If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Using rollover images on your website? Better pony up $80,000, chump   (arstechnica.com) divider line 102
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

21882 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Oct 2010 at 12:25 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



102 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-10-15 12:11:22 PM  
Patent Filed: February 7, 1990

Isn't this patent expired?
 
2010-10-15 12:28:07 PM  
impaler: Isn't this patent expired?


It was issued in 1993, so 17 years after date of issue just expired at the beginning of this month. This does seem like a kid scrambling to get his essay done 5 minutes before class.

But I think anyone new using roll-over menus is now safe.
 
2010-10-15 12:31:21 PM  
Etchy333: impaler: Isn't this patent expired?


It was issued in 1993, so 17 years after date of issue just expired at the beginning of this month. This does seem like a kid scrambling to get his essay done 5 minutes before class.

But I think anyone new using roll-over menus is now safe.


My question: answered.

Thankee muchly.
 
2010-10-15 12:33:21 PM  
Yeah.. I'm gonna go ahead and say GOOD LUCK WITH THAT, CHUMP.

Using part of the HTML spec as it's written = infringing a pattent. HAR HAR.

I say again. Good luck.
 
2010-10-15 12:37:01 PM  
Windows 7, Google, don't they all do this?
 
2010-10-15 12:37:16 PM  
Well don't use copyright property without permission and you won't have this problem.
 
2010-10-15 12:38:50 PM  
oakleym82: Windows 7, Google, don't they all do this?

Waiting for them to go after Microsoft for FrontPage alone.

I'll bring the popcorn.
 
2010-10-15 12:39:17 PM  
Trance750: You must be one of those guy's who see's something illegal on the street and runs home and calls 222-Tips for everything. Stop SNITCHIN
 
2010-10-15 12:39:50 PM  
Trance750: Well don't use copyright property without permission and you won't have this problem.

Says the man who doesn't understand rollover images, or copyrights, or both.
 
2010-10-15 12:40:51 PM  
Patents and copyrights will become increasingly meaningless as information becomes easier and easier to trade.

Deal with it.
 
2010-10-15 12:40:52 PM  
Trance750: Well don't use copyright property without permission and you won't have this problem.

3/10. You might get some bites.
 
2010-10-15 12:41:02 PM  
If only this could be used against rollover ads.
 
2010-10-15 12:43:03 PM  
Actually, I own patent #1,678,876,553, which states that I alone own sole property rights to all replies and comments on any type of online forum, blog or news aggregator-type service.

And I'll be kindly asking you all to begin paying tribute nao.
 
2010-10-15 12:43:20 PM  
I love the legalese on the letter they fired back.
Translated it reads something like "They don't do anything with these patents except troll. They're being asshats. Therefore we request you tell them to knock this shiat off for good and pay for the trouble they're causing. Oh, and they have to do it here in Delaware and NOT in East Texas where this shiat is routine."
 
2010-10-15 12:43:45 PM  
Software patents need to die.
Preferably in a fire.
 
2010-10-15 12:44:14 PM  
I'm conflicted.

On the one hand - I hate professional patent trolls. They are the worst offendors of a system that is supposed to protect intellectual property while stimulating innovation.

On the other hand - anything that stops websites using rollover ads that block what you're reading just because your cursor wandered must be a good thing. I REALLY hate that. If I want to know about your product, I'll click.
 
2010-10-15 12:45:48 PM  
TsukasaK: Yeah.. I'm gonna go ahead and say GOOD LUCK WITH THAT, CHUMP.


came here for that, satisfied.
 
2010-10-15 12:45:48 PM  
If you don't defend every known instance of someone infringing on your copyright/patent, don't you lose it? I don't think you can decide to enforce it only when it's about to expire, or enforce it in some instances and not others.
 
2010-10-15 12:46:11 PM  
ConConHead: I love the legalese on the letter they fired back.
Translated it reads something like "They don't do anything with these patents except troll. They're being asshats. Therefore we request you tell them to knock this shiat off for good and pay for the trouble they're causing. Oh, and they have to do it here in Delaware and NOT in East Texas where this shiat is routine."


Agreed. I can easily see the lawyers fighting over who got to draft that. All the while giggling like schoolgirls.
 
2010-10-15 12:47:14 PM  
i.ytimg.com

BeeblebeeleBEEBLEBOGGLE!


www.ravenwoodcreative.com

ZZUZSHHHHHHUNAWANA!?


assets.sbnation.com

BLARGH!
 
