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.

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 “GoDaddy Sued For Violating Patent On Auto Configuration Of New Servers”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Search Engines WEB (user link) says:

Perhaps they Want an ROI on their Patent

Behind many IT patents lie hard work and creativity and an investment –

…so without knowing ALL the facts in the case – it does appear that 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.

dennis parrott (user link) says:

Re: Perhaps they Want an ROI on their Patent

what unadulterated, complete and total HOGWASH.

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.

Tyshaun says:

Re: Can you say Prior Art?

WTF is wrong with these people?

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?

You do realize there actually are several patents on keyboards, yes? Here’s the story of the patent of the qwerty based keyboard configuration.

My point, just because it’s obvious doesn’t mean it shouldn’t (and wasn’t) patented

ryusen says:

Re: Re: Can you say Prior Art?

My point, just because it’s obvious doesn’t mean it shouldn’t (and wasn’t) patented

Actually yes, in the case of should. AN obvious patent should NOT be allowed to be patented. Patents are supposed to be for original innovations, not takign a blatently obvious idea and trying to prevent anyone else from using it.

ScaredofTheMan says:


I see your point re: the keyboard, but that was at a time a new invention people did not have it before.

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.

Dan says:


Is that a quote directly from the patent? If so, someone screwed up big time. Anything that vague is not supposed to be patentable. That is akin to Intel suing AMD because their CPUs perform the same task as Intel’s. It would never happen, because it’s ridiculous. needs to stop being a bunch of dicks. Godaddy is better anyway. This is just going to make people hate Maybe if their service didn’t suck so badly, they wouldnt need to sue other companies just to stay in the black.

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...