SubDomain Legality

[lanesharon]

WHIR has reported a letter that stated that Ideaflood has patented the idea of assigning users subdomains, such as AutomotiveWidgets.hostingcompany.com:

http://thewhir.com/features/subdomain.cfm

I need to know if this would affect my websites hosted at Page-Zone. I am in the middle of an overhaul that is extenisively using subdomains.

[Jim]

I doubt it would have any effect on the websites we host. We haven't received anything from anyone about patent infingement. And this company is going after hosts that create subdomain hosting accounts automatically on the fly.

The letter can be found here
http://simba.aserver.net/letter/

[TechWeasel]

I wouldn't worry. The concensus is that Ideaflood is just trying to bully some license fees out of companies that don't feel it's worth it to legally challenge (shades of SCO anyone?)

I haven't had time to read the patent in question but common sense would suggest the patent is either on:

a. A specific/unique implementation or system of automating the creation of said subdomains.

b. All subdomains used by everyone

If it's (a) they either have a case or they don't. It's possible they have some IP interest in a unique way of assigning subdomains that is worth licensing. In this case it would likely only apply to a very small percentage of internet hosts that used the IP. In the unlikely event that their valid IP has been improperly implemented in some system(s) used by PZ it's likely you'd see an umbrella defense / indemnity in any legal battle from the back-end providers anyway (which in the case of PZ would be cPanel and/or RedHat).

If it's (b) someone will eventually drag them into court. The patent would be overturned due to the clear prior use of subdomains in zone registries prior to the patents issue (1999).

The important distinction to make is that the patents office just ensures a patent is unique, not that it's upholdable in a court of law.

Without knowing Ideaflood's side of the argument it's tough to know what they're claiming but this smacks of British Telecoms lawsuit claiming that they patented "Hyperlinks" in the 1970's - which, I believe, was summarily thrown out of court.

Usual disclaimers, IANAL, etc, but I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep about using subdomains.

[stratplan]

there's lots of patents issued for rather obvious things, such as Amazon's famous one-click (used by nearly everyone)

You might browse some patent info to see some other 'wild' claims (my word).

As long as there are courts and lawyers, and money to be made - or should I say blackmailed? - by attempting to enforce them, there will be stuff like this.

Bottom line, I wouldn't worry about it at all.

[lanesharon]

Thanks Guys. I am feeling better!

[midwest]

my take is this. It's a crappy little company that is hitting little guys who have no money or chance of defending themselves. The reason is to "protect" your assets. Which is what the law says you need to as soon as you know of the infringement. It is illegal to just sit back and wait for the infringments to pile up for years. The fact that they have lists of infringers implys this is the case. So they hit a few little guys to play the game and meanwhile try to sell bogus patents to someone with money whos basis for existance is greed. They are looking for a quick sell.

Its obvious to me the ideaidiots have no money to attack someone who can fight back. They should be careful before they find themselves involved in some preemtive suits that break them.

The way the PTO does business it looks like we are just starting to see the real IP wars, except the real big ones will be fought for the most part quietly. You only make public waves when you need to scare the masses because you have diddly squat but a bogus idea stolen from elsewhere and fudged through the PTO.

just my .05 and entirely my own opinion