decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Go Daddy and Facebook in bed together | 312 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
by their own logic of course
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT
My guess is that the members of the USPTO et. al. reason
along the lines of: The fact that patents are granted is a
sign of innovation happening. Thus: the more patents are
granted, the more innovation is 'going on'. The USPTO's
crucial role in the process of stimulating innovation is to
grant each and every patent that can possibly be approved.
QED.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Go Daddy patents “announcing a domain name registration on a social website”
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 03:03 PM EDT
I guess that all that prior art out there counted for nowt then?
I announced a website for my Camera Club in about 1998 on a Forum where other
people (members of Camera Clubs) did the same. Sadly the site no longer exists.
Pah. Bunkum, Popycock and Balderdash.
{Now that is a good name for a firm of Lawyers :) }

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Go Daddy and Facebook in bed together
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 04:19 PM EDT
The prophet Wm Shakespeare foresaw this,

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. [Sonnet 116]

or p'raps

Sour-ey'd disdain and discord shall bestrew
The union, of your bed with weeds so loathly
That you shall hate it both: [Tempest IV:i]

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Go Daddy patents “announcing a domain name registration on a social website”
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 07:02 PM EDT
What else can we patent? The announcement on social media of the acquisition of
a toothbrush? The announcement on social media of a new cell phone? The
announcement on social media of a new boy or girl friend?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You don't know what you are talking about
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT

Then, they keep granting stupid patents like these. Sane people have to question whether they serve ANY constructive role. Where they intended to be such a big rubber stamp for any stupid idea somebody attempts to patent?

You don't know what you are talking about. This patent was initially REJECTED by the USPTO. If you want to see why it was allowed, why don't you go over the USPTO web site and find out?

Type the address http://portal.uspto.gov/ext ernal/portal/pair into your browser. Then enter the Captcha verification code. Select the "Patent Number" radio button and enter the patent number of the patent (8,276,057) in the box. Voom! You are taken to the entire history of the patent.

Click the "Image File Wrapper" tab, and then click on the empty box next to the blue "PDF" box under the heading "Available Documents." This will select every (or almost every) document filed in the USPTO in this patent application. (It won't check copyrighted documents, nor will it let you download these.) Then click on the blue "PDF" box and download the entire file wrapper contents into a directory. (The file won't be nearly as large as indicated when you start the download.) You can then view this file wrapper to your heart's content with your favorite PDF reader.

I invite you to view the statement of "Allowable Subject Matter" in the 6-page version of the Notice of Allowance and Fees Due. It says,

... [T]he prior art discloses publishing a user action and a link to a website associated with the user action on a social networking website based on user permission. ... Further, the prior art discloses means of sending a notification of changes to a domain name request, e.g., monitoring whether a new domain name registration has become active. ... Still further, the prior art discloses a method for registering a domain name and publishing the new domain to a search website. ... However, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the combination of ..."

You can read the rest, and I invite you to do so in conjunction with the prior art, the examiner's original rejection, the amendments to the claims, and the arguments made supporting the patentability of the amended claims. After you read this material, you will be in a position to comment intelligently on whether this patent should have been allowed or not. Before you do that, I submit that you are not in such a position.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The patent document has been sloppily proof-read
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 09:06 PM EDT
Haven't crawled through every boring word of it, but in the
preamble (the more than two pages that describe how
computers and the Internet work) the twenty lines describing
a "network" and the Internet have been duplicated verbatim
except for the sentence about Web Sites, which has been
amended to say Web Pages and a sentence added, describing a
Web Site as a set of Web Pages.

I wonder how much Go Daddy paid to have a document produced
which has at least this one glaring error that I picked up
within 60 seconds.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )