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."

Re:what the fuck

[Sangui]

That was a motivator with a picture of Deadpool.

Slightly Misleading

[eldavojohn]

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.

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 [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: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:Slightly Misleading

[Splab]

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

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: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/ [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.

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.

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 [washingtonpost.com]

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

Re:Really?

[UnknowingFool]

True but an inventor only has a year before filing a patent. In Egbert v. Lippman [wikipedia.org] 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 [uspto.gov] 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, ...

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:Patented A href?

[Waffle Iron]

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

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.

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

[Anita Coney]

Here's a link to 7,065,520 [google.com].

Re:Patented A href?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If that is the case, I'll patent :-D"

Prior art that's already recognized by the USPTO

http://www.despair.com/frownonthis.html [despair.com]

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 [wikipedia.org], 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 [cornell.edu] where it specifically puts the time limit of prior use to 1 year.

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 [loc.gov]

but there *IS* a US patent...

[akahige]

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

[symes]

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

Unreproductive©... it is now!

Re:patent system reform

[Revvy]

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

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

Re:Wtf?

[jeiler]

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

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:Patented A href?

[Russ Nelson]

Over in the Unix world, we call them newlines.

Re:Another Idiotic Patent

[Anonymous Coward]

You can patent mathmatical algorithms in the United States. RSA is the well-know example.

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?