RefuteVueStarPatent.biz (A one-stop information center)

Coordinate

29th May 2008 Websites that are invoiced by VueStar, pls fall in
29th May 2008 Comments on VueStar’s Action

VueStar Technologies

08th Jun 2008 FAQ
04th Jun 2008 Patent Revocation
03rd Jun 2008 Might you have infringed the patent? [Would you be the next person to receive the invoice from VueStar?]
01st Jun 2008 Dealing with Patent Troll
31th May 2008 Possible Prior Art

29th May 2008 Company’s details (Do note that VueStar is a non-GST registered company)
29th May 2008 Images of invoices sent
29th May 2008 Patent details

Public Contribution

05th June 2008 An official reply from IPOS (obtained through our reader Upset Singaporean)
31th May 2008 Revoking “A method of locating web – sites using visual images” Patent

Possible Prior Art

01st Jun 2008 Another Possible Prior Art in 1998
31th May 2008 Refuting VueStar Patent claims based on Possible Prior Art in 1997

News

05th Jun 2008 S’pore followed global process in ‘patent troll’ case [ZD Net Asia]
04th Jun 2008 Student starts campaign online over patent row [Straits Times, subscription required]
03rd Jun 2008 She wants to unite netizens [The New Paper]
30th May 2008 Is the law still not catching up? [ZD Net Asia]
30th May 2008 Email interview with Ron Langford [The New Paper]
30th May 2008 Singapore firm claims to own all graphics links on the web [The Inquirer]
30th May 2008 Patent troll sending out invoices for image hyperlinks [ars technica]
29th May 2008 World of Internet patents lands on Singapore’s shores [ZD Net Asia]
29th May 2008 Local company tells websites to PAY UP [The New Paper]
29th May 2008 New image hyperlinking patent comes under fire in online forums [Asia CNet]
28th May 2008 S’pore firm claims patent to image search [ZD Net Asia]

Forums discussion

05th Jun 2008 Arofanatics got billed S$5,350 (Vuestar) [Arofantics forum]
29th May 2008 VueStar seyz all ur search pages with images are belong to us! [SPUG forum]
29th May 2008 Australian VueStar.biz to sue all websites on internet? [VR Zone forum]
29th May 2008 Is this a legitimate Singapore patent? (Vuestar Tech P/L) [Hardwarezone forum]
29th May 2008 Singapore Firm Claims Patent Breach By Virtually All Websites [slashdot]

Blogs discussion

04th Jun 2008 Some bloggers’ reaction up till date of 03rd June 2008
29th May 2008 An Australian Invented The Internet [Cobalt Paladin]
29th May 2008 Vuestar Technologies Are Patent Trolls? [Internet Marketing Singapore]
29th May 2008 Imaging lnking is patented, websites and blogs affected [Simply Jean]

Findings

08th Jun 2008 The reason behind having Patent holder who is not part of Patent marketing company
04th Jun 2008 Received VueStar invoiced? You may not have infringed patent!
30th May 2008 Who is Ron Langford?
30th May 2008 VueStar Australia patent is ceased due to failure to pay renewal fees

The following is an extraction of a post which will bring some inside into IPOS reply specifically for point 2.

Quoting About.com on Acquiring and Defending Patents: Part2 - Fighting Patent Infringement,

I believe it is best to hold patents in your own name rather then assigning them to your company. You should form a corporation whose purpose is to market the inventions. Have a contract that licenses the right to market the patents and any products created on a non-exclusive basis to your marketing corporation. This contract needs to specifically state that it is not transferable to new ownership of the corporation and that it is renewable at six month or one year intervals at the licenser’s sole discretion. The purpose of the contract is to create a situation where a judgment against your marketing corporation is worthless because the right to market the invention is not transferable. This approach reserves the right for you to license the patent to others if your first corporation comes under attack by an infringer or for any other situation such as product liability.

Update: Reading the above, I guess everyone can guess why there is a difference for the current patent matter that is blowing all over Singapore Internet. In addition, I think it will bring some clarification that since the IPOS mentioned that they are different, it just point to something else, rather than being S**M which everyone is thinking.

Post extracted from Alice Cheong in Wonderland on 08th June 2008.

I will like to thank the author Upset Singaporean for sharing with us the following.

Dear Editor,

I had received a reply through writing to my MP from IPOS, Director-General, Ms Liew Woon Yin with regards to the issue concerning Vuestar. Some of the comments she made could have been discussed before but it is good probably to post this official reply to your site.

Please note that I had sought her approval to publish publicly and specifically I had informed her that I would be sharing this to you. She had replied to me this morning that it was ok to published her comments. Here you go:

1. We refer to your email of 28 May 08 to Dr Ong Seh Hong regarding VueStar Technologies Pte Ltd.

2. According to IPOS’ records, the patent for “Method of locating web-pages by utilising visual images” (Singapore Patent No. 95940) stands in the name of Langford, Ronald, N. The patent was granted in Singapore, albeit not to VueStar, on the basis of a search and examination obtained via an international process known as the Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT) process. Under Section 29 of the Patents Act, IPOS accepted the search and examination results issued under the PCT. The International Preliminary Examination Report that was issued stated the invention as being patentable in terms of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. Broadly speaking, the patent has also been granted in Australia, New Zealand and the US.

3. Whilst the proprietor of a patent can consider using licensing of his patent rights to secure income, this is subject to entering into license agreements with parties who may be interested in using the invention, and is not done arbitrarily. A proprietor usually demands payment from companies on the basis that the companies ought to have entered into licensing agreements with it in the first place.

