RSS
Twitter
Singapore Firm Claims Patent On Hyperlinked Images
from the oh-please dept
Ah silly patents. Remember back when British Telecom thought that it held a patent on hyperlinks? And then there've been multiple different patents claiming ownership of the idea of putting an image on a website. Well, it appears that a company in Singapore has recently merged the two ideas into its own patent, and boy, is it ever ready to sue just about everyone. Slashdot points us to the news that Singaporean image search firm Vuestar Technologies claims to hold a patent on linking images from a website to another site and is sending out threatening letters to a bunch of websites. No one has linked to the actual patent so it's difficult to see what it really covers -- but the idea that a recent patent would cover the concept of linking images seems preposterous.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
I read about this yesterday
on SlashDot.com
There was some confusion as to whether the patent is simply embedding a hyperlink to an image
or the more advanced topic of scanning images for content and linking to that content. Picture of McD arches links to McD site.
Prior art covers the 1st.
I have been linking images to sites for 13 years.
Definitely covers the patent filing date.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
so someone claims to have expanded upon the idea of an ICON and now they want to sue everyone? Anyone for a game of Minesweeper? (1989)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
didn't you know? appending "over the internet" to any idea is grounds (apparently...sigh) for a patent.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
It's okay. I hold the patents to not only breathe, but to breathe "over the internet." If someone breathes into a microphone they're clearly infringing on my patent. I think it's high time to start taking some of these companies to court to make them stop breathing. That should get them out of everyone's hair.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
HA HA HA!
(img src="http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i83/quasarradio204/retard.jpg") Sorry for my empty post above, in my excitement to show advanced patented technology involved, I forgot that img html tags would get filtered (Perhaps in TechDirt's attempt to protect its ass from any upcoming lawsuits? ;))
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Singapore Patent #95940 granted on 27th Oct 2003
http://www.epatents.gov.sg/pe/TextSearch.asp?WhichQuery=1&WF=0&Display=Format02&SearchNa me=&NumType=AppNo&SearchNumber=200301820&CheckDigit=7&SubM=Title&SearchSubject=& amp;SearchReceipt=&DisplayOrder=DESC&RecordPerPage=5
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
There's a link in this forum to the patent.
http://cboard.cprogramming.com/showthread.php?p=757252
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Thanks for that link.
They, VueStar, is gonna lose. They didn't even file the damned patent until 2001. By that time it was granted(2003) I'd been hyperlinking images to websites for close to 10 years so they fail when it comes to researching prior art.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
...though after looking at the patent, I don't see vuestar's name, so perhaps it not their patent at all.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
No, you are correct - Patent 7,065,520 Vuestar is attempting to enforce. According to their website:
The Patent “A method of locating web – sites using visual images ” is granted to the Inventor Ronald Neville Langford who has assigned its use for licensing and other commercial exploitation to VUESTAR Technologies Pte Ltd of Singapore is valid
The problem is, using an image for a hyperlink, regardless of where the image is stored, was well in use before 2001. This is another example of where the USPTO has granted a patent to a pre-existing "invention".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RETARDS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The usual crowd of techdirt lemmings listening to the anti-patent sermons of Mikey
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: RETARDS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"The usual crowd of techdirt lemmings listening to the anti-patent sermons of Mikey."
You say that as if it's a bad thing. I don't get it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: RETARDS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As usual, angry durak is a lemming himself.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: RETARDS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And the usual tired insults from the resident troll who apparently couldn't be bothered to read the patent in question and realize that it was granted years after the practice it describes was already in use.
Why should angry dude trouble himself with actually trying to make intelligent statements when ignorant rants are so much easier?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Is this that thing where people were planning to dumb down society even further but creating some kind of filter over content that replaced words with logo-graphics. So if you were reading an article say about outsourcing jobs because you hate that your employees expect tolerable working conditions and fair pay, you'd just see the Bank of America logo instead of having to read Bank of America, and then you could just click on the logo and you could go to the website and send them a nasty letter they won't read.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I wonder if I could get a patent on wrapping a div around a paragraph.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
ouch!! might have to sell my house
wow if i had to pay royalties....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
this page alone has 5 violations (quickly counted, feel free to point out that there are 6 or 7 or 4 or whatever and belittle me. I know you need to feel better about yourself, so have at it)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The patent office has those - does that mean they are in violation too?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So, I am thinking of putting a patent on the idea of putting text on a webpage. I will be a millionare when I bring you all to court. LOL
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
yeah... well, i'm patenting all uses of carbon
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
From the looks of it
From reading the abstract of the patent, It looks like it's not using a image to link to another site but use an image from another site during a search. Like Google image search.
I think the first time I heard of the idea was in, I believe, 2000 on TechTV. It was a modified version of FireFox, but they didn't use an image they used a screen cap of the page itself.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Sad
The saddest part is that this company will take other companies to court over this issue, spending untold amounts on legal fees and court costs. Eventually, a judge somewhere will throw this out, but will some companies simply give because they can't (or won't) pay the legal fees to defend themselves in court?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
AD never met a patent he didn't like.
And AD probably thinks that this guy got ripped off:
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/07/02/australia.wheel/
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
On behalf of my countrymen, I would like to apologize for this patent troll's antisocial behavior. Our local companies are taking the brunt of his misguided demands anyway.
Can you believe the man even had the cheek to say that he was "disappointed at the outrage", that he was "well within the laws", and even asked why "we're chasing him out" in a newspaper interview. >_>
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Look to the Back
"In sum, the company implied that any Web site that uses pictures and graphics to link to another site or Web page will need a license from Vuestar."
If that's what they are saying in their letter, then this does not seem to be borne out by the patent. The patent is directed to web searching, not pure hypertext linking. The claims of the Singapore patent appear to cover web searches whose results display a visual image in addition to a hyperlink to the target.
Most of the independent claims also require the entries of the search results list to display "contact information for an organisation" as a component. This is defined in the specification as the "organisation's telephone, e-mail or facsimile contact information".
So the patent, as far as these claims are concerned, would appear to cover web searches which display visual content and contact information.
Does your website do this?
[Note that Claim 34 does not appear to have this limitation]
This is just a quick analysis of the patent done in 10 minutes. It is not to be construed as legal advice. You should neither act or refrain from acting on the basis of this posting.
Contact your patent attorney for more information, preferably a technically qualified patent attorney.
Disclosure: I am a Singapore patent attorney. I have no connection with any of the parties mentioned in the article. I am acting as an interested member of the public.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hmmm...
So, should I get worried or what? Anyone received legal letter from them already?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment