On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 18:00:35 -0400, you wrote:
>40. The method of claim 38, wherein the domain-related information is
>related to at least one of an expiration date of the domain, a domain
>name server record associated with the domain, and a name server
>associated with the domain.
>James Fadden
On a slightly different - off topic - note.... it has been mooted about
lately that the US patent office is going insane with the advent of
actually patenting "ideas" and not inventions.
Ok so the word "idea" and "inventions" conjures up something intangible
and something tangible or in "physical existence" like an electric
toaster.
Now on the subject of toasters the idea of using electricity cannot be
patented but the specific design can be copyrighted and possibly any
ground breaking - out of this world - Star Trek style technology can be
patented.
The UK Patent Office is a little more sane when it come to granting
patents as there is a clause the "Obvious Improvements" cannot be
patented not be used as a reason for claiming Patent Infringements.
It's a bit like buying a 1969 Hemi Charger and stuffing a 671 GMC
supercharger on the top. Is that a patent infringement? Or can it be
classed as an improvement to the original?
Like this Google thing about page ranking. Get a piece of paper and
write down your monthly shopping list. Check through your cupboards and
see what you really need , what is approaching "use by" date and what is
an unnecessary luxury. Rank these in order of preference and then go to
the patent office and state that you have invented a new way of
organising a shopping list - ever been laughed at?
This whole kettle of fish has got to be given the heave ho into the
dustbin (trash can US) and re-evaluated as to what can be patented and
what cannot.
In the UK edition of PC Pro magazine there is an article about Neolithic
software companies using outdated and irrelevant patents to stifle
design and improvements in the software we need for today's computers.
One example id the jpeg picture format - I think everyone is aware of
the history) and even our own BT (British Telecom) found that it held
the patent rights to HTML hyperlink code when it was developing HTML an
document links in the mid 1980s - I watched a demo at one of the
Education Technology Exhibitions in London and wondered what it was all
about - some 20 years later I know what it was all about and so did they
but a little too late to cash in as the code and "idea" if you put it
that way was now in "general use" without any complaints from the patent
holder during it's lifetime to the court case date - they lost....!
To me this makes more sense than the Google patent hope!
Sir Hugh of Bognor
--
Remember. You may honestly believe that you understood everything
you thought I said but what you thought you heard wasn't
exactly what I said.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
----------------------------------------
The WIN-HOME mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
