Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1696
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 14 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1696

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:20:57 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:

From: "Elliot Noss" <[email-masked]>

> 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 12:36:06 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John
> Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 10:21 AM
> To: Elliot Noss; Andy Gardner; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:
>
>
>
> From: "Elliot Noss" <[email-masked]>
>
>
> > 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 [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 11:52:37 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Even Handed Application of The Rules (Yes or No? - We shall see) (was Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams suspended for 14  days).

On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 08:44  AM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami 
School of Law wrote:

> I quite agree that in the grand scheme of things this is nothing like
> torturing dissidents, but it's a form of limiting debate nonetheless.
>
Stripping people of their assets (barcelona.com, bodacious-tatas.com, 
etc) could be construed as being closer to the "torture" end of the 
scale rather than the "debate limiting" end?

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

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 11:54:01 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 6:22 LAW

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
6:22 LAW

http://www.patent.law/
http://www.patent.law.new.net/

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://DOT.COM.shop

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

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 12:39:49 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 0:1 .NET

http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr16apr01.htm
"provide for a competitive process in 2005 to determine the future operator of .net."
=================

.NET owners do not appear to be interested in waiting 2 more years...

IN-ADDR.NET appears to exist...

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

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

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 12:53:17 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 0:112     INT...".int only for international treaty-based organizations"  ??

Société Internationale de Télécommunications Aéronautiques
14, avenue Henri Matisse
1140 Brussels, Belgium
+32 2 745 01 05
26, Chemin de Joinville
PO Box 31
1216 Geneva, Switzerland
+41 22 747 60 00
[email-masked]

http://www.iana.org/int-dom/int.htm
".int only for international treaty-based organizations"  ?

http://www.SITA.int ?

http://whois.iana.org/index.cgi
[whois.iana.org]

IANA Whois Service
Domain: sita.int
ID: sita-int

Registrant:
    Name: SITA - Airline Telecommunication and Info. Services
    Address1: 3100 Cumberland Circle
    Address2: Suite 200
    City: Atlanta
    State/Province: GA
    Country: USA
    Postal Code: 30339
    Registration Date: 10-September-2001
    Last Updated Date: 16-October-2001

Administrative Contact:
    Name: Pierre Longpre
    Address1: EGN BV, bureau 2300
    Address2: Equant Global Network
    Address3: 770 Sherbrooke Ouest
    City: Montreal
    State/Province: Quebec
    Country: Canada
    Postal Code: H3A 1G1
    Phone: +1 514 847-3432
    Fax: +1 514-847-3400
    Email: [email-masked]
    Registration Date: 10-September-2001
    Last Updated Date: 16-October-2001

Technical Contact:
    Name: SITA-EQUANT hostmaster
    Address1: 3100 Cumberland circle
    Address2: suite 200
    City: Atlanta
    State/Province: GA
    Country: USA
    Postal Code: 30339
    Phone: +1 678-346-3699
    Fax: +1 678 346-3432
    Email: [email-masked]
    Registration Date: 16-October-2001
    Last Updated Date: 16-October-2001

Nameserver Information:
    Nameserver: ns1.equant.net.
    IP Address:
    Nameserver: ns2.equant.net.
    IP Address:
    Nameserver: ns3.equant.net.
    IP Address:

Registration Date: 23-August-1996
Last Updated Date: 19-July-2002
===========================================
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/aero/sponsorship-agmt-att23-17nov01.htm
5. Relinquishment of .int Domain Name

Sponsor currently has a registration of the name sita.int. Sponsor is not an international organization established by a treaty
between or among national governments, and therefore does not meet the current qualifications for new registrations within .int.
Sponsor shall promptly submit a plan for migration of all its use of sita.int to sita.aero (and possibly other domains) so that, no
later than 24 months after the Effective Date of the Agreement, the sita.int registration may be deleted.

===================================================

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
0:112     INT

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

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 12:57:49 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 0:212     BIZ..."shall not constitute a "bona fide business or commercial use" of that domain name." ??

http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/biz/registry-agmt-appl-18apr01.htm

.biz Registration Restrictions

Restrictions

Registrations in the .biz TLD will be subject to the following restrictions:

  1. Registrations in the .biz TLD must be used or intended to be used primarily for bona fide business or commercial purposes; and

  2. Registrations in the .biz TLD must comply with the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP"), as adopted and as may be amended
by the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers. For proceedings intitiated before the Commencement-of-Service Date, a
modified version of the UDRP, known as the Start-Up Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy ("SUDRP") (which also includes corresponding
modifications to the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy) will apply.

