Singapore Firm Claims Patent Breach By Virtually All Websites

An anonymous reader writes "A Singapore firm, VueStar has threatened to sue websites that use pictures or graphics to link to another page, claiming it owns the patent for a technology used by millions around the world. The company is also planning to take on giants like Microsoft and Google. It is a battle that could, at least in theory, upend the Internet. The firm has been sending out invoices to Singapore companies since last week asking them to pay up."

Comments

Patented A href?

[Archangel Michael]

How can one patent a markup ?

If that is the case, I'll patent

:-D

Another Idiotic Patent

[chunk08]

How do you patent something that is written in the HTML spec, that is a logical combination of two tags? This is why software patents need to be permanently banned. In our world today, it does not make the same economic sense to grant patents (or copyright).

Re:Another Idiotic Patent

[pxuongl]

no, patenting something that's trivial because it's part of the language should be banned.

patently software because you've come up with a novel algorithm that's faster than anyone else's due to a neat trick or technique you've come up with shouldn't.

i remember that in some of my engineering courses, we studied numerical methods and algorithms to solve what would normally be reserved for humans to solve analytically. These courses were hard because it required that someone figure out a way or technique for a computer to solve something abstract quickly. Things like this should be fully patentable, because someone had put in the work to solve something.


patenting dumb things like this should be grounds for immediate sterilization.

Re:Another Idiotic Patent

[peragrin]

How do you patent something written in C that is a couple of tags and is a logical combination?

Software shouldn't be eligible for patents ever. In fact business method patents are the only thing worse. As someone has a patent on collating copies by hand.

Software should be held only on copyrights on the source code. Authors do need their rights.

Re:Sweet

[jeiler]

What would be really sweet is if it went to court and the judge finds it technically valid but too onerous. Following the logic, it would be an open door to judicial review of the entire patent system.

But in all reality, the judge will probably just rule this particular patent invalid (for whatever reason) and refuse to tackle the larger issue.

The firm was established in 2004

[poeidon1]

and microsoft and google (and me) existed before that and *used* their technology.

Really?

[suck_burners_rice]

Really, they own that patent? Well then why in the last 15 years didn't they bother to enforce it? I'm sorry but lack of enforcement of a patent is grounds to dismiss that patent. There's a zillion examples of prior art everywhere in the world and this does NOT belong to that Singapore company.

They own the rights to hyperlinks about as much as SCO owns the right to Linux. And if that's true, I am going to sue everyone because I own a patent (that I just filed five minutes ago) for a "method and apparatus to control the flow of an algorithm based on the logical outcome of a predefined logical test," a.k.a., the "if" statement used in all computer programming. From now on, no program that uses the "if" statement can exist without paying me ten trillion Zimbabwe dollars (that's about five cents) per instance. And the first thing I'm going to do is sue SCO because that program they claim to own contains a bazillion of those "if" statements.

Mail fraud

[pseudorand]

I don't know about the law in Singapore, but this seems so obviously silly that if I were a lawyer for one of the companies receiving the invoice, I'd ask the attorney general to prosecute for mail fraud (a federal offense which includes knowingly sending someone a bill for goods or services not rendered in hopes of receiving erroneous payment).

Two Words

[CaptScarlet22]

Piss Off!!

Re:Prior Art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Paradox..

By the sound of the article, it seems the patent depends on the web already existing, given that it talks about linking and pages.

But I think the http/html supported arbitrary links right from that start.

If it's not about the web as such, I think it could be argued that the use of icons in guis constitute prior art.

Re:Slightly Misleading

[Jason Levine]

After reading the claims, this patent seems to be more targeting sites that use search engines to return images that relate to a user's query.

Like Google Image search? The date on the patent seems to be June 20, 2006. If I understand the rules of Prior Art correctly, then we would need to find an instance of a search engine returning images relating to a user's search on or before June 20, 2005. I didn't have any data about when Google Images launched, but I was sure it was prior to 2005. A bit of searching and I found this blog post discussing Google Images in May of 2004.

After a bit more searching, I found references to Google Images as far back as July 8th, 2001. That was a full 3 months prior to this patent's original filing date. In short, Google's Image search could be both a target of this lawsuit and the solution to it.

Feh

[hlt32]

Patent trolling and frivolous lawsuits should be a crime.

wrong

[theshowmecanuck]

i remember that in some of my engineering courses, we studied numerical methods and algorithms to solve what would normally be reserved for humans to solve analytically. These courses were hard because it required that someone figure out a way or technique for a computer to solve something abstract quickly. Things like this should be fully patentable, because someone had put in the work to solve something.

