US Postal Service Shuts Down Internet Post Office

from the they-had-one? dept

Did you know that the US Postal Service offered an “internet post office” called NetPost? They called it an experiment in “hybrid” mail. Senders would send a document electronically, which would be delivered to a printing location physically near the final destination. The documents would then be printed out and delivered via snail mail. I vaguely remember hearing about this when it first started, but promptly forgot all about it. So did just about everyone else, apparently. The Post Office has announced that they won’t be renewing the service. They won’t say why, but there’s a good chance it has something to do with the fact that most people don’t see the benefit. About the only real benefit is for the Post Office itself, who wouldn’t have to ship the mail over long distances. However, for most people, if they’re going to use that, they might as well just send the mailing completely electronically to its destination.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “US Postal Service Shuts Down Internet Post Office”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
bastard sam says:

No Subject Given

The postal service is at the end of their fiscal year, and IT spending has dropped again. Yes, that means cuts in places that don’t make or save money or increase efficiency. Such is the way of the world. At least they knew enough to know there wasn?t enough demand for it. Other branches of the government keep spending money on things that have no value or purpose for decades.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: No Subject Given

Agreed. The defense spending was so high last year, they needed a make-work project. Thus, they planned to take over some third-world country and dupe the entire US population into believing it was justified.

Success! They were picked up for another year!

Considering the US’s great contribution to global warming, criminal neglect which killed 20,000 europeans this year (and which will likely do next year too), will the US be invading themselves next year? Remember – regime change begins at home.

Beck says:

They Don't Get It

I recently had an interesting experience with the post office that shows that sometimes they just don’t seem to get it when it comes to the Internet and technology.

Normally when you move you go to the post office and fill out a change of address form. Then you hand them the form and they have someone type the information into their system. Whenever you receive mail at the old address they print one of those yellow stickers with your new address and put it onto the envelope.

I moved a few weeks ago, and I decided that instead of going to the post office I would see if I could do the change of address online. I went to their web site and found that indeed I could do that.

I filled out the forms online, going through three pages, and on the last page, after all of my data was entered, I was given two options. I could print out the information on my printer and mail it to them (whereupon someone at the post office would retype all of my info into their system), or I could pay $1 to submit the data to them via the Internet.

I was flabbergasted! First, they never indicated anywhere that there would be a charge for the service, and secondly, I was saving them the cost of the labor to type my data into their system! It was already sitting there on their server, ready to flow into their change-of-address system, but they wanted a dollar to complete the process!

I said “screw it” and filled out the form at the post office.

It has to be less expensive to let the customers fill out and submit the information online, so I don’t understand why they wanted to charge me.

Oliver Wendell Jones (profile) says:

Re: They Don't Get It

I’m going to guess that the only way to pay that $1 to submit the information was by credit card, right?

Did you ever stop to think it could be a preventative measure to keep people from randomly forwarding your mail to some other address, as they either need to go into the post office in person (and risk being remembered) or use a credit card to do it online, and leave an elecronic trail?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: They Don't Get It

Good point about the identity, BUT I can think off the cuff of another method for verification that would involve a computer generated postcard being sent out notifying you of the requested on line change and requiring you to return it with the PIN code given to you when you filled out the form in the first place.
Ahha … just an example of programming being used to convenience the consumer instead of the other way around …

Joe Schmoe says:

Re: Re: Re: They Don't Get It

“Good point about the identity, BUT I can think off the cuff of another method for verification that would involve a computer generated postcard being sent out notifying you of the requested on line change and requiring you to return it with the PIN code given to you when you filled out the form in the first place.

Er, yes, but this would among other things add a step or two and negate the time and effort saved.

I agree that the $1 charge sets up a trail and discourages random address changes. It should be explained as such at the site…

Internet Postmaster (user link) says:

Re: They Don't Get It [ Internet Postal Service ]

Internet Postal Service

Who will be the Internet Postal Service? The answer is the private sector ISPs.

What the United States Postal Service should do is go public and get rid of the overloaded expenses and hire knowledgable tech savy individuals.

The following is a case where the USPS spent nearly $2,000,000 on a domain name case just because the site was ranked higher than the United States Postal Service on Google.


Opinion and Order – United States Trademark Law

2001 April 16


CV 99-1290-MA

ZIPEE CORP., a Washington corporation, and
ZIPEE.COM, INC., an Oregon corporation,





Kristine Olson
United States Attorney
District of Oregon
William W. Youngman
Assistant United States Attorney
1000 S.W. Third Ave., Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204-2902

Patricia K. Norris
Keith Beauchamp
Jennifer Van Kirk
Lewis and Roca LLP
40 North Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85004

Attorneys for Defendant

MARSH, Judge.

