Slashdot Mirror
Friendster Patents Social Networking
Pontifex maximus writes "Friendster has said that as of this week, it has a patent covering online social networks. It applied for the patent before the company's downward spiral and recent growth." From the article: "'It's way too early to say' whether the company would pursue licenses and litigation from its competitors, Friendster President Kent Lindstrom told RedHerring.com. 'We'll do what we can to protect our intellectual property.' Though the Friendster patent could be challenged in either the patent system or the courts, opponents would face an uphill battle. 'Once the patent is issued there is a presumption of validity that follows with it,' said attorney Bill Heinze of Thomas, Kayden, Horstemeyer & Risley."
Sounds like the very old concept of Computer Dating just with a network added.
When, when you get right down to it, is about all most recent patents seem to be.
I think it's time I ran for president and did some serious housecleaning in the USPTO.
a car in every pot and and chicken in every garage
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Then they'll buy out Kevin Bacon when he screams prior art.
Then they'll figure out that Moneybags Rupert Murdoch owns MySpace and go after News Corp. You know, News Corp, that generically named conglomerate of multiple money sucking companies?
There's not a lot of social networking projects that are open source or free to the communities. Every single one seems to be some ad revenue money grubbing scheme anyway. You have PeopleAggregator and maybe NovaShare though the latter doesn't really support degrees of separation searching.
I guess if MySpace & FaceBook went away tomorrow I really wouldn't care. What I do care about is the fact that this patent is just as stupid and obvious as the Amazon patent on "methods and systems of assisting users in purchasing items." Will we ever see these end? Probably not as long as the patent lawyers are milled out of "the world's finest educational institutions." Whatever happened to the peer to patent system the USPTO was going to use? Is this thing a failed idea already?
Boy I'd like to throw down some discussions on this patent.
My work here is dung.
and file a patent for "social connections." I will call my invention a "friend."
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
It's called Slashdot. Here a bunch of single male geeks (for most part) connect together (and flame together!) in an online computer system based on their relationships (or lack of them). Go taco - go sue them! Atari2.6k PS: I am a single male geek and /. is my life *shes a tear*
Of course it's on that track... the lawyers are warming up in the bullpen. Expect a spate of lawsuits within the next 6 months, trying to milk money out of anyone and everyone who might even be thought to be violating the patent. As usual, the USPTO has totally overlooked how generic the patent is and once more a software patnet threatens to gum up the works. Two words: patent reform.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Actually, SixDegrees.com would be a great example of prior art. The company folded in 2001, a year before Friendster launched, and two years before Friendster applied for the patent (June 2003)
Before we talk and bitch about this company and how obvious it is, this is just another example to show broken the system is - this company is simply taking advantage of it.
Bureacracies always reach out and try to take more power - once patents simply protected implementations - now the patent office is reaching out to get a stranglehold on stuff like "business methods" and algorithms (math) and essentially ideas - many of them common sense to the problem being solved.
Patents are for society, not the individual. It's supposed to push progress forward by opening non-obvious ideas for everyone for a limited time. Not MONOPOLIZE obvious ideas for the benefit of one person against the rest of society.
To fix patents, we don't need more patent clerks (federal employees), we need to:
1. Go back to old way patents were done - which includes working implementation upon application. Thus ideas become unpatentable. Same with business methods. It will also render 90% all the unreadable legalese to obscure what you are patenting obsolete.
2. Punish non-English application. No, I don't mean application in a foreign language, just the ones that read like they are. Plain english is a must. Jail time in Gitmo otherwise.
3. Raise price to apply for patent to $5,000-50,000 depending on whether it is an individual, small company or large corporation (refundable only on recieving a patent) - while it may seem to screw the "little guy" it actually will kill corporations trying to patent every little thing. Even a little operation will be able to afford to patent 1 WORTHWHILE application, but will corporate America still be able to afford to apply for 10's of thousands of trivial patents?
4. Part of application fee (say 1/2) will go as a bounty to anybody who can disprove it - in other words show prior art, etcetera. This could be anybody - college students, professors, employees of another company. This will also lower amount of patents applied and speed up patenting time.
Why hire clueless clerks when you could flocks of knowleable people examining patents because of a profit motive to turn them down? They won't have the power to deny a patent, they bring the case against it.
5. No renewable patents. Lower patent length from 17 years to 9-10 years or so. Back in the 1700's, business and the pace of life overall was slower, let's reflect that.
