| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
The Patents Are Coming
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 37 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
Obviousness is a question of fact under 35 U.S.C. 103. Nothing is obvious in a vacuum. In this instance, you are going to have to produce a piece of prior art, such as a printed publication or evidence of use or sale from one year prior to the application date, which shows the invention substantially as claimed. Then, you are going to have to show that any differences between the prior art and the claimed method are modifications that would be made by one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, in accordance with a known motivation to make such modifications.
Proving obviousness is more than a matter of having two parties asserting "tis" and "tis not".
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
|
There's *shedloads* of prior art for this. I mean, just take a look at CentralNic's 'Ferret' application which we've had since late 1999 (see here [centralnic.com]). --
CTO, CentralNic Ltd. [centralnic.com]
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
Personally, I'm getting pretty much fed up with intellectual-property people of all sorts... they've all taken enormous liberties with the scope of their claimed property rights, to the detriment of freedom and true innovation.
* COPYRIGHTS: Congress has steadily extended their duration (recently upheld by the Supreme Court), so that works created in the 1920s and later might never go into the public domain. This is being done largely to protect Disney characters (some of which were created in the '20s and would be public domain by now under the laws in effect at that time), though, ironically, Disney has benefited greatly from the availability of public domain stories from earlier centuries which they can adapt into movies (e.g., Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid). Meanwhile, laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act criminalize reverse-engineering around protection measures, even when it's done to enable fair use protected by law.
* TRADEMARKS: Originally intended to protect consumers from marketplace confusion and deception, they have been expanded to the point where companies can claim to own common English words in all of their possible uses, and gain a pre-emptive right to grab them in any new namespace that is devised.
* PATENTS: The USPTO has been granting patents to the most mind-numbingly obvious concepts, as long as they involve computers or the Internet. The true innovators of the Internet have mostly let their inventions be used freely without attempts at claiming IP rights to them; now a whole swarm of parasites has descended to try to profit from gaining proprietary rights to things that ought to be free for all, and the government has gone along with them.
Is there any solution to all of this, other than lining up all IP lawyers against a wall and shooting them?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
DNS resolvers have been doing what this claim claims for a long, long time (since at least the mid 1980's.)
If one looks in the Unix/Linux/BSD configuration file /etc/resolv.conf one will often see a list of possible suffixes. If you try to do something that uses a non-fully-qualified domain name (FQDN), for example you say "ping foo", then the resolver will try out the various suffixes to see if it can find a domain name lookup that works. To my eye, that mechanism does what the claim claims. (The patent claim makes no statement about whether the search is in parallal or serial.)
(By-the-way, it is this search mechanism that new.net used.)
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
If I read the claims correctly, each one of them involves the user specifying not only a domain name, but a list of domains. If the user doesn't specify a list of domains, it's not covered by the patent. IANAL, but it looks to me like any web site that does not ask the user for a list of preferred domains (or maybe countries) is not covered by the patent at all. Looking up the domain name in all TLDs is the loophole.
Chrischeck out Center for Responsible Nanotechnology http://CRNano.org
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | | 4 replies beneath your current threshold. |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