There are likely many ways to do the things your novel algorithm is trying to solve. Blocking everyone else from solving the same problem using their own algorithm is ridiculous and counter productive to creating an open market. If you come up with an algorithm to search for widgets on the internet faster than anyone else, then good for you, you will make money at it if people deem it is worth the cost you charge. It should in no way allow you to prevent others to come up with their own fast widget searching algorithm. This is the problem with business/software patents.

Re:wrong

[Orange Crush]

Then the other company has won their business fair and square, because, as you said, "he's better at marketing and making deals with other businesses."

At some point this other businessman saw your fabulous algorithm and determined it would be cheaper to reimplement what you've done through trial and error/reverse engineering than buying you out or licensing your code.

I don't have a problem with this so long as the other guy mimicked your method and didn't outright steal your code. And being the better marketer suggests he a better business man all around. You figured out how to do something clever. he figured out how to do it better and market it to more people and ate your lunch. That's capitalism!/p.

Re:wrong

[phulegart]

You seem to have missed the point of patents. Think Intel and AMD. You said that there are likely many ways to do the things that his novel algorithm is trying to solve. This is true. However, his patent on his algorithm does not block everyone ELSE from solving the same problem using their own algorithm. It just stops people from using HIS algorithm without his permission, or making a profit on HIS algorithm without paying him for it.

AMD proved there was indeed another way to make a processor that would do the same things that an Intel processor would do, just with a different design. According to what you said, AMD would be violating any and all patents that Intel might have, just because it's processor can produce the same results.

Now, if we do not provide protection and encouragement for inventors, then those with the money will bully and steal inventions from those who cannot afford to protect themselves.

You don't like the patent system? You've never invented something before that was in demand. I guarantee that *IF* you invented something that had the potential for profit, you would be *SCREAMING* for improvements in the patent laws to increase your level of protection.

Because without patent laws... well, let's look at your example again... if I did come up with an algorithm to search for widgets on the internet faster than anyone else, I would only make money at it IF I marketed my product properly... IF I packaged it properly... IF I had the ability to sell it (web site, online credit card processing, etc)... and if I had a clue as to how to do any of these three things or any of the multitudes of other things I would have to know to be able to sell a product and make a profit. It is not just based on the price I charge. I could build the best car in the world, and if it looked like total crap and I was selling it out of a tumble-down, rat-infested used car lot, it doesn't matter if my price was "good".

Without the patent system, I could invent the best search algorithm in the world to look for widgets... and the first individual or company to come along with the money to do all the things I *should* do, will be able to do those things AND keep the profits, leaving me out in the cold. If you think that's fair, then why should I invent any more widgets? Or for that matter, why should I invent the next stage of safety glass? Why bother with that improved dragon-scale bullet proof vest? Why should I make an improved version of the life-alert system? I don't believe the world needs me to release my designs for airbags that can save 78% more lives. Why? What's in it for me? Oh, does that sound too selfish? Awww...

No patent system means inventors are slaves to financiers. Literally.

Re:wrong

[NeutronCowboy]

No. Repeat after me - No. There's something that already covers your example, and it's called copyright. There is no need to invoke patents to solve your problem.

Not to mention that it is incredibly unlikely that you actually came up with something truly novel. More likely than not, what you came up with is a combination of existing techniques that were already known, but whose combination results in the marginal improvement of another known application.

Take pagerank for example: I studied that algorithm in Information Retrieval when Google wasn't even a glint in Larry's and Sergei's eyes. The difference was that not only did they implement it and create a corporation around it, but they managed to get all the extraneous bits right that were necessary for Google to take off like it did.

The "All the Work" you refer to is actually only a tiny fraction of the work that is necessary to create a successful product. It is an important fraction, but a tiny one.

Re:wrong

[pipatron]

No patent system means inventors are slaves to financiers. Literally.

Like so many of you in the pro-patent crowd you have some sort of delusion that these inventors sit at home and invent stuff, then . Who do you think invents the important things that you mentioned? It's researchers that works for either the military, the government, a university, or a car company. They are paid a real salary like the rest of us, and they invent products because they get paid a very high salary for their knowledge.

Now let's talk a bit about your example with AMD and Intel. You say that it would be unfair for AMD to just copy intel's design, but they can work around it with their own algorithms. So because of the glorious patent system we now have two products that are designed to do exactly the same thing, but the research had to be done twice, leading to a higher price for the consumer. The patent didn't stop AMD from creating the copy in the first place, just made the procedure more costly. This is of no gain for any consumer.

Re:They created it prior to 1993?

