Google Sued For Infringing On Just Granted 'Enhanced Hyperlink' Patent

from the didn't-waste-any-time dept

Fri, Apr 20th 2007 5:26pm — Mike Masnick

Wasting absolutely no time at all, a Kentucky-based company appears to have gone straight to court on Tuesday, the same day it was granted a patent for a "method for adding a user selectable function to a hyperlink, and proceeded to sue Google for infringement. The patent appears to cover the ability to pop up various choices if you mouseover a hyperlink -- something that's pretty common these days and certainly not particularly difficult to implement. Does anyone really believe that a 20 year monopoly needed to be granted to some company in order to put in place the proper incentives for this functionality to be created?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

30 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Marcelo Calbucci, 20 Apr 2007 @ 5:43pm

Prior art
I worked on MSN Search when we did SmartTags for IE, which was exactly that, and we were not the first one either. A company before us (I forgot the name now) did it as well, and I'm pretty sure that were not the first one either, otherwise they would have sued Microsoft (like everybody does). I think they were bought by Snap.com around 2002. SmartTags for IE was never released because Walt Mossberg made a big deal about change what the users see on a webpage from what the author intended it to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jly, 20 Apr 2007 @ 6:32pm

Is it just me, or did these guys just patent functionality that's included in the DOM model, JavaScript, and pretty much any web browser worth the code it's written with nowadays?

At this point, I'm wondering if it's possible for me to patent patents without the USPTO noticing and then sue them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan, 20 Apr 2007 @ 7:03pm

hmm
What gets me is the timeframe.

If somebody can be granted a patent for something you're already doing, then sue you 30 seconds after the patent is granted, how is that fair?

Shouldn't they have to inform you that you're infringing, or at least give you enough time to read the patent and realize that you're in violation of it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
B, 20 Apr 2007 @ 7:42pm

Perish
It is a bit silly how the American legal system works. Stupid at times too.
I also don't know how this company can copyright something I've seen done everywhere (if I'm reading this patent right). I think lots of web developers (including myself) are in trouble if this continues. I've mimicked what they've described using DHTML and even in Javascript well into last year. This is nothing new and I've seen it done numerous times.
Hell, even my old highschool's website used to use it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ehrichweiss, 20 Apr 2007 @ 7:44pm

where?
Just tell me where they are...I currently live in KY and can humiliate them on their own turf pretty damn easily. I can't connect to their site or else I'd have them nailed to a cross right now.

I can't believe they got a patent for something so incredibly obvious. Christ, don't they ever check to see what OTHER "programmers" think of its obviousness factor before granting this crap?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2007 @ 7:47pm

Apparently, the company invented the idea back in 2000 (this patent is an extension of one filed in 2000) - So back then it was probably a unique idea - it doesn't matter that everyone is doing it now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2007 @ 7:54pm

Re: where?
"I can't believe they got a patent for something so incredibly obvious"

Ok, if it's so obvious, then please tell me how hyperlinks will act/operate in the year 2014?

You can't. Nobody can. The hyperlink will simply evolve to some new functionality that someone, someday will have first concieved it, and that over time it proved useful and became popular - and that someone deserves something for his idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2007 @ 7:59pm

"and certainly not particularly difficult to implement"

What does "difficulty to implement" have to do with a good idea? Most good ideas are based on simple methods.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2007 @ 8:02pm

I am going to get a patent for granting patents. Then I'm going to sue the patent office.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vincent Clement (profile), 20 Apr 2007 @ 8:56pm

Re: Re: where?
The key phrase is "over time it proved useful and became popular". The granting of the patent and the filing of the lawsuit was granted in the SAME DAY.

Exactly what product or service did I-LOR, LLC create between receiving approval of the patent and suing Google for infringement? Stop protecting people that have ideas - protect people that innovate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 20 Apr 2007 @ 9:38pm

Re: Perish
I also don't know how this company can copyright something I've seen done everywhere,,,

That's because they didn't copyright it, they patented it. Do you understand the difference? Because it's key to a lot of these items on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Charles Griswold, 20 Apr 2007 @ 10:33pm

The Proper Response to This Lawsuit.
Public floggings. I firmly believe that we should bring back corporal punishment for just these sorts of idiots. See, a company can survive some pretty nasty fines just fine. There's really nothing that the government can do (short of imprisoning people) that can provide a disincentive for companies to pull stupid stunts like that. But, if the suits knew that pulling that sort of crap could get them a public whipping, there would probably be a lot fewer of these total crap lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2007 @ 11:21pm

Re:
It's been 7 long years, but I'm pretty sure if pulled out an old browser from 2000, I'd see at least some of the following, newly-patented technologies:

Pop up on mouse over
Opening a hyperlink in a new window
Bookmarks (a clickable ... text string... that would enable the user to return to the selected link at a later time)
Back buttons (...anchor the current page by creating an icon ... that would return the user to the current page)
Save As (view off-line which would, in the background download the files associated with the selected link)

I'm terrified of the precedent this sets as I look at this webpage. There's so much stuff that is patentable - banner ads, tabs, my Google search bar, etc, etc,. If software companies are going to be granted patents on software features, the entire landscape of the software industry's going to turn into a no man's land, with single company domance in any given area with patented features that effectively bar competition.

