arstechnica.com — The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has rejected 20 patent claims on an Internet subdomain patent, ruling that the concepts were obvious and therefore not patentable. The patent owner must now decide whether to amend the claims and make them more narrow, or to give up altogether.
Jan 22, 2009 View in Crawl 4
oldbitcollectorJan 22, 2009
Not to mention all the prior art from '99.. Even I wrote a CGI subdomain script back then. Ghesh..
nasalsprayJan 22, 2009
<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/tech_news/EFF_Virtual_Subdomain_Patents_Rejected_By_US_Patent_Office">http://digg.com/tech_news/EFF_Virtual_Subdomain_Pa ...</a>
orbatJan 22, 2009
Why the hell are you getting dugg down? You're right on the money.
spyd3rwebJan 22, 2009
software should not be patentable
aleman360Jan 22, 2009
This is not really news, most patents require multiple submissions before they're accepted, with some specific claims being refuted. That's one of the reasons the process takes so long.
sporJan 22, 2009
yeah, I've never understood this argument. Someone please explain to me why I wouldn't want an innovation I spent years of my life creating protected. Is it because I would love for some corporate giant to come along and steal it, then market it with their millions of dollars and push me out of the market. One can make the argument that it would be a lovely and ideal software world if everything was open, but as of now I just don't buy it. In some aspects you really do need your IP protected.
vansantpatentJan 22, 2009
Doesn't this just show that the system works? Sometimes a bad patent gets issued by the PTO. Someone says "Hey, that's not new!". You request a reexam and the PTO fixes the mistake. Done. Thousands of patents issued each week, not all are perfect.