Vuestar Technologies

Vuestar's website states that it has obtained granted patents for "a method of locating web-sites using visual images" in Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and the United States.{{Cite web

| last = Vuestar Technologies

| title = Legal heritage

| year = 2008

| url = http://vuestar.biz/legal.php

| access-date = 2008-05-28

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080529211225/http://www.vuestar.biz/legal.php

| archive-date = 29 May 2008

| url-status = dead

}} It says that website owners who "use visual images which hyperlink to other web-pages or web-sites in accordance with the patent ... whether on the first page or subsequent pages of a web-site" require a license from them to continue doing so legally.{{Cite web

| last = Vuestar Technologies

| title = Services

| year = 2008

| url = http://www.vuestar.biz/services.php

| access-date = 2008-05-28

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080527193126/http://www.vuestar.biz/services.php

| archive-date = 27 May 2008

| url-status = dead

}} User licenses are issued for one year and restricted to Singapore.{{Cite web

| last = Vuestar Technologies

| title = Frequently asked questions

| year = 2008

| url = http://vuestar.biz/faq.php

| access-date = 2008-05-28

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080526173907/http://www.vuestar.biz/faq.php

| archive-date = 26 May 2008

| url-status = dead

}} Annual licensing fees depend on web traffic as well as the extent of image hyperlinking and range from nothing for governments, charities and non commercial enterprises to "millions".{{Cite news

| last = Chua

| first = Hian Hou

| title = Patent breach by 'virtually all websites'? Pay up, firm demands

| newspaper = The Straits Times

| pages = H5

| date = 2008-05-27 }}

In May 2008, in a move which has sparked criticism among online communities, Vuestar sent invoices to owners of several Singaporean websites demanding licensing fees if the websites wished to continue using visual images to link to other web pages. Vuestar has stated that it also intends to enforce its rights in Australia and the United States.

Owners of Arowana community site Arofanatics.com were sent an invoice for S$5,350, but they have said that they do not intend to pay.

The actions of Vuestar have been called patent trolling by some.[https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080528-patent-troll-sending-out-invoices-for-image-hyperlinks.html Patent troll sending out invoices for image hyperlinks], Jacqui Cheng, Ars Technica, 28 May 2008[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052901211.html Today in Patent Trolling: VueStar], John Biggs, The Washington Post (TechCrunch), 29 May 2008 Ronald Langford, the inventor and a major shareholder of Vuestar Technologies, has stated that "there has been no law broken" and 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'"Man who sparked patent uproar says..., Liew Hanqing, The New Paper, 29 May 2008, quoted by [http://refutevuestarpatent.biz/?p=97 refutevuestarpatent.biz] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080606235715/http://refutevuestarpatent.biz/?p=97 |date=6 June 2008 }}

Eileen Yu, on the ZDNet Asia blog, suggested that Vuestar's patent was the result of a flawed patent-approval system.[http://www.zdnetasia.com/blogs/btw/0,3800011236,63003916,00.htm Is the law still not catching up?], Eileen Yo, ZDNet Asia BTW Blog However, she did also point out that Vuestar's claims might not be true or that they might have misinterpreted their patent. Singapore law firm, Keystone Law, also advised people to carefully analyse Vuestar's wide claims on the intellectual property covered by their patent.

Image:VuestarSG.JPG

The patents owned by the parent company GoldSpirit Investment Pty Ltd and Vuestar Technology Pte Ltd were all registered under the name of inventor Ronald Langford, including {{Cite patent|country=US|number=7065520}}, {{Cite patent|country=AU|number=755035}} and [https://web.archive.org/web/20081222143422/http://www.epatents.gov.sg/pe/PRegister.asp?AppNo=2003018207&ImgID=I0000082679&SMode=Simple&SearchName=&SearchNumber=95940&CheckDigit=&SearchSubject=&SubM=Title&NumType=PNo&WhichQuery=1&RecordPerPage=5&DisplayOrder=DESC&NextPage=&Display=Format02&FD2=&AN2=&IPC2=&Inv2=&App2=&FAbs2=&Drw2= Singaporean patent 95940].

The Australian patent has ceased through failure to pay a renewal fee due in October 2007, according to [http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/searching/content/olsPatents.jsp the IPAustralian patent database]. {{Cite patent|country=EP|number=1327207|status=application}} was also filed but lapsed through failure to pay a renewal fee before the European Patent Office had conducted their own prior art search.

All of these patents originated from {{Cite patent|country=WO|number=0229623|status=application}} which was searched and examined by IP Australia who were unable to identify any particularly relevant prior art. The patents in Australia and Singapore were therefore granted without significant limitations to the claims. The US patent was granted only after further examination by the US Patent and Trademark Office resulting in additional limitations being added to all of the independent claims as granted, including that: "the visual content comprises a plurality of mini-images in the form of a conveyor belt slide show". Further US prosecution details are available via the USPTO Public PAIR system.

• Odex's actions against file-sharing

{{Reflist|2}}

• [http://vuestar.biz/ Vuestar Technologies]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20080531165550/http://www.richardpalace.com/2008/05/28/vuestar/ Richard Palace]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20080606002222/http://refutevuestarpatent.biz/ RefuteVueStarPatent.biz]

{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2020}}

{{Authority control}}

Category:Internet in Singapore

Category:Singaporean intellectual property law

Category:Software patent law