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.
is that when I went to read the article, I got a classmates.com pop-under. Are they being sued, too?
When the going gets tough, use Johnson's Going Tenderizer
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...
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.
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
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!
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)
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