RSS
Israeli Claims Patent Over Adding .com To The End Of The Address Bar
from the yup,-that-patent-system-functions-just-great dept
TechCrunch points us to a story about an Israeli company by the name of Netex who is claiming a patent over "www.addressing." What's that? Well, apparently it's the process of simply adding a ".com" to the end of a word you put in a browser address bar. There are all sorts of questions raised by this, and the reporting at the Israeli site Ynetnews leaves a lot to be desired. First, neither Ynetnews nor TechCrunch point to the actual patent. I've been searching on both the supposed inventor's name (Aviv Refuah) and his company's name and I can't find it. If anyone out there can find the actual patent, please post a link in the comments.
The next problem with the article is the claim that this patent is "worth millions" and that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo "will have to pay royalties." It remains to be seen if that's true (and given what's stated, it seems quite doubtful).
Next problem? The article claims that this patent is about the address bar in the browser -- not a search engine box -- though, the reporter doesn't seem to understand the difference between the two. Admittedly, Google now offers a browser in Chrome, but the article keeps referring to the patent as a "search option." Yahoo doesn't offer a browser.
Then there's the issue of claiming that Google and Yahoo "use" this technology:
Finally, it's tough to say much about the actual patent claims in question -- seeing as we haven't seen them -- but from the Ynetnews description, it's difficult to see how such a thing could possibly be considered patentable (and one would think that Netscape would have some prior art, though I can't remember exactly when Netscape added the ability to add .com to the end of something put in the browser bar). But, honestly, can anyone with a straight face explain why such a thing should be patentable?
The next problem with the article is the claim that this patent is "worth millions" and that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo "will have to pay royalties." It remains to be seen if that's true (and given what's stated, it seems quite doubtful).
Next problem? The article claims that this patent is about the address bar in the browser -- not a search engine box -- though, the reporter doesn't seem to understand the difference between the two. Admittedly, Google now offers a browser in Chrome, but the article keeps referring to the patent as a "search option." Yahoo doesn't offer a browser.
Then there's the issue of claiming that Google and Yahoo "use" this technology:
Refuah says various internet giants such as Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo have been using the program for years, and now they will have to pay royalties to Netex.That implies -- falsely -- that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo have somehow been using some technology that they got from Netex. It's a common trick used in reporting about patents, but its highly misleading. Much, much, much more likely is that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo simply added a useful and obvious feature, that Netex is now showing up and claiming ownership years later.
Finally, it's tough to say much about the actual patent claims in question -- seeing as we haven't seen them -- but from the Ynetnews description, it's difficult to see how such a thing could possibly be considered patentable (and one would think that Netscape would have some prior art, though I can't remember exactly when Netscape added the ability to add .com to the end of something put in the browser bar). But, honestly, can anyone with a straight face explain why such a thing should be patentable?
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Give me a break
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Even a story?
You did do due diligence and try to find the patent, but when you couldn't, maybe you should have realized this was just crap reporting and not really about a bad patent. There's less here than there is about Glenn Beck raping and murdering a young girl in 1990.
Maybe you can wait next time until something becomes actual news before jumping in with both feet.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Even a story?
And who, my helmety sources tell me, suffers from dwarfism, accounting for all the other shortness you mentioned.
"You did do due diligence and try to find the patent, but when you couldn't, maybe you should have realized this was just crap reporting and not really about a bad patent."
Sometimes crappy reporting IS the story. And attempting to use a smart, capable community like TechDirt's adds credence to a smart blog's model. Gotta think two steps ahead to stay in front of those evil newspapers...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Wrong Targets
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
$5 to Netex
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Even a story?
Well, it IS news (on account of it already being reported as such) and Mike has pretty clearly stated that it doesn't make much sense. That's the value-added moment. See how this works? Pity you don't have much value to add.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Link is the following:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/fetch.jsp?LANG=ENG&DBSELECT=PCT&SERVER_TYPE=19-10&SORT=41 257917-KEY&TYPE_FIELD=256&IDB=0&IDOC=632291&C=10&ELEMENT_SET=B&RESULT=1& TOTAL=1&START=1&DISP=25&FORM=SEP-0/HITNUM,B-ENG,DP,MC,AN,PA,ABSUM-ENG&SEARCH_IA=IL19 99000055&QUERY=%28WO%2f99%2f39280%29+
Personally, I think kid's mom and dad probably have too much money.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Well sure they "use" it
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Here's the patent
A method of WWW page retrieval from a web site, comprising:
a) receiving information associated with content of a web site, wherein said received information is not a WWW address and comprised characters typed for entry by a user into a URL entry field in a browser operable on an electronic device having web browsing capabilities, in which a standard URL address would be entered;
b) said information received by a software not associated with said web site;
c) determining a geographical location of the user;
d) providing a page address of said web site, responsive to said information and said determined geographical location, by said software;
e) sending the page address to the browser for retrieving said page responsive to said address; and
f) thereby causing said page to be directly displayed to the user using the browser, without any additional user intervention beyond the entry of said information.