2010-10-15 12:47:46 PM  
Patent trolls are scum, but maybe that'll be what it takes to finally reform the patent system. Of course the "reform" legislation will likely be written by the patent trolls and we'll be required to buy some kind of patent insurance.
 
2010-10-15 12:47:50 PM  
Aren't they required to become more specific as to the methodology used to accomplish said process? There are different ways to accomplish a rollover. It is like me saying that reverting a URL to a visual state different that what it originally was to denote whether it has been utilized or not is patentable. . .wait a second.

Be right back.

/Off to the patent office.
 
2010-10-15 12:49:18 PM  
ChrisDe: If you don't defend every known instance of someone infringing on your copyright/patent, don't you lose it? I don't think you can decide to enforce it only when it's about to expire, or enforce it in some instances and not others.

I think that's only applicable to trade marks, but someone who's taken more IP courses than me could probably answer better.
 
2010-10-15 12:49:56 PM  
Interesting how the very patent laws that were meant to allow people to expose their ideas for the greater good(while remaining protected) are now being used by greedy Patent Trolls to cash in, and some of the bigger companies are actually paying.

Must be nice to be able to shell out $250mil no problem like Intel (new window)

And screw the USPO for feeding the trolls. kthnx
 
2010-10-15 12:52:15 PM  
"The firm is suing Abercrombie and Fitch, Bed Bath & Beyond, Dell, Gamestop, E*Trade, Neiman Marcus, Visa and ten other companies for patent infringement on '294."

These are all big companies whom I'm sure all have an army of special ops legal dream teams. Good luck with those lawsuits.
 
2010-10-15 12:52:37 PM  
I'm going to file a patent covering playing sound from an advertisement.

Then I'm going to charge everyone using them $1 million per instance or a kick in the balls by everyone who viewed it.
 
2010-10-15 12:53:44 PM  
This seems to me tantamount to suing a publisher because they have a patent on rectangle books and headlines and paragraphs. Of course, our SCOTUS says that corporations are people, so WTF, it just might work.
 
2010-10-15 12:53:55 PM  
Man - it's all greek to me

Big question - will this have ANY effect on the porn I surf or my ability to watch barely legal teen schoolgirls?

If not, then I do not care
 
2010-10-15 12:54:04 PM  
ChrisDe: If you don't defend every known instance of someone infringing on your copyright/patent, don't you lose it? I don't think you can decide to enforce it only when it's about to expire, or enforce it in some instances and not others.

I know that works that way with copyrights, not sure about patents. Some law talker please correct us?
 
2010-10-15 12:54:34 PM  
If the founders of patent law could see this they'd be rolling over...in their graves.

YEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHH!
 
2010-10-15 12:54:39 PM  
thamike: BeeblebeeleBEEBLEBOGGLE!



ZZUZSHHHHHHUNAWANA!?



BLARGH!


MILFy goodness.
 
2010-10-15 12:55:49 PM  
IANAL, but how could they patent a part of html code that they didn't actually write... I mean, I'd kinda understand if it was one of the original people who made the whole language, but I'm not seeing how this patent is even remotely valid.
 
2010-10-15 12:57:35 PM  
Rurouni: "The firm is suing Abercrombie and Fitch, Bed Bath & Beyond, Dell, Gamestop, E*Trade, Neiman Marcus, Visa and ten other companies for patent infringement on '294."

These are all big companies whom I'm sure all have an army of special ops legal dream teams. Good luck with those lawsuits.


they could probably badger all of those on that list to paying up except 1

VISA.. screwing with VISA = suicidal.
 
2010-10-15 12:58:21 PM  
SweetSilverBlues: oakleym82: Windows 7, Google, don't they all do this?

Waiting for them to go after Microsoft for FrontPage alone.

I'll bring the popcorn.


Well, Microsoft should be made to pay for unleashing FrontPage on the world, anyway. This is a good start.
 
2010-10-15 12:58:57 PM  
firefly212: IANAL, but how could they patent a part of html code that they didn't actually write...

patent was filed before the first document describing HTML was written.

patent was issued after.
 
2010-10-15 01:00:17 PM  
RobotSpider: SweetSilverBlues: oakleym82: Windows 7, Google, don't they all do this?

Waiting for them to go after Microsoft for FrontPage alone.

I'll bring the popcorn.

Well, Microsoft should be made to pay for unleashing FrontPage on the world, anyway. This is a good start.


