Singapore firm claims to own all graphics links on the web

Has anyone ever seen an image that is not visual :) ?

Shows how retarded governments and the patent process is. I don't know about other nations, but this patent should never have been granted in the US. It's both obvious and likely has prior art.

It's not like this company didn't know their "patent" was being "infringed." Graphical websites have existed since what, 1993? They waited until fifteen years later to bitch about it? Sounds suspicious to me.

Maybe it'd be cheaper, and more ethically responsible, to just hire a hit squad to take out this menace to humanity, than reward them for their disservice to innovation.

Some day there will be a patent for writing text in a web page..

P2P linking & internal File Linking are OLD. HTML linking within any frame or defined space is Fundumental. Maybe century OLD in some useages in linking equipment to Menus.
It is unlikely company Today from Red chinese group invented anything, letalone href.

People whom don't know, RUN Scared from Shadow of Lawlessness of ?Hiring? someone sight unseen. SUCKERS. Opps, I mean Victims of ununderstood technology & Con Artist, whom if caught, simply dissappear into night.


Its SAD Day for All when kindergardners, in effect, invent GUN & go hunting with it. Leaving everyone scrambling </href>
Drashek

PS I Invented China.

It's part of the standard.

They did not write the standard.

Hence, they did not invent it.

They know this.

It's long past time to press criminal charges on abusive patents.

So original HTML spec had <img> and <a> tags, and an <img> tag worked as the content of an <a> tag.

Did this company invent HTML?

I located the loo with the help of that little stick-man, but I never guessed that he'd want a reach around and patent leather whip. Obviously, that Singapore Sling was not well thought out. People with brain impediments should not drink. Especially in public.
I on the other hand, have been heavily medicated for your protection. Where's a savvy chemist when you need her?

Just, for a moment think about what would happen to the internet if this was backed by a judge!

Now, come back to reality and understand that this will never happen. Have a nice day.

It seems to me that they imply to have a patent for a part of the HTML standard. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Personally, I'm waiting for someone to patent a system that would prevent patent trolls from getting their patents.

Maybe every admin and website owner should do the norm and all click the link and apply at the same time then lets see who can really deal with a real mess. People just trying to make a quick big buck err....

All that has to be done is shown that this was done by someone else before they put in for a patent. If that's proven then their patent is null and void. You can't patent something that's already been done by someone else. It would be like me trying to get a patent for the internet tomorrow. Even if they granted the patent, it would get shot down the minute I tried to enforce it.

What does this mean for our Everywhere Girl?!?!?!

(Note to self... must bomb Singapore after work...)

If this is not a call for patent reform I don't know what is. A patent should only be issued for someTHING, a physical object. Copyrights would protect procedures and software. I think I'll patent the means to link to a search by not using visual images or any other existing technology. So basically I'll own the rights to anything not thought up yet.

So please either pay me 100$ each or stop breathing. Have a nice day.

Or not.

It appears that the US patent office is only interested in *creative descriptions* of things, rather than actual things. If you can creatively describe the shape of a carrot, then every farmer could be prosecuted for planting carrots, and why should the patent office check to see if this is the case?

I recall that this policy was created under Reagan. Someone in the USPTO said "we're in the patent business, not the denial business." In other words, let a company get away with making a profit, rather than worrying how the people will be impacted by that patent.

Apparently the whole thing was conceived by some bloke from Australia, patented the "technology" in SG, NZ, AU and US.

I would just love to see him take a swing at Google, Yahoo or MSN though.

VueStar is owned by an Australian:
Mr Ronald Neville Langford

Links to this ludicrous Saga:
http://talkback.stomp.com.sg/forums/showthread.php?t=38108

Enjoy

This may be about html code used in advertising. As href command does NOT link image or spot to anything outside browser, it is link to address bar, which then automatically sends address to http server. Its nothing NEW.

However, maybe article means all those fancy ads like on toms site which curl & open up with nwe web page ad. they too don't go outside your computer, as ad is preloaded.

Some html is hard to get, such as address bar itself, you can even include one in your email signature, yet noone understands code, even if you rip page into code, its hidden. yet FREE.

Here advertising link from picture is newer & probably like all digital code, propritary for two years maximum, then FREE to Public, its up to creator to keep code secret. However, it is unusual to use exact same code anyway, as thers always another way to skin dat cat.