Next, someone is going to patent "user-submitted content used to build a web site" and we will have nicely painted ourselves into a fine corner. It's out there somewhere, winding its way slowly thru the patent system. Just wait for it.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
Can't someone just sue the USGov for being ignorant? Or, should I patent being ignorant?
Why go fast when you can go anywhere? O|||||||O
Or a patent on the same, predictable Slashdot "patent" jokes that get rehashed in every single patent thread.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
Dang. Is it too late to patent "antisocial networking"?
Seriously though, there are already tons of websites doing that, right? Myspace, Hi5, every single chat engine in the world, online email services that allow you to remember your friends' email addresses.
To qualify for a patent they have to be able to demonstrate that their idea would not be obvious to the most people (or the average person?) in their field. In this case, the field has already demonstrated that the idea is obvious, since the entire field has already done it.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
From the article: the patent is issued there is a presumption of validity that follows with it
I like the fact that he used the word "presumption," because the fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" qualifies as a fallacy of presumption.
The patent review process is broken. Searches for prior art and other such safeguards are not being enforced. The processes that would make a presumption of validity have any weight are not being followed.
In fact, a presumption of invalidity would actually be more warranted, given current patent processes.
This is bad.
The patent system has come to resemble the old English charters that granted the "right to trade with other nations" to selected merchants. Now it's "only" the right to enter one's own native economy and produce. My, how things have changed. And when it's not that bad, it's a lottery ticket for the lucky company that can sue the pants off of another.
On the bright side, nothing makes a typical lawyer's brain implode as quickly as having to justify software patents as not being patents on ideas themselves. An algorithm is just an idea. Yet we allow them to patent the algorithm in its abstract form. Imagine that. The whole idea of the patent system being violated because non-technical people just don't get it.
The arguments for these patents, that they benefit the little guy, almost sound like a bad attempt at "social justice" rhetoric from my fellow capitalists. Capitalism is not about the little guy, it's about property rights. It has no concept of fairness except allowing people to keep their own property secure. Screw all of the aforementioned crap. Let's truly maximize property rights with a new legal idea of "the right to make new property."
will corporate America still be able to afford to apply for 10's of thousands of trivial patents?
Yes. It will follow the same process that spamming does. They only need a marginal rate of return to jusitfy the expense.
$50,000/patent * 1000 patents = $50 million
One successful patent litigation = $500 million award
That is a 1000% return on investment.
They can then use the other 999 patents as leverage to bargain with the other large corporations.
I whole-heartedly agree with point #1 though.
Howdy folks! Come on in. I see your post count is higher than this here tiny signpost, so feel free to enter the patent house of horrors at Slashdot...
..." posts! You'll want to avoid these at all costs - most are obvious, and all are interchangeable - none are funny. If you proceed carefully around this corner, try to make out some of the "Prior Art" posts on the left, and there, on the right. These are often quite interesting. Did you bring your blindfolds (NetHackers I'm talking to you)? Good. Make sure you keep them handy when coming across posts that think Copyright, Trademarks and Patents are interchangeable. These can actually burn the eyes.
Oooh. Here comes the deluge of "Oh yeah, I'm going to patent
Remember, making your way around YRO Patent topics can be fun. Just tread cautiously and don't take anything too seriously. Especially off topic RIAA rants (those are just here to entertain) Enjoy the show!
Damn, they're going to use their 2003 patent to sue Phil Zimmermann for something he implemented a decade and a half earlier. Oh wait, PGP didn't include a "communication tool" -- it's too bad that its users never made the innovative leap of using it in combination with email.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I forwarded this to my work email group. Outlook's spellcheck suggested I change "Friendster' to "Fraudster." How apropos...
I don't think there will be any slashdotters accidentally infringing on the patent of making friends.
the layman's guide to computer science
So is Aviri. Internal corporate social networking (What are you known to be good at? Who can help me with this kind of problem?). Aviri took the basic social network and added a reputation for expertise in various subjects. Very cool concept and software, but we ran out of money before we could make it scale effectively to larger populations.
Regards,
Ross
"An Internet Pioneer
Founded in 1969 as a computer time-sharing service, Columbus, Ohio-based CompuServe drove the initial emergence of the online service industry. In 1979, CompuServe became the first service to offer electronic mail capabilities and technical support to personal computer users. CompuServe broke new ground again in 1980 as the first online service to offer real-time chat online with its CB Simulator. By 1982, the company had formed its Network Services Division to provide wide-area networking capabilities to corporate clients.
