no "central computer". The Sargent patent required that all information requested by users be stored in a single hub called the central computer and sent from the central computer to a remote terminal. However, the Internet is a networked system in which different computers are linked together so that one terminal can locate desired information from any of the other computers it is connected to. According to the court, the Internet functions in a manner which is antithetical to that of a digital information storage system having a central computer, as described by the Sargent patent. Does the Internet implement hyperlinks using separate "blocks"? The Sargent patent describes the target addresses of other pages as being stored in a second sub-block attached to the content for display. The court found no evidence that the Internet functions like this. For example, it analysed the following example of HTML code: <A href="http://www.msnbc.com/modules/exports/ct_prodigy.asp?/news/736921.asp" target="_top">Yahoo! profits meet forecasts</A> According to the Court, since the URL of the link is adjacent to the corresponding phase for display, the URL is not separable from the main document and is therefore not stored in the manner described by the patent. Does Prodigy's Web service include "complete addresses?" Once more, the court judged in favor of Prodigy, saying that Prodigy internet service did not include the complete address of a piece of information, as required by the Sargent patent. The Uniform Resource Locator ("URL") standard that uniquely names the location of resources requires additional information, in the form of a TCP/IP protocol, in order to access a web page from a web server. More specifically, when a user requests information, the web browser the user is using first obtains the IP address of the server where the corresponding information resides and then accesses the external Domain Name System (DNS) server to get the desired information. Thus, the way internet finds the location of requested information is not complete as specified in the Sargent patent. Holdings The court held that the Sargent patent did not protect the hyperlink technology used by Prodigy and other ISPs. Additionally, since Prodigy had not directly infringed BT's patent, Prodigy could not be held liable for contributory infringement and active inducement of infringement. The court held that there were no disputed issues of material facts, since the Sargent patent was dissimilar to the Web technology used by ISPs including Prodigy. Thus, the court granted