[canuck57]

Being that the email record of the development of these features is pretty widely distributed, they'd have a tough time defending that patent if anyone makes them try. Here's the original proposal by Marc Andressen:

http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0182.html

In proposing the IMG tag, he explicitly says that it can be embedded in an anchor, and he describes its action. I have my doubts that these guys have prior art on web pages dating back to before 1993.

Yep, everyone in the business knows this as prior art.

But that does not mean they can't sue. And then convincing a computer illiterate judge to expeditiously toss it out of court with costs is another mater. This is about patent extortion. Using the inept judicial system that really still hasn't finished with SCO after 6 years. With the legal costs so high, it is cheaper for many just to pay them $5M and call it a day. Some companies might.

But not being a US based company the odds are against them. RIM for example, not getting favorable treatment decided the damages to business growth was worth hundreds of millions in extortion. So they paid up. RIM not being a US company had the odds stacked against them.

The legal system needs to toss this kind of claim out quickly. And no one is holding their breath. Lawyers make too much money from cases like these.

Sure it is!

[wonkavader]

"I think I own this land."

"Really? Well, I think I own this land."

It's all IP.

Re:Slightly Misleading

[theshowmecanuck]

Only if you constantly keep on top of the money grubbing politicians and bureaucrats who accept money under that table via 'loans', 'scholarships' for their kids, fact finding trips to Hawaii, etc. from the corporations who will profit from software and business patents being approved. Keep on top of and shoot down their efforts to enact bullshit patent laws suggested by same said corporations. And from what I have read in the past, the EU seems to have a number of ways that bureaucrats can skirt the will of elected officials. Only be smug if you can keep on top of them and the politicians.

Re:Sweet

[t33jster]

I wonder if US companies will honor this patent. While it's not clear from the article, it looks like this patent exists in Singapore. US companies with operations in Singapore may come under pressure.

IMHO, this will probably be struck down, as Singapore is generally friendly to businesses. Also, it is akin to patenting a method to exchange carbon dioxide in blood with oxygen in the air. With a patent like that, you could pretty much sue all animal life.

Now where's that patent application?

Re:Sweet

[jeiler]

The absolute shamelessness of these people is what amazes me.

There would only be shame involved if they knew, before they started, that the claim was bogus. If they are ignorant (through idiocy, unfamiliarity with the topic, or having been led astray by some fast-talking Singaporan patent lawyer), then they are not criminals--though they certainly can't be defended against idiocy.

Re:what the fuck

[mOdQuArK!]

Not that I'm defending current IP laws, but some patent and copyright system is necessary.

Only to maintain the status quo. If you're not worried about that, then there are plenty of ways to make a living without depending on IP laws.

The whole concept of "intellectual property" is essentially an attempt at social engineering (trying to encourage innovation) through government-enforced artificial scarcity. It would be much healthier to see where "normal" market forces take us & limit the government regulation to the parts of the market that cause potential danger to peoples' health.

If society wants to encourage innovation, they should simply come up with mechanisms to pool resources for funding applied research, and then make the results of that research available for any entrepreneurs who want to use it. This would be much more efficient & cause fewer market distortions than the mechanisms of intellectual property laws.

Re:what the fuck

[bmajik]

the problem with axing the notion of IP is that in a western style society, ideas are the only entities with real value, that actualy move society forward.

The difference between today and (today - 4000 years) is not that people are stronger (although they may be), live longer (although many do). It's not even that people, on the whole, are smarter than they used to be (although this is difficult to really measure).

Rather, the person of today has the benefit of thousands of years of human ingenuity. When the socio-economic conditions are ripe for someone to act upon their own ideas, humanity leaps forward. The real value in the world is not labor and is not stock, but is actually intellect.

The key then, is how to reward intellect appropriatley. As you no doubt agree, today's patent and copyright system does not appear to reward intellectual output appropriately, as it is more commonly used to stifle development than to promote it. Do not, however, get confused about what the real value in society is -- ideas are valuable over all else, and it is worthwhile to construct the framework such that valuable ideas are lucrative enough that they are pursued, and that the most able in our world are able to sustain themselves based on the value of their intellectual contributions alone (as opposed to the value of their perspiration).

Prior Art

[ekimminau]

I have HTML from 1996 using IMG SRC=" " HTML allowing you to reference external content from an image. I think several thousand other sites have earlier artwork than mine. It is a bogus patent.

Re:Sweet

[spun]

Well, the thing is, it's all a matter of perspective. To a patent holder, the system is not unbalanced. To a jock or millionaire who gets lots of supermodels, the system is not unbalanced. Geeks tend to view both of those things as unbalanced.

