Interesting People mailing list archives
PTO blows it big time with DNS searching patent
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 13:48:29 -0400
------ Forwarded Message From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com> !20030516 PTO blows it big time with DNS searching patent In the last ten years I have been doing PATNEWS, software patent quality has not improved one iota. And in the next ten years, it won't improve one iota. The PTO, the patent bar, and Congress still hold patent quality in contempt. There is no independent outside quality reviewers of the PTO (internal quality measures are as dubious as for all other government agencies), the PTO publishes no non-trivial statistics about patent quality, the Patent Advisory Board is a joke, and the patent bar is still trying to figure out how to spell "tough question". For example, consider the following totally unpatentable software method as of August 1998, and borrowing from out chemical colleagues, call it a genus-type patent claim (though utterly not genius): 1. A method in a data processing system with distributed databases, each responsible for maintaining application-specific records for an associated application, comprising: receiving user input containing a query string, a plurality of applications and at least one search criterion corresponding to the plurality of applications; transmitting a request for a search of the query string to each of the distributed databases associated with the plurality of applications; receiving search results from each of the distributed databases associated with the plurality of applications indicating, for each of the specified applications, whether an application-specific record exists for the application in the specified distributed database; and displaying the search results. In short, a method of doing distributed database searches, a technique well established in the 1980s. Now consider the following species restriction: distributed databases --> DNS servers application --> domain [registration] application-specific records --> registration records of domain names query string --> domain name and substitute the restricted species terms into the above genus claim, resulting in: 1. A method in a data processing system with DNS servers, each responsible for maintaining registration records of domain names for an associated domain, comprising: receiving user input containing a domain name, a plurality of domains and at least one search criterion corresponding to the plurality of domains; transmitting a request for a search of the domain name to each of the DNS servers associated with the plurality of domains; receiving search results from each of the DNS servers associated with the plurality of domains indicating, for each of the specified domains, whether a domain name record exists for the domain name in the specified domain; and displaying the search results. As a programmer, and someone with a degree in computer science, let me say that this type of software technique "genus restriction" is completely obvious to one skilled in the art, especially in light of mountains of non-patent prior art for distributed database queries from the late 1980s and early 1990s, especially distributed database queries of Internet information. SO HOW THE HECK DID THE PTO JUST ISSUE THIS PATENT CLAIM TO VERISIGN (OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THE PRIOR ART SUBMITTED WAS BASED ON A REALLY CRAP SEARCH)? Patent 6,560,634 6 May 2003 Method of determining unavailability of an internet domain name VeriSign, Inc. Filed: August 13, 1998 Abstract Methods, systems, and articles of manufacture consistent with the present invention provide an improved query server that overcomes the shortcomings of existing domain name searching techniques by performing a multitude of searches simultaneously, transparent to the user. Specifically, the improved query server searches for existing domain name records in various domains and then displays the results in a formatted manner, thus eliminating the need for a user to perform individual searches. I MEAN, DID ANYONE EVEN BOTHER TO PRETEND TO SEARCH FOR THIS PATENT? For example, how were the following papers missed, all published ten years on more before the patent was filed: The Clearinghouse: a decentralized agent for locating named objects in a distributed environment ACM Trans. Office Information Systems, July 1983, 230 Designing a global name service 1986 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, 1 A name service for evolving, heterogeneous systems ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles 1987, 52 A model of name resolution in distributed systems 6th Int. Conference on Distributed Computing Systems 1986, 523 This is all a contempt of science and engineering. Applicant and PTO searching is still a joke. And I have still not heard one word that convinces me that outsourcing PTO searching will improve anything. Especially in light of patents like this. Greg Aharonian Internet Patent News Service patnews () patenting-art com Archives at: <http://Wireless.Com/Dewayne-Net> Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com> ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- PTO blows it big time with DNS searching patent Dave Farber (May 18)