SniptoolsSniptools | Design & Technology Observations

RSS

Honey, I patented the Internet!

Jan 29th 2004
5 Comments

Respond
Trackback

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!




This post is tagged

5 Comments

  1. Drew

    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. Shanx

    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. Shanx

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

  4. Dude

    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

    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.

Incoming Links