Eileen Yu from zdnetasia ponders if the law is still not catching up, as in the case of VueStar Technologies claiming patent rights on the use of multimedia to link to other websites or webpages. The case of Ron Langford successfully getting the patent totally baffled her.

She wonders why there was no notices of opposition.

• In my view, there is just too many patents being filed, and with their crytic way of wording, put off most from reading it.
• This patent in particular is filed in Australia, and using the Patent Cooperation Treaty, got recognized by the participating countries, which includes Singapore. So, the original juristic would be Australia, and an Australia juristic patent is not the concern for the rest of the world.

She is not quite sure of what VueStar’s intentions are here. For me, my best guess is that since it is a business, with a valid patent, it’s stand would be to make as much licensing fees. Quoting Ron from The New Paper article, “He stressed that his company is seeking payment for the use of its technology because the company has been ‘damaged financially to the tune of millions of dollars’”.

Though Ron Langford declined to reveal why VueStar Technologies chose to target predominantly Singapore websites, the way he is going about doing so, is to start with small and medium enterprise, which usually lack the funds to over-throw a valid patent. Moreover, he starts with Singapore, which is very protective of patent rights. The easiest pie is choosen. As such, depending on the lawyer’s advise for each of the individual companies, some may choose to pay, in order not to be face with the un-certainty of more lengthy court and lawyer fees.

As long as VueStar Technologies does not take any companies to court, and as long as his patent is not challenged, the company can legally continue to send the invoices to as many companies as he like. There will always be someone who will pay the fees. So, why not get the licensing money? It is still legal (though to layman might sound like scam), but sounds totally un-ethical. However, in business, they need to follow the law, and but not the ethics.

Is the law still not catching up?

Posted in By The Way by Eileen Yu on 2008/05/30 03:13:59

When news first broke this week that a Singapore company had been awarded the patent to a technology that enables Web sites and pages to be linked via images, I found it tough to believe the report bore any truth.

Long story short, Singapore-based Vuestar Technologies has hit the town with a stern message that any company that uses photos and graphics to link to other Web sites or Web pages, must obtain a “license of use” from Vuestar. It has begun sending out notification letters to selected companies, urging them to sign a licensing agreement in order to continue using image linking, legally.

If its claims are true, and it hasn’t misinterpreted the patent it was awarded, then Vuestar basically has the right to take millions of companies to court including Wikipedia, for using its famous jigsaw globe icon as a link to its homepage. The cyberworld has just become Vuestar’s legally-lucrative oyster.

I’m not surprised over the Singapore company’s attempts to recover what it claims is its rightful intellectual property, after all, isn’t money always the motivation behind such affairs?

Rather, what has completely baffled me is that Vuestar had actually succeeded in getting that patent.

Weren’t there any notices of opposition, a standard legal procedure that usually takes place before a patent application is approved? Any interested party is allowed to oppose the patent application based on various grounds, for example, if the technology highlighted in the patent application isn’t adequately described, or that the technology is not patentable due to prior art.

Prior art, when highlighted in a patent application, points to anything which depicts similar inventions published before the patent was filed. And, obviously, image linking and image search have been around way before Vuestar filed–and was awarded–its patent, which apparently took place between 2000 and 2003.

I’m not quite sure what Vuestar’s intentions are here. If it’s purely for publicity, and this whole exercise is nothing more than a marketing gimmick, then it has definitely succeeded in accomplishing its objective.

And if the company’s goal was to illustrate the flawed patent-approval system, I think it has also achieved its purpose.

It’s not reasonable to expect the law to keep pace with its knowledge and expertise in every piece of technology available out there in the market. Legal processes are typically long-drawn affairs and can sometimes take years to see completion. Technology, on the other hand, waits for no man and the company that goes to market in the shortest possible time has the first-mover advantage.

However, if the various governing powers worldwide view patents as a necessary evil, then they should–at the very least–ensure they take the fundamental step of appointing patent officers who understand how the IT industry works.

I’m actually very eager to see Vuestar take someone to court–though I doubt it eventually will–and try to reclaim its “intellectual property” rights. It would be interesting to see how the patent will hold up in court.

Article obtained from zdnetasia.com on 30th May 2008

The New Paper did an email interview with Ron Langford. So what did he said?