I agree, but the Greed vs. Greed element of that particular case would be mind-bogglingly wonderful to watch.

/html - intartube code for dummies, anyone can learn it
 
2010-10-15 01:00:20 PM  
Fedor: Trance750: You must be one of those guy's who see's something illegal on the street and runs home and calls 222-Tips for everything. Stop SNITCHIN

So says the person who thinks it's ok to steal what is not his because 'nobody will miss it'
 
2010-10-15 01:00:34 PM  
TsukasaK: Yeah.. I'm gonna go ahead and say GOOD LUCK WITH THAT, CHUMP.

THIS


Using part of the HTML spec as it's written = infringing a pattent. HAR HAR.

I say again. Good luck.


Um, nothing in the HTML recommendation about rollovers
 
2010-10-15 01:03:43 PM  
firefly212: IANAL, but how could they patent a part of html code that they didn't actually write... I mean, I'd kinda understand if it was one of the original people who made the whole language, but I'm not seeing how this patent is even remotely valid.

Rollovers, drop down menus, and other shiat they vaguely describe about aren't part of any HTML spec.
 
2010-10-15 01:04:51 PM  
Rurouni: "The firm is suing Abercrombie and Fitch, Bed Bath & Beyond, Dell, Gamestop, E*Trade, Neiman Marcus, Visa and ten other companies for patent infringement on '294."

These are all big companies whom I'm sure all have an army of special ops legal dream teams. Good luck with those lawsuits.


I'm betting they are counting on it actually. "Go ahead and pay your high priced lawyer team $200,000 to fight this or just pay us $80,000 to go away." This is why patent trolls exist.
 
2010-10-15 01:06:16 PM  
So, this Guido Software looking for protection money?
 
2010-10-15 01:08:16 PM  
thamike: BeeblebeeleBEEBLEBOGGLE!
ZZUZSHHHHHHUNAWANA!?
BLARGH!


Heh, I think she's one of the best actors I've ever seen. She does the psycho anal-retentive thing so well it will give you shivers. I mean, she scares me more than Freddy Krueger ever did. In those commercials, you can almost see the pinwheels of pure crazy spinning in her eyes. Brrrr!

Or, she's pure distilled evil and not acting at all. In which case I expect she can actually fire lasers out of her eyes in real life.
 
2010-10-15 01:08:45 PM  
T-Luv: ChrisDe

Crotchrocket Slim: I know that works that way with copyrights, not sure about patents. Some law talker please correct us?

No. It's just trademarks. If you don't defend your trademark/ service mark, or it becomes "genericised", it no longer uniquely identifies the provider of a good or service. Think if "Kleenex" lost their trademark; nobody calls them "facial tissues" anymore. Everyone calls them kleenexes. So they can't get mad and sue if Wal-mart makes their own brand of kleenexes, because that's Just What They're Called Now. A new English word has been created to encompass the trademark.

This problem, of course, doesn't really come up with copyrights or patents, because they expire after a set period, anyway. So they fall into the public domain after they expire, not when they become generic.
 
2010-10-15 01:09:09 PM  
Someone should patent patent-trolling and sue everyone who engages in it.
 
2010-10-15 01:10:24 PM  
 
2010-10-15 01:11:11 PM  
bad quoting is bad
 
2010-10-15 01:12:00 PM  
I have a patent on Flash navigations. And if I catch you doing it, I will bankrupt you and erase your site for ever.
 
2010-10-15 01:12:16 PM  
quitchabiatchin: TsukasaK: Yeah.. I'm gonna go ahead and say GOOD LUCK WITH THAT, CHUMP.

THIS


Using part of the HTML spec as it's written = infringing a pattent. HAR HAR.

I say again. Good luck.

Um, nothing in the HTML recommendation about rollovers


Doing ANYTHING with the "onmouseover" tag can be considered a rollover of some sort.
 
2010-10-15 01:14:02 PM  
ChrisDe: If you don't defend every known instance of someone infringing on your copyright/patent, don't you lose it? I don't think you can decide to enforce it only when it's about to expire, or enforce it in some instances and not others.

Money for little or no productive work.
What is ruining the world's economy right now.
 
2010-10-15 01:19:16 PM  
They don't seem to have thought this cunning plan though. They'd be way better off sending threatening letters demanding a much smaller amount to small blogs or other websites and screwing scared people who don't have a lawyer. What's wrong with these people, did no one tell them how to run a scam?
 
Displayed 50 of 102 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report