Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:

[Loren Stocker <loren@800.net>]

John,

Ditto. I was doing this in 1997 as were others, those who usually beat me to
the punch:(  Can we write the USPTO before this non-sense is issued? It's WAY,
WAY too hard to fight it later.

Does anyone know the assigned examiners name, address, and deadline? This
should be stopped at once due to obviousness, as well as prior art.

Best Regards,

Loren

Marc Schneiders <marc@fuchsia.bijt.net> wrote:
John I guess this is one of your jokes? I can't put it in such nice words
as the lawyer who wrote this fine text, but what this patent application
describes I was doing already in late Spring 2000. I can't prove it. I
didn't tell other people how to do it. But other people also did do it,
and didn't tell other people how to do it. (The exact time of the release
of expired names wasn't to be found on the net until last year, I think.)
You know why? Because telling others would increase competition. Not
competition for these services, but for good domains. And because it seems
impossible to patent something like this to anyone with a little common
sense, so the only protection available is keeping it silent.

The fact that so many people 'invent' functionally the same scripts at the
same time shows it is not worth a patent. They could try for copyright on
their specific script. If that is still worth anything as such now with
the WLS.

-- 
[12] This mail is never spam.
http://logoff.org/

On Mon, 12 May 2003, at 12:04 [=GMT-0400], John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> >
> > Other registrars who support competition and innovation should take the
> > time to voice their position on this important appeal.
>
> This exercise becomes entirely moot if SnapNames' two US patent
applications
> manage to issue with claims as broad as the ones they are attempting to
> obtain.
>
> These are just a few of the claims from U.S. Published Application No.
> 20020091827.  The "claims" of a patent define the "thing" or "process" that
> is protected by the patent, and which the patentee has the right to exclude
> others from doing:
> ------------
>
> 1. A method for effectuating a succeeding registration of a domain name for
> an interested entity following the expiration of a prior registration of
the
> domain name, the method comprising the steps of: receiving from an
interested
> entity a request identifying a domain name having a registered status; and
> automatically: determining an expiration date for the status; defining a
time
> period for checking the status based on the expiration date; periodically
> checking the status at a predefined frequency within the time period; and
> when the status indicates that the domain name is registrable, requesting
> registration of the domain name for the interested entity.
>
> 2. The method of claim 1 further comprising the steps of: automatically:
> predicting an earliest moment of registrability for the domain name based
on
> the expiration date; and increasing the frequency of said checking,
proximate
> to the predicted earliest moment of registrability.
>
> 3. The method of claim 1 wherein said checking includes pinging a
registrar.
>
> 4. The method of claim 1 wherein said checking includes substantially
> contemporaneous pinging of multiple registrars.
>
> 5. The method of claim 1 wherein said checking includes pinging a registry.
>
> ---------
>
> Now, this application was filed on November 1, 2001.  If it issues with
> claims this broad, then Dotster, GoDaddy, Enom, et al. are going to have to
> stop their domain snagging systems immediately.  It is very likely that
> SnapNames will contact them when the patent issues to provide notice of the
> patent, and these registrars will then be liable for triple damages and
> attorney's fees if they continue to operate their domain re-registration
> systems.  The base measure of damages can be SnapNames lost profits based
on
> the infringement, or the actual profit made by the infringers.
>
> If this patent application issues as a patent, it will not matter whether
WLS
> is approved by ICANN or implemented by Verisign.  The objective of
> sole-source provision of expiring domain name services will have been
> reached.
>
> Or will it?  One interesting unlitigated area of patents relating to
methods
> implemented on the internet is the inherent territoriality of a U.S.
Patent.
> In other areas, a U.S. Patent prevents the export of parts to another
country
> which, if assembled here, would otherwise infringe the patent.  Similarly,
a
> U.S. Patent can prevent the import of a product made abroad by a process
> which is patented in this country.  "Manipulated bits" have, thus far, not
> been considered as to whether they might constitute an imported product of
a
> patented process.  Of course, when you have the opportunity to draft the
> claims, you might consider whether you can write the claims to necessarily
> cover the actions conducted in this country - i.e. writing the claims from
> the registry's perspective.  But SnapNames' patent counsel does not appear
to
> have done that.... yet.
>
> Getting back to that November 1, 2001 filing date... You or someone you may
> know might be aware of an article or other publication, or public use of
this
> technique which occured prior to November 1, 2000.  If you do, then hang
onto
> your evidence of such use, because it will be one of the few ways that the
> patent could be rendered invalid after it issues.
>
> For example, who on earth was this guy:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00235.html
> "We have been offering this service since August 2000"
>
> Googling usenet on this topic is left as an exercise for the reader.
>
> I gather that my previous kettle-banging on the subject of the pending
patent
> applications must have been too obscure.  So, if the *real strategy* for
> obtaining sole-source control of expiring domain names is still not
apparent,
> let me know if any of the above information needs to be clarified.
>
> John Berryhill
> U.S. Patent Attorney Reg. No. 36,452
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>





--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html