Plaintiffs originally filed this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; defendant
filed an answer asserting counterclaims for federal trademark infringement under the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114, unfair competiton under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
1125(a), federal and state statutory dilution, 15 U.S.C. 1125(c) and Wash. Rev. Code
19.77.160 and common law trade name infringement and unfair competition. On
December 12, 2000, I granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the
issues of infringement and cybersquatting and denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion for
summary judgment. Thereafter, defendant requested dismissal of its remaining
counter-claims. On January 29, 2001, I entered a judgment permanently enjoining
plaintiffs and any of their associates from using the postal services’ marks and I
awarded defendant its taxable costs. After entry of judgment, I granted plaintiffs’
attorneys’ motion to withdraw. There has been no substitution of counsel for plaintiffs.

Defendant now moves for attorney fees and non-taxable costs totaling $1,183,403.22
under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1117(a). Plaintiffs have filed no opposition. The
Lanham Act provides that a court may award reasonable attorney fees in “exceptional
cases.” Although the Act fails to define what constitutes an “exceptional” case, the
Ninth Circuit has held that a trademark case is exceptional if the infringement is
“malicious, fraudulent, deliberate or willful.” Gracie v. Gracie, 217 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th
Cir. 2000). Awards are “never automatic.” Rolex Watch, USA, Inc. v. Michel Co., 179
F.3d 704, 711 (9th Cir. 1999).

The secision to award fees rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Gracie,
217 F.3d at 1068. A finding of willful infringement will support a fee award. See Id.
Fees may be denied where the legality of the activity is “unsettled,” see e.g.
Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom, Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 279 (3rd Cir. 2000),
or where the claims are “not unfounded” or brought for puposes of harassment. See
e.g. National Ass’n of Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc. v. Very Minor Leagues, Inc.,
223 F.3d 1143, 1149-50 (10th Cir. 2000).

The prevailing party bears the burden of demonstrating the exceptional nature of the
case by “clear and convincing evidence.” Seven-Up Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 86 F.3d
1379, 1390 (5th Cir. 1996); Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. v. Cooper Industries, Inc.,
1998 WL 349554, 47 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1049, 1050 (D. Or. 1998).

Defendant contends that it is entitled to fees because plaintiffs’ infringement was
willful and based upon evidence relied upon in support of the cybersquatting
counterclaim relative to plaintiffs’ registration of other internet domain names that are
confusingly similar to other businesses.

While I found infringement and cybersquatting established in this case, there was a
genuine, good faith dispute as to whether or not the term “postal service,” was
entitled to trademark protection at all. Defendant has no registration for the phrase
“postal service,” but instead relied upon related registrations for U.S. Postal Service
marks. Whether “postal service” was generic and unprotectable or descriptive and
protectable because it had acquired secondary meaning was not a groundless or
unreasonable issue. I find that the plaintiffs’ internet domain name registration for and related marks
presented a question of unsettled legality. Thus, I cannot say that this represents and
“exceptional” case to justify a fee award.

Based upon the foregoing, I decline to exercise my discretion to award attorney fees
in this action. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for fees (#150) is DENIED.


DATED this 13 day of April, 2001.

Malcolm F. Marsh
United States District Judge

Additional Information on Internet Postal Service case:
United States District Court
Google Thread
Iformation supplied by the Internet Postal Service

peteo says:

I did this today

I did the exact thing today, went to the web site filled all the crap out and then got to the $1 page. I just printed it out, and went to the post office where they told me the print out was useless and handed me another form to fill out and drop in the mail. They dont NOT check any id or any thing so any one could do this for any address.

Beck says:

Re: I did this today

They don’t check your ID when you hand them the change of address form. They send a letter to the old address stating that a forwarding order has been established. That way if it is fraudulent you will know about it and can notify the post office.

If I had to guess, I would suspect that they hired some company to do the programming and handle the logistics in exchange for some or all of the fee. BUT, the cost savings to the post office should be enough to cover the cost of paying the contractor without having to collect a fee from the customer.

One of the great advantages of the Internet is customer self-service. Let the customer do the work and you can reduce your customer service overhead.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: I did this a few weeks ago

Started the process online, got annoyed by the $1 fee, so I printed it out and mailed it to the post office (saving a whole $0.63). Someone then manually entered the info into the system – except they entered my old and new address both as my old address. So mail to my old address was slapped with a forward sticker on it to the exact same address. When I called and asked why I wasn’t getting any forwarded mail, the rep said I should fill out another change-of-address form, which I did. At that point I just paid the $1 to speed the process as best as possible. When the site asked for when to begin forwarding mail, it wouldn’t let me enter a date prior to the current date. I finally managed to speak with my former mail carrier, who figured out what happened and manually entered the right info about 3 weeks later.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...