Honey, I patented the Internet!

Do you know about United States Patent No. 6,671,714? Well, you should. It grants one indi­vid­ual a patent for a method of assign­ing URL's and e-mail addresses to mem­bers of a group (some­thing that has been around since my mind can recall!)

Edit: Mar 25, 2005

Microsoft tries a sim­i­lar gim­mick by attempt­ing to patent IPV6, the next gen­er­a­tion of Inter­net pro­to­col. More on ZDNet.

Do you know about United States Patent No. 6,671,714? Well, you should. It grants *one* indi­vid­ual a patent for a method of assign­ing URL's and e-mail addresses to mem­bers of a group that we have been using since a long, long time.

First, I thought register's story was a joke. It's one of the most ridicu­lous patents you have ever seen! 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;"

:with­stu­pid: Read more of this nonsense

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.

On mail­ing lists and on IRC, I've often railed about the idi­otic screw­balls who seem to run the US patent offices, and now they've gone and made my case for me. What kind of fool granted this patent? Clearly, who­ever reviewed it has no work­ing knowl­edge of the World Wide Web, oth­er­wise the obvi­ous­ness of the patent would be clear to all. Must we go out and patent breath­ing lest some­one decide to license the tech­nol­ogy to us poor humans?

Now comes the real test. Will Register.com and NSI fight this patent, or will they set­tle? Legal experts seem to think that, if fought, Meyer would lose. How­ever, such fights cost money, and if Meyer's thinly-veiled extor­tion plot "requests" only a small license fee, the reg­is­trars may decide to pay him off and save them­selves the trouble.

I sin­cerely hope they do not. Already, our very way of life has been irre­triev­ably altered by com­pa­nies that set­tle rather than fight; the cumu­la­tive effect is that every­thing every­where comes with warn­ing labels, and every­one who slips and falls imme­di­ately thinks not of bruises but of dol­lar signs. Lawyers have bred a busi­ness gen­er­a­tion of appeasers, and like all appease­ment, giv­ing in once leads to giv­ing in more and more often.

There's no love lost between myself and NSI (quite the oppo­site, actu­ally) but I hope this case is won!

5 comments
  1. Drew says: Jan 29, 200411:28 pm

    What is the dif­fer­ence between a Carp and a lawyer?
    One is is scum suck­ing bot­tom dweller…
    The other is a fish.

    Tort Reform Now!

  2. sniptools says: Feb 05, 20044:31 pm

    Funny! :)

    The prob­lem though is more with the cretins in the patents office than the lawyers. Lawyers are just doing what they do best, cook­ing up con­vinc­ing stories.

  3. sniptools says: Feb 06, 200411:33 pm

    If you thought that was stu­pid, check this out:
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/35376.html

  4. Dude says: Mar 29, 20046:58 pm

    Don't jump to con­clu­sions. Take the time to read the patent lan­guage instead of lis­ten­ing to the writer and let­ting him do the think­ing for you.

    The patent is not for URLs in gen­eral, but for the following:

    email address:
    sub@domain.com

    accom­pa­ny­ing URL:
    sub.domain.com

    This is not just any old URL, but a spe­cial use where the URL and email address are con­nected like this.

    It's not email or URL syn­tax that was patented, but the link­ing of the two in this spe­cific manner.

    We might think patent offi­cers are idiots, and that lawyers are evil. And in some cases, we might be right.

    But when it's you that gets a patent, and your lawyer that helps you enforce it, then you'll sing a dif­fer­ent tune altogether.

  5. wookey says: Apr 20, 20051:58 am

    Yes, that's right. It's still very obvi­ous, and by no means new in 2003. Demon inter­net pro­vided this arrange­ment in the UK some­time around 1992, for example.

    Things like this sim­ply shouldn't be patentable. A patent sys­tem that allows such things does noth­ing to serve the inter­est of inno­va­tion (which is what it is sup­posed to do).

    Yes, a few peo­ple can get rich on a daft sys­tem like this, but the huge major­ity of peo­ple just suf­fer from the 'patent tax' that is levied on any­one try­ing to do any­thing at all use­ful with software.

    Patents should be for real inven­tions that required real research, which _wouldn't get invented_ with­out the incen­tive of a patent. I don't believe that's true of _any_ soft­ware, and it cer­tainly isn't true of this earth-shattering idea.

Submit comment