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

Sweet

[pembo13]

I wonder if US companies will honor this patent.

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.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

The absolute shamelessness of these people is what amazes me. They don't care how badly they are hated.

Don't they have friends and family they have to face? Or do they only associate with other criminals like themselves?

Re:Sweet

[spun]

You know what else would be sweet? If a judge decided that supermodels refusing to have sex with me was technically valid, but too onerous. Following that logic, it would be an open door for judicial review of the whole "super models not having sex with nerds" system. That would be super sweet for all of us.

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]

Ah, but there's a difference: the patent system in US law is unbalanced and counterproductive. The stereotypical inability that geeks have of "getting the girl" is not unbalanced.

Though technically, the stereotype is unreproductive. (Is that even a word?)

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:Sweet

[Penguinisto]

The absolute shamelessness of these people is what amazes me. They don't care how badly they are hated.

If they (by some astronomical anti-miracle) win, they'd be wealthy enough to be left alone and/or purchase whatever friends they desire to keep around (see also William Gates).

/P

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:Sweet

[jeiler]

If you equate the likelihood of a supermodel having sex with you to the likelihood of a judge doing the right thing in this case, your optimism of the US legal system is higher than mine! :D

Re:Sweet

[Chyeld]

I'm sorry, I just don't understand where the car comes into the picture.

Re:Sweet

[symes]

Though technically, the stereotype is unreproductive. (Is that even a word?)

Unreproductive©... it is now!

Re:Sweet

[jeiler]

I claim prior art. :P

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

"usually by working out , losing weight, and getting in shape."

That doesn't make any sense.

1) 'working out': As in 'dining out'? Are there any specific requirements for such non-default work location? How to prevent job-loss when engaging in this results in not being present at default work location (any forms available to submit to boss/hr?)? Does it pay well at those locations? What are the benefits? If the default work location specs are within tolerance, is it still required to seek alternate location? If so, elaborate.

2) 'losing weight': Does it count if the weight is not lost, rather discarded. Weight of what item ought to be 'lost'? How much distance, or elapsed time is required for said 'weight' to be considered 'lost'?

3) 'getting in shape': What shape (round/square/etc)? How to instantiate said shape to be able to get into it. Finally: Where, and how to enter said instantiated shape?

Finally: When the above modifications are unsuccessful, how to discover which modification was incorrect (false, overcorrected/undercorrected)?

Re:Sweet

[TheSpoom]

Judges have probably already decided that having sex with cars is technically valid, but too onerous. I mean really, that tailpipe is sharp!

Patented A href?

[Archangel Michael]

How can one patent a markup ?

If that is the case, I'll patent

:-D

Re:Patented A href?

[somersault]

I have patented the carriage return linefeed combination. Anyone implementing br tags owes me 0.000000005 dollars per violation.

Re:Patented A href?

[Waffle Iron]

I have patented the carriage return linefeed combination.

That's obviously invalid. One important requirement for patentability is that an invention must be useful.

Re:Patented A href?

[Waffle Iron]

Somehow, all the current popular OSes except one manage to make do just fine with only the linefeed.

Re:Patented A href?

[stonefry]

I have patented separating words by white space to enhance readability. Ohcomeon.That'snotveryuseful.

Re:Patented A href?

[Ortega-Starfire]

I set my monitor on its side! Ha HA! I foil you yet again!!!

Re:Patented A href?

[Russ Nelson]

Over in the Unix world, we call them newlines.

what the fuck

[FireXtol]

Wow.... This remind me of that comic with the ambiguous superhero... 'I think my common sense is tingling!'. Then below it... Common sense... so rare it's a fucking super power.

Seriously, patents are fucking stupid. So is IP(intellectual property). Get rid of these, and world peace would happen over night.

Re:what the fuck

[Sangui]

That was a motivator with a picture of Deadpool.

Re:what the fuck

[WhoIsThePumaman]

What would be the point of inventing something just to have it ripped off, re-branded, and sold at half the price? Not that I'm defending current IP laws, but some patent and copyright system is necessary.

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).

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.

