News
May 6, 2008
Verisign Gets Patent On Sitefinder
Poster: Aron Schatz
Posted on May 6, 2008 at 1:52:24 PM
Do you remember a bit of time ago when .com domains that wouldn't resolve got kicked over to a Versign advertising page? They received a patent on a trivial matter of DNS. I guess the patent was awarded since it is one of those business method types... The ones that suck, just like all software patents.
And crap. I own a .cc domain that I use! http://www.ase.cc
Quote
As part of VeriSign’s (VRSN) 2001 purchase of eNic Corporation (operator of the .CC registry) the company became the owner of a patent application, which has now been granted on March 4th of this year under patent number 7,337,910 b2. While the original patent application, at the time written by eNic’s CEO Brian Cartmell and eNic’s CTO Jothan Frakes, was used in order to resolve and offer non-existent domain names for registration, it would also cover Verisign’s Sitefinder application, implemented in September of 2003, causing any unregistered .COM/.NET domain to resolve to a parked page. VeriSign, was ordered by ICANN to cease the practice shortly after they introduced it.
And crap. I own a .cc domain that I use! http://www.ase.cc
June 16, 2006
Politicians Ponder Over Patent Trolls
Poster: Aron Schatz
Posted on June 16, 2006 at 2:27:10 PM
Some of these politicians that we have elected are bowing to pressure from Amazon (no less) about patent trolls. It would be a good idea to fix the patent system, but leaving the copyright situation like it currently is is worse! The patent system can be fixed in the short term very quickly. Eliminate "method" patents. This includes software/business patents.
Quote
They argue that by effectively reducing the potential gains, people and companies may not have such a great incentive to obtain their livelihood by sitting on patents until they can find a company to sue for infringement. Misener also called on politicians to outlaw the practice of awarding compensation for estimated lost profits to patent holders who don't offer a product that competes directly with the company they're accusing of infringement. Those who "do not compete in (the) marketplace are not entitled to lost profits but instead to a reasonable royalty," he said.
Page:
[1]