Now, I actually tend to agree with you, but you have missed my point entirely. I was equating the likelihood of a judge ruling broadly against patents with the likelihood of a judge mandating that supermodels have sex with me.

Re:what the fuck

[Pharmboy]

If society wants to encourage innovation, they should simply come up with mechanisms to pool resources for funding applied research, and then make the results of that research available for any entrepreneurs who want to use it.

I think that is called socialism, at the least, or communism at the worst.

In a capitalistic system, there is a way to provide for persons to have a limited monopoly on "inventions", which is what the patent process is designed for. The purpose was to provide a limited monopoly on "things that use new ideas" in exchange for it going into the public domain after a fixed time. The original idea of patents is still valid, and would still work just fine *if* we would use the old system. The problem is that the current system is NOT the same as the original intent of copyright and patents. "Ideas" are not supposed to be patentable, only "inventions".

Cotton gin, steam engine, processor design, mouse trap, etc. are still valid inventions for patent protection and eventual entry into the public domain. Concepts or ideas are not.

Wtf?

[msimm]

This is capitalism at work (in China). If the potential for capital reward outweighs the associated risks (losing the claim) then it's a simple business decision.

Shame (morality) is a social value, and unless it somehow effects your net gain (not likely) then it's consideration should be minimal.

Re:what the fuck

[mOdQuArK!]

In a capitalistic system, there is a way to provide for persons to have a limited monopoly on "inventions", which is what the patent process is designed for.

The moment you introduce the concept of government-enforced "limited monopoly", you are no longer dealing with capitalism. As I mentioned, the whole idea of "intellectual property" is an attempt at social engineering by using government-enforced artificial scarcity. Frankly, this is more socialist than the idea of a bunch of citizens pooling & spending resources to try and encourage innovation directly.

I'll ask you the same question I ask any other IP proponent: do you have a reference to some kind of peer-reviewed study which indicates that intellectual property laws have demonstrably encouraged net innovation? I'm not talking about anecdotal evidence like "I heard about this one guy who came up with a cool patent & got lots of money", I'm talking about either some sort of statistical study which shows "rates of innovation" between societies with & without intellectual property protections, or even academic studies using simulations and/or market survey studies to show the effect.

One of my big complaints about IP proponents is that they continually talk about how IP laws encourage innovation, but they very rarely have any kind of evidence other than anecdotal to back up their opinion. Most of them have accepted the status quo as "common sense" and haven't really done any kind of analysis into whether or not their assumptions have any kind of empirical evidence of being true.

P.S. If you post a link, make sure it is truly a peer-reviewed paper - the web is full of editorials & opinion pieces by proponents & opponents of IP, but there doesn't seem to be very many true studies available about the advantages or disadvantages of IP regulation.

In the absence of empirical evidence that IP laws actually promote innovation, my preference is to default to normal "market" behavior, which doesn't include government-enforced artificial scarcity. Having a bunch of citizens pool resources to do applied research, however, CAN be fit into a normal market.

Re:U.S. Patent 7,065,520

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the claims -- they define what the patent seeks to protect.

Don't waste your breath (or numb your fingers typing)...this is /., where those who think they know about law complain about those who think they know about technology. The patent looks very narrow: it is just being applied (out of court) in a very broad manner. There is little that the patent office or the courts can do to prevent someone from claiming a right too broadly. If I have airplanes flying several miles over my yard, I can send a bill to the airline for use of my property. That doesn't mean that I will win if I actually try to sue in court. Nor does it mean that we should abolish property rights. Yet, for some reason this crowd tends to believe that if something can go wrong with a system, then that system is absolutely broken and should be abolished. By that standard, all software is absolutely broken and we should go back to the days of slide-rules and typewriters.

Re:what the fuck

[Austerity Empowers]

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Ideas are cheap, and not all are implementable. The star trek style transporter idea, while an awesome idea, is not really all that practical. All the various magic that makes that idea work would be, and the assembly of those ideas into the new system that is the transporter, and the work behind that is what makes it valuable.

Deeper still each of those bits of magic are comprised both of ideas and some hard work to prove them out and discover their limitations/issues of note.

That's what the real value is, but you can't wrap a piece of legalese around it all and extract money so easily. Ideas are just the first step and NOT worth legal protection, the hows and whys behind it are closer to what needs some kind of protection.

Re:what the fuck

[ignavus]

Intellect doesn't need a reward. Intellect is its own reward.

(Meaning: if you really are smart, you will do better than other people anyway. Either that or you will console yourself by sneering at everyone else. Either way, you win.)