1) Ron claimed that the came up with the idea in 2000.
Editor: The idea does not sound new in 2000.

2) He claimed that at that time the internet bandwidth prevent images and other multimedia to be used extensively.

3) He claimed that broadband Internet was still in in infancy and hyperlinking from images to multimedia could NOT be supported.

4) He STRESSED that his company is invoicing the companies because his company has been ‘damaged financially to the tune of millions of dollars’.

5) He says that he is ’surprised and disappointed’ at the hostile responses because ‘there has been no law broken’.
Editor: [Patent Troll?] Obvious that no law has been broken.

6) He says that ‘We have tried to be good citizens in a country where we thought there wa a lot of support for innovation and peoples’ rights.’ ‘Instead, the message seems to be, ‘We are going to drive you out of this city.”
Editor: Do differentiate Singapore government from Singapore citizens. The government is extremely supportive of innovation. The citizens when step on (prior art seemingly available and seemingly obviousness of claims), are naturally outraged. Oh, don’t tell me you don’t know there is a difference.

Man who sparked patent uproar says…

By Liew Hanqing
May 29, 2008

BEFORE last week, his company was virtually unknown.

But it has since riled netizens here after some website owners were sent invoices for using a technology the company claims to have patented.

Mr Ronald Langford, 68, the man behind Singapore-based Vuestar Technologies, maintains that his idea is original and that his company’s claims are valid.

In 2003, the Australian was granted a patent for an invention, which he calls the ‘Method of Locating Web-sites using visual images’.

He claims that websites which use images to link to pages that contain an organisation’s contact information have breached his patent.

In an e-mail interview with The New Paper, Mr Langford claimed he came up with the idea in 2000, before Internet bandwidth allowed for images and other multimedia to be used extensively.

He added that because broadband Internet was still in its infancy at the time, hyperlinking from images to video, audio and other features could not be supported.

‘The idea was driven by the potential to use this method for speedier web access and to engage commercial advertising initiatives,’ he said.

Mr Langford, a major shareholder of Vuestar Technologies, said he formed the company to handle administrative and licensing matters related to the patent.

He said he gave some shares to close friends, ‘who have remained loyal and provided intellectual input over 18 years’.

BRUNEI SHAREHOLDERS

The company also has two private shareholders from Brunei, but none from Singapore.

Said Mr Langford: ‘We have spoken to potential investors, all introduced by private parties.

‘Some came to know of our existence, and were keen on knowing potential financial rewards, but elected (to take) a wait-and-see attitude.’

He stressed that his company is seeking payment for the use of its technology because the company has been ‘damaged financially to the tune of millions of dollars’.

‘Ironically, we have sat back and watched our technology used to generate millions in advertising revenue,’ said Mr Langford, who lives in Brisbane.

The retiree, who used to have a timber business in Papua New Guinea, said he became interested in the Internet in his early years of retirement.

He is in Singapore for about 20 days a year to monitor the administration of his company.

He said the company hopes to profit from websites which use his idea for commercial purposes and claimed he is seeking profit because his patent is valid and has never been objected to.

But since the company started sending out the invoices last week, it has caused an online uproar on local forums and blogs.

S’PORE AUDIENCE

The company is currently targeting websites with a predominantly Singaporean audience, which include several overseas websites.

But Mr Langford declined to reveal why, or which websites these were.

Some forum members here do not accept the company’s claim, and are calling for those who received invoices to ignore them.

Mr Lin Xiaodong, the forum member who started the original discussion thread about Vuestar on the Hardwarezone forum, told The New Paper he disagrees with what Mr Langford’s company is doing.

Mr Lin, who runs an online classifieds business, received an invoice for $5,350 last week for allegedly breaching Mr Langford’s patent.

He said in Mandarin: ‘Patents are to protect ideas which are creative and innovative – ideas which people don’t yet know about.

‘You don’t patent an idea which already exists, and which people already know about.’

Responding to the online furore, Mr Langford said he was ’surprised and disappointed’ at the hostile responses because ‘there has been no law broken’.

He said: ‘We have tried to be good citizens in a country where we thought there was a lot of support for innovation and peoples’ rights.

‘Instead, the message seems to be, ‘We are going to drive you out of this city.’

Article obtained from The New Paper on 29th May 2008