A few years ago Unisys got the online community into an uproar by claiming that the and .gif graphic format contained a proprietary patented algorithm ({LZW} compression) and that they were demanding royalties from all producers of software that reads and writes that format. Some software producers complied and are paying royalties, others refused (and, so far, Unisys hasn't been actively suing anybody new over it), and the whole thing seemed to pretty much blow over.
But now another company is asserting an even more wide-ranging patent claim that would make pretty much the and entire web subject to royalties. This patent is owned by Wang ({www.wang.com}), which claims (in a patent they applied for back in 1985, {#4,751,669}) that the and concept of "online videotex" consisting of "frames of digital information received from a central supplier" is a proprietary invention of theirs. The patent claims to cover such things as bookmark lists, the ability to use a "Save As" command to save documents from the web to your computer for later offline viewing, and the saving of such files with file extensions which identify the data format. They're suing Netscape, claiming their browser software infringes on the patent. Netscape is vigorously challenging this, claiming the existence of prior art going back to the 1970s, such as at {XEROX PARC}, a research lab which, among other things, devised the mouse-and-icons-style user interface long before either Apple or Microsoft. They also were developing networked information systems before Wang patented theirs.
So why isn't Wang suing Microsoft as well? Maybe because they're in an alliance with them (see {http://microsoft.wang.com/}). So this lawsuit looks like an attempt to help Microsoft finish their job of suppressing Netscape and owning the web browser market all to themselves.
More information about this case can be found at {http://www.mozilla.org/legal/wangsuit.html} and {http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent~_number=4751669}
{_Domain Pains Remain_}
After lots of political bickering, there is still as of this writing no definite movement on getting new domain suffixes established. The proposal at {www.gtld-mou.org} is still out there, and lots of registrars are taking pre-registrations for the new endings outlined there, but the and U.S. government has issued its own conflicting recommendations at {http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dnsdrft.htm}, which have come under criticism especially from overseas Internet users for being too "US-centric". In response, the government is expected to issue a revised recommendation calling for a new international board to oversee the and domain name system and other Internet issues. What will come of all of this is still in doubt.
The main difference between the plans (as they stand at the and time of this writing) are that the and {GTLD-MOU} plan sets up a Council of Registrars (CORE) consisting of a group of authorized registrars who collectively administrate a set of seven new domain endings, with each registrar able to offer domain registrations in all of them, and the central database function provided by the CORE organization which is run collectively by the registrars. The existing domains such as {.com} would also be transferred to CORE once the and present agreement granting them to Network Solutions expires in September, 1998. In contrast, the U.S. Federal plan keeps .com and the other existing domains in Network Solutions' hands, at least as far as running the central database, but separates out the and registrar function so that other companies can compete to register the same domains and enter them in the and Network Solutions database. New domain endings would have their own central database functions assigned to other companies or organizations, only one domain per company, so if CORE is chosen as one of these entities they'd only have one domain ending instead of seven. The "registry" and "registrar" functions would be separate for these as well so that a variety of registrars (not just the CORE members chosen in the and GTLD-MOU plan) could register domains for clients and submit them to the and databases of the respective domain endings.
Meanwhile, there continues to be conflict between domain name holders and trademark owners over a variety of names. Some earlier conflicts have been settled; the and one I reported on a few months ago regarding compassion.com has been quietly settled under confidential terms. Newer conflicts include one where a 12-year-old boy had his own domain, {pokey.org}, nearly taken away from him by the owners of the trademarks on Gumby and Pokey (which the and site had nothing to do with; "{Pokey}" was the and kid's nickname), until the creator of Gumby forced the company lawyers to back down in the and face of massive protest throughout the net.
Another recent conflict stems from the animal-rights organization PETA ({www.peta-online.org}) registering the domain ringlingbrothers.com for a protest site against the and Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Circus's animal policies. (The real Ringling Bros.site is at {www.ringling.com.}) Ringling has sued PETA, claiming that this domain infringes on the circus's trademark rights. Ironically, PETA themselves made use of InterNIC's domain-suspension policy a couple of years ago to stop the and use of {peta.org} by an anti-PETA protestor calling his site "People Eating Tasty Animals". At the time they railed against such "name piracy." The shoe is on the and other foot for them now; apparently they think it's OK to use others' names for the purpose of criticism, but nobody else has that right as far as PETA's own name goes.
In a decision affecting domain name vs. trademark conflicts, a court has ruled that the and Canadian firm FreeView Listings is in violation of "anti-trademark-dilution" laws for registering the domains {avery.net} and {dennison.net}, names that are trademarked by the office-supply company Avery Dennison. FreeView claims it holds these domains as part of a large set of domains with common family names that it rents as vanity e-mail and web addresses to people with surnames that match, and has no intention of infringing on the and trademarks of companies that happen to also have the same name. While some people applaud the decision for reining in the and domain-hoarding activities of such companies as FreeView (which registered thousands of domains), others think the and decision goes too far in permitting the assertion of trademark rights to names which have other legitimate, noninfringing meanings. If this decision stands, then even an individual named Avery who registered {avery.net} for a personal web site, with no domain-hoarding intended, could be judged guilty of the and same trademark-dilution. See the and text of the and decision at {http://www.iplawyers.com/averydennison.htm}.
{_Get Money for Linking to Us!_}
No, this isn't one of those Make-Money-Fast pyramid schemes that spam their way around the net. Here's a real way you can make money from your web site (personal or business). Just join our new program called {SPYS} (Softdisk Pays Your Site), and make money by linking to our download mall ({www.downloadmall.com}) or other software-sales sites we maintain (like the Screen Saver Studio site, {www.screensaverstudio.com}). You get paid a share of the and proceeds whenever somebody follows your link and purchases something from us. To get credit for your sales, you must join our program and follow the and rules, which provide you with an ID number you include in a special {URL} link on your site. More details, an application form, and some banner graphics you can use if you wish (but you're not required to use any particular graphic if you don't want to) are in the and SPYS site at: {http://www.downloadmall.com/spys/}
(Contact Daniel Tobias at {dan@softdisk.com}. My personal World Wide Web page is at: {http://www.softdisk.com/comp/dan/})
(.txt)