Re:what the fuck

[AK Marc]

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 scariest part is I think you are serious. So, no government interference is communism, and government controls into who can do what and preventing people from acting freely is capitalism. I guess that means that Libertarian and Communist are the same thing, since they both want to get the government the hell out of business? IP is an invention of the government to restrict people and restrict trade. I don't think that's capitalist at all. It does generate state monopolies backed by force of law, which all companies want to be on the good side of, but pro-corporate is nothing related to pro-capitalist. Corporations want free markets with a $10,000,000,000 entry fee. That way, once you have enough money, you can do whatever you want but there will be so few able to scrounge up that, there will be no real competition other than the existing oligopoly. But again, that's not capitalist, even if that's every large corporation's wet dream.

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:what the fuck

[FireXtol]

Yea.... When your nation's major business model involves revolves around charging for information... Most of which is bad information... but regarded as divine... you became America.

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

[AK Marc]

Necessary for what? You speak as if innovation will cease if we eliminated all IP laws. No organization will ever try to improve anything if they can't get a guaranteed return from it. I think that's an absurd position. To support mine, I offer up everything that ever happened in history up to when IP was created. Man didn't patent fire or the wheel. Most small inventors are curious people that would be inventing it anyway. If IP was as it is now, we wouldn't be able to use Calculus without paying into the Leibniz/Newton Memorial Corporation coffers. The US was thrust to the front of the world in industrialization because it had weak IP laws for the time. We had nothing to steal, and everything to gain by copying others and improving them. But the improvements would be illegal in the inventing country because of the IP laws there. The same is happening right now in China. Huawei is buying one of each of all Cisco gear. Taking it apart. Analyzing it. And building lines of routers that are illegal IP-violating backward engineered and improved Cisco routers. If I had the even choice between a Huawei router and a Cisco router (and if the service and support was the same), I'd take the Huawei, as it is almost always superior. It's not better because it's Chinese or such, but because it's a rip-off of the Cisco that's not just the same, but improved. Now, if Huawei were to sell in the US, would I buy from them? Probably not. Cisco has a value in the service and support area. That's worth the premium for most companies that buy their gear. That's the only thing you can sell if the devices themselves can be made by anyone. So there is still a need for innovation. And companies will provide that regardless of whether that is rewared by a monopoly.

I think that some areas would see a drastic reduction of discoveries. For one, the drug companies. However, I think that their response will not be for the obvious reasons, but they would purposefully stop looking for cures and treaments in order to scare people into giving them free money. After a couple years with no subsidies and nothing that looks like subsidies on the way, they would have an output greater than today. Why? Because they spend more on marketing drugs than developing them. Lean them down, let them know the mainstram drugs will not be profit generators as they are, but that the core medicines, and they will pump out more less flashy drugs and keep them quieter. They will see healthy profits (though not as much as when Viagra was the wonder drug and they charged huge amounts for it because of their monopoly), and we will have a greater number of effective medicines. Even song writers will have no problems making money. I could go into each of the list of jobs people say will go away, but all of them would be able to make minor changes and adapt to an IP-free world. The most famous artists lived in an IP-free world, so what makes you think that IP is required for the next Leonardo?

Re:what the fuck

[bmajik]

Sure. I wasn't being specific about what is or is not intellectual property in the theoretical or practical sense, only that it is probably a valid concept for the law to tackle, because the sorts of things we think of as intellectual property (a process for making steel stronger, the design of a jet engine, the process for manufacturing a life-saving drug, etc) need to be described and governed by the rule of law, in a manner not entirely different than physical property (this car belongs to me, my land usage rights are blah, etc etc)

If ownership implies control (car owners control who can access their car), then a mechanism similar to copyrights or patents make sense for the ownership of intellectual property. And like our real property (land, cars, etc), the government (unfortuneately, in the opinion of many strong property rights advocates) has a say in exactly how extensive that mechanism can be. The government has curtailed what owning a car means in such a way that by virtue of being a car owner, I cannot drive as fast as I like (technically, this is licensure to use publicly owned roads, and not a restriction of car ownership per-se). Having similar caveats about how intellectual property may be used by the owner would not be new ground for any governoring body.

The summary is that governments define and enforce property rights for physical property. Intellectual property IS an important and valid concept, because what we usually think of as IP is where the majority of the real value in society is and what differentiates us from our mideival ancestors. Banishing intellectual property as a concept is no more feasible than banishing physical property as a concept.

(As an aside, some people think physical property should also be abolished. Any of them who are serious are necessarily willing to kill you to get you to hand over your property, so you should be wary of them. Consult history if you disagree.)

