SBC Owns Patent on Menu Bar Links

So they basically patented the web browser? :confused: What in the world did they patent? Someone explain, I'm really confused.
 
How absurd. Looks like every website on the internet must be redesigned ... amazon, yahoo, apple, microsft ... lol. Maybe I'll patent the use of pull down menus and charge everyone royalties for using 'em. Give me a break.
 
it basically says (and i didnt read it all) but they own all types of navigation frames. so if i go to a website and click a button and that takes me to a new page but that same button is still there; you have to purchase that system from them (because they have it patented). Im no layer but i dont think that would hold up if it was challenged in court.
 
Wow... I first designed a website with a 'structured' navigation system back in 1998, when I first got into web design. This was most likely because I considered it natural and obvious, or because I had seen it on TEN MILLION sites by then. This is one of the more pathetic patents I have ever seen, but I cannot believe that these clowns are trying to enforce it. If they come after me, I'll be pissed.
 
I hope that Macromaddia step in to help because they widly suport the use of Nav bars and frames
 
Well, remember the patent of 'hyperlinks'? Ever been sued? Forget about it, please.

In Australia, by the way, a person patented 'patenting'. And got a fine later on when he published about it.
 
this whole patent thing is stupid. if you compare the two sites - last time i checked - they both completely look different. here's how i look at it.

museum tour - red, not so appealing tab-folder-like navigation.
apple.com - nice, clean, sleek, tab-folder-like navigation.

it's like how other inventions are being made. you would just take the same concept and make it better.

stupid sbc. too bad they're my dsl carrier.
 
Sheah, I'm sure there are gonna be a whole host of multinationals stepping forward with their $50,000,000 prepaid licence fees so they can continue using the sites thay had designed before this patent was even entered. Case dismissed, claimant to pay all costs. Plus a bit extra for making a mockery of patenting as a whole. Plus dumbass tax.
 
Actually, this company (and others) have decided that a viable strategy for this sort ofthing is to go after companies that are large enough to pay a not insignificant royalty, but small enough that they cannot afford to defend themselves in court without going under.

If you do this with enough small fish, then you can build up enough legal precedent to start going after bigger fish....

This may be stupid, but so was Amazon's One-Click patent!
 
Couldn't museumtour.com just take their site down for a day, and re-design it without frames? Quick fix.

Twister
 
It's pretty simple really. What the patent affects is a 'constant' and 'consistent' interface. All one has to do is change the navigation in such a way so that it's no longer consistent.

Most sites that use the 'tabbed' look are already doing this, either by changing the shading, color, button depth (like making it look recessed) or even removing the line under the tab so it looks like its attached to the current page.

See... it can be easy, or you could just implement without frames as was suggested earlier. (A redesign of museumtour.com wouldn't hurt!)
 
Good old trick... you try to impress people with huge arguments (based on nothing) and telling them you can wave these if they pay a "low amount" of $$$.

SBC will get banckrupt before they earn any significant money. But some small guys may prefer to pay than enter a fight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top