For purposes of the .biz Registration Restrictions ("Restrictions"), "bona fide business or commercial use" shall mean the bona fide
use or bona fide intent to use the domain name or any content, software, materials, graphics or other information thereon, to permit
Internet users to access one or more host computers through the DNS:

  1. To exchange goods, services, or property of any kind;

  2. In the ordinary course of trade or business; or

  3. To facilitate (i) the exchange of goods, services, information, or property of any kind; or, (ii) the ordinary course of trade
or business.

Registering a domain name solely for the purposes of (1) selling, trading or leasing the domain name for compensation, or (2) the
unsolicited offering to sell, trade or lease the domain name for compensation shall not constitute a "bona fide business or
commercial use" of that domain name.

=====================================================================

http://www.DOT.BIZ ????????

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com

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

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 18:19:53 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
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 <[email-masked]>
To: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. <[email-masked]>; Elliot Noss
<[email-masked]>; Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John
> > Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
> > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 10:21 AM
> > To: Elliot Noss; Andy Gardner; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:
> >
> >
> >
> > From: "Elliot Noss" <[email-masked]>
> >
> >
> > > 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 [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 14:37:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:

I think the registrars should band together and hire him...

On Wed, 14 May 2003, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> 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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John
> > Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
> > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 10:21 AM
> > To: Elliot Noss; Andy Gardner; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:
> >
> >
> >
> > From: "Elliot Noss" <[email-masked]>
> >
> >
> > > 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 [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

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

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 14:41:49 -0400
From: "Elliot Noss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:

Richard:

I am missing something. How do you connect ICANN in any way to these
patents? In addition, IIRC, ICANN has only tabled, not endorsed the WIPO2
proposals. Where is the nexus here?

Regards

Elliot Noss
Tucows inc.
416-538-5494

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Henderson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:20 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage; John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.; Elliot Noss; Andy
> Gardner; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> 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 <[email-masked]>
> To: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. <[email-masked]>; Elliot Noss
> <[email-masked]>; Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>
> 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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John
> > > Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
> > > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 10:21 AM
> > > To: Elliot Noss; Andy Gardner; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: "Elliot Noss" <[email-masked]>
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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 [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:09:42 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:

On 14 May 2003 at 14:37, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> I think the registrars should band together and hire him...
> 

I heartily agree. :)  They would certainly have a good lawyer.

Leah

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

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:32:52 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:

Richard,

I think one the things that John and I have been trying to illustrate is
that the Patent laws of the United States and other national governments
supercede ICANN's authority in certain areas. ICANN does not have the
ability under the guise of the adminitrator of the DNS to invalidate an
otherwise valid patent. While Doster has retained competent legal authority
to agrue the merits of the WLS before the ICANN staff/board, the United
States government may issue SnapNames a patent that would preclude that
competition that currently exists in the marketplace, forget the WLS.
SnapNames would be able to keep 100% of the royalities for any licenses
which it decided to grant. In essence, SnapNames could possibly out-monopoly
the registry monopoly.

Consider the relevant parts of Section 108 - MISLEADING DOMAIN NAMES ON THE
INTERNET of the recently enacted `Child Abduction Prevention Act' signed
into law by President Bush.

(a) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name with the intent to
deceive a person into
viewing obscenity on the Internet shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 2
years, or both.

(b) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name with the intent to
deceive a minor into
viewing material that is harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined
under this title or
imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both.

Under this law people will potentially be going to jail for the misleading
use of a domain name. Under your view of ICANN, they could theoritically
supercede this US law and give people a get out of jail card for free. ICANN
as an administrator of the DNS has a set of contracts to enforce. Some
people view these contracts as giving ICANN broad unlimited powers while
other view these contracts as giving ICANN almost no power at all. My view
is that the truth lies somewhere in between :-) ICANN has probobly the most
difficult job in the world, being everything and

I understand that some/many people view ICANN as an agency/satellite of the
United States government. Unfortunately, I do not share that view based upon
my own first hand experience. I believe ICANN if allowed to work properly
can provide a forum for all Internet stakeholders to have a voice. That
being said, large corporations and intellectual property interests will
likely play a continuing role in future ICANN policy development. What needs
to happen is that all interested parties (registry, registrar, corporate,
consumer, and non-profit) must have a seat at the table so that all voices
are heard in the debate.

Just some food for thought.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Henderson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:20 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage; John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.; Elliot Noss; Andy
> Gardner; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> 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 <[email-masked]>
> To: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. <[email-masked]>; Elliot Noss
> <[email-masked]>; Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>
> 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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John
> > > Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
> > > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 10:21 AM
> > > To: Elliot Noss; Andy Gardner; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: "Elliot Noss" <[email-masked]>
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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 [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1696
*************************