Vuestar

[bryan]

News that made me blink today.

Singapore
Patent breach by 'virtually all websites'? Pay up, firm demands
Chua Hian Hou
526 words
27 May 2008
Straits Times
English
(c) 2008 Singapore Press Holdings Limited

A SINGAPORE firm 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.

In a move that has come under fire from the online community, VueStar Technologies has sent 'invoices' to local website operators asking for thousands of dollars in licensing fees.

The company, which said 'virtually all websites' are infringing on its patent, is also planning to take on giants like Mircosoft and Google.

It is a battle that could, at least in theory, upend the Internet, though intellectual property experts have some doubts that VueStar can actually enforce its claims.

The company said it has been awarded a patent here and in several other countries, including Australia, New Zealand and the United States, for the method of 'locating Web pages by utilising visual images'.

In other words, clicking, scrolling or streaming over a visual image to connect with a website or Web page is an infringement, the company claims on its website.

The technique is the de facto method used to connect websites across the globe, from personal blogs to the biggest search engines.

VueStar managing director Paul Smith said if sites want to keep using images as links, they will have to pay his company - located in a single-unit office at The Adelphi off Coleman Street - between '$200' and 'millions' annually.

It is a claim, however, that has its doubters.

Technology and intellectual property lawyer Bryan Tan of Keystone Law Corporation said that while VueStar has been granted a patent, it is an extremely wide one.

In fact, 'if the patent is allowed to stand, it will probably bring the (Internet) industry to its knees'. And VueStar's patent may be contested and overturned in court, he said.

The firm has been sending out invoices to Singapore companies since last week asking them to pay up, said Mr Smith. He declined to say how many have gone out, but there have been 'enough to keep my phone busy'.

Those who do not pay up, warned Mr Smith, face legal action, and his company is 'highly confident that (a court decision) will be in our favour'.

Mr Alvin Koh, who runs the non-profit Arrowana fish website arofanatics.com, received one of VueStar's invoices last week for $5,350. He does not intend to pay up and said: 'I would rather close down the site'.

Mr Smith recognises that Mr Koh's stand will likely be a popular one, and his firm is already girding up for a public backlash.

'Website owners are just upset because they never had to pay for it before,' said Mr Smith.

VueStar will begin enforcing its patent claims in Australia and the US 'soon', he said, and the firm is also working on invoices for Internet heavyweights like Google and Microsoft.

While governments and charities will need a licence, VueStar will not be asking for payment from these parties, he said.

Mr Tan urged companies to contact their lawyers before 'paying VueStar anything'.

[Quixotic]

Hmm... I don't get it, the technology "to use an image to link to another website" can be patented? This is puzzling...

[Wackytpt]

I believe I saw this being posted by John in Arofanatic Forum.

[Quixotic]

And why stop at images? Why not take it further to patent the technology "to use words to link to external websites"?

[mordrake]

Hmm... I don't get it, the technology "to use an image to link to another website" can be patented? This is puzzling...

i really wonder how the patent went through.
do the pple that approved it realise the ramifications?

it literally impacts the whole WWW.

[Shadow]

they probably patent it long time ago before people using it. Wait until lots of web site using it and then sue all of them. The patent probably expired soon that is why they start suing. Just my wild guess

[stormchild]

They might just have a case if the company can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the technology is theirs and is being infringed by the companies they are sueing.

But i highly doubt they can win this. Any lawyers here to comment?

[Quixotic]

As usual, I have done a little digging around. Personally, I don't feel that Vuestar has a case. They are claiming that the websites are actually using technology developed by Vuestar, i.e. method of locating webpages by utilising images.

The "technology" in the said patent actually works in conjunction with a search engine, where the results are then presented in visual hyperlinks (see http://www.vuestar.biz/technology.php). The websites aren't using the search engine technology, so I assume that they are being billed for breaching the visual hyperlink part.

However, the visual hyperlinks have all along been a part of HTML language that makes up the WWW (the HTML tags <a href="..."><img src="..."></img></a>). The WWW was first invented by Sir Tim Berners-Lee in 1989. CERN released the WWW on 30 April 1993, that it will be free to use and no fees will be imposed.

Now the doubt that I have is that, does the patent actually cover the visual hyperlinks in itself?

Reading the patent description, from a layman POV, I have the impression that the patent is more about the process flow, and the underlying technology of how the search engine works. Therefore, the visual hyperlinks are mere presentation of results, and there is no technology involved except for the HTML tags used to present them.

Fortunately, the patents can be challenged and if someone can prove that the invention has been described in prior art, then it becomes invalid. See Wikipedia, Prior art, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art (as of May. 29, 2008, 17:23 GMT).

Prior art (also known as or state of the art, which also has other meanings), in most systems of patent law,[1] constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.

The Singapore patent was granted on 27-Oct-2003, while the US patent was granted in 2001(?). HTML/WWW has been in use since 1993. Surely, based on that, prior art can be demonstrated and Vuestar does not have a case at all.

United States Patent and Trademark Office, No: 7-065 -520 B2
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/7065520

Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, No: 95940
http://www.epatents.gov.sg/pe/TextSe...ecordPerPage=5
http://www.epatents.gov.sg/GTemp/2003018207.zip

For those who are interested, there is a similar case in year 2000. British Telecom claimed that one of their patents cover hyperlinks and therefore intends to seek payment -- yes, you read it correctly -- for every hyperlink on any webpages. They started by filing a suite against Prodigy (an ISP). However, it was dismissed, supposedly as Prodigy is able to present prior art.

Unfortunately, not being legally competent, this is purely a personal opinion. It is still pretty hazy on what the patent is interpreted and actually covers, and how the alleged infringements fit in. Can't be sure if there are other angles to the issue on hand as well.

[Savant]

Well done Quixotic, you are totally right...

I am pretty sure that there are plenty of prior art that will invalidate the novelty of that patent (prior art being anything that has been disclosed by any means (publication, use, etc) before the priority date of the patent)...

Wonder if anyone actually paid Vuestar anything...

If you are right about the priority date being 2001 (i have not had the chance to examine the patent yet), then the facts in the case of Kelly v. Arriba will show that the process had already been done in January 1999.

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/Ke...r_decision.pdf