So, your contention is basically that the patent presumes that computers
can't predict when an event will happen by adding an interval to a start
time? My apple II had a processor that could only add to 255, yet it was
used to figure pie to several MILLION places. Computers can do this BETTER
than people.
WOW! You mean that my GREAT, GREAT, GREAT,... grandmother violated the
patent because she scheduled things in this manner? Since she was alive
LONG before the grandfather of the creator of the internet, which existed
before domain names were CONCEIVED, please explain how this can be?
Someone has to stop these jerks from issuing rediculous(And ILLEGAL) patents!
Steve
>-- Original Message --
>Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
>From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:
>To: ga@dnso.org, discuss-list@opensrs.org
>
>
>Hello,
>
>I was thinking about the SnapNames patent application. I think there'd
>be some easy workarounds, if it should so happen to be granted and
>enforceable:
>
>1) The dropcatching system could blindly hammer the registry 24x7 with
>all expiring domains (i.e. this would then not use part of the patent
>that predicts the true deletion date). I'm sure Verisign would love it
>that folks hammer 24x7 on names that aren't dropping.... ;)
>
>2) Let the customer specify when to start hammering the registry
>(thereby making it an external input, and not part of the 'system').
>The elite customers would know exactly what dates to put in. ;)
>
>What other workarounds would there be?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>http://www.kirikos.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:43 EDT