Imagine receiving an invoice of $5000 for using images to link images to other pages on your websites!

From Straits Times, 28th May 2008:

Patent breach by "virtually all websites"? Pay up, firm demands
526 words
27 May 2008
Straits Times
English
(c) 2008 Singapore Press Holdings Limited

A SINGAPORE firm has threatened to sue websites that use pictures or graphics to link to another page, claiming it owns the patent for a technology used by millions around the world.

In a move that has come under fire from the online community, VueStar Technologies has sent "invoices" to local website operators asking for thousands of dollars in licensing fees.

The company, which said "virtually all websites" are infringing on its patent, is also planning to take on giants like Mircosoft and Google.

It is a battle that could, at least in theory, upend the Internet, though intellectual property experts have some doubts that VueStar can actually enforce its claims.

The company said it has been awarded a patent here and in several other countries, including Australia, New Zealand and the United States, for the method of "locating Web pages by utilising visual images".

In other words, clicking, scrolling or streaming over a visual image to connect with a website or Web page is an infringement, the company claims on its website.

The technique is the de facto method used to connect websites across the globe, from personal blogs to the biggest search engines.

VueStar managing director Paul Smith said if sites want to keep using images as links, they will have to pay his company - located in a single-unit office at The Adelphi off Coleman Street - between "$200" and "millions" annually.

It is a claim, however, that has its doubters.

Technology and intellectual property lawyer Bryan Tan of Keystone Law Corporation said that while VueStar has been granted a patent, it is an extremely wide one.

In fact, "if the patent is allowed to stand, it will probably bring the (Internet) industry to its knees". And VueStar"s patent may be contested and overturned in court, he said.

The firm has been sending out invoices to Singapore companies since last week asking them to pay up, said Mr Smith. He declined to say how many have gone out, but there have been "enough to keep my phone busy".

Those who do not pay up, warned Mr Smith, face legal action, and his company is "highly confident that (a court decision) will be in our favour".

Mr Alvin Koh, who runs the non-profit Arrowana fish website arofanatics.com, received one of VueStar"s invoices last week for $5,350. He does not intend to pay up and said: "I would rather close down the site".

Mr Smith recognises that Mr Koh"s stand will likely be a popular one, and his firm is already girding up for a public backlash.

"Website owners are just upset because they never had to pay for it before," said Mr Smith.

VueStar will begin enforcing its patent claims in Australia and the US "soon", he said, and the firm is also working on invoices for Internet heavyweights like Google and Microsoft.

While governments and charities will need a licence, VueStar will not be asking for payment from these parties, he said.

Mr Tan urged companies to contact their lawyers before "paying VueStar anything".

Additional quotes (from The Electric New Paper):

Another website owner, Mr Stuart Tan, who runs Internetmarketingsingapore.com, also received an invoice from Vuestar Technologies for $2,600.

He described the company's demands as 'ludicrous', adding that he wondered if the company was out to bully owners of small businesses.

He said: 'It's like a company patenting the process of going to school, then demanding money from those who do it.'

Mr Tan has written a post on his website and also submitted an article on Digg.com, an information-sharing website, to create awareness on this issue.

Lawyer Alban Kang, who specialises in intellectual property, said whether the patent holder has the right to demand payment depends on what the patent covers.

He said: 'In some cases, the patent may not even be valid in the first place.

'Individuals should first seek legal advice to determine whether the company's claims are valid.'

Mr Kang said the validity of a patent can sometimes be challenged if the patented idea is not new or novel, and if the idea has been readily available to a public for some time.

The Invoice

Source: http://s282.photobucket.com/albums/kk264/vuestar2008/

The Opposition

A new website, suevuestar.biz, has been set up to gather companies who have received an invoice from Vuestar Technologies.

The topic has also been actively discussed on hardwarezone"s EDMW forum. There were also claims that the Australian patent has expired.

Paying a fine for "clicking, scrolling or streaming over a Visual Image to connect with a website or web page" is just plain ridiculous.

Clearly, if Vuestar has its way, the Web will be changed forever. But why were those patents awarded in the first place? The patents were awarded not just in Singapore, but also in Australia, New Zealand and America.

It is also disappointing to see negative comments thrown towards Singapore over this matter. Although Vuestar Technologies was incorporated in Singapore, the people behind it are Australian (no offence to Australians!).

The domain, vuestar.biz, was registered through GoDaddy.com by an Australian contact on 16 December 2007 (about only six months ago, click here for whois information). Also, the Singapore office is just a single-unit office located in The Adelphi.

How much are Google (with Blogger.com) and Yahoo! (with Flickr.com) going to pay? How is Vuestar going to charge for image links generated dynamically?

Absurd!

This blog is proudly hosted by Cyberaxis since 2006. They may not be the cheapest web host around, but they actually respond! Try them! Click here.