Slashdot Mirror
X10 Pays $4.3 million In Damages For Pop-Unders
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.
I have all but forgotten about Pop Under/Over/In the Middle/Whatever ads since using Mozilla Firebird. The builtin pop-up blocker is truly lovely.
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
...if there are any movements underway to end this bullshit? There are always loads of stories on slashdot about patents gone awry, but I never hear of any groups working to destroy the current setup.
Suggestions?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/20/tech/mai n578996.shtml
*snip* One of their first big clients was X10, whose security-camera ads soon began appearing all over the Internet.
"When we found out they weren't paying that bill, we were beyond distraught," recalled Chris Vanderhook. *snip*
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
is that they take the focus off your current browser window. You'll be trying to type something into a form and halfway through what you're typing you lose focus and get cut off.
Thank god for netscape/mozilla and now the Google Toolbar. I haven't seen a popup or popunder in months.
No, it's not much more complicated. It was, however AdvertizingBanners.com's business model when X10 hired them. X10 subsequently copied the code and stopped paying AdvertizingBanners.com. If X10.com had implemented pop-unders without a contract with AdvertizingBanners.com, or let the contract expire first, there probably wouldn't have been a lawsuit. (IANAL)
Well, Slashdot needed Yet Another Patent Story. It doesn't matter if the editor never even dreamed of actually reading the link, and instead inserted such witty banter as "Haha. Patents are funny."
Slashdot is corporate-owned and is all about page hits these days, I'm afraid.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Exactly why isn't it reasonable for them to sue for the money that their contract says they should receive? And where in the article does it mention patents at all?
If there are patents involved here somewhere, then fine, but if there aren't, I wonder whether the Slashdot editors actually took the time to do some research on this matter before making some off the cuff remark about patents simply because it makes more people want to reply angrily.
It doesn't help much if we start calling EVERYTHING a patent issue.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
This is not what patents are for. Patents, much like copyrights were created to provide a cost justification for innovating. If I'm going to spend a million dollars to research a new drug therapy, and somebody else can duplicate my work for free, why would I spend the million dollars?
Now the theory I'm espousing here is not a matter of written law, but I think it was presumed in the original concept of patents that it took a certain amount of effort and resource to invent something that could be patented. If it takes near zero effort, then you lose nothing when everybody else duplicates your work.
Patents were created as a way to encourage innovation and that is precisely the opposite of what it is accomplishing in situations like this. Do you think, for one moment, that the pop under ad would never have been invented if it wasn't for patent protection?
Personally I'd be content to never see another pop-up or pop-under ad ever again, but this is just an abuse of the system.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The process of opening a window in javascript gives you two distinct ways to make that window behind everything else, a (large) negative z-index, or by sending it to the back directly.
These event handlers and interpretations of parameters were programmed in specifically, they are not an artifact of some grander scheme or natural phenomena. Clearly, the designers had the idea of a window opening up behind it in mind at the time the language specification was designed.
I have a hard time believing you can patent the idea of putting an ad onto an existing media and calling that a business process.
Could I patent selling and printing ads in the background pattern of dixie cups and disposable paper plates?
That's what I see in this situation. Maybe you CAN do that, in which case (throws hands up).
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice