Feed Sign in with OpenID OpenID

Simon Willison’s Weblog

This could be the most ludicrous tech patent yet

Patent 6,671,714:

What is claimed is:

1. 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;”

wherein the “name” portion of said URL and said e-mail address is the same and unique for each particular one of said members such that an only difference between said URL and said e-mail address for said member is that in said URL the “@” symbol of the e-mail address is replaced with a “.” and wherein said “subdomain” portion of said URL and said e-mail address is the same for all members of said group.

If that isn’t proof that the patent system is just fundamentally flawed I don’t know what is.

Posted 16th January 2004 at 12:50 am

This is This could be the most ludicrous tech patent yet by Simon Willison, posted on 16th January 2004.

View blog reactions

Next: Moveable Type now kills PageRank on comment links

Previous: Advice worth repeating

15 comments

  1. First of all, the patent is unwarranted because this is hardly "novel" (hell, it's hardly an "invention").

    Second, I see that it was filed in late November 1999. Surely there was prior art? Did any of the DynDNS types of services perform the same functions at that time?

    Dougal Campbell - 16th January 2004 15:45 - #

  2. You may have missed this gem at the bottom:

    The computer systems described above are for purposes of example only. An embodiment of the invention may be implemented in any type of computer system or programming or processing environment.

    So, wait. You don't think that creating virtual hosts and munging reply-tos so that non-techies think all recipients are using interfaceserver.com for the goal of helping the interface server to "build its brand identity and ...promote repeat visits to the interface server's website" is worthy of a patent?

    Next you'll be saying that software which uses existing standards and code towards a particular (maybe mildly innovative) application isn't worthy of patents.

    That way lies madness. Besides, "patent" sounds much more sophisitcated than "recipe", and no lawyer or VC will take you seriously unless you have a "patent".

    Jeremy Dunck - 16th January 2004 16:11 - #

  3. what i found mildly amusing was the url of the cited source: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,671,714.WKU.&OS=PN/6,671,714&RS =PN/6,671,714

    rudy - 17th January 2004 01:55 - #

  4. rudy: clean URLs and the use of MOD_REWRITE are surely patented :p

    P01 - 17th January 2004 02:40 - #

  5. Rudy: what about http://simon.incutio.com? Amusing? Nay. Ridiculous? Oh yeah. "Who wants to be a millionaire" Phone a friend? USPTO.

    Niket - 17th January 2004 06:48 - #

  6. Simply, a question : WHY ?

    cafe fort - 17th January 2004 13:46 - #

  7. Um, wow, talk about a wealth of prior art. Head on over to Freeshell's list of member sites, to see a gigantic list of subdomains that have been doing this for a long time. I host my own site there and they use a scheme for relating email addresses and domains. Whoever worked with this application at the patent office didn't do even the most perfunctory research.

    Dast - 17th January 2004 20:55 - #

  8. Out of interest, how would the people here reform the patent system, given the chance?

    Lach - 18th January 2004 00:16 - #

  9. I would personally like to see the patent system changed to n be like the European system has been (though better enforced) - that mathematical algorithms, business processes and software should be unpatentable. Also, rules should be strongerly enforced, have more rigorous search for prior art, and be easier to dispute. A global system instead of a national would be preferable, of course. As for software and the like, that should go under copyright, but not the patent system. For example, it's riduculous that almost no software uses a drag-and-drop of tabs between windows but instead a clumsier version of the same concept if at all, just because Adobe has the patent for that action; Especially since the concept is basically the same as any other drag-and-drop, but just happens to deal with tabs.

    liorean - 18th January 2004 13:37 - #

  10. A patent is just an intellectual property right, which may be challenged in court. As some have said previously, this patent probably would have a hard time defending its novalty with respect to the prior art. It is however import to remember althought that just because a mechanism, such as a patent, can be abused does not automatically allow one to _reason_ that the mechanism is not useful. The fact the inventor was also the patent attorney, shows one normal barrier for exceptional patents, namely the attorney fee, probably didn't apply here. I would recommend a full review of all patents before rationalizing there usefullness. This may be an exception to the rule.

    tony - 20th January 2004 14:40 - #

  11. A patent by MS on XML MS-office documents: link

    Rolf - 24th January 2004 07:26 - #

  12. A patent by MS on XML MS-office documents: link

    Let's cut to the chase: Patent description. Notice this is in Europe and not the USA.

    As far as I can tell, MS is trying to patent:

    • Saving documents in XML rather than in a binary format, without loosing all the file information
    • Producing an XML Schema for the format
    • Using a single XML document for character data and binary data (i.e. CDATA blocks and base64 encoded images) - something the spec is specifically designed to allow
    • Allowing other applications to open the XML document and recreate the formatting without knowing the binary file format of the original application

    Basically, the patent application is for "using XML in the way its designers intended"

    Does anyone know the correct way to complain about a patent application?

    jgraham - 24th January 2004 13:00 - #

  13. Dr. tobot TECH PATENT A future browser!!! I can see in2 yor furture!!!!! and in future all web browser r deleted

    Dr. TOBOT - 12th February 2004 21:21 - #

  14. The internet has been using this scheme of addressing and it has been used for years and years by free internet services like homestead.com. I'm sure there is actually a RFC that specifies this format as well. Our Patent office needs to research a little deeper than the surface. -- Nathan Hall [8Networks, Inc.] [nate @ 8networks.com]

    Nathan Hall - 2nd May 2004 05:01 - #

  15. This semi-monopolistic, patent-happy software firm took the name ADOBE from native Americans without asking - I presume!? - That could get very expensive. Gisela Strauss Tech Translator Munich

    Gisela Strauss - 20th April 2005 20:36 - #

Comments are closed.

Previously hosted at http://simon.incutio.com/archive/2004/01/16/ludicrous

A django site