ThinkingNectar

SimplyJean have a article (on a newspaper article) on this local company VueStar going around sending letters to local companies to enforce a patent which they (VueStar) have.

At the time of writing, Jwong had commented on SimplyJean the following:

Back to the point. The patent(s) were awarded sometime from 2001-2003. We all know that the ‘invention’, in this case the HTML ‘HREF’ tag, has been public since the early 1990s. In fact, because the method is HTML code, it should probably belong to Tim Berners-Lee instead.

Seeing as to how they were neither the inventor, and the invention isn’t new, it’ll never hold any water in court. I’d love to have them come and try me.

VueStar looks to be another company preying on the public’s misinformation to make a quick buck. Just like how another local company, Odex, cheated people of thousands of dollars by claiming copyright ownership.

They relied on the (Singaporean) public’s fear of the law, to make a quick buck, and never ever really brought anyone to court. They were just after the gullible, and VueStar looks to be just like that.

I find Jwong to be correct. Webmaster follows the current HTML standards. If there is any infringment of IP of any sort, we should be hearing it first from the W3C. Not in some form of legal letters having a go at smaller players.

What VueStar did amused me greatly. How do they think that they can pull such a thing off?

I did some digging and IPOS returns the results at here for Patent Number is 95940 with application number 200301820-7.

I took lunch time to read the patent details and its seems that it is applicable to the search results return by search engines. Hence if you do run a search engine (many of us do not) you are pretty safe. But if the nitty gritty comes in, and if you do run a search feature on your site, the feature maybe be covered by the stated patent. And that if the search result returns image to faciliate/enhance the visualisation of the search.

That brings me to the next point which can be found in the Q and A on VueStar site:

I do not have a search capability, why do I have to pay?

Your Internet Service Provider (ISP) has entitled you to conduct your and others viewing. They will also have to take up a licence because they are causing or contributing to your use of the VUESTAR System (TM) and using our patented technology.

This is a strange rule I will say. I created my site and if someone present it in a different manner, I am liable for fees with regards to this new presentation which I did not explictly wanted. Sounds like taxes to me. I am not a laywer by training but if the search engines or any service provider wants to show my site with a image linking back to my site, I thank them for the recognition but that is all I can do. Most website are in a as-if format. Go after those who causes the patent infringment, namely the search engines?

I guess it will be a wait and see now. The local webmaster and site owners are pretty much wiser from the Odex case and will be more than happy to wait out for the first, if any court case on this matter.

On a parting note, what on earth was the officer at IPOS thinking when he/she issue the patent?