and later screw the world out of their money..." Though when it comes right down to the letter of his patent, how can he sue Network Solutions and Registrar.com? THEY'RE not the ones who's actually DOING the process - all they're doing is lining up domains with IP addresses. It's all of the individual websites and ISPs that are supposedly infringing his patent - at least, the ones that set up e-mail and websites the way he describes.

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 (1, Insightful)

DeadVulcan (182139) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112832)

All of us here can see how asinine this is. Will our legal system?

Yes.

Next story?

Please do! (3, Funny)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112836)

I'm going to patent a method of manually stimulating the male organ to orgasm. And watch out, I have lawyers.

Re:Please do! (1)

Linus Sixpack (709619) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112911)

"And watch out, I have lawyers."

Are they cute? Do you have pictures????
They'd only be beating up busines.

Pro bono publico? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112861)

So, is this a cash grab, or does the lawyer in question perhaps realize the stupidity of all these registrations, and is suing the most prominent domain registrars to establish the point once and for all?

We did that back in '95... (4, Informative)

AtariDatacenter (31657) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112863)

When I worked for an ISP many years ago (Galaxy Star Systems), we did that very thing with the domain "tulsa.net". We put their webpages at hostname.tulsa.net. Any email to hostname.tulsa.net was forwarded to their single email account.

We're talking 1995 technology here, and it was obvious at the time.

Re:We did that back in '95... (1)

adrianbaugh (696007) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112993)

So write to them and point out that now might be a good time to submit some prior art (or do it yourself if you have enough solid evidence).

Re:We did that back in '95... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8113028)

This is about mail being sent to hostname@tulsa.net when the domain is hostname.tulsa.net. If you're catching-all (anything@hostname.tulsa.net), you have nothing to do with this.

USPS Needs a Major Overhaul (1, Interesting)

pcause (209643) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112870)

Thi is yet the latest example pointing out that the USPS is woefully ill equipped to deal with software and Internet relted papents. A completely new process and new staff are going to be required, but who in COngress will take up the cause. It will take some large companies (IBM, Cisco, Microsoft) banding together and raising a ruckus to fix this.

Re:USPS Needs a Major Overhaul (4, Funny)

Queuetue (156269) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112943)

What do you have against the the postal service?

Re:USPS Needs a Major Overhaul (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112945)

On the contrary. If the USPS [usps.gov] did handle patents, then we wouldn't have this problem, because they'd mangle or lose all the paperwork in transit.

Re:USPS Needs a Major Overhaul (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112972)

Yeah. Overhaul.
Step#1: Drop a 1 megaton nuke on USPTO.
Step#2: Think of something COMPLETELY different.

Re:USPS Needs a Major Overhaul (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112991)

The United States Postal Service? I guess they could have handled the mailed applications and subsequent correspondence.

Those bastards!

Boy am I tired of these "stupid patent" stories (2, Interesting)

hey! (33014) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112887)

I think the message is pretty clear after all these stories: a lot of really dumb patents are granted.

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 (1)

Java Pimp (98454) | more than 10 years ago | (#8113047)

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?

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's not going to work itself out since too many people are making money at it and it costs more to fight it than it does to just accept it. Yeah, we are in desparate need of reform...

MUhahahaha (0)

Polkyb (732262) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112888)

I wonder if the world is ready for my patent, yet. Placing one foot in front of the other repetitively and thus providing a means of forward motion

This time next year I could be a millionaire

Oh the irony (5, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112897)

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.'

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 ...

no, i didnt rtfa (1)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112898)

Is there any chance this lawyer fellow is doing this to point out how stupid some of our patent laws are?

granted he is a lawyer and is probably just doing it for the money...

Date problem (2, Insightful)

adrianbaugh (696007) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112918)

Given your friend ran for office in 2000 and this patent was filed in 1999 that doesn't constitute prior art. It just means that your friend might have been violating the patent.

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.

\. Duplicate Detection System (SDDDS) (0)

commonloon (543695) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112921)

Danger Wil Robinson Danger.

Duplicate stories are increasing N^2, can some innovative programmer find a way to make (N-C)^2 so we all can rest peacefully in the bliss of a job well done.

Contact Info (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112922)

Get angry, folks, and tell these people what you think. Hell hath no fury like a Slashdotter.

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

You Americans! (1)

CAB (19473) | more than 10 years ago | (#8112932)

When will you Americans stand up to USPTO and the related legislation?

Not that the system is much better in EU or other places, but practice in this matter seems to have a tendency to spread from the US to EU and so forth. ;-)

We need a new law tool: (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112940)

"Case dismissed, suing party shot for being total asshole."

Perhaps the solution is to sue the patent office (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8112995)

Has anyone ever tried that? It would appear the patent office is not providing the service it advertises. In fact, one could argue the patent office isn't even providing the service at all. Of course lawyers may argue otherwise, but when the US patent office fails so miserably to catch large glaring errors like these, it is a disservice to everyone.

People were doing this in the dark Ages (1)

kbsingh (138659) | more than 10 years ago | (#8113013)

hey,

i have clients who were using naming conventions like this in 1995. email add's like name1@london.domain.com and name@sydney.domain.com were being used in those days as well.

I cant imagine how someone can actually enfore a patent of this nature.

Look at most medium to large scale companies that had email working then ( lots did ) and you will find this is quite a popular naming convention. Some even had subdomains on these... eg Firstname.Lastname@prod.london.company.com

Gee (1)

OpenSourceRulez (183923) | more than 10 years ago | (#8113015)

Who can find prior art for this?

Gee especially since it was filed in 1999.

The USPTO needs to get their heads out of the sand.

This is old. (1)

Random Guru 42 (687672) | more than 10 years ago | (#8113053)

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/15/234920 1&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=155&tid=95&tid=9 9

wasn't the .name tld working by this principle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8113074)

already ?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?