Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

X10 Pays $4.3 million In Damages For Pop-Unders

Posted by Hemos on 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.

10 of 288 comments (clear)

  1. Ummm by bgog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So if I as a feature to a browser that lets you automatically play a sound file, then someone can patent using that feature to emit an advert? Sounds like the patent should belong to the browsers who added the feature that lets you do a pop up.

  2. Re:Patents? by DrEldarion · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Part of the article is worded strangely, so I can see where that conclusion came from. It's the part where it says:

    stole their proprietary technology and business model.

    It's easy to draw the wrong conclusion from seeing that.

    -- Dr. Eldarion --

  3. proprietary? by erikdotla · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I really can't understand this. Anyone who toyed with javascript and the DOMs years ago noticed that you could effectively do pop-unders with two lines of code:

    window.open('ad.htm','myAdWindowTitle');
    window .focus();

    Or something like that. Is "pop-under technology" really more complicated than that?

    --
    # Erik
  4. 2 lines of javascript? by akabigbro · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's amazing: 2 lines of javascript and you have a proceedure for a patent. Let's really get stupid and get it down to 1.

  5. Re:I would like to have seen... by daviddennis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sadly, you are wrong; I, too, have X10 home control technology purchased from X10.com. They send me spam emails something like every day, but my Apple junk mail filter deep-sixes them.

    The technology actually is pretty neat, but it's sadly built down to a price. I'd like to see higher quality alternatives which would dim lights more smoothly.

    Fry's sells the X10 security camera line. Their advertising is horribly deceptive, since it implies that the cameras take high-quality pictures. This, of course, is not the case. The picture quality is just plain dismal. Images are fuzzy and have very poor colour.

    I believe you can also buy X10 home control technology from Radio Shack, under one of their brands.

    I would cautiously recommend the X10 home control systems to people who want home control. But I would not recommend the cameras at all.

    D

  6. Note: This WAS a patent issue! by swordgeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are many people here who are pointing out that this was a nonpayment/contractual violation issue, rather than a patent issue. Read more of the articles, and you'll find that it was both.

    a) x10 reneged on their contract, and owed $564,000. That's pretty clear, and should be remedied.

    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.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  7. You Can patent One Line of Code? by supersmike · · Score: 2, Interesting
    window.opener.focus()

    Holy #$%! Let's get to it!

  8. Me to Slashdot: Join Reality by the_mad_poster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Funny how the rotation of the spin on a story reverses depending on where it's posted...

    I read about this about a week ago on Yahoo.com's WML news site on my cell phone. It was an AP story, I believe, and they presented it basically as these 3 brothers battling out the big evil X10 corp that didn't pay its bills and tried to take advantage of these poor, young kids. Yay for the brothers!

    You hit Slashdot and just because it involves "patents" (a 4 letter word as far as many here are concerned, no matter what the context) the spin is that it's this big evil patent abuse and oooohhh run and hide and put your tail between your legs and oh-no-tinfoil-hat-syndrome all over. Oh no! The brothers are evil! Boo!

    Give it a rest, already... technology that's only "obvious" after you've already seen it once isn't really "obvious". I hate stupid patents too, but if you look at the facts of the case instead of just saying "oh no - patents - automatic sheep mode on!" you'll realize it was a fair and square fight and a good decision by the court. Get a grip, already.

    --
    Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  9. Re:No this is not what it's for by alexq · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It's true that patents should be used for things that require a good deal of work - but how about those things that require a good deal of lucky innovation or genius? and how would you measure that?

    The zipper probably did not require a lot of work to be invented - at least I don't envision a hundred different proto-zippers - but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed to be patented.

    disclaimer: zipper != pop-unders.

  10. and now x10 filed bankruptcy! by way2trivial · · Score: 2, Interesting
    http://news.com.com/2100-1014_3-5095260.html?tag=n efd_top

    The company that only last year billed itself as the world's largest online advertiser has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random