X10 Pays $4.3 million In Damages For Pop-Unders

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

X10 Pays $4.3 million In Damages For Pop-Unders

Posted by Hemos on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @05:32AM from the oh-the-wonders-of-patent dept.

Black Perl writes "The Seattle Times is running an article entitled "California brothers win $4.3 million award against X10." Apparently, pop-unders are "proprietary" technology and a "business model" that X10 stole. I have mixed feelings about this. I love to see X10 get its due for the pop-unders, but proprietary technology it is not." Haha. Patents are funny.

14 of 288 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I would like to have seen... by Nijika · 2003-10-22 05:35 · Score: 4, Informative

X10(DOT COM) get dinged by customers not buying their cams, rather than this odd legal slight.
PS, just for those of you who aren't familiar; X10.com is not really related in any way to the x10 protocol or x10 devices, don't let x10.com sour you to this awesome technology. x10.com seems to sell webcams mostly to people who hope to catch hot chicks on camera.

--
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
1. Re:I would like to have seen... by Lumpy · 2003-10-22 05:56 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  you are way off.
  
  their anaconda cameras are pretty good for the money. you can't touch a weatherproof outdoor color or B&W camera for 3 times the price fo their camera.
  
  Granted all they are doing is remarking and selling someone else's product. but I have bought at least 20 of their "anaconda" cameras for customers as they are super small, weatherproof as long as they dont get frozen inside an icecicle or submerged.
  
  until you can find me a source of dirt-cheap outdoor cameras I'll continue to buy them from X10.com... and hell, they are so cheap I can offer free replacement to my customers in the event one goes bad (Still haven't had any fail.. 10 of them are outdoors, and have been for 2+ years as guard shack cameras at a local lumber yard.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
2. Re:I would like to have seen... by bhtooefr · 2003-10-22 06:12 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  AFAIK, X10 (whose site IS x10.com) INVENTED the fscking X10 spec! I don't think the cams are X10 compliant, but they do sell the x10 gear. Here's their page for the home automation equipment: http://www.x10.com/automation/homeautomation.htm (be warned, it's just as spammy as everything else)
3. Re:I would like to have seen... by Black+Perl · 2003-10-22 06:37 · Score: 2, Informative
  Sadly, you are wrong; I, too, have X10 home control technology purchased from X10.com ... I'd like to see higher quality alternatives which would dim lights more smoothly.
  
  I think you misunderstand. The parent was saying that X10-the-protocol is good, and X10-the-company doesn't make good X10-the-protocol stuff.
  
  The "higher quality alternatives" you are seeking exist, from many companies:
  
  SmartHome
  
  PCS
  
  Leviton
  
  ACT/Smart Products
  
  Lightolier
  
  Every one of those companies have better X10-the-protocol switches than X10-the-company. Not to mention that other companies provide more products and features, allowing more kinds of automation (HVAC control, sprinkler controllers, etc).
  --
  bp
Blech by bperkins · 2003-10-22 05:35 · Score: 4, Informative

This story has nothing to do with patents,(as far as I can tell anyway). The word patent isn't even mentioned in the story, and proprietary != patented.

It would appear that this is about X10 hiring these people to do pop unders, and then not paying them. Unfortunately it's impossible to say what the real
story is from this very short article.
1. Re:Blech by mavenguy · 2003-10-22 05:52 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Agreed. A further clue is the fact that this was decided in a state court. Had it been a patent infringement case it would have come out of a Federal District court ( 35 USC 281 )
Patents? by kevin42 · 2003-10-22 05:35 · Score: 5, Informative

What does this have to do with patents? I don't think patents were involved here at all. X10 was a customer of the company who sued them.
From what I've read in other articles about this suit, they were sued because they refused to pay the commission for all those pop-under ads. Imagine if you started a company and designed a banner ad for a company. Your contract said you get a certain amount for each time it is used. Then after the company owes you half a million dollars, they decide not to pay. That is what this is about, not patents. Read here for more information
*sigh* ... Typical...
Re:Ummm by letxa2000 · 2003-10-22 05:37 · Score: 5, Informative

Pop-Under, you mean.
I tend to agree with you. But the browser doesn't specifically have a "pop under" feature. It's just a matter of running some JavaScript to send it to the back. Patenting that is rediculous, but no more rediculous than patenting anything else any given software does.
Which does lead us to the conclusion, of course, that patenting software is silly.
Re:Oh the Irony by jfengel · 2003-10-22 05:45 · Score: 2, Informative

Dude, you have GOT to get a real browser. I'd completely forgotten about the existence X-10 and pop-unders until I saw this Slashdot article.

Firebird, Mozilla, Opera, Safari, ANYTHING is better than IE or years-old versions of Netscape. Pop-unders are a bug, not a feature.
Actually... by FireBird615 · 2003-10-22 05:45 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually, according to the CNN article, it wasn't a patent issue... The brothers in question were running an advertising company from their home, with whom X-10 contracted to do their advertising, and then X-10 refused to pay their bill. So, no patent issue involved, only a customer's failure to pay their bill for a service.
Re:Ummm by Phroggy · 2003-10-22 05:45 · Score: 4, Informative

But the browser doesn't specifically have a "pop under" feature. It's just a matter of running some JavaScript to send it to the back.

Precisely. The browser lets you run JavaScript code when a page loads. It lets you open a new window. It lets you move a window behind other windows. Using these features together to create pop-under advertisements isn't entirely obvious - although once you've seen the idea, reproducing it is completely blatently obvious (which is exactly the sort of thing patents are for - protecting the person who originally came up with the idea, because once the idea is out there, anyone can reproduce it).

But yeah, this is really pretty trivial.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
WTF do you mean WTF? by curtisk · 2003-10-22 06:03 · Score: 2, Informative

X10 is all hot and bothered for Advertisement Banners.com's ad delivery product, goes into contract with Advertisement Banners.com...uses their product to death and then refuses to pay near $500,000 in bills.
I don't see how the ruling in the brothers favor is idiocy. The only idiocy is in X10's IT staff who couldn't hack up their own.

--
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
Re:Oh the Irony by jon3k · 2003-10-22 06:03 · Score: 2, Informative

All you really need is the google toolbar ... at least those of you running windows.

Its free, and actually performs some pretty neat functions.
Re:Note: This WAS NOT a patent issue! by saddino · 2003-10-22 06:29 · Score: 2, Informative

b) x10 also "stole their technology and business model," and started using it on their own. This was also part of the lawsuit, and deserves to be laughed out of court.

And how is this a patent issue?

Tell you what: why don't you go ahead reference the patent in question at the USPTO site...oh, you can't you say? Is it perhaps because there is no patent in question?

Granted, there is a valid debate on the merits of this so-called "proprietary" technology, but this has nothing to do with patents.