Re:what the fuck

[sunwukong]

Make sure to click "I Accept" on the license for that explanation.

Re:what the fuck

[mr_death]

If I had the even choice between a Huawei router and a Cisco router (and if the service and support was the same), I'd take the Huawei, as it is almost always superior. It's not better because it's Chinese or such, but because it's a rip-off of the Cisco that's not just the same, but improved.

One of the "improvements" of the Huawei ripoff version is the probable "feature" of a backdoor under the control of the Chinese Communist Party. Choose your router carefully.

Re:what the fuck

[bidule]

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. For most of those thousands of years, IP protection did not exists. Only trade secret slowed progress, and only because death took its toll.

Now, trade secret death occurs every 5 years, as DRM takes its toll on technological advances. Defensive patents are the ultimate MAD device and trolls hide under every technological bridges.

I am going to argue that progress sped up as communication became global, and that very little of that acceleration is due to IP laws. I will further argue that mere knowledge isn't enough, that mastery comes with practice.

The only case where IP laws are necessary, is to balance restrictions imposed by the government. If law forces you to take 10 years to prove your meds are safe, they'd better give you a 10 year monopoly to compensate.

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.)

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

[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:Another Idiotic Patent

[CastrTroy]

The problem is that you can't patent a mathematical algorithm. Any algorithm that you could come up with for a computer program that would be valid for a patent by virtue of being novel, and non-obvious, would automatically be disqualified on the grounds that it is just a mathematical algorithm.

Re:Another Idiotic Patent

[delt0r]

And yet there are patents on RSA, EEC and other public key algorithms. If thats not patenting a mathematical result/algo then what is?

The firm was established in 2004

[poeidon1]

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

Re:The firm was established in 2004

[CastrTroy]

I was using this technique in 1999. As was just about every other web page. I was in highschool. I remember that a few of my classmates were amazed by my techniques of putting an "img" tag enclosed by the "a" tag. It's such a basic technique used. It's probably been in use as long as both the "a" and "img" tags have existed.

Re:The firm was established in 2004

[tgd]

It was pretty commonly used back well into the 80's for some of the various graphical front-ends and extensions to BBS packages.

Re:The firm was established in 2004

[zippthorne]

In 1999, client-side image maps were already quite mature, having briefly supplanted the popularity of server-side image maps. Let alone the "trick" of enclosing an image tag in a link tag.

Re:The firm was established in 2004

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

If you read their patent claims on their website they aren't quite making that broad of a claim. They believe they have a patent on submitting a search and showing image (of the respective website) links as a result of that search. I agree that was done long before, and they actually state on the website that it was not in "wide use" for "enterprise websites" prior to 2000. So apparently the think they can patent ideas that have prior art, just as long as they aren't being used by the majority of large companies.

If you actually subscribe to their insane claims, or are extremely paranoid, you could get around it very easily by not having the image use a href. Their patent claim specifically mentions hrefs.

Re:The firm was established in 2004

[SQLGuru]

Didn't Prodigy start the whole graphical thing as far as pre-Internet-era systems went? It's been long enough for that type of patent to expire or for it to count as prior-art. Either way, they can go troll somewhere else.

Layne

Re:The firm was established in 2004

[UnknowingFool]

I agree that was done long before, and they actually state on the website that it was not in "wide use" for "enterprise websites" prior to 2000. So apparently the think they can patent ideas that have prior art, just as long as they aren't being used by the majority of large companies.

Well in the US, they can't . In Egbert v. Lippmann, the US Supreme Court ruled that public use of an invention bars the patenting of that invention. I can't think of a more public use of something than on the Internet. After the case, it was codified as 35 U.S.C. 102 where it specifically puts the time limit of prior use to 1 year.

Good luck with that!

[MaxInBxl]

Where's the "goodluckwiththat" tag when you need it?

Re:Good luck with that!

[Dan081943]

Where's the "goodluckwiththat" tag when you need it? I belileve this will be the first time some company attempts to sue the WORLD. How much better could it be than that?

SCO to the rescue!

[westbake]

SCO has a patent of judicial extortion that should sink this little problem. Microsoft will unleash them in five minutes.

Re:SCO to the rescue!

[hedwards]

Does that mean the RIAA and MPAA are guilty of infringing SCO's IP?

How to make money on the Internet

[deniable]

1. Porn
2. Have an idea and get bought out before you lose too much cash.
3. Porn
4. Make a nuisance of yourself and get bought out before you lose too much cash.

