someguy945: Doing ANYTHING with the "onmouseover" tag can be considered a rollover of some sort.

Well that's javascript for one thing and he's just saying rollover isn't explicitly part of the spec.

Think of it this way: CSS says an element can have a background image. It also says an element in other states (lets say when the mouse hovers over an element) can have a background image. The spec doesn't call that a rollover or anything, but once browsers match that spec, developers can put two and two together and make a rollover effect. That's a process that's not part of HTML, CSS, JavaScript etc.

More specifically rollovers use Javascript's 'onMouseOver' and 'onMoueOut' events to swap bitmap images when the cursor goes over the anchor tag(which is bound to an href link) and then off of it.

Still a really stupid patent.

someguy945: 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.


"onmouseover" is a "tag"? really?
Seriously, I want to cockpunch people who say "tag".

onmouseover is an attribute. Yes, I'm guessing that these Webvention morons would try to apply their Patent against anyone using mouse or keyboard events to display/ change content. Would love to see them try to sue the W3C

Sim Tree: 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.

Thank you! I can never keep this all straight.

duncangonuts: Well that's javascript for one thing

Actually I misspoke here. onmouseover is a html attribute, but it calls script.

K3rmy: Be right back.

/Off to the patent office.

Stop off at the Trademark Expo while you are there. Get free Dippin' Dots, Hershey Kisses, and moar! Sadly you are too late to see my wife as one of the lovely costumed TM characters, but she'll be back for another shift tomorrow!

I used it for a project in university 10 years ago. Who do I call to setup a royalty agreement?

Patents need to be for METHODS, not end results.

If I go patent "A method of placing a piece of metal into flesh in a way that causes bodily harm" can I go sue every knife and gun maker in the country?

If I go patent "A method of diminishing CO2 in the atmosphere through organic process" can I go sue everyone who has ever hired anyone who breathes?

Let's take the Segway as an example. Their patents are not for "A method of having a two wheeled device that stays upright." If they did, then nobody could make anything similar. What they patented are the gyros and stabilization techniques, actual technology. That means if I can create something functionally identical to a Segway but using different technology (Rainbows and bottled unicorn farts) I am free to do so.

Crotchrocket Slim: 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?

IANAL, but no, it doesn't work that way at all with patents. Or copyrights, for that matter. Only for trademarks.

Remote Kittens: 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?

"The firm's site claims that it has made licensing deals with Apple, Google, Nokia, Sears, Sony and Orbitz."

I'm sure they'll get right on it when they're done counting all of their money.

paygun: Patent trolls are scum, but maybe that'll be what it takes to finally reform the patent system.

These laws are written by lawyers. They're written for personal profit, and for the profit of the corporations they protect. There is no way to wipe the shiat off of the system. You just smear it everywhere.

Securitywyrm: Patents need to be for METHODS, not end results.

If I go patent "A method of placing a piece of metal into flesh in a way that causes bodily harm" can I go sue every knife and gun maker in the country?

If I go patent "A method of diminishing CO2 in the atmosphere through organic process" can I go sue everyone who has ever hired anyone who breathes?

Let's take the Segway as an example. Their patents are not for "A method of having a two wheeled device that stays upright." If they did, then nobody could make anything similar. What they patented are the gyros and stabilization techniques, actual technology. That means if I can create something functionally identical to a Segway but using different technology (Rainbows and bottled unicorn farts) I am free to do so.

I was thinking about this the other day. Doesn't this just mean that a person (or company) can patent a particular implementation to achieve the an end effect, not the end effect itself?

IE "I patent this way of displaying pixels on a screen", instead of "I patent displaying pixels on a screen"?

Or are the patent trolls trying to get around it by saying, "I patent this way in displaying information by displaying pixels on a screen"?

One seems too general to me, but how can one definitively tell the difference?

impaler: Can't we patent business processes now?

The business methods department of the US PTO is on hold last I heard, pending judicial review business method patents. I haven't seen any jobs postings for their department in quite a while.

I don't understand how the patent can cover "roll over images" in general -- I thought patents cover the method of use to achieve the said result??? For example, if I patented a special formula or algorithm (like Google pagerank) or specific code in a specific language (like C++ or PHP) to achieve the said result, then it would a valid patent right?

Asshat patent trolls like these piss me off.

khyberkitsune: duncangonuts: Rollovers, drop down menus, and other shiat they vaguely describe about aren't part of any HTML spec.

Whoo boy, we've got someone that doesn't code their own webpages, here!

I suggest you start re-reading HTML books from the ages of Firefox 1.0 and IE 5.5, because that HTML attribute has been around AT LEAST THAT LONG.


Please feel free to point any normative part of the HTML 4.01 Specification which discusses "rollovers" or "dropdown menus".

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

Not amused with the snitchin:

quitchabiatchin: 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.

Except big companies like that will pay their lawyers that much money no matter what. They're on full-time staff anyway to deal with all the other ridiculous illegitimate (and legitimate) legal issues anyway. Whether it is Webvention or some random dick who tripped on the sidewalk while walking by the front door, its all the same to them.

While that is true, it is also often true that those companies have to choose which lawsuits their lawyers will spend time on, and if they have more lawsuits >$80k than their lawyers can handle, then you're back to "Just pay it to make it go away vs. hiring another $200k/year lawyer".

Patent trolling sucks ballz

quitchabiatchin: khyberkitsune: duncangonuts: Rollovers, drop down menus, and other shiat they vaguely describe about aren't part of any HTML spec.

Whoo boy, we've got someone that doesn't code their own webpages, here!

I suggest you start re-reading HTML books from the ages of Firefox 1.0 and IE 5.5, because that HTML attribute has been around AT LEAST THAT LONG.


Please feel free to point any normative part of the HTML 4.01 Specification which discusses "rollovers" or "dropdown menus".

Well, if you insist...

khyberkitsune: Whoo boy, we've got someone that doesn't code their own webpages, here!

I suggest you start re-reading HTML books from the ages of Firefox 1.0 and IE 5.5, because that HTML attribute has been around AT LEAST THAT LONG

First, I think you quoted the wrong post unless you think 'rollover' and 'drop down menu' are html attributes. Second, I suggest you read the post where I said I misspoke about onmouseover before you look like an ass.

As a web developer, I've lost clients who had to shut down projects due to Acacia because they couldn't afford the legal fees or troll patent fees.

They got something like this (new window) for a dating website they had.

Literally, it's a patent on all streaming video and video that utilizes "digital compression" to sequentially prioritize data so the data is available in chronological order, and viewable before the last byte is downloaded.

Technically, BBS systems used this back in the 80s when graphics were constructed in ANSI, but the patent only applies to images, video and audio on "the web" since that is such a genius revolutionary leap.

The funny thing is they trolled porn sites and judges let them because every Good Citizen likes to see porn sites get what they deserve.
Then they got paid out by some big companies like Disney they made special arrangements with for validation. Then they started to troll every mom and pop they could extort.

It's absolutely sickening if you ask me.

As soon as I find a patent buried somewhere that covers patent trolling, I'm going to buy it and clean up on these guys.

uncletogie: Well, if you insist...

Funny. That doesn't seem to mention rollovers or drop down menus.

uncletogie: quitchabiatchin: khyberkitsune: duncangonuts: Rollovers, drop down menus, and other shiat they vaguely describe about aren't part of any HTML spec.

Whoo boy, we've got someone that doesn't code their own webpages, here!

I suggest you start re-reading HTML books from the ages of Firefox 1.0 and IE 5.5, because that HTML attribute has been around AT LEAST THAT LONG.


Please feel free to point any normative part of the HTML 4.01 Specification which discusses "rollovers" or "dropdown menus".

Well, if you insist...

The terms "rollover" and "dropdown" exist fully ZERO times at the URL you've cited. Try again.

please_not_again: ...They got something like this (new window) for a dating website they had...

From link: Sincerely, Karlton Butts

/snicker

duncangonuts: uncletogie: Well, if you insist...

Funny. That doesn't seem to mention rollovers or drop down menus.

Feel free to explain the difference 'tween "mouseover" and "rollover".

They all laughed at my 1995-era web site. But I knew that someday I would be happy with my decision to stick with static HTML.

Trance750: Well don't use copyright property without permission and you won't have this problem.

It is not copyright law it is patent law. You can copyright the image itself, however the process of a rollover image or drop down menu would be patented.

This is the problem with software patents. Some are so insane that it just gets silly.

Here are some examples of things that violate patents in software (before someone freaks over the first patent number, not all patents are US based):
level= get_vlc(); i+=get_vlc(); (violates patent EP0266049)
median(mv[y-1][x], mv[y][x-1], mv[y+1][x+1]); (violates patent #5,905,535)
buf= qp - buf[i-1]; (violates patent #?)

As you can see some of the patents are so generic that they should not be enforceable, however if you charge a small enough fee it is often cheaper to settle than fight. This is why SCO got millions per year at $750/cpu licensing for linux. This is why RTI in NY got $20k a pop for least cost routing from many companies doing VoIP. This is why that rollover patent has already had several companies license it.

uncletogie: duncangonuts: uncletogie: Well, if you insist...

Funny. That doesn't seem to mention rollovers or drop down menus.

Feel free to explain the difference 'tween "mouseover" and "rollover".

Oh I see, you lost the context. I've been using "rollover" to describe image rollovers as it was mentioned in the headline and TFA. That is not in the spec. Does that clear things up for you?

SweetSilverBlues: I can easily see the lawyers fighting over who got to draft that. All the while giggling like schoolgirls.

Arkell v Pressdram is a classic example of the "Oh Snap!" legal reply in the UK. The correspondence consists of two legal letters. The first from Arkell to lawyers representing Pressdram, publishers of satirical magazine Private Eye (then owned by Peter Cook):

We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd.

His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory.

We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.

The reply was:

We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell.

We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fark off.

No further correspondence was received. This happened back in 1971, and people are asked, when it would be impolite to be more explicit, to refer to the reply given in the case Arkell v Pressdram today

Another Government Employee: So, this Guido Software looking for protection money?