In any event any monies owed, even if from software that is actually stolen from owner, is limited to actual amount lost, which approachs Nothing in most simple code writing.
Company assumes all responibility in collecting fees before code is transfered, then its OPEN, in effect, for any lawful useage, as obtained or even written new propritary software of anothers design, Nothing owed previous writers, unless deciet of copyright is involved. Which probably work both ways, As most complex code migrated from Mainframe enviorment put together by IT students or even stolen by orifice in 1960s', as thats their gimick.
ALL LONG AGO BEING PART OF PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Drashek

VueStar.biz is an AUSTRALIAN firm (though registered in Singapore) and the patent in question is owned by AUSTRALIANS Ronald Neville Langford and Paul Francis Smith. Note that these sorry-excuse-for-human-beings are Public Enemy No.1 in Singapore, and these 2 Aussie villans are warring against Singapore and the entire Internet with their expolitative patents. Singapore is (the real victim and) not the bloody enemy of the Internet World, Australian company VueStar.biz is.

If you look at this patent on the Australian Patent website, it's actually lapsed!

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2005905151

Since the United States has a large national debt and companies want to claim ownership to the web...How about we counter this menace to humanity with its own medicine?

We say that since ARPANET had the first creation of the Internet and American Companies created the World Wide Web and The US has ALL THE HARDWARE that is central the internet..

...and we made the decision many years ago on what is Public and what isnt...How about we fine Singapore for every single minute they use the Internet? Yes, our hardware is proprietary and it costs a lot of money to maintain.....

Better yet....How about we fine the company for every single line of HTML code they use? :) How about the C and C++ programming language?...That would be great too...

There are many ways around that its not even funny.


Following is the link to the patent filed in US:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7065520.PN.&OS=PN/7065520&RS=PN/7065520

This is my interpretation, the patented idea is the presentation of the search results which consists of the following on the same page:

1. Text providing the some information (not limited to company name, contact, telephone number, fax etc.) 

2. One or more images ( not limited to logo, advertisment image, screen shot of the website etc)

3. A hyperlink from the image to the destination website. 

The sad thing is that this patent was granted despite the fact that it was so obvious. If it was granted earlier before the advant of rich web interface than at least we can argue that it is a new idea, by now the patent should have expired to allow future work on the Web. 

Web is an open standards!

Vuestar applied for this patent in 2003. I've been making their type of links since 1999. Guess who will be suing them...

Few corrections:address Bar htmlNOT hidden, its just seldom in page that can be ripped. Also this is probably newer than simple CSS or Meta Tag html. So perhaps using html standards, Patentable application has been violated.

Application may be those small floating things that appear like widgets or drop down ads double click inflicts on universe or maybe downloaded with original page & opens up when cursor goes over internal link as full new page. maybe even streaming instant ad.

Anyway i doubt if copyright is as inclusive as article implies. worse patent may be expired.

However, I realize that Australians are German Felons, & therefore bunch of Con Artist, it is to note that maybe their copyright or patent is valid & someone has just pilered there code. In which case Tort is in order & Bank needed to imdemnify, as I doubt collecting from thousands of scattered internet companies is possible in todays world.
Thomas von Drashek

"We say that since ARPANET had the first creation of the Internet and American Companies created the World Wide Web "

I think you'll find that it was Europeans at CERN including Tim Berners-Lee that invented the WWW. Typical misinformation.

He was the first man in the universe who wanted to paid in money from given software. Before that, all code and computer sofrware was free. On the other hand, there would not be any big computer software developers and computers would be stuck bitcode...

It will never even be protected in court, but even if 1000 websites pay up because they just cannot be bothered that is $200k.

It's not worth even thinking about beyond the amusement factor, the price is just enough to make it not worth getting the lawyers to write more than 1 letter in response.

...does everyone get their facts?

Gates being the first man to be paid for software? You're not old enough to know the truth.

And who invented what depends on how carefully you watch your definitions. Indeed the Internet itself (TCP, FTP, NNTP, SMTP protocols, etc. plus the underlying physical infrastructure) had its roots in the U.S., thanks to its military and the universities. The WWW on the other hand, which essentially is the use of HTTP via the Internet to download information, then HTML and hyperlinks to link that information, has its roots at Europe's CERN. Perhaps the writer was confused by the fact that the first popular browser software - Mosaic - was written at the NCSA.

Also the statement about Australians being German felons shows extraordinary ignorance and a poor grasp of geography.

Oh and back to the actual subject, stupid patent lawsuits like this would go away almost entirely if the people filing them would have to pay everyone's legal defense fees when the filer loses.

These idiots apparently haven't learned anything from the antics of SCO CEO Darl McBride. Hopefully it won't take very long for them to get laughed out of court.

I thought the interweb was owned by Al Gore...

I hope for your sake that was some kind of joke!

I've been paying for my domain name and site hosting since before Y2K.
Using images for linking is the first thing any site creator wants to learn while perusing the HTML functions.
Vuestar has the right to enforce any patent it owns, and I have the right to totally disregard any patent claims that are obviously frivolous and without merit.
I am waiting with baited breath for the complete debunking on Groklaw of any patent claim Vuestar may think it has.
Actually, that's not true. Debunking Vuestar's claim is probably nothing more than a trivial exercise and will not even be worth an amusing comment.