Visual Image Link Patent

[laserlight]

I just read about this in a local newspaper today, and wondered what you guys think about it: Singapore firm claims patent to image search (http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/internet/0,39044908,62041802,00.htm).

Dubbing itself "pioneers of visual search technology", Vuestar Technologies said it owns the patent to the technology that enables "Internet searching via visual images".

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.

"Those who use visual images which hyperlink to other Web pages or Web sites...whether on the first page or subsequent pages of a Web site require a Vuestar 'license of use'," the company said on its site.

If the reports are accurate, it seems that this is yet another example of a brain damaged software patent that points to the systemic flaws of software patenting.

[NogDog]

US Patent (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=%227065520%22&OS=)

It's a bit more limited than the the stated concept to "use visual images which hyperlink to other Web pages or Web sites." Rather, it has something to do with the use of images for organizing search results and using them to link to the search result web pages. However, I cannot see how it can claim to be a new invention, as I'm sure this sort of thing has been around for many years. I suspect it's an attempt to try to bilk money out of people by getting them to buy licenses before the patents gets challenged and thrown out. But I'm certainly no patent lawyer, so who knows?

[leatherback]

US Patent (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=%227065520%22&OS=)

It's a bit more limited than the the stated concept to "use visual images which hyperlink to other Web pages or Web sites." Rather, it has something to do with the use of images for organizing search results and using them to link to the search result web pages.

I am not so sure about that. They even refer to icons and logo's and do say that internet providers need a licence too. If you have scrolled over an image to get to this page, you need to get a licence fee, is basically the message.

This is just rediculous. For sure this will not hold up when challenged by one of the big players. Didn't microsoft try to limit use of :hover a while back? I think this will be thrown out, or the internet is passe; back to the 1990-ies

[dougal85]

I'm sure I seen somewhere somebody just tried to make a claim on techniques in Ajax as their own and patent them... It was something to do with updating sections of web pages asynchronously.

Can't find the article now.

Sometimes these things get a bit crazy.

*edit*
this might have been it http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2008/03/25/ajax_patent_auction/

[bpat1434]

So what about the PayPal, Google Checkout, and other companies that encourage you to use their "web badge" to link to their site? Or what about those images that say "This site created with a Mac" or "Site created using Macromedia (Adobe) Dreamweaver" etc.?

Are they going to back-track and charge those who used them previously? I don't have the money to pay for something that I was unaware was "illegal".... and to that point... I claim a patent on BP... I'm going to charge British Petroleum for using my initials :p

[NogDog]

I'm pretty certain this is a "patent troll" attempt, and the first time they try to bill any "big player" and get taken to court, it will be thrown out - at leas in the US (see "Supreme Court ruling makes 'obvious' patents harder to defend (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070430-supreme-court-ruling-makes-obvious-patents-harder-to-defend.html)"). Notice that for now they are only trying to bill people in Singapore under the Singapore patent, so maybe they they already suspect it would be a waste of time to even try to make claims elsewhere? Also, if you read the actual patent application, it takes a very, very liberal reading of it to suggest that any image links to other web sites somehow encroach on that patent; and certainly if they try to claim that aspect as being part of the patent, it is bound to fail, as visual links were made possible by HTML long before the patent application was filed. But I'm no lawyer, so who knows? :rolleyes:

Also, the fact that this story seems to have still not made any of the big international news outlets yet leaves me feeling there's probably not a lot of teeth behind this. But again, I am not a patent lawyer, so don't blame me if I'm wrong! (Did that cover my @$$ sufficiently? :p )

[HalfaBee]

Looks like the patent they applied for in Australia has lapsed.

How the patent office could even think it was a new/novel idea is beyond me.

Surley google has been searching for images and linking the thumbnails before 2001.

Any ecommerce site would probably have had that function 8 years ago.

[Weedpacket]

http://webshop.ffii.org/index.en.html