IP: One of the more egregious examples of patents that should never have been issued

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: "Rick Adams" <Rick.Adams () Cello Net>
> To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
>
>
> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='20010049
> 747'.PGNR.&OS=DN/20010049747&RS=DN/20010049747
>
> is a patent recently issued for a multi-threaded name server.
>
> It is absurd enough to issue the patent, since the idea of multi-threading 
> a name server to
> improve response should be painfully obvious to anyone "skilled in the 
> art" and if it's obvious it can't be patented.
>
> Interestingly, the patent specifically references BIND Version 8 (BIND is 
> the name server that most of the internet uses to map
> domain names to addresses) and says that it could be improved if multi 
> threaded (an amazing intuitive leap that most undergraduates
> should be able to make, much less "skilled" practitioners).
>
> What make this the prize winner for "you've got to be kidding" is that 
> BIND Version 9
> IS multi threaded AND it was released BEFORE the patent application was filed.
>
> If the applicant and examiner knew about BIND 8 as it was referenced in 
> the application,
> how could they possibly have ignored version 9  which is a working 
> implementation of what the patent claims to have invented that
> was available before the application was filed.
>
> They might be able to claim ignorance had they not referenced BIND 8, but 
> since they did
> it is unconscionable that they granted the patent ignoring the obvious 
> prior art of BIND 9.
>
> Another example of how the patent office is out of control.
>
>
> ---rick

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/