A commenter on the article you listed said the following:
Quote:
"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.
|
If that is the case, then there are very few instances where they would have a legitimate case, and none that I can think of that would apply to any of the members here.
