Yeah, it wouldn’t be the browser. They implement a set of things. What you do with them is up to you. For example, you could say implementing :hover violates the patent, but there are many things you can do with :hover that don’t.
It’s almost like saying that since you could implement something in C++ that is patented, it’s C++'s fault.
The idea of a patent is that it protects your rights to the product for long enough for you to go from the idea to the finished product and get it on sale. Basically it is supposed to prevent someone else from being able to copy your idea and beat you to market with the product so that you end up not benefitting from the idea. The patent is supposed to protect for long enough for you to recover your development costs and get your product established before others are allowed to start producing copies. The patent needs to be extremely specific as to how the idea is supposed to work because it is not supposed to prevent others from coming up with alternative ways to achieve the same result.
It is when you start allowing things that do not relate to newly invented physical products - such as software and genes) that the entire concept breaks down since in those instances there is nothing physical to be developed that needs to be protected during the development process. Also where a patent is too vague as to exactly what it covers then it also becomes meaningless.
It is the morons working in certain patent offices who allow patents on things that are way outside the scope of what patents are intended for that are destroying the entire concept. Only by getting rid of all the junk patents can those that are actually meaningful be properly applied.
Another thing with the patent that this thread is discussing is that the patent was issued so long ago that it must surely have expired by now.
Because all they need is one stupid Muppet to unnecessarily pay up and they’ll probably be laughing all the way to the bank.
It’s pretty much poppycock with regards to the web in the sense it pre-dates the world wide web let alone being unworkable.
I think many people break patent and it’s pretty common. Probably the people who benefit from patent is from the big company who can hire lawyers full time. For small fries, even w/ patent…it will be very hard and long to get any financial reward.
Initially it was to declare that you were the one who owns the idea for what you invented, to protect you from others who may try to rip you off.
Then things got messy.
Anyone know why Patents even exist? I can find no good reason.
As I remember BT (British Telecommunications) hold a patent for hyperlinking documents together, and that claim fell down.
But don’t they also say “I’m a PC”? If so then a PC is an object and so not eligible for royalties. 
If it is being done using JavaScript then it is using functionality that has been available since Netscape first introduced JavaScript in 1996. If the patent had been issued after 1996 then using JavaScript to do it would have pre-dated the patent and so the patent wouldn’t apply.
If you are doing it using CSS then the hover functionality first became part of the standard in 1998 and so if the patent had been dated after that then again using that method would pre-date the patent and so the patent wouldn’t apply.
Of course since this patent was filed in 1990 it does pre-date those methods of implementing rollovers and so they may very well have a case against Netscape for breaching their patent in what JavaScript can do and against the W3C for incorporating it into CSS 2.0 and against web browser creators for implementing the functionality in their browsers. I doubt that they would have a case against individual web sites since the code in the web pages only breaches their patent if the browsers breach the patent in implementing the functionality covered by the patent.
Of course the amount of time since these alleged breaches occurred may also have an effect on the success or otherwise of any case since they ought to have taken action over ten years ago.
My understanding is that in many countries a patent is pending until such time as a working protptype is produced and if a working prototype can’t be produced then the patent lapses. It is only in countries that don’t have that requirement where patents can be abused.
Not a joke, it’s a fact.
I also doubt whether it’s legal. 
The problem really liens int he fact that the boundary of what defines an idea has “culturally”( I hope that’s the correct term) gotten lost.
I was at a party a few years ago. Another guest started talking about ( I can’t remember what it was specifically so I will just say it was this…) how there need to be away of moving a carriage about town w/o having to worry about horses … if there were carriages that propelled themselves life would be easier and we wouldn’t have to deal with so much horse manure. at this moment ( and I do remember this clearly) a couple of the other guests got really excited, said how that was a brilliant and idea and how she should go out an “get a patent on” it so that no one else could steal it and how she could make tons off money off of “that idea”… True story.
As you can see, people often confuse the intrinsic perception of a need or a mere desire for a solution for the actual solution. this was made all the more ironic when it is said by someone with no actual technical knowledge on the subject ( whatever the subject is) or way to produce a prototype.
For the rest you can blame lawyers.
Actually that’s a very good point… If patents are going to be granted, the people reviewing patents should at least read the abstract to determine if this is indeed something new and unique.
Great so you’ve invented an operating system. Good for you 
Actually, felgall is right. Unless there is some extension, this patent expired like 8 months ago (20 years the length of a patent and it was filed 2/1990).
I hope this backfires in this company’s face and they disappear.
I totally agree as it’s quite obvious they are just in it for the money. What gets me is why wait till now.
Makes you wonder about the intelligence of whoever was responsible for issuing that patent - perhaps they’ll next be issuing a patent for round things that make it easier to move objects across flat surfaces.
I’ve found the article and it’s true, Webvention’s has patented the rollover image. And is trying to sue a number of companies for the $80k. Companies like Dell, Gamestop, Bed Bath & Beyond…are in the firing line.
But what bluedreamer has said, this kind of thing is too wide spread and I cannot see it being inforced. I’m not worried.
I’m not a lawyer but I find this fascinating (and sometimes maddening)… On reading the first sentence of the patent’s abstract, it appears that they have patented the concept of a website or maybe it’s any computer application that has a user interface or maybe they have invented the elusive computer “Operating System” 
An interactive information environment for accessing, controlling, and using information.
It also seems they describe a hierarchical system of navigation or what I like to call the drop down menu. It’s a pretty complex read at first but it sounds like a drop down menu to me.
Using a computer, available sources of information are accessed, and components are extracted, labeled, and formed into discrete units called contexts. A user selects and rearranges context labels and their associated contents. Contexts are selected and combined into new information structures called alternates, which are combinable with contexts into preferred situations. The preferred situations in turn are combinable with the foregoing components into meta-situations. All components have labels; labels and their associated contents are interchangeably movable and copyable at the levels of these information structures, whether they are located locally or remotely, and the information structures are combinable. While a label is invoked and manipulated, its contents or description is simultaneously displayed.
I hope that someone with deep pockets takes this through the courts and counter sues for costs so they can bury these trolls.
Absolutely… It was common practice to use image rollovers when doing any UI development long before this patent saw the light of day. I can’t imagine anyone taking this seriously. There’s too much prior art.