S'pore firm claims patent to image search

By Eileen Yu, ZDNet Asia
Tuesday, May 27, 2008 07:22 PM

SINGAPORE--A local company has laid claims to a technology that Web sites across the globe deploy to link images to other Web pages, and sent out notification letters to several companies demanding to be paid licensing fees.

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.

Singapore law firm Keystone Law issued a note to its clients Tuesday, urging those that intend to take up a licensing agreement with companies such as Vuestar, to "carefully examine the terms of such licenses and the claims of the licensors".

Bryan Tan, director at Keystone Law, said in an e-mail interview: "Always examine such claims carefully and take legal advice if you are not familiar [with the company's claims]. Even if you decide to settle a claim, make sure you know what 'rights' you are paying for." Keystone specializes in technology law.

In his note to the firm's clients, Tan added: "We understand that Vuestar has sent invoices for around S$5,000 (US$3,676) to various parties in Singapore asking them to enter into such license agreements, or to cease allowing images on a parties' Web site to be downloaded or used in Singapore."

"We believe that this development would have a wide-ranging impact on the Internet community in Singapore, given the wide claims made by Vuestar on the intellectual property covered by the patents," he said. "Parties operating Web sites, offering Web services or developing Web-based and WAP-based products and services need to be especially careful."

Vuestar said it does not intend to claim licensing fees from charities and government agencies. The company added that its patent extends beyond Singapore and to "several parts of the world".

According to Tan, Vuestar's patent--tagged under publication number 95940--appears also to have been granted in Australia, New Zealand and United States.

It is not clear how the company's patent will impact other visual search technology companies such as Like.com, which claims to have developed the "first true visual search engine".

Established in August 2004, Like.com also said it owns almost 12 patents in the areas of visual recognition and search.


WORTHWHILE?

0

0 votes
Blog

Talkback 16 comments

Microsoft Subsidiary?
Hmmmm...sounds like Singapore has been bought out by Bill Gates. Or are they merely following his example?
Posted by David Blomstrom on Wednesday, May 28 2008 04:37 AM

This Is Crazy
What's that date on this patent? I had a picture link to another page
on my web site in 1996. I'm thinking that's one of a million examples
of what may be prior art. Plus, when HTML allowed you to put an
Anchor tag around an Image tag didn't the author (Burners-Lee?
Andreesen?) "invent" this innovation at that point?
Posted by Alan Scrivener on Wednesday, May 28 2008 05:49 AM

Prior art invalidates the patent.
Here's the patent:
www.epatents.gov.sg...

The earliest date on it is October 3, 2000. There's plenty of prior art, so the patent is obviously invalid on its face.
Posted by Harl Delos on Wednesday, May 28 2008 09:00 AM

dont be concerned about it
I've seen s*** like this before with copyright claims. They just try it on and hope maybe 1 in every 500 letters they send out scares some idiot into paying them without questioning it. If you ignore it, or reply and tell them to go f*** themselves, you wont hear from them again. I know, I've been on the receiving end of this kind of attempted extortion before. Eventually some large company with in-house lawyers will counter-sue, and this bunch of a**hats will disappear with what money they've managed to scam, and just set themselves up under another name and do it again. If you get a letter from them, I'd considering taking a dump on it and sending it back to them.
Posted by anonymous on Sunday, June 01 2008 02:55 AM

Look to the Back
"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."

If that's what they are saying in their letter, then this does not seem to be borne out by the patent. The patent is directed to web searching, not pure hypertext linking. The claims of the Singapore patent appear to cover web searches whose results display a visual image in addition to a hyperlink to the target.

Most of the independent claims also require the entries of the search results list to display "contact information for an organisation" as a component. This is defined in the specification as the "organisation's telephone, e-mail or facsimile contact information".

So the patent, as far as these claims are concerned, would appear to cover web searches which display visual content and contact information.

Does your website do this?

[Note that Claim 34 does not appear to have this limitation]

This is just a quick analysis of the patent done in 10 minutes. It is not to be construed as legal advice. You should neither act or refrain from acting on the basis of this posting.

