Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:

["Ram Mohan" <rmohan@afilias.info>]

Richard,
The patent system is intended to protect intellectual property.  It's legal.

ICANN's can't rule on the patent office's actions (or over-rule the law).

Cheers,
Ram

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
To: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>; "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D."
<john@johnberryhill.com>; "Elliot Noss" <enoss@tucows.com>; "Andy Gardner"
<andy@navigator.co.nz>; <ga@dnso.org>; <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:


> Very witty Michael, but what I find weird is that the same culture that
> claims to promote the free market and competition, is also the culture
that
> tries to infringe the rights of others to compete, through the burgeoning
IP
> lobby and the attempt to "own" through patents, and keep others out of
> legitimate competition. If this was done in the interests of the common
> good, then there might be some sympathy, but the culture is driven by
> corporate greed and the desire to "lock out" others and stop them from
> competing.
>
> What I find sad is that ICANN - in its administration of the world's DNS -
> has such a propensity to embrace the predators at the expense of the
> consumers, and condone the "annexing off" of language, ideas and the DNS,
> instead of protecting an open market. It is absolutely obvious that access
> to domain names - in this case expiring domain names - should not be
> constrained by one entity claiming a monopoly of access. The case for a
> patent in this specific case implies an assumption that a corporate
interest
> has the right to prevent others from offering similar services and similar
> access to this element of the DNS.
>
> The widespread perception is that ICANN is merely an agency/satellite of
the
> United States, working in the interests of big business and corporations,
> and protecting the ability of the US to exert controls over this worldwide
> resource. Such a hijacking of this resource is offensive to those who
> believe that the Internet and the DNS belong to a far wider community,
much
> of it excluded from effective decision-making in the ICANN Boardroom.
>
> John Berryhill, of course, relies for his reputation upon a certain
> detachment and objectivity in such matters : but they are certainly
matters
> which merit close scrutiny.
>
> Richard Henderson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael D. Palage <michael@palage.com>
> To: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. <john@johnberryhill.com>; Elliot Noss
> <enoss@tucows.com>; Andy Gardner <andy@navigator.co.nz>; <ga@dnso.org>;
> <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 5:36 PM
> Subject: RE: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:
>
>
> > Here are some additional questions that I would like to propose to the
> list.
> >
> > Question #1:
> > On what date does John Berryhill stop posting material to the list
> > concerning this subject matter. The significance of this event is that
is
> > the date John is likely to be retained by a client in this matter.
Having
> > gotten to know John over the years, he would never engage in such a
public
> > discussion if he was representing a client because of the potential
> ethical
> > considerations that it would raise.
> >
> > Question #2
> > When John goes silent, who is the client that has retained his services:
> > SnapNames; VeriSign; Doster; TUCOWS; or some other registrar(s). This is
> the
> > question that I find most interesting because John probably does have
the
> > biggest inbox of prior art on the subject matter.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of John
> > > Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
> > > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 10:21 AM
> > > To: Elliot Noss; Andy Gardner; ga@dnso.org; discuss-list@opensrs.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: "Elliot Noss" <enoss@tucows.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > > John, are you sure about 12/99? I thought it was 2000 as well.
> > >
> > > If you take a look at the first paragraph of the application, it
states:
> > >
> > > "[0001] This application is a continuation of and claims priority
> > > from U.S.
> > > Provisional Patent Application No. 60/245,102, filed Nov. 1,
> > > 2000, and U.S.
> > > Provisional Patent Application No. 60/248,341, filed Nov. 13, 2000. "
> > >
> > > There are several things going on here.  First of all, a US patent
> > > application can claim the filing date of an earlier-filed provisional
> > > application, so long as the regular application is filed within a
> > > year of the
> > > provisional.  That was done here.
> > >
> > > There were two provisional applications filed in November 2000.  We do
> not
> > > know at this time to what extent those provisionals may or may not
have
> > > adequately supported the claimed material of the later US
> > > applications.  But
> > > for the purpose of focussing efforts productively, it is conservative
to
> > > assume that the support was there.
> > >
> > > So, that assumption provides the pending application with an
> > > effective filing
> > > date of November 2000.
> > >
> > > Now, there are a couple of categories of things that qualify as prior
> art.
> > > One category would be to show that the invention was known and
> > > used by others
> > > prior to the invention thereof by the applicant.  However, the date of
> > > invention is not objectively knowable on the basis of evidence
> > > available to
> > > us.
> > >
> > > The most reliable category of prior art are things that were in
> > > public use,
> > > published, or on sale more than one year prior to the effective
> > > filing date
> > > of the application.  That critical date is objectively knowable
> > > to us at this
> > > time, and that date is November 1, 1999.
> > >
> > > Additionally, everyone ought to know that during prosecution of a
> > > US patent
> > > application, anyone connected with the application (the
> > > applicant, the owner,
> > > etc.) has a duty to submit copies of relevant prior art
> > > information of which
> > > they are aware.  There's no duty to go out and look for stuff,
> > > but assuming
> > > they are reading this list, then they would do well to submit copies
of
> > > relevant archives that are posted here.  This will help them obtain a
> > > stronger patent, as will any attempt to submit material to the
> > > patent office
> > > at this time, since they will be the only ones involved in arguing
> around
> > > such material and/or amending the claims ever so slightly to avoid a
> > > rejection based on such material.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html