CompuServe also led the interactive services industry overseas, entering the international arena in Japan in 1986 with Fujitsu and Nisso Iwai, developing a Japanese-language version of CompuServe called NIFTYSERVE. In 1989, the company expanded into Europe where it grew to be a leading Internet service provider.
A Key Brand
Since February 1998, CompuServe has been a wholly owned subsidiary of America Online, Inc. As part of the AOL Web Properties group, CompuServe plays an important role by providing Internet connectivity for value-minded consumers seeking both a dependable connection to the Internet and all the features and power of an online service. "
The original CompuServe was in competition with hundres of local Bulletin Board Systems. I was a user/member of several of them between 1979 until I connected to the Internet via dialup in the mid 90's. Some were social and some were professional BBSs.
All of them predate this "Intellectual Property".
When will the patent office award a patent for breathing? The way the USTPO agents work, or don't work, it won't be long now.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Dear USPTO, You REALLY dumb fucks. Sincerely, The other 1/2 of the Internet.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
"1. Go back to old way patents were done - which includes working implementation upon application. Thus ideas become unpatentable. Same with business methods. It will also render 90% all the unreadable legalese to obscure what you are patenting obsolete."
From what I gather, the business method bar on patents was considered a bad judicial opinion. The statute is silent on this, and prior courts inserted the bar. So, if you want to fix this, just persuade your Congressmen to amend the statute.
And, these implementations can be done. The fact that another poster mentioned the SixDegrees.com is one example. Claim 9 of the patent has been done for years before the 2003 posting. Several of the other claims look rather easy to defeat.
It reminds me of a patent I saw a few weeks back. Somebody invented the pocket handkerchef in 2000, including methods for folding. The entire patent was accepted. A supplimental patent was issued that revoked all the claims--effectively deleting the patent.
Actually, the patent mentions 4 being the number of degrees of separation (probably the default), and that the degrees could be set by the computer operator. So, you could circumvent this patent by setting the number to any number _but_ four, and by not allowing the operator (I would think this is the user and not administrator) to set this value.
"2. Punish non-English application. No, I don't mean application in a foreign language, just the ones that read like they are. Plain english is a must. Jail time in Gitmo otherwise."
That's one of the requirements: that somebody competent in the field should be able to take the patent claims and specs and reproduce that is described. Just looking over the patent, I recognize quite a few things that I've been doing for nearly a decade now.
"4. Part of application fee (say 1/2) will go as a bounty to anybody who can disprove it - in other words show prior art, etcetera. This could be anybody - college students, professors, employees of another company. This will also lower amount of patents applied and speed up patenting time."
I don't think this is a good idea. The current system requires that the patent holder sue an alleged patent infringer, then allow the patent infringer to contest the validity of the patent. The bounty system increases the amount of litigation with people rushing to prove invalidity to get the bounty. This is not economical from a judicial perspective.
"Why hire clueless clerks when you could flocks of knowleable people examining patents because of a profit motive to turn them down? They won't have the power to deny a patent, they bring the case against it."
The clerks aren't clueless. They're supposed to be subject-matter experts. But, as I mentioned with the handkerchef patent, they are likely overworked. Then again, they are government employees--so for some _any_ work is overwork.
"5. No renewable patents. Lower patent length from 17 years to 9-10 years or so. Back in the 1700's, business and the pace of life overall was slower, let's reflect that."
Patents aren't renewable. The patent length is 20 years, less for certain types of patents. Perhaps what should be done is create a software patent that shortens the cycle to 7 years. Why seven instead of 9-10? Any number would be arbitrary without some analysis that shows how long such a patent is truely valuable. Patents exist to coax the inventor to publicize his invention by giving him a temporary right to exclude others from using it. The alternative is to allow the ideas to be protected by trade secret, which might bury certain ideas longer than if we had a patent system.
As far as temporary monopolies are concerned, I have a bigger beef with copyrights. I would rather see copyrights 1) shortened to 14 years renewable to a maximum of 28 years, and 2) all copyrighted works prior to 1976 not be covered by the Copyright Act of 1976. The statute allowed the Act to be retro-active, but that deprived the public domain of many works. Presentl
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.