Contact your patent attorney for more information, preferably a technically qualified patent attorney.

Disclosure: I am a patent attorney. I have no connection with any of the parties mentioned in the article. I am acting as an interested member of the public.
Posted by Dr Khoo Chong Yee on Wednesday, May 28 2008 11:50 AM

Invalid patent: no non-obvious or inventive step
I would say that combining an anchor with any other HTML element is quite an obvious use ... nothing novel here.

First, this little company needs to be taken to task. Perhaps a class-action lawsuit by website owners and developers?

And then, the idiots who issued this patent need to be tarred and feathered.
Posted by anonymous on Wednesday, May 28 2008 01:16 PM

so stupid
it's just super ridiculously stupid and dumb...

speechles...

some ppl just wan money until siao...
Posted by x on Thursday, May 29 2008 02:23 PM

Do US sites know about this?
If patent also applies to US, then famous sites like www.alexa.com... will have to pay for legal rights? We are looking at big money here.
Posted by Simon on Friday, May 30 2008 09:55 AM

Canada?
Does it apply to canada?
Posted by anonymous on Saturday, June 28 2008 03:38 AM

End of the internet?
If this successfully goes through, every website is gonna look like **** and ppl would start copyright internet text and the internet would collapse.
Posted by anonymous on Saturday, June 28 2008 03:39 AM

Keystone Law
Hmmm.. a quick check of Keystone Law shows that there are no patent attorneys in that firm.
Posted by anonymous on Friday, May 30 2008 10:55 AM

like.com hahahah
the best part is how like.com is supposedly the first image search engine, looks like just another store that has nothing to do with searching anything but their products. what a joke
Posted by anonymous on Saturday, May 31 2008 04:20 PM

Ridiculous.
How can this little company put a patent on something like that? This can't possibly be effective in America as well. I don't understand this... because like.com was established in 1995.
Posted by Matt on Sunday, June 01 2008 12:41 AM

Vuestar to be sued
Their patent was filed in 2000. I have been useing hyperlinked images for years before that, so they therefore STOLE the technology and wrongfully claimed it as their own. I will sue these idiots for 10times the amount they claim for each and every case they put forward. Scum like this deserve to suffer.
Posted by anonymous on Sunday, June 01 2008 02:42 AM

B**ches
Screw Vuestar. They are just a load of bull**** on their **** website. I am not going to pay $5000 just to use a little bit of HTML to show an image on the internet. Also HTML tags shouldn't be able to be patented. I will sue them also if they try to claim **** from me using "their" (Note the sarcasm) technology on my website.
Posted by anonymous on Saturday, June 28 2008 03:36 AM

end copyright
I suggest we end copyright...period

Oh, these guys are just "Patent Fraud" operators, but they can take people to court and sue them and they face little if any consequences for their actions. This is thanks to the RIAA fighting so hard to protect their bland garbage from the few who truly appreciate it.

But I suggest we end copyright laws to punish this whole deck of jokers. The music industry itself is nothing but theft. Once it became possible to record and mass produce music, they ruined 95% of all musicians, as printing did the artist and movies did the actor. If they themselves lose their livelihoods because technology out paces THEM, it will only be fair.
Posted by anonymous on Monday, June 02 2008 08:03 AM


Tech Jobs Now!

Search for your ideal tech job:

A look at the Terminal Services Manager in Windows Server 2008

Windows Server

Terminal Services Manager has been around for a while, but Microsoft made some changes to the utility in Windows Server 2008. Here's what you'll find.


Read more »



Open source blog reloaded!

Blog thumbnail

This is with great pleasure that this "little corner of the Web" is resuming activities through another member of the (now famous ;-)) Beijing Linux User Group (BLUG) doing the..... by Fred Muller

Read more »

Tags

  1. advertisement
  2. blog
  3. facebook
  4. google inc.
  5. internet
  6. internet advertising
  7. microsoft corp.
  8. network
  9. revenue
  10. search
  11. software
  12. u.s.
  13. video
  14. web
  15. web 2.0
  16. web browser
  17. web browsers
  18. web services
  19. web sites
  20. yahoo! inc.