You have such a nice site. It'll be a shame if something bad ever happens to it.

trixter_nl:
As you can see some of the patents are so generic that they should not be enforceable, however if you charge a small enough fee it is often cheaper to settle than fight. This is why SCO got millions per year at $750/cpu licensing for linux. This is why RTI in NY got $20k a pop for least cost routing from many companies doing VoIP. This is why that rollover patent has already had several companies license it.

When did SCO declare a price and issue a bill for Linux licenses? At one point during the height of the IBM lawsuit, people were trying to get billed for Linux licenses so that they'd have a copyleft violation. SCO never bit.

I cannot find a list of purchasers. They didn't get millions. They went under. They'd made money selling Caldera Linux before the suit and UNIXWare well before that. They wound up Chapter 7.

jwrw: SweetSilverBlues: I can easily see the lawyers fighting over who got to draft that. All the while giggling like schoolgirls.

Arkell v Pressdram is a classic example of the "Oh Snap!" legal reply in the UK. The correspondence consists of two legal letters. The first from Arkell to lawyers representing Pressdram, publishers of satirical magazine Private Eye (then owned by Peter Cook):

We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd.

His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory.

We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.

The reply was:

We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell.

We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fark off.

No further correspondence was received. This happened back in 1971, and people are asked, when it would be impolite to be more explicit, to refer to the reply given in the case Arkell v Pressdram today

CSB, definitely

Trance750: 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'

Shut up, troll shiat. And sorry about your penis.

As someone whose company had to shut down because of a frivolous patent troll that thought i was a bigger company, i'm utterly disgusted.

//not exactly getting a kick.

Software patents are stupid and evil. There may be a few that aren't, but it's doubtful. There's probably a patent for nearly everything you do when programming.

Unfortunately, most of the people who could prevent these patents from being registered don't know enough about technology to do so. We would need an army of IT experts looking at each patent to stop this nonsense. And judges sure as hell don't have a clue.

Trance750 : Well don't use copyright property without permission and you won't have this problem.

Copyright law and patent law are not the same thing.

Copyright laws make a certain amount of sense.

Patents laws don't. At least, software patents don't. You shouldn't be able to patent an idea.

This is a prime example. The company claiming to own the patent on this idea doesn't create anything, they don't manufacture anything, they don't do anything useful. They just throw lawyers around.

If software patents had been around earlier, we would all still be using Wordstar and Visicalc. Patents stifle innovation.

BubbaWilkins : 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.

You are probably right. I'd like to suggest that they can hire a hit man for $20,000 and the world will be a better place with the patent troll gone. Heck, it's East Texas, you can probably get the hit done by some good-old-boy for under $10,000.

I own patent #1,473,281, which specifically refers to the use of the letter "e" in all communications of the following type:

*Verbal communications, in which the aforementioned letter may be heard in any particular word used. This includes (but is not limited to) telephone or cell phone communications as well as face-to-face or directly spoken communications.
*Written communications, including but not limited to legal documents, memorandum, letters, facsimile, and carrier pigeon
*Electronic communications, including but not limited to e-mail, forum posts, websites, dialog boxes, and masturbating with one's DSL cable shoved into their urethra and/or rectum.

At this time, I am offering a limited opportunity to lease access to the letter "e" for all communicative purposes for a full year for the low cost of $50,000 USD. Failure to obtain proper licensing from the holder of patent #1,473,281 will result in the owing to the patent holder the sum of $100 USD for each usage of the letter "e".

Checks may be made payable to IOwnTheInterwebs LLC. All users of the letter "e" are hereby obligated to comply with this request within 20 business days.

Several years ago, SBC tried to claim a patent for web navigation tabs and actually went after several sites. The case was thrown out.

netweavr: 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.

Can we do this with auto-play video links too?

pseydtonne: trixter_nl:
As you can see some of the patents are so generic that they should not be enforceable, however if you charge a small enough fee it is often cheaper to settle than fight. This is why SCO got millions per year at $750/cpu licensing for linux. This is why RTI in NY got $20k a pop for least cost routing from many companies doing VoIP. This is why that rollover patent has already had several companies license it.

When did SCO declare a price and issue a bill for Linux licenses? At one point during the height of the IBM lawsuit, people were trying to get billed for Linux licenses so that they'd have a copyleft violation. SCO never bit.

I cannot find a list of purchasers. They didn't get millions. They went under. They'd made money selling Caldera Linux before the suit and UNIXWare well before that. They wound up Chapter 7.

They are actually still in a Delaware Chapter 11 bankruptcy, though I'll grant Chapter 7 is where they should have been years ago.

they are suing big companies, it may be cheaper for them to pony up the $80000 than going to court

http://www.5251294.com/

For your viewing pleasure.

oakleym82: Windows 7, Google, don't they all do this?

According to the article, Google paid the dooshes the 80 large.

uncletogie: Trance750: Well don't use copyright property without permission and you won't have this problem.

3/10. You might get some bites.

I've seen copywrite bait used in patent threads before that managed to hook a few.