4. As Singapore Patent No. 95940 was not granted to VueStar, the relationship between VueStar and the patentee would first have to be ascertained before the question of whether VueStar can actually demand payment arises. The basis on which VueStar is making their demand and their interest in the patent certainly requires examination.

5. Any party who receives an invoice from VueStar should seek the advice of a lawyer on the matter as it may involve broad-ranging issues for consideration.

6. Under the Patents Act and Rules, the validity of a patent may be challenged by way of defence in proceedings for patent infringements. There are also other relevant provisions:

a) Section 38A under which any person may request for a search and examination report after grant, upon payment of the prescribed fee, in respect of any claim or claims in the specification of a patent.

b) Section 80 under which any person may apply to revoke a patent for an invention on any of a number of grounds set out in the section, one of which being that the invention is not a patentable invention.

7. We thank you for your feedback and trust the above addresses your concerns.

Best Regards,

Liew Woon Yin (Ms)
IPOS Director-General

Article extracted from Upset Singaporean Comment at this website’s [Contact Us] page

*Update 07th Jun 2008: The above post has been verified by the Editor with IPOS that it is genuine. The highlighting of text in the article is by the Editor, to highlight those facts to the reader. Do note that the original does not contain any highlighting.

The following is an extraction of a post worth looking at.

Thank you to everyone who had been discussion this issue with me. I came to notice a number of very important things.

(1) The wording of the demand letter says, “This means that you should not allow images from your web-site to be downloaded and/or used in Singapore IF they are used or to be used in accordance with any of the claims of the Patent.”

Do note that is says IF. IF you are infringing. It did not says that you are infringing. Remember, it is IF IF IF.

(2) Again on the demand letter, it says “If you require further information you are at liberty to visit our web-site at www.vuestar.biz or contact your legal representative.”

Do note that they are leading you to go and read their website. So what is on their web-site?

So quoting their web-site under services on 04th Jun 2008 11:40am (+8GMT), they says

“those who use visual images which hyperlink to other web–pages or web-sites and in particular to contact details whether on the first page or subsequent pages of a web–site require a VUESTAR licence of “Use” in order to have the right of lawful enjoyment.”

In addition, quoting the FAQ on 04th Jun 2008 11:40am (+8GMT), they says

“Why are you invoicing me?
You have accessed the VUESTAR , Vue Smart System by clicking, scrolling or streaming over a Visual Image to connect with a website or web page.”

For me, reading this 2, I will piece the story as, the patent is for image-linking, so I better pay up. BUT, wait! The patent is not this! Better check what is the patent claims, and see if I am infringing it first.

(3) Based on the Patent filed with Singapore IPOS, the patent claims are in fact very restrictive. It is not image-linking. It is a process consisting of 4 steps. And the 4 steps must be fulfill in together as a process.

Base on my interpretation, my explanation will be that the 4 steps are

1. a user submit a search request from their terminal
2. the server-side applicate search a database based on the submitted search request
   (for example execute an sql statement)
3. the identified database entries (can be one entry) are transmitted as a search result list
4. EACH entry in the search results contains a visual content related to the entry’s link-out web-page (visual content refers to image, video, animation, or, a mini-image of a web-page)
   and AN entry of the search results contains contact information
   (contact information includes email, telephone, or fascimile)

My interpretation will be, for example, the following will be an infringement.

1. Using wordpress, the reader click on ‘About’ on the right categories, thus initiating a search request.
2. The PHP running on the server, does a SQL search to the MySQL database (Select * from posts where post_type=’page’ and post_name=’about’;)
3. The single identified database entry is transmitted as a search result list
4. The return post contains an image of the author AND email address of the author AND a link to the author’s professional site.

My interpretation is that, all the following contexts do not constitute an infringement.

1. An image link is on a static page.
2. A user-initiated query, server-side database search, where the result is an image link, but with no contact information.
3. A user-initiated query, server-side database search, where the result is a link with contact information, but with no visual content.

Click here for a longer version of might you have infringed the patent?

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and my comments do not constitute to legal advice.

Post extracted from Alice Cheong in Wonderland on 04th June 2008.

Rambling Librarian: Part 2: “Refute VueStar Patent Claims Website” - Why you might want to care
The Uncharted Waters: Patent Story 2: A peep into the Patents Act
Rambling Librarian: Part 1: Singaporean starts a “Refute VueStar Patent Claims Website”
A long and arduous road of an entrepreneur: Hear The Lions Roar!
Entrepreneur 27 Singapore: Wanna Use Image Hyperlinks? PAY UP!

DK: Things that make you curse and swear
Alice Cheong in Wonderland: Analysis of a prior art refuting patent troll VueStar claims
65bits: 65Bits Episode 73: Goodbye Farinelli
Princessa @ Sabrina.SG - Princess Sabrina - Just memories…: Vuestar’s Patent (if allowed to stand) may bring the Internet industry to its knees?
e pur si muove: User Friendly on VueStar

[nox] small mercies: A Letter to Vuestar Technologies
Jay-Lim.com: “Singapore” firm Vuestar Technologies claims patent breach by “virtually all websites”
NO BUNS NO LIFE: INSIGHT: Vuestar doing stunts in Singapore, Viacom and Google conflicts on the other side of the globe.
lancerlord: of images of invoices by vuestar
slackerism: Patent Trolling in Singapore

A long and arduous road of an entrepreneur: Images of Invoices Sent By VueStar
The Uncharted Waters: Patent Story: A little background
The fire in my life: A discovery in the Vuestar Scandal!!!
Richard Palace dot Com: Vuestar Invoice Websites Owner For Use of Patented Technology

Those who feel that they do not wish to have their blog entry regarding their views on this matter posted on this post, please kindly contact me at email stated in the Contact Us.