Talk:Vuestar Technologies

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Vuestar Technologies/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I think that this article is either important or certainly a part/example of something beyond a little important. I wrote a letter to VueStar here: http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?PriorArtInvalidPatentsAndMailFraud In it, I note that the patent could not possibly be valid for the following reasons: It is provably prior art. It is trivial in nature and does not meet the criteria of a valid patent. The reason I feel this is important is two-fold: The issue itself threatens all of public discourse. If such broad claims on trivial 'inventions' that are already prior art are allowed to stand, it will become effectively impossible to do anything on the Internet. I am not speaking of this one particular patent, but of the principle that if something so obviously deficient as this is allowed to stand, so will a labyrinth of other dubious patents be allowed to stand and, since we have said its OK to patent something that is so obviously prior art, others will follow. Between them, they will render all further use of technology impossible. This one patent, for instance, if it were enforced against Wikipedia, would effectively destroy it. I would contend that something that threatens this entire enterprise (this one particular patent does). Is something above 'low' importance. This particular patent is a near perfect example of how damaging the current patent regime is and how far out of control it has become. Even by the lax standards of the modern patent systems, this is a flimsy patent. The fact that it remained (remains?) in force speaks volumes. It is plain on its face that it is not a valid patent and the fact that it was not struck down immediately upon exposure shows that the threat is a real one. [Feel free to refactor mercilessly (not that you need my permission). I am not certain this belongs here, but WikiPedia has become so onerous to contribute to that even a long term WikiZen like me has mostly given up serious attempts to add content] DeepNorth (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 10:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vuestar Technologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223012806/http://web20.telecomtv.com/pages/?newsid=43241&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10&view=news to http://web20.telecomtv.com/pages/?newsid=43241&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10&view=news

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)