That may be it. Then again, if they piss people off SCO style, they could be in for a rough time.

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.

Re:Really?

[UnknowingFool]

True but an inventor only has a year before filing a patent. In Egbert v. Lippman the Supreme Court ruled that public use of a technology would bar it from being patented. It was codified in 35. U.S.C. 102 which states that an inventor can patent something unless:

(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, ...

Alright...

[Oxy the moron]

... I've waited long enough. Now, after years of silence, it's time to reveal that I own the patent:

"Use something to do something"

I think a trivial $.01/use is an acceptable royalty. Start paying up. :)

Re:Alright...

[Bobb Sledd]

I'll happily pay twice and give my $.02: Fuck off!

(Only meant in harmless, friendly fun.)

outsourcing

[nack107]

I'm glad to see that we've even managed to outsource patent trolls.

Shirts!

[IronMagnus]

Quick... someone start making shirts that say:

<a href="link"><img src="picture"></a>

... its about time those DeCSS shirts got replaced.

Re:Shirts!

[Yvanhoe]

If I sold a t-shirt for every stupid patent being claimed...
Now wait a minute ! I have a business model to patent !

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).

Re:Mail fraud

[CastrTroy]

All I know is that in Singapore, caning is an accepted form of punishment. Let's hope in this case they employ that punishment.

Two Words

[CaptScarlet22]

Piss Off!!

Slightly Misleading

[eldavojohn]

I tracked down what I think is the patent in question and indeed it was originally accepted by the Australian Patent Office.

Here's the abstract:

The present invention provides a web-page (or web-site) search results list which includes images from the actual web-pages or web-sites identified in a user's search, or images associated with the actual organization operating a web-site. This assists a user to locate web-pages of interest or relevance to the user by providing images to assess the relevance of web-pages identified in a search, prior to the user having to hyperlink to the actual web-page itself. The invention also provides a method of assisting a user to be placed in contact with an organization, including the steps of: the user submitting a search request from a terminal, via a computer network, to a database server, the database server containing a database and a server-side application used as database searching software; the database searching software searching the database in accordance with the search request; identified database entries being transmitted to the terminal as a search results list, each entry of the search results list containing contact information for the organization; at least one entry of the search results list additionally containing visual content and/or audio content which relates to the organization. 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. Although this is a prime example of how the international patent system is broken, it's unlikely they could target "virtually all" web sites with this patent.

Re:Slightly Misleading

[Splab]

Well its a software patent so it doesn't apply in this neck of the woods (EU).

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.

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:Slightly Misleading

[sir_eccles]

They do define conveyor belt slide show. There is apparently a javascript called "conveyor belt slide show". Search google for it. The only thing that springs to mind that looks like that is the thing you get at the bottom of YouTube which you mouse over and shows similar videos.

...wha?

[Smidge204]

Anyone know if this technique/ability was in the Mosaic browser? I know it was the first to show images inline with text and hyperlinks.

If this patent was filed at the same time Mosaic came out - and I wasn't able to confirm when the patent WAS issued - then there might be a slight chance. Anything older and the patent would be expired in the US by now, anything newer and there would be prior art to invalidate it.
=Smidge=

They created it prior to 1993?

[hitchhikerjim]

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.

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.

Not news

[Duncan Blackthorne]

Old and busted: Company XYZ sues for patent infringement of commonly used technolgy.
New hotness: It's an Asian company this time, not some asshats here in California.
Slashdot: They're competing for Al Gore's crown as "inventor of der interwebs".

*facepalm*

I foresee a sudden resurgence of the ASCII artform

[Anonymous Coward]

From the Vuestar website FAQ:

"My site has no images only text?
If your site is only text and has no images, icons or other patent methods then no license required."

Sweeeet! Run the images through aalib. Problem solved :-)

Re:hmm...

[Splab]

WTO does not enforce the patents, software patents are worth less than the paper they are written on in EU.

Re:patent system reform

[tgd]

Whose patent reform?

Not a US company, not a US patent.

There's an unsubstantiated claim in the article that it appears a US patent was granted, but no evidence of that and no suggestion that the US patent office won't do the right thing when presented with it.

Yes, patents are broken, but don't assume this will impact the US patent process.

