GoDaddy Sued For Violating Patent On Auto Configuration Of New Servers
from the this-is-patented? dept
The patent system is supposed to provide incentives for big new innovations, while helping explain to others how those innovations came about. Yet, these days, with the patent system allowing patents on just about everything, it seems like it's more often being used not to promote innovation, but to stop actual competition -- which is bad for just about everyone. The latest example is that a smaller domain registrar has decided to sue GoDaddy for violating a patent on automatically configuring a network server. This is a concept that it's hard to believe most people wouldn't consider quite obvious. Basically, when a new customer uses an online configuration tool to select what features and services they want on a new domain hosting account, the system automatically configures the servers to provide those features and services. It's hard to understand why that deserves any kind of special protection, yet, because it has special protection a lot of money is about to go to lawyers, rather than to providing better services to customers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Perhaps they Want an ROI on their Patent
...so without knowing ALL the facts in the case - it does appear that Web.com should be allowed maximize the Return on their Investment ....
especially when a RICH competitor is utilizing it
if it means getting a payment from each of the users of their patent, for a small company, that could collectively be a signicant sum that would help them maintain themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Can you say Prior Art?
I am going to patent a method for inputing text by use of fingers, then I am going to sue Microsoft and IBM for selling my patented technology.....the keyboard.
Will this ever end?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Can you say Prior Art?
You do realize there actually are several patents on keyboards, yes? Here's the story of the patent of the qwerty based keyboard configuration.
http://home.earthlink.net/~dcrehr/whyqwert.html
My point, just because it's obvious doesn't mean it shouldn't (and wasn't) patented
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Agreed....but
Unless these guys have some old patent, the ability to manipulate a server via web page is both obvious and should not be patentable.
I have no problem with people patenting things, inventions, even lines of code. But when you have these broad, vague patents it becomes simply silly. I mean if you read the patent
"A network server runs a routine that is triggered by an external database management program. The routine receives configuration parameters from the database, and configures application programs resident on the server in accordance therewith."
Then, they should sue MS for its IIS Management interface in windows 2000/2003. C'mooon its a joke man.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uhhhh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Perhaps they Want an ROI on their Patent
software patents were a bad idea from the start, period.
the fact that our "gubbmint" does a well beyond shitty job of administering them makes it all the more horrid. (does ANYONE actually believe that the gubbmint patent clerks do more than check off the box that says they considered "prior art" when granting a patent on software?)
"zero config" has been a holy grail in the computer industry since before i started writing code for money 28 years ago. that the gubbmint granted some joker a patent on an idea for "zero config" just shows how broke this system really is. tweaking a server out based on how a user checks off a form is just an extension of how DEC reconfiged VMS back in the day or how "plug&pray" was supposed to work (to name just two examples). this patent is an extension of prior art, nothing more, and the owner of said worthless scrap of paper is being way over-compensated if ANYONE gives so much as one ruble for it.
software patents need to be ABOLISHED. NOW. FOREVER.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Once again it blows.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Once again it blows.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Agreed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
code shoule however have all and maybe a little more from/for copyrighting it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Can you say Prior Art?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They are a terrible web hosting company that should have stuck with just domain registrations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]