Spell check? Change tracking? Web-based email? What if people start patenting basic algorithms, even? You can't do MergeSort without paying a license fee?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daz, 20 Apr 2007 @ 11:27pm

Yet another example of the totally ridiculous American patent and legal system.
As they say "It can only happen in America" - Thank Christ!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Owndotexe, 21 Apr 2007 @ 4:10am

"method for adding a user selectable function to a hyperlink"

You mean like... right click? I think that might've been done a while ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mindtrap, 21 Apr 2007 @ 4:54am

I know how to solve this...
I will patent the browser. Sue everyone and no one will ever access the Internet ever again. This will pretty much void all patents dependent on the browser.

muahahahahahaha
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2007 @ 5:54am

Company suing google uses google...?
The patent says it is assigned to I-LOR, LLC (Lexington, KY). A simple Google search comes back with the website www.ilor.com (aka www.prefound.com).

If you look at the site it's owned by iLOR LLC: "We're PreFound.com, which is owned and operated by iLOR, LLC. We're right here in the heart of Silicon Holler, in Lexington, KY."

www.prefound.com is a search engine that USES GOOGLE and creates groups based on users previous results, etc. Now doesn't it seem a bit weird that a company which relies on Google for its website is suing Google...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John, 21 Apr 2007 @ 6:01am

preFound
Is the company called that because they patent ideas that have been previously found?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2007 @ 6:01am

Re: Re:
"Spell check? Change tracking? Web-based email? What if people start patenting basic algorithms, even? You can't do MergeSort without paying a license fee?"
You mean like someone getting a patent for the LinkedList?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Ebbert, 21 Apr 2007 @ 7:22am

overzealous-ocity
I believe we've seen this before: Patent-holding companies.. it is their sole business and, like it or not, it is part of our free market economny. Whether they can actually effect a financial reward with this particular lawsuit is another question. It seems to me that this is all water under the bridge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2007 @ 9:03am

This is as dumb as that previous patent to hyper link from a disc we saw a week ago or so. Pretty soon the whole concept of "Navigation" might as well be patented. At what point can something not be patented. I want to patent for that matter and sue everyone that owns a website.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2007 @ 9:50am

You mean like someone getting a patent for the LinkedList?

Great. The patent system has just brought the entire industry of computer programming to a screeching halt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bill, 22 Apr 2007 @ 1:48pm

What they deserve..
"The hyperlink will simply evolve to some new functionality that someone, someday will have first concieved it, and that over time it proved useful and became popular - and that someone deserves something for his idea."

Yes, they deserve to have their name(s) recorded in our history books. Nothing more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nate, 22 Apr 2007 @ 7:35pm

Re: Re:
That's why the Free Software movement exists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2007 @ 9:11pm

Re: Perish
This is how it works.

Company A is granted a patent for something that is obvious to create and many people already do. They then sue Company B for using that same idea.

Company B can then choose to fight the lawsuit from Company A or pay them off a sum that would be less than fighting a lawsuit.

If Company B decides to fight the suit in court, a stupid bonehead judge may rule in favor of Company A.

It is a small gamble, but Company A has a good chance to make a lot of money by patenting something that has not been patented yet.

Microsoft recently got a patent for scoring points in a video game.
Netflix recently got a patent for a "queue".
If they choose, they can hurt small competition simply by taking them to court. The lawsuit wont be deemed frivolous as there was a patent rewarded for that concept. "It is a bit silly how the American legal system works. Stupid at times too.
I also don't know how this company can copyright something I've seen done everywhere (if I'm reading this patent right). I think lots of web developers (including myself) are in trouble if this continues. I've mimicked what they've described using DHTML and even in Javascript well into last year. This is nothing new and I've seen it done numerous times.
Hell, even my old highschool's website used to use it!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jerry in Detroit, 23 Apr 2007 @ 1:11pm

Re:
Well, I can tell you it's not possible to patent the wheel. Some guy from New Zealand did that. Hmm. Maybe fire?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
J2, 23 Apr 2007 @ 1:52pm

Patent ideas
It's illegal to play with your cat using a laser pointer - someone owns the patent.

http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05443036__
[ link to this | view in thread ]
D., 24 Apr 2007 @ 3:14am

Eat shit, USA
Hope this kind of crap never makes it to EU.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vincent Clement, 24 Apr 2007 @ 9:08am

Re: Company suing google uses google...?
That's a sweet find. Not only do they use Google for search results, they use Google Ads to generate revenue. Isn't this called 'biting the hand that feeds you'? Perhaps Google should block their IP while the lawsuit is pending?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doesn't matter, 19 Oct 2007 @ 10:10pm

Leave the little guy alone
When is a patent protected? Infringe, you pay... Patents are to protect the produce. Taking advange of the little guy just isn't right! Google has enough money & ideas...Google just pay & move on...
[ link to this | view in thread ]