Easy to Prove

[Phantombrain]

Filing date: Oct 3, 2001
Issue date: Jun 20, 2006

Wayback machine: http://www.archive.org/

http://web.archive.org/web/19961017235908/http://www2.yahoo.com/

What's that? An image? Linked?!?! That is what one might call prior art.

Singapore Piracy Central enforces Patents?

[joocemann]

Back in the late 90s I recall Singapore being the wild-west of the internet. It was well known that because Singapore did not care to enforce software piracy protections, that warez were openly available on singapore FTP/WWW servers. I was even told that you could buy CDs loaded with pirated software out of vending machines for a few dollars. ------ And now a firm from Singapore wants their patents and properties protected. How ironic.

Re:Singapore Piracy Central enforces Patents?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

It's the usual course of events. Remember, the reason the movie industry is in California instead of New York is that early moviemakers went out West to get away from Edison's attempts at patent enforcement (in the days when geographical distance actually had an effect on such matters.) Then the industry built itself into an establishment and ... well, you know the rest.

Re:Singapore Piracy Central enforces Patents?

[initialE]

We learned it from the americans, when they used the threat of economic isolation and physical violence to enforce their rule of law on our territory via the means of free trade agreements. So we (meaning our elected government) sold out our sovereignty for a few more years of peace and prosperity. And the chance to bite back in the same way, using silly american laws against everyone else.
Sorry if this post seems a bit vitriolic, but sometimes I do wonder whose interests are being protected here. We even have a local chapter of the BSA here, doing the same ass-hattery as they do over there.
The irony is in people not realizing that the cause of the cancer is in the mirror, dude.

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.

How many ... exactly?

[EricWright]

From TFA:

Established in August 2004, Like.com also said it owns almost 12 patents in the areas of visual recognition and search.

Almost 12? What the hell kind of journalism is this? Is 11 too many to count? Does zdnetasia use base 12 (in which case, I could ALMOST see this being appropriate)?

This sort of "mis-turning of a phrase" is rapidly becoming one of my top pet peeves!

Sure it is!

[wonkavader]

"I think I own this land."

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

It's all IP.

Re:Sure it is!

[Smauler]

There's a difference between property and intellectual property, you know. Hint - One's a physical thing, like land, one's not.

Re:Sure it is!

[Jesus_666]

Actually, the Israelites had a patent on a method of living in that particular region. When they were swept off the map, however, the Paletinians went and patented the same thing. Now the Israelites have redefined themselves as a new brand (the Israelis) and demand that thir patend be counted as prior art (and, if possible, reinstated). The Palestinians decline, the Israelis don't care and what follows is one of the uglier copyright wars of the recent past.

U.S. Patent 7,065,520

[sillivalley]

U.S. Patent 7,065,520 (issued in June 2006) would seem to be the US equivalent.

When you look at the claims, all the independent claims contain some key limitations:

receiving a search request from a user,

searching a database,

(other stuff, ending with)

"wherein the visual content comprises a plurality of mini-images in the form of a conveyor belt slide show."

A conveyor belt slide show? WTF? Gee, that seems fairly narrow to me!

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

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

[Anita Coney]

Here's a link to 7,065,520.

Depends

[mpapet]

Technically? Depends on how much of the intellectual property is recognized by American courts. WIPO is supposed to be the global venue for patents.

Practically? No chance in hell. Even if they aren't laughed out of court, a little retroactive immunity legislation will fix that.

FYI, the American banking industry kneecaps patent holders that make it through the courts with retroactive immunity clauses with startling frequency. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021303731_pf.html

If only americans took an interest in their government. Most of it is too good/bad to be true.

Re:Depends

[conlaw]

Depends on how much of the intellectual property is recognized by American courts. According to TFA, their patent has also been issued in Australia, New Zealand and the US. If they do have a US patent (and it appears that they may be involved with Patent No. 7,065,520) they wouldn't have to go through WIPO.

FYI, the American banking industry kneecaps patent holders that make it through the courts with retroactive immunity clauses with startling frequency. As of today, the bill discussed in that Washington Post article was inserted as an amendment into a large patent reform bill which has not yet passed either house. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN01145:@@@L&summ2=m&#status

Re:Depends

[Zeinfeld]

The first patent was issued in 2008. That is over a decade after the feature appeared in the Web specifications.

I can run through a huge amount of prior art on this one. And not just from the Web. If this does start to appear in the US we should put together a defense pack.

I think their lawyer used to work in video games

[bobdotorg]

This quote from the cease and desist tipped me off:

All your sites are belong to us.

Why this is happening

[dnwq]

This is probably why this is going on (WARNING: speculation!):

The SG govt. is extremely business-friendly, to the point of screwing over its own citizens if there's a risk of scaring off investors. As such, they've become singularly enthusiastic about "Intellectual Property" in general - witness them pulling out four riot trucks to suppress a protest by seven people against an anime distributor.

Some smartass has realised this, and decided to play off the govt's policy against itself - the government would hesitate to suppress patent trolls, for fear of scaring off foreign investors. In the meanwhile it rips off thousands of dollars from scared Singaporean small businesses.

A pretty effective scam, I'd say.

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.

So, here's the plan everyone...

[Spy der Mann]

we claim a patent on web browsers and hold the world hostage for... ONE MILLIONS DOLLARS!

In other news, Microsoft patents 1 and 0.

[Osurak]

Old, but good: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130

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:Wtf?

[jeiler]

nb: Not China--Singapore. But a valuable insight nonetheless.

Re:Filed: October 3, 2001

[Jason Levine]

Then my references to Google Images dating back to July 2001 should be prior art. If it needs to be at least a year before the filing date, then (taking SCHecklerX's tip), I found some references to Altavista's Image Search dating to Feb 2000. Either way, this company seems to be your typical patent troll. They have a patent that either has overly vague language or specifically applies to commonly used technology. They sat on it (or recently "discovered" that they have it) and now intend on making everyone using that commonly used technology pay them money for the rights to use the commonly used technology. Once a technology was in wide use, a patent holder shouldn't be allowed to just "appear" and claim patent rights over it.

Craigslist Has Immunity

[AjStone]

It this becomes big, I bet everyone at Craigslist will be cracking a smile to themselves.

but there *IS* a US patent...

[akahige]

Here's a link to US patent #7065520.

It was filed October 3, 2001, by an Australian guy who also holds patents in Oz and NZ.

More info re. their legal claims.

Here's a couple of choice quotes from their FAQ page:
Q: My site is worldwide, will I need licences for other territories?
A: Yes. Vuestar licences territory by territory â" VUESTAR System â.

Q: What happens if I donâ(TM)t pay?
A: You will not be granted the VUESTAR User Licence and will be unable lawfully to use visual images to access the worldwide web. Our collection agencies will recover unpaid fees.



So this is what happened to all those SCO execs...

Re:patent system reform

[Revvy]

It took very little digging to find the relevant US patent.

-----
I can't see you, therefore you don't exist.

Re:Yes, but...

[spun]

We stole countries with the cunning use of flags. Just sail around the world and stick a flag in. "I claim India for Britain!" And they're going, "You can't claim us, we live here! There's five hundred million of us!" - "Do you have a flag?" - "We don't need a bloody flag, this is our country, you bastard!" - "No flag, no country! You can't have one! That's the rules, that... I've just made up." Gotta love Eddie Izzard.

Re:"Prior Art"

[mpapet]

You, and others like you fail to comprehend that presenting and successfully de-certifying a patent on "prior art" is:

1. Looong process that the USPTO is unwilling to process in most cases. Their "business model" is as a certification factory.

2. Expensive process. Who's going to take up this cause? You and I?

The scale at which junk patents are being issued is mind boggling. Remember, this is the new and improved government that measures productivity! In this case it's the number of patents, per reviewer, per year.

This story reinforces the urgent need of abolishing software patents. That's something few are willing to pay enough attention to see this critical mission through. Instead, off the cuff "prior art" posts fly.

end-rant

Re:Is that valid reasoning?

[CastrTroy]

Software already has protection through copyrights. You shouldn't get double protection. That's the first problem. Another problem is that the software invention can exist entirely without the computer at all. It can be written down as a set of steps that a human can follow to obtain a certain result. There are no physical items involved. That's why software patents don't make sense. It's also the same reason business method patents don't work. The other problem is that 98% of software patents aren't novel, aren't non-obvious, and also have extensive prior art.

Re:Recycled SCO Invoices

[Douglas Goodall]

I have it on good authority that the invoices are printed on recycled SCO Linux Invoices. It saves paper and has the same basic value. In fact it is probably Daryl that owns the company. This smells like him.