OK, you tell me. Google - does it infringe, or not? I don't see Google "determining the geographical location" but then again, I don't really know for sure. I did not look at all of the other claims about to issue - who knows, some may be broader? And I know nothing about the state of prior art in 1998, although I would guess the above claim is probably legit. And finally, I know nothing about what the patentee said during prosecution to secure his claims - although now that I gave you the application number, you could search for it in the PTO Public PAIR just like I did and figure it out.
Now that you have the actual patent claim, it doesn't make for as interesting a story, does it?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"...wherein said information is in a non-Latin langage."
Or does this not matter since browsers have the ability to enter asian and other character types?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Here's the patent
"WWW address" is not an "IP address" but a "DOMAIN address" resolved through "DNS"
All the claim is claiming is sending information, minus a complete "DOMAIN address" to a server where the "IP address" identifies the geographic information (all IP addresses identify geographic information) and where, further, "DOMAIN address" information is sent back to the user. Wait, doesn't DNS fucntion like that? Yes it does.
Pretty darn interesting on how they'd get to patent that. It's pretty interesting.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Its all about the search function...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Here's the patent
Actually makes it that much more interesting.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Google was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin while they were students at Stanford University and the company was first incorporated as a privately held company on September 4, 1998."
(Both from Wikipedia)
Both Yahoo and Google started as .com (I remember using yahoo.com in 95). How is a patent filed in 1999 or 98 (if that's the correct patent) valid in any way shape or form if the technology for said patent was around in the US even before Yahoo?
I don't know how to find out when Microsoft.com went live but I can imagine it was even before Yahoo.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Slapping a .com on the end of every partial URL typed into the browser bar does not use the technology described in this patent. Even if the browsers were making database queries and using geo-data to determine which TLD to add to the partial URL, I don't think it would impinge on this patent since the patent itself says "not a WWW address".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Here's the patent
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
But, this debate is moot without the actual patent number. There are two in these comments alone (nether of witch fit the description in ynet) and probably thousands of others that it could be.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Since google.com isn't a web browser it shouldn't be infringing.
Since bing.com isnt' a web browser it shouldn't be infringing.
Since chrome and the servers it sends data to it means chrome isn't infringing.
Since IE and the serviers it sends data to it means IE isn't infringing.
Therefore, to be infringing it has to be a system (i.e. Google as a whole, Microsoft as a whole) but it can't be say Firefox, Netscape, or some other company unless explicitly found.
I'm pretty sure in 1995 if you typed cnn in yahoo search cnn.com would come up.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The 2005/0203835 claims priority to the PCT/IL99/00055.
So you have:
(123129 and 125432 in Israel) -> (PCT/IL99/00055 published as WO 99/39280) -> (App# 09/529,792 which has a divisional of 12/316,050 and is not published and what the article is ABOUT -- that's why you can't find it --) -> (App# 12/316,050 published as US 2009/0144288 A1 which will have a future article.)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
"i before e, except after c"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: patent BS
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://microsoft.com
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
bic patent
Just kidding, this really does seem stupid. I'm not an expert on patents, but you can't patent an "event" itself, only the method of how it happens. For instance, google can't patent the general concept of searching the web, but they can patent the method / algorithm, am I right?
Also, I went ahead and patented the left turn signal, building off of the patent on the right turn signal...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Even a story?
So Mike is saying "Hey, if this is real, lets get our knickers in a twist about it." Yeah, that's value added right there.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Even a story?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Even a story?
Your mom is value added.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Even a story?
Actually, I don't. If you hadn't noticed, we usually comment on stuff later than everyone else.
And this is right up your alley, about abusive, stupid patents and such. But it's not really even a story. It's a short article that is short on details from a reporter that apparently doesn't even understand what they're talking about.
Bingo! That's the story. The story was about how bad the reporting was on this, which is way too common in patent cases.
Maybe you can wait next time until something becomes actual news before jumping in with both feet.
It is news. The news of how bad the coverage was.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also of note to this discussion, for people without a browser toolbar like Google installed, the windows registry at HKEYLOCALMACHINE/SOFTWARE/MICROSOFT/WINDOWS/CURRENTVERSION/URL defines prefixes which should automatically be added to non-compliant word entries in the IE address bar.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
netscape navigator version 3 edition 1996
it auto completed any typed word int he address bar with ".com" and sent you there or whatever
stupid try at somehting done years before hand
and yes it was dropped as it was annoying as hell
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: patent BS
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Even a story?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Here's the patent
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Give me a break
The would-be 'inventor' is currently trying to hawk a social media/search site called Springo.
I have a suspicion that the reporter and Aviv are either the same person or in cahoots to drum up cheap publicity to raise the potential value of Springo (which only shows an out-of-service page).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment