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."

what the fuck

[FireXtol (1262832)]

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 (1128165)]

That was a motivator with a picture of Deadpool.

Re:what the fuck

[bmajik (96670)]

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

[Austerity Empowers (669817)]

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.

Sure it is!

[wonkavader (605434)]

"I think I own this land."

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

It's all IP.

Re:Sure it is!

[Smauler (915644)]

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 (702802)]

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.

Re:Yes, but...

[spun (1352)]

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:what the fuck

[AK Marc (707885)]

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?

Another Idiotic Patent

[chunk08 (1229574)]

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

[CastrTroy (595695)]

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.

wrong

[theshowmecanuck (703852)]

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.

The firm was established in 2004

[poeidon1 (767457)]

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

Re:The firm was established in 2004

[CastrTroy (595695)]

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 (2822)]

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

[Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286)]

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.

How to make money on the Internet

[deniable (76198)]

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.

Alright...

[Oxy the moron (770724)]

... 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. :)

outsourcing

[nack107 (704482)]

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

Shirts!

[IronMagnus (777535)]

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 (564877)]

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 (603231)]

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 (595695)]

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

Slightly Misleading

[eldavojohn (898314)]

I tracked down what I think is the patent in question [uspto.gov] 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

[Jason Levine (196982)]

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 [wilsonet.com] discussing Google Images in May of 2004.

After a bit more searching, I found references [google.com] 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.

...wha?

[Smidge204 (605297)]

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 (152744)]

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 [webhistory.org]

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 (662392)]

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 [webhistory.org]

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 (1095849)]

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*

Easy to Prove

[Phantombrain (964010)]

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

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

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

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

Singapore Piracy Central enforces Patents?

[joocemann (1273720)]

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 (106857)]

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.

Feh

[hlt32 (1177391)]

Patent trolling and frivolous lawsuits should be a crime.

U.S. Patent 7,065,520

[sillivalley (411349)]

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.

I think their lawyer used to work in video games

[bobdotorg (598873)]

This quote from the cease and desist tipped me off:

All your sites are belong to us.

Why this is happening

[dnwq (910646)]

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 [textfiend.net] 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.

but there *IS* a US patent...

[akahige (622549)]

Here's a link [uspto.gov] 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 [vuestar.biz].

Here's a couple of choice quotes from their FAQ page [slashdot.org]:
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:Sweet

[jeiler (1106393)]

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

[by 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

[jeiler (1106393)]

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.

So, here's the plan everyone...

[Spy der Mann (805235)]

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

Re:Sweet

[Penguinisto (415985)]

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 (1352)]

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

[jeiler (1106393)]

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

[by 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)?

Depends

[mpapet (761907)]

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 [washingtonpost.com]

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

Re:Sweet

[t33jster (1239616)]

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:patent system reform

[tgd (2822)]

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.

Re:patent system reform

[Revvy (617529)]

It took very little digging to find the relevant US patent [uspto.gov].

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

Re:Patented A href?

[Waffle Iron (339739)]

I have patented the carriage return linefeed combination.

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