The patent doesn't claim to apply to domains - it claims to apply to URLs of the form
name.subdomain.domain. The mere fact that this isn't correct syntax for URLs didn't
prevent them from getting the patent, but it should make enforcing it on people who
are using *domain names* of that form
According to the article, somebody maanged to patent the selling of
www.something.somethng.com. Which seems a bit assanine to me, since the
ISP I worked for in 1993 offered custoemrs www.customer.ccnet.com.
Uh, no, that's not what the article said and it's not what the patent,
which is linked
John Levine wrote:
According to the article, somebody maanged to patent the selling of
www.something.somethng.com. Which seems a bit assanine to me, since the
ISP I worked for in 1993 offered custoemrs www.customer.ccnet.com.
Uh, no, that's not what the article said and it's not what the
At 09:41 AM 1/16/2004, you wrote:
According to the article, somebody maanged to patent the selling of
www.something.somethng.com. Which seems a bit assanine to me, since the
ISP I worked for in 1993 offered custoemrs www.customer.ccnet.com.
Uh, no, that's not what the article said and it's not
Uh, no, that's not what the article said and it's not what the patent,
which is linked from the article, says. The patent is on the tiny
tweak of selling matching e-mail addresses and domains (it says URLs
but their examples show domains) of the form [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
argle.bargle.tld.
I'm
