Singapore Firm Claims Patent Breach By Virtually All Websites 481
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."
Sweet (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Don't they have friends and family they have to face? Or do they only associate with other criminals like themselves?
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wtf? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Funny)
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).
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sweet (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Though technically, the stereotype is unreproductive. (Is that even a word?)
Re:Sweet (Score:4, Funny)
SCO to the rescue! (Score:3, Funny)
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! (Score:4, Funny)
Depends (Score:5, Informative)
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:Depends (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:"Prior Art" (Score:3, Interesting)
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 reviewe
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Prior Art (Score:3, Insightful)
Patented A href? (Score:3, Insightful)
If that is the case, I'll patent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Patented A href? (Score:5, Funny)
That's obviously invalid. One important requirement for patentability is that an invention must be useful.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
what the fuck (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:what the fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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'
Re:what the fuck (Score:4, Insightful)
(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.)
Re:what the fuck (Score:4, Funny)
Sure it is! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Really? Well, I think I own this land."
It's all IP.
Re:Sure it is! (Score:4, Informative)
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! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 regu
Re:what the fuck (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 & spen
Re:what the fuck (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Another Idiotic Patent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is that valid reasoning? (Score:4, Interesting)
wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
AMD proved there was indeed another way to make a processor that wou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
The firm was established in 2004 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The firm was established in 2004 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The firm was established in 2004 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Layne
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The firm was established in 2004 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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. Aft
How to make money on the Internet (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Alright... (Score:5, Funny)
... 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: (Score:3, Funny)
(Only meant in harmless, friendly fun.)
outsourcing (Score:5, Funny)
Shirts! (Score:5, Funny)
<a href="link"><img src="picture"></a>
Re:Shirts! (Score:5, Funny)
Now wait a minute ! I have a business model to patent !
Mail fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mail fraud (Score:5, Funny)
Slightly Misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the abstract:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slightly Misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
...wha? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Singapore Piracy Central enforces Patents? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry if this post seems a bit vitriolic, but sometimes I do wonder whose interests are being protected here. We even
Feh (Score:4, Insightful)
How many ... exactly? (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
U.S. Patent 7,065,520 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
I think their lawyer used to work in video games (Score:4, Funny)
All your sites are belong to us.
Why this is happening (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
In other news, Microsoft patents 1 and 0. (Score:3, Interesting)
but there *IS* a US patent... (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:patent system reform (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
-----
I can